The first two Marine aviators, First Lieutenants Alfred A. Cunningham and Bernard L. Smith, had uniquely different careers. They were both exceptional officers and aviators and had influence at, and access to, the highest levels of the Navy and the Marine Corps.
Cunningham was a visionary and championed a distinct and independent Marine Corps aviation element dedicated to supporting Marine infantryman—the core doctrine of Marine aviation today. Conversely, Smith spent nearly his entire early career in Navy billets and in service of the Navy. While the Marine Corps embraced Cunningham’s vision, Smith’s early career reflects an important aspect of Marine aviation that has continued: a strong connection with the Navy that benefits both services. Although these two men had different experiences, they symbolized the two central characteristics of Marine Corps aviation.
Cunningham was commissioned a Marine officer in 1909 at 26 years old. He hoped to get a chance to fly, although it was another three years before the Marine Corps committed to aviation. That occurred in May 1912, when First Lieutenant Cunningham reported for flight training at the Naval Aviation Camp, Annapolis, Maryland. He reported on 22 May 1912, making this the birthday of Marine aviation, and he became Marine Aviator No.1 (Naval Aviator No.5).1
Marine Aviator No. 2 (Naval Aviator No. 6), First Lieutenant Bernard Smith, four years Cunningham’s junior, was commissioned days after Cunningham and arrived at the Navy’s flight school four months after him. Before the Marine Corps, Smith had studied mechanical engineering at Virginia Polytechnical Institute (present-day Virginia Tech) and had a “lively interest” in the science of flight.2
Smith proved to be a significant aviation pioneer but is almost forgotten. One Marine aviator/historian suggested that Smith should be enshrined as one of the most influential Marine aviation pioneers, even hinting that he should be considered as Marine aviation’s “father.”3 He usually is mentioned in narratives of early Marine aviation. Although he did not have the powerful effect of laying down Marine Corps doctrine like Cunningham, Smith’s early career was significant in displaying strong Navy–Marine Corps cooperation regarding aviation.
When Cunningham arrived at Annapolis, there were no flyable aircraft; therefore, he was sent to the Burgess aircraft factory in Massachusetts for flight training. When Smith showed up at Annapolis four months later, there were aircraft available. His flight instructor was Navy Lieutenant John H. Towers (Naval Aviator No. 3), an iconic naval aviation pioneer and future admiral who was highly influential in the development of naval aviation. Smith spent a lot of time flying a Curtiss A-1 Triad with Towers, which initiated a long-running relationship between the two men. When Cunningham returned to Annapolis, he was assigned to an older and problematic Wright aircraft, the B-1. He led the “Marine camp” composed of himself and the first enlisted Marine aviator, Sergeant James Maguire.4
So, at the very beginning, there was a divergence in Marine aviation that hinted at its future. Cunningham was a prophet of air support for Marine infantry provided by a distinct Marine aviation component. While Smith would certainly agree that Marines should support Marines, he differed in how this was to be done, suggesting that supporting Marines be a joint endeavor. He continued to serve in Navy billets, again highlighting the Navy–Marine Corps aviation connection.5 Smith’s example was the default position, noncontroversial.
Then, and today, the Department of the Navy supplied Marine aviators with equipment, aircraft, and the necessary support to fly. The Navy trained Marine aviators who were designated “Naval Aviators” on graduation. The Marine Corps oversaw Marine aviation operations with “general guidance from the Navy’s Office of Naval Aviation (BuAer).”6 While Smith obviously would agree with this arrangement, Cunningham did as well.
With this situation, Marine aviation would never be truly free of the Navy’s control and influence. In considering Cunningham’s and Smith’s careers, one must remember that young officers do not get to choose their assignments, which are based on the needs of the service. Obviously, what Smith and Cunningham were doing served the Marine Corps’ purpose. While Cunningham led the way toward creating a Marine style of aviation, Smith shored up the Navy flank with his good work with that service, which promoted a harmonious relationship that brought funding and support for Marine Corps aviation.
Smith was mindful of supporting Marines with Marine aviators. Evidence came from the Culebra fleet exercises in January 1914. Smith led a Marine aviation detachment to Culebra, Puerto Rico, as part of an advance base brigade during the Navy’s Atlantic Fleet maneuvers. Smith and First Lieutenant William McIlvaine, the third Marine aviator, made 52 flights. They demonstrated the effectiveness of aircraft for scouting, reconnaissance, intelligence gathering, and simulated bombing in support of the advance base force of Marines.7
In his official after-action report, Smith presciently advocated that advance base forces should have an organic Marine aviation detachment as a regular part of the force. He also recommended the specific composition of such a force. The Culebra deployment’s organic air-ground setup dimly presaged the later doctrinal Marine air-ground task force (MAGTF) that emerged after the Korean War.
Smith’s recommendation was not a new idea, of course. The year before, the Chambers Board, led by naval aviation leader Captain Washington Irving Chambers, of which Cunningham was a member, had recommended an aviation force of six aircraft be part of an advance base ashore.8 Actually, Marines all along had intended to establish an aviation unit to support the advance base, which is why Marine aviators were sent to flight school. But Smith’s Culebra recommendations had special gravity as they were the first call for such a Marine-specific unit based on a real-world exercise.9
Smith was, by profession, an engineer, and he applied his skill to aircraft development. At a time when all naval aircraft operated from water, when he had the opportunity, he modified them to make them land-based (after all, Marines operated from both sea and land). Before deploying to Culebra, he worked with a Navy officer on converting a Curtiss A-2 aircraft into an amphibian. (See “Historic Aircraft,” June, pp. 6–7.). It became the OWL-2 (Over Water and Land). They designed and fitted retractable (from the cockpit) wheels to the A-2’s floats so it could land ashore.10 He made the first successful amphibious flight in the OWL, landing it on both water and land during the same flight.11
In April 1914, First Lieutenant Smith was part of a Navy aviation detachment led by Lieutenant Towers that deployed to Mexico as part of a Navy force to stabilize the situation amid revolutionary upheaval. Smith and Towers fabricated and fitted landing gear to an A-4 seaplane to allow it to operate from land.12 After the Mexican venture, Smith and pioneering naval aviator Lieutenant Victor Herbster flew possibly the first official and practical bombing tests. They dropped small bombs over the side of a flying boat in level flight using a sight affixed to the fuselage for aiming.13
When World War I began for the United States in April 1917, Alfred Cunningham’s actions established his prominence and justified his reputation as the father of Marine aviation.14 Captain Cunningham almost single-handedly, and against many obstacles, organized Marine Corps aviation squadrons for war. He obtained bases and facilities, recruited pilots, ensured they were trained, and got them a combat assignment on the Western Front—mostly flying interdiction strikes—even though the mission he wanted was supporting the Marine Brigade.15
Smith’s experience during the war was entirely different—but also significantly influential. A month after the onset of war, in September 1914, he was assigned to the U.S. embassy in Paris as the assistant naval attaché.16 Towers was sent to London in the same capacity there, and Victor Herbster likewise in Rome. Smith assimilated well into the ranks of pioneering and leading Navy aviators and high-level Navy leaders. These posts were information-gathering assignments, monitoring and investigating combat air operations and reporting findings to Washington.17
Once the United States entered the war in 1917, then-Captain Smith was ordered back to the United States by the Office of Naval Intelligence. The telegram stated that the country was “losing benefit of his valuable knowledge and experience.”18 His fitness report as a naval attaché was glowing: Smith “had as much knowledge of the theory and practice of aviation as any officer in the world.”19
Back in the United States, he was promptly assigned to the Chief of Naval Operations’ aviation section, which was run by then–Lieutenant Commander John Towers. Towers had specifically requested Smith to oversee aircraft design and procurement.20 In the following months, he shuttled between Washington and facilities across the eastern United States inspecting, investigating, and advising on aircraft development, production, and testing. In October 1917, he was directed to the Marine Corps training airfield at Miami to advise and direct the establishment of a “completing school” for student aviators—specifically, to organize training for aerial gunnery and bombing.21
In late December 1917, Vice Admiral William Sims, commander of U.S. naval forces in European waters, requested that Smith return to Paris. He wanted Smith to head the Intelligence and Planning Division of Naval Aviation Forces, Foreign Service.22
After the war, Captain Smith was listed with four other Marines put forth by the Commandant to the French government for special recognition. Others mentioned included then-Major Cunningham, Captain Francis P. Mulcahy, Colonel Richard H. Dunlap, and Colonel James C. Breckinridge.23
On returning to the United States in the fall of 1918, Smith assisted in the development of an early Navy dirigible, the C-3. He was in command when she made her first flight, flying her from Akron, Ohio, to Rockaway, Long Island.24
At the request of Commander Towers, then-Major Smith was assigned in 1919 to assist with the Navy’s transatlantic flight project using four Curtiss flying boats (NC-1 through -4). This was the first transatlantic crossing by an aircraft. Smith was given responsibility for material and equipment.25
After the war, Cunningham assumed the post of Director of Marine Aviation. He strenuously defended Marine aviation in the midst of post–World War I defense downsizing and against questions, from both in and outside of the Marine Corps, as to why the service needed aviation. Writing in the Marine Corps Gazette, Cunningham said, “The only excuse for aviation in any service is its usefulness in assisting the troops on the ground to successfully carry out their operations.”26
Alfred Cunningham no doubt set Marine aviation on the track on which it has remained since. He deserves the fame and acclaim of being the “father of Marine aviation.”27 His efforts bore fruit when Congress in 1920 passed a naval appropriations bill that allowed for a permanent Marine aviation force.28
Smith neither embraced nor opposed Cunningham’s vision. But because Smith had access to upper-level officers in both services, Cunningham came to resent and dislike his activities. Since he was neither hot nor cold, Cunningham considered him a threat to his vision for Marine Corps aviation. Cunningham at one point said of Smith: “I have never considered that B. L. Smith has the interest of the Marine Corps at heart or that he takes any interest whatsoever in the Marine Corps.”29
Yet, it appears that Smith did benefit the Marine Corps. His engineering skills, in a roundabout way, advanced the quality and capability of military aircraft. In a more direct role, Smith was an influential and respected ambassador for the Marine Corps. Smith’s good work as an engineer and as a trusted adviser reflected highly on the Marine Corps and implied the service’s willingness to partner with the Navy on aviation. This, of course, was important for the Department of the Navy’s continued support for Marine aviation, support that Marine Corps leaders were certainly cognizant of and why they acquiesced to the Navy’s requests for Smith’s services.
In 1933, the advance base force mission blossomed into the Fleet Marine Force (FMF), an amphibious assault force that served with success during World War II. During the interwar period, Marine aviators received carrier training and Marine Corps squadrons operated from carriers. In 1939, the Navy’s General Board assigned Marine aviation the missions of first supporting the FMF, and second, serving as replacement squadrons for Navy carrier squadrons.
Marine aviation developed a dual character. It served two masters: the Marine Corps and the Navy. While sometimes resentful that the Navy used Marine squadrons as merely additional resources, Marine aviators’ participation in demanding carrier operations gave them greater flying skills, a broad range of missions—not just flying artillery—and access to the latest aircraft and equipment. Yet, when not with the Navy, Marine aviators focused on ground-support tactics. They brought these skills to the carrier air wing when carriers deployed. Marine aviators learned to be flexible—competent at land-based, expeditionary, and carrier operations. So, there was cross-pollination that benefited both services.
An example of the essential Navy-Marine nexus occurred during World War II. Marine Corps leaders had decided that Marine pilots did not need carrier qualification because early on, Marine aviators flew from island bases in the Solomons campaign. As the war moved into the central Pacific, with Marine Corps divisions executing amphibious assaults at iconic battles such as Tarawa, Saipan, and others, Marine aviators were not there to support the assaults.
Admiral Ernest King, Chief of Naval Aviation and Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Fleet, seeing that a large part of Marine aviation was in the backwaters of the war, suggested that Marine aviation be done away with, to prevent two air forces in the Navy. Marine Commandant General Alexander Vandegrift, working with Navy leaders including Admiral Chester Nimitz and his deputy, Vice Admiral John Towers, produced a compromise. They agreed there was a real need to get Marine aviation “back in the Marine Corps.” But to get Marine aviation back in the Marine Corps, they had to get it back into the Navy. A key provision put Marine squadrons on dedicated air-support aircraft carriers.30 One might say these escort carriers were the prototype of amphibious carriers of today.
The legacies of both Cunningham and Smith are alive and well in today’s Marine Corps. Cunningham’s legacy of prioritizing support for the Marine rifleman remains in place: “Every Marine a rifleman” is the creed. Before they go to flight school or technical training, all Marines go through infantry training. Out of this, doctrine and tactics have developed, including close-air support, airborne forward air controllers, vertical envelopment, and expeditionary airfield operations. This is not to say that Cunningham eschewed any ties to the Navy. While his drive and focus went toward establishing a Marine-centric air force that prioritized supporting ground combat, he fully understood the importance of the Marine Corps–Navy relationship. Of this relationship he said, “This arrangement is working very satisfactorily, and is recommended that it