The Army Air Forces in World War II, Vol. 1 (archived PDF)

T H E A R M Y A I R A R M B E T W E E N T W O W A R S
appointed in each of several departments-War, Navy, Commerce-
to supervise aviation.
The Lampert report, published on 1 3 December,46 was in many
respects an indorsement of Mitchell’s ideas. On the central issue of
organization, after an analysis of six possible schemes, it favored the
single Department of Defense with equal representation for air,
ground, and naval forces. These dissident reports evoked a wave of
new air bills in Congress, ranging from Representative Charles Curry’s
detailed plan for a Department of Defense to a War Department-
sponsored bill providing only minor change^.^' The bill which was
finally enacted purported to be a compromise, but it leaned heavily
on the Morrow recommendations.
The Air Corps Act of 2 July 1926 4 8 effected no fundamental in-
novation. The change in designation meant no change in status: the
Air Corps was still a combatant branch of the Army with less prestige
than the Infantry. The establishment of an air section in each division
of the General Staff was prescribed for a three-year period. A new
Assistant Secretary of War was to be named to help in “fostering
military aeronautics,” but in the absence of a more definite mission his
usefulness would be determined by the attitude of the Secretary.
Specific provisions were aimed a t removing complaints in respect to
flying officers’ rating, pay, and promotion and at regularizing procure-
ment procedure. T o remedy existing deficiencies in personnel and
equipment, the law authorized a five-year program to bring the Air
Corps up to a strength of 1,518 officers, 2 , 5 0 0 flying cadets, 16,000
enlisted men, and I ,800 serviceable aircraft.
The skepticism with which Air Corps officers viewed this legislation
was confirmed by the experience of the next few years. Funds were
not made available for the authorized expansion, and for that failure
the War Department and the Bureau of the Budget, rather than Con-
gress, seem to have been respon~ible.’~Directed reforms were not
carried out to the satisfaction of the officers concerned, and token
representation in the General Staff accomplished little. The ineffec-
tiveness of the Air Corps Act confirmed proponents of a sweeping
reorganization in their opinions; between 1926 and 1935 twelve bills
for a Department of Aeronautics and seventeen for a single Depart-
ment of Defense were presented in Congress.6oNot one was reported
favorably, however, and by 1933 many Air Corps officers had come
to believe it hopeless to strive longer for independence from the War
29