14yo boy--historical research

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

Please see the next post; I had to work on formatting it and it was easier to c&p into a new post. This was an entirely independent effort on his behalf. He wrote it for a contest for Civil Air Patrol and he wouldn't allow me any input at all. He thought the non-homeschooled contestants might not have access to one-on-one attention and he wanted to be fair. This was also his first time to use the Turabian style. We use MLA in my homeschool.

 

Please be as factual and helpful as you can. I can handle truth with no babying! :) Thanks.

 

edited again: I see what went wrong with the footnotes when I copied and pasted. Instead of placing them where they'd go at the bottom of each page, it put them all at the bottom of the whole post. Please imagine them where they belong. Also, I left out the title page for obvious reasons.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Dulcimeramy

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

The United States Air Force commands the most destructive arsenal of weaponry in America’s armed forces. Chosen for what may have been the most important mission of World War II, the atomic bombing of Japan, the USAF has played an integral part in the international conflicts of our country ever since it was a downplayed, underrated division of the US Army Signal Corps. Despite its powerful role in wartime, the top brass of the War Department refused to give it autonomous authority until after WWII. Today, the Air Force is respected as much as the Army and Navy, but the road to acceptance has been long and hard.

Colonel William Mitchell spent most of his time as an officer promoting air independence. His crowning achievement in this effort was the bombing of the German dreadnought Ostfriesland. The Navy officials in charge of the operation set limits for the bombers that they believed realistically simulated the conditions they would face in actual wartime scenarios. Some said the limits were too demanding, but the Ordnance officers were adamant. The planes would fly on Navy terms, or they would not fly at all.

The Ostfriesland was sunk within half an hour of the first ranging shot.[1]

The sinking of the ‘unsinkable’ dreadnought wasn’t the first test of its kind, but the previous demonstrations had failed to impress the Navy. Even this dramatic example could not make the Navy acknowledge the facts publicly. These tests did much to sway public opinion in favor of Mitchell’s cause, but the War Department in Washington was not convinced.

Years later, many believed that Mitchell had done more harm than good for air independence.[2] The populace did not need convinced; the War Department did. Carl Spaatz always believed that Mitchell’s firebrand outspokenness was invaluable in obtaining the goal, but Spaatz himself was not always the most diplomatic officer that he could have been.[3] He knew when to be tactful though, and since he was a much younger officer than Mitchell he may have found it easier to hold back his opinions.

Carl Spaatz was held by General Hap Arnold to be an excellent leader, and he was Arnold’s right hand man throughout World Wars I and II. At the beginning of the Battle over Britain, before the US joined the war, Spaatz was sent to Britain to observe how the British functioned in the air war. The connections he made there were beneficial during the Battle over Europe. The RAF knew and accepted him, making it easier to work collaboratively with them. The understanding of the Luftwaffe offensive tactics that he brought back to America influenced the production priority for certain types of airplanes when the US began to fight.

For example, Spaatz could tell that the only real advantage for the Luftwaffe was that of superior numbers. Since the Germans were on the offensive, they had to fly farther to bomb Britain. Their planes did not have a greater range than the British Hurricanes and Spitfires, and the British fighters could stay up longer, not having used up fuel reserves coming across the English Channel.[4] Spaatz saw that if Americans were to begin fighting with superior planes they would have to advance with their long range fighters and bombers. More importantly, they would have to concentrate on making faster, lighter, and more agile aircraft. This sparked the first real action toward improving the USAAF arsenal, which until now was comprised only of several hundred inadequate fighters and obsolescent bombers. Training fields were using most of the working fighters at this point.

This was actually one of the main reasons that the War Department was reluctant to create a totally independent air arm. As time went by, they were less skeptical about the merits of such a force, since many air offensives showed the destructive potential of fighters and bombers in war. General George C. Marshall, then Chief of Staff for the Air, was more concerned that were the USAAF given autonomy, the inefficiency and incapability of its staff would impede wartime functionality by confounding command organization. This was not true after the war, but the incompetency of the staff under Arnold, Spaatz, and other leaders made the War Department hesitant. They reasoned that by retaining the Air Force under Army leadership, they could avoid losing the effectiveness of the air arm just when they needed it the most.[5] A few months after the Pearl Harbor tragedy, the USAAF seemed to have resolved the most pressing of its staff problems, and it was brought to an equal standing with the three other divisions of the Army.

