Talk:Billy Mitchell

specification comment

"His relations with superiors continued to sour as he began to attack both the War and Navy Departments for being insufficiently farsighted regarding airpower."

Really? "insufficiently farsighted"? Does that mean nearsighted? Given that it amounted to Mitchell's chief complaint on post-War aviation development in the US Military, perhaps we should flesh it out a little more... or at least use a better description of his complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.229.214 (talk • contribs)

comment

I am curious about the following statement under the section titled "Post-War Demotion", particularly in reference to the U.S.S. Alabama. I live in Alabama and have visited the battleship. In reading the statement, it seems to imply that he sunk the Alabama. Is that correct?

"In 1921, he successfully sank numerous ships, including one of the world's largest war vessels, the German battleship Ostfriesland and the U.S. battleship Alabama."

Any information you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, Carla D. Clayton

Carla, there have been multiple USS Alabamas, a 74 Gun third rater, two post-dreadnought battleships, and the current USS Alabama, a nuclear ballistic missle submarine. There has even been a CSS Alabama and an RSCS Alabama. Stargoat 15:20, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My mistake. One a post dreadnought, one a pre-dreadnought. Stargoat 16:07, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Similarly, I would like to see greater elaboration in this paragraph: why was the test bombing considered "under war conditions" if the ships were captured? Was the Alabama that was sunk obsolete and thus used for target practice? Ground 15:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Admittedly it's a little confusing. But it was Mitchell's claim (not the test) that battleships could be sunk "under wartime conditions." (Hopefully the addition I have made to the paragraph explains better.) The battle here was political between the Air Service and the Navy. Both had valid points of view--the movie, for instance, doesn't explain why what amounted to rules of engagement had been established before the test: to allow the Navy to make damage assessment. By breaking the rules, Mitchell gave the Navy cause to attack the results. It took Pearl Harbor to prove the admirals were wrong. --Buckboard 11:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

---

In the book Alternate Generals, edited by Harry Turtledove, there is an alternate history story about Billy Mitchell. I wonder if there is some way to work this into the article, like Belisarius#Belisarius_in_fiction?

In the story, "Billy Mitchell's Overt Act" by William Sanders, Gen. Mitchell's history is changed when he is seriously injured in 1925. During his convalescence, he determines to avoid directly confronting his superiors, thus avoiding the court martial that occurs in reality. In the alternate history, Gen. Mitchell is appointed to command the 18th Bombardment Wing based at Hickam Field in the spring of 1941. He is thus at the right place and time to prevent the attack on Pearl Harbor.

William Sanders' homepage

--Jrv 15:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The problem with that idea, is that General Mitchell was required to move air power forward, sometime it takes a martyr to get things done. I think that he set back the USAF a few years by his actions, but overall it brought about a hard core group that founded the modern Air Force after the war. In particular is helped create SAC, which was the right place and time for the cold war. PPGMD

I strongly disagree with your assessment that it "set back the USAF a few years". The issue was who controlled the air force--the airmen or the ground forces (to a great extent, that battle continues today). The ground forces had won World War I doing it "their way" and were in firm control. They had already soundly defeated a proposal in Congress to create a separate AF ala the RAF. It took Mitchell's fall, the perserverence of his acolytes, the tragic accuracy of his predictions, the contribution to victory in WWII by the USAAF and George C. Marshall to overcome the Army General Staff. Even then the Navy was "kicking and screaming" all the way to the creation of DoD in September 1947. Without the Mitchell factor, which set the debate in motion and put key people like Arnold and Spaatz in position, it may have taken much longer than it did, if ever, to have a USAF. --Buckboard 11:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Mitchell's rigged test may have given confidence to the LR patrol & ocean bombing theorists, leading to the belief B-17s could sink ships underway (proven completely false in the event). It may also have, thus, contributed to the attack on the Philippines (where numbers of B-17s were increased as a "deterrent" to Japan) & Pearl Harbor (in response to the "deterrence" of Philippine B-17s...). His martyrdom, like Douhet's, may have given heart to strategic bombing zealots, who clung to the theory even when it was demonstrably not working. And it's certain rigged training (bombing in perfect conditions at Muroc) led to unwarranted confidence in precision bombing. Trekphiler 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle conditions

Were the two battleships in battle condition when bombed in Mitchell's experiments? Aside from not firing back (of course) GraemeLeggett 17:24, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No. The entire test was artificial--the Navy intended it for damage assessment purposes, and Mitchell took advantage of it by violating the rules to prove his point. To those who argue the test was "invalid" because the ship was at anchor, see 7 December 1941, "Battleship Row."

Plagarism?

The following two lines can be found verbatim at the Maxwell AFB site <http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/mitch.html>. Are these plagarised?: Arriving in France in April 1917, only a few days after the United States had entered the war, Lieutenant Colonel Mitchell met extensively with British and French air leaders and studied their operations. He quickly took charge and began preparations for the American air units that were to follow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tvh2k (talk • contribs) 17:24, 26 January 2006.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll try to fix it. --TantalumTelluride 20:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. I've replaced the plagiarism with original wording and cited the source as a reference. Please blow the whistle again if you detect any more plagiarism on Wikipedia. Minor plagiarism (like this case) should be noted on the article's talk page, while major infringements should be reported at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --TantalumTelluride 20:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Government web sites and publications are public domain unless explicitly copyrighted, which the site in question is not. There is nothing wrong with copying the information verbatim. See Work of the United States Government --rogerd 04:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Post Humous Recognition?

What is the meaning of these two sentence?

"In 1955, the Air Force voided Mitchell's court-martial. His son petitioned in 1957 to have the court-martial verdict set aside, which the Air Force denied while expressing regret about the circumstances under which Mitchell's military career ended."

If in 1955, "...the Air Force voided Mitchell's court-martial", why would Mitchell's son petition, in 1957, to have the "...verdict set aside," "which the Air Force denied"? Don't the words "voided" and "set aside" essentially have the same meanings?

Why would one want something "set aside" which has already been "voided"? Possibly the 1955 Air Force action was some other legal term. Does somebody see some legal or technical difference?--TGC55 15:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't and hasn't been voided. I put the actual circumstances down.--Buckboard 11:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Does homages to Mitchell in fiction count? In the Babylon 5 episode called "And the Sky Full of Stars" there is a pilot named after Bill Michell. (The first name is not said on the air put his full name is on his name patch.)

Major Error

There is one major error with this article. Gen. Mitchell's name was NOT William Landrum Mitchell. His parents never gave him a middle name. His birth is recorded in Nice's town register as "William Mitchell". Over the years, various sources (the Army, reporters, historians, etc.) all gave him middle initials (C., P., or in this case Landrum, after his father, Landrum being spelled incorrectly here as well, the correct spelling being Lendrum), but all of these are incorrect. If he were in the military today, he would be William NMI Mitchell, for No Middle Initial, which is becoming increasingly common. (source- Italic textA Question of LoyaltyItalic text, Douglas Waller, Harper Perennial, 2004 P.65 paperback edition)

Kreskin Mitchell

The movie credits him with forseeing 1600kph aircraft & transoceanic bombing missions. Any truth to it? Trekphiler 01:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest additions

General MacArthur's contributions (or lack thereof) need a source, as do the comments about receiving a gold medal (could this not have been the Medal of Honor in the next paragraph)? Deleted due to no reference. If someone finds evidence, I'd be happy to hand type it back in myself (I'll actually just cut and paste from previous revisions). Oh, and get a LoginID so we can chat about the subjectBQZip01 09:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mistake?

I believe that there is a in this article. It states that the plane named for Mitchell was the only one named for specific individuals, but the Enola Gay, which dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, was also named for a specific person —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.197.158 (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Good catch, but clarification is in order. Names of specific, individual American aircraft (such as the "Enola Gay" and "Memphis Belle") are common, but these are simply nose art and are unofficial names associated with a specific tail number. The B-25 Mitchell a model of aircraft and all of them are known as "Mitchells." — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)