COMMENTARY: Bold Leadership: Key to successful innovation

  • Published
  • By Maj. Travis R. Prater
  • 100th Communications Squadron commander
RAF MILDENHALL, England --  Throughout the ages, man has always been driven to improve his circumstances and abilities. This drive represents the realization that the world is a dynamic environment and to survive requires innovation. The interwar period following World War I was a significant period of innovation for many world powers. This period of exponential innovation, according to John T. Kuehn, was in part a response to the global outcry regarding the cost in lives and resources expended during the "Great War," the "war to end all wars." Never again would the world allow itself to embark on such a bloody endeavor.

It was this prevailing belief which would significantly influence the development of militaries during the interwar period leading up to World War II. Furthermore, it would be marked by significant technological advancements that would play an important role in shaping the militaries that would find themselves thrust into the Second World War. Together these two factors created a perfect storm where the desire to avoid future wars through military doctrine, organization, training, material, leadership, personnel, and facility innovation collided in a spectacular manner with game-changing technological advancements in military hardware.

Often the argument is made that the technology advancements were the driving force behind the interwar period's revolutionary innovations in military warfighting capabilities. However, evidence asserts that bold leadership, not technology, was the most important factor in successful innovation. Those nations where bold advocacy was present realized significant advancements in the DOTMLPF of their air forces, navies and armies that enabled them to seize the initiative from those nations where bold advocacy was absent.

During the interwar period, one of the most significant advances in airpower technology was the development of long-range bombers. Prior to this innovation, aircraft in World War I were used primarily as a reconnaissance platform with little to no offensive capabilities. However, post-World War I, advancements in aeronautical engineering and the internal combustion engine allowed for the development of larger, more capable aircraft. These advancements enabled the aircraft to carry larger payloads and travel greater distances.

In Alan Stephens' book, "The True Believers: Airpower between the Wars," he explains that as a result of these technological advancements, early airpower theorists formulated the theory that offensive airpower could determine the outcome of future wars. Generals Giulio Douhet, Hugh Trenchard and Billy Mitchell all recognized the strategic potential of this new technology and through bold leadership successfully drove game-changing innovation within their respective militaries. Italy's Douhet, an air power theorist, advocated that "to conquer command of the air means victory" which he supported through two key corollaries; first, to assure adequate national defense one must control the air and secondly, therefore must acquire the means and resources by which to command the air. On the other hand, Trenchard's efforts in establishing the British Royal Air Forces, advocated for airpower from a slightly different perspective known as substitution. He believed that airpower could be used in place of ground or naval forces, and through strategic bombing, accomplish the mission far more effectively and at less cost in terms of casualties and cash. Across the Atlantic in the United States, Mitchell, one of the U.S. Air Force's key founding fathers, advocated the increasing technological advantage of the aircraft over other weapons of war and the impacts it could have on the fragile will of populations.

Although each leader's advocacy focused on varying advantages of airpower their foundational belief was the same -- airpower could provide the "knockout blow" that would prevent the horrific stalemate of trench warfare. This advocacy enabled these early airpower theorists to create innovative airpower doctrine which leveraged the technological advancements of the airplane. It was their ability to convey the advantages of this innovative doctrine that convinced their respective nations to develop strong independent air forces that would play a significant role in World War II.

Another significant technological advancement during the interwar period was the development of the aircraft carrier. Following World War I, the centerpiece of most global navies was the battleship which maintained a perception of invincibility through overwhelming firepower employed during decisive naval battles. However, forward thinking naval leaders recognized the strategic advantage that airpower brought to naval operations. As Thomas C. Hone describes in his book, "Replacing Battleships with Aircraft Carriers in the Pacific in World War II," through the use of aircraft carriers, airpower provided the navy with the ability to conduct raids against the enemy and inflict serious damage."

Recognizing the strategic significance of the aircraft carrier, Admirals William Moffett and William Sims, exercised bold leadership to drive game changing innovations within the U.S. Navy. Specifically, they advocated three key advantages that naval airpower and the aircraft carrier brought to the fight; the ability for naval forces to attack land targets, improved long range reconnaissance, and a long range striking force. Along with a fanatical advocacy for the advantages of the aircraft carrier, they also leveraged Billy Mitchell's efforts to establish an independent Army Air Corps as a means to successfully influence Congress and drive the incorporation of aircraft carriers into the U.S. Navy as a capability of growing strategic importance.

Nations where bold leadership and advocacy were absent failed to successfully leverage this new technology to drive innovations within their navies. As a result, nations like Germany and Great Britain, whose navies remained centered around the battleship, would find themselves inadequately prepared and unable to capitalize on the advantages the aircraft carrier presented during World War II. However, thanks to the fanatical advocacy of Moffett and Sims, the U.S. Navy had a carrier fleet that would prove to be decisive in defeating Japan.

Within ground warfare, the most significant technological advancement during the interwar period was the development of mechanized forces. Following the horrors of World War I, several nations saw the tank and mechanized formations as a potential means to overcome the stalemate of trench warfare through maneuver. The Soviets, for example, valued mechanized forces for their ability to provide both strategic and operational maneuver against the enemy. Individuals such as J.F.C. Fuller, Thomas Hart, and Hans von Seeckt recognized the strategic potential of this new technology and through bold leadership successfully drove game changing innovations within their respective armies.

It was during World War I that Fuller developed the "Plan 1919" for the British, which had the war not ended, would have employed large tank formations to penetrate the German formations and break the stalemate of trench warfare. His British counterpart Hart further advocated that through the use of tanks and infantry ground forces could use a combined arms maneuver to overcome the adversary. As a result Fuller and Hart modeled what would later become known as Blitzkrieg when employed by the Germans during World War II. For the Germans it was Seeckt's advocacy that was instrumental in changing the character of Germany's army to leverage technology in a manner that would provide them a decisive advantage during World War II. His bold advocacy drove Germany to transform its army during the interwar period, leveraging the ability of mechanized formations to seize and exploit the initiative through speed and combined arms.

However, nations where bold leadership and advocacy for maneuver warfare was absent failed to successfully leverage this new technology to drive innovations within their armies. As a result nations like France invested in fortifications such as the Maginot Line that proved woefully inadequate during World War II. Whereas nations like Britain and Germany realized significant operational success as a result of the bold and visionary advocacy from individuals like Fuller and Seeckt.

So, although technology was an important aspect of military innovation during the interwar period, bold leadership, not technology, emerged as the most important factor to successful innovation. Leaders like Mitchell, Moffett, and Hart visualized the maximum potential that new technology could bring to warfare and thus through fanatical advocacy were able to revolutionize the DOTMLPF of their militaries during the interwar period. Due to their bold leadership and advocacy their nations were poised to capitalize on crucial strategic advantages during World War II. Their advocacy and vision successfully changed the face of air, land, and sea warfare.