World War II ended in 1945. The institution of the USAF in 1947 was the culmination of twenty years spent struggling for independence. The Air Force continued to support ground action and carry out bombing offensives. Not much changed about the way airplanes fought, despite independence within the military. Bombers got bigger, faster, and more agile. Fighters got quicker and more lethal. New aircraft, however, only improved upon antiquated ideas. Then, in 2001, Islamic jihadists flew into the World Trade Center, starting a war that goes on today.

In this War on Terror, we are putting ideas into practice that are causing discontent and instability within the Air Force. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, or UAVs, are beginning to replace fighter jets, and many worry that they are taking away the opportunity for pilots to distinguish themselves in the skies. Instead of flying one real plane in a real sky against real enemies, remote ‘pilots’ sit in a dark room controlling up to five UAVs at a time. However, this could have consequences of far greater import than loss of moral incentive.

If prospective recruits whose future in the Air Force consists of controlling video games, will they continue to join up? Those with the stamina to survive the Air Force Academy deserve the opportunity for a more productive career. They ought to have the chance to earn glory by acts of valor and courage in the field, but if they never enter combat zones, how do they make sacrifices or put themselves at risk? They only have to worry about the destruction of their RC aircraft.

The United States Air Force is in a constant state of flux. It has been so since its inception, and it will only cease to be so when there is no longer a need for the armed forces.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Burlingame, Roger. General Billy Mitchell. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1952.

Coffey, Thomas M. HAP. New York: Viking Press, 1982.

Mets, David R. Master of Airpower. Novato: Presidio Press, 1988.

Wolk, Herman S. Reflections on Air Force Independence. (Air Force History and Museums Program, 2007).

 

[1] Burlingame, Roger, General Billy Mitchell (Westport. CT; Greenwood Press, 1952), 11.

 

[2]Coffey, Thomas, HAP (New York; Viking Press, 1982), 103.

 

[3] Mets, David, Master of Airpower( Novato; Presidio Press, 1988), 62.

 

[4] Mets, David, Master of Airpower( Novato; Presidio Press, 1988), 111.

 

[5] Wolk, Herman, Reflections on Air Force Independence (Air Force History and Museums Program, 2007), 27.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Dulcimeramy

[swimmermom3]

It is too late in the evening to do your son's paper justice, but based on first impressions, it is a good, solid paper that you can both be proud of.

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

Thanks, swimmermom!

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

54 views and only one response. Does everyone but swimmermom think it stinks?

 

I did point out that he wrote this without input or critique from me, so I won't be shocked or offended if you point out the mistakes...

[Ester Maria]

I know close to nothing about the topic from the factual standpoint, but it does seem generally formally good, if I disregard the content.

 

Now, as for some polishing:

Today, the Air Force is respected as much as the Army and Navy, but the road to acceptance has been long and hard.

 

Colonel William Mitchell spent most of his time as an officer promoting air independence.

The shift between paragraphs here is fine, formally, because he clearly differentiates the general from the concrete, but the shift between ideas is too drastic - it's a very sudden "jump" that makes a relatively uninformed reader a bit puzzled, "wait, what's going on here now?".

It would be advisable to find a way to bridge the two "threads", possibly better suited in the first paragraph.

Carl Spaatz always believed that Mitchell’s firebrand outspokenness was invaluable in obtaining the goal, but Spaatz himself was not always the most diplomatic officer that he could have been.[3] He knew when to be tactful though, and since he was a much younger officer than Mitchell he may have found it easier to hold back his opinions.

I'm lost here - restate the goal from the second paragraph. Opinions on what? Why is he inserting "psychology" in the issue?

A jump to Spaatz is also too quick - who, when and how does he enter the picture and connect to Mitchell? You need a more tangible bridge between the two, even if few words only, on how the two are connected.

Spaatz saw that [...] This sparked the first real action toward improving the USAAF arsenal, which until now was comprised only of several hundred inadequate fighters and obsolescent bombers.

This is an example of a good flow, without a sudden "jump". Use that as a model to bridge those that are too sudden.

Instead of flying one real plane in a real sky against real enemies, remote ‘pilots’ sit in a dark room controlling up to five UAVs at a time. However, this could have consequences of far greater import than loss of moral incentive.

Explain / elaborate.

 

If prospective recruits whose future in the Air Force consists of controlling video games, will they continue to join up?

The idea introduced by this is explained fine, but this sentence needs some rewording as it sounds a bit confusing: If the future of prospective recruits (...) video games, will they continue to join up? Or something like that.

They ought to have the chance to earn glory by acts of valor and courage in the field, but if they never enter combat zones, how do they make sacrifices or put themselves at risk? They only have to worry about the destruction of their RC aircraft.

 

The United States Air Force is in a constant state of flux. It has been so since its inception, and it will only cease to be so when there is no longer a need for the armed forces.

There is some confusion here. It starts with the idea that people in the aircraft shouldn't fight only "virtually" - from there, it should logically be reconnected to the part of the essay talking about the new technological advancements in the field and how that brought up this state, and what's the purpose of it, and then you can enter the whole military glory debate or somehow conclude the essay on those lines.

 

However, he opts to conclude it with a totally different idea, that the Air Force is constantly in a flux (which field or profession isn't?) and will be so until there's a need for it to exist - it leaves an impression of a hurried ending which doesn't really do justice to the whole of the essay.

 

In conclusion, the common denominator here is UNITY of the idea, which he seems to sacrifice: too many "jumps", different segments of the idea not so well connected in some places, and there is an impression of a "patchwork" a bit - leaves you wondering what exactly is the topic here. The problem of the recognition of the Air Force? Its development? The nature of its job in the context of present day technology?

An essay can be a "patchwork" too, but he needs a unifying idea with regards to the Air Force, something which organizes the rest. If he has it here, it's not maybe too subtle - maybe it should be hinted to in a few places.

 

On the whole, it's very good. :) The above are more of a "polishing" suggestions. He avoided all of the things which are capital vices of writing in my book, so it gets my approval. :D

Edited March 5, 2011 by Ester Maria

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

Thank you, Ester Maria. Your thoughts have been very encouraging to me. I saw many of the same mistakes and errors in judgment but wondered what else I might be missing.

 

I also found his topic shifts to be jarring. I've not known him to entirely neglect transitions in other types of writing. Also, I entirely agree about the closing remarks. What does that even mean? It is as if he's saying, "Am I done yet?" These two issues really stand out to me as indicators of stress. He was feeling "done" with the paper and the deadline was looming...

 

My biggest takeaway lesson here is that he needs more practice with timed writing and deadlines. Also, it wouldn't hurt to find an outside evaluator. I am bothered that he did not try as hard for the judge of this contest as he tries for me.

 

About the fifth paragraph, I like the way you phrased this: "Why is he inserting psychology here?"

 

As his mother, I know why. Within the hierarchy of his local Civil Air Patrol squadron he is learning some hard lessons about rank and relationships. The business about Spaatz, Mitchell, and their personalities gave him much food for thought.

 

If he had allowed me to evaluate his writing, I would have told him that it was wonderful that he learned something personally applicable from his research but it had nothing to do with the paper. Also, he has not studied enough of psychology or military history to speak so decidedly on the issue.

 

The same goes for the strong opinion about the upcoming pilots of the UAV's. The future of that program has nothing to do with the history of the Air Force, does it? But Nate has a definite bias against UAV's because of the personal experience of a close family member, and it seems as if he was determined to work that opinion into the piece.

 

His opinion about the future of the Air Force did not belong in this paper at all. Also, in the famous words of Lady Catherine deBourgh, he expressed his opinions very forcefully for so young a person!

 

So, Ester Maria, your critique helped me solidify my own thoughts about how to proceed.

 

1. He needs to check all papers for unity throughout. Research papers deserve the same attention to flow and transition that other papers receive from him. Everything needs to relate to the topic; no rabbit trails.

 

2. He will need more practice with deadlines and timed writing.

 

3. He needs access to knowledgeable evaluators because he is assuming that anything he writes is above average. He has no idea what is average in the college settings to which he aspires.

 

On the whole, though, I am pleased with his first independent effort. Not bad for 14. I am gratified that you did not note any truly egregious mechanical errors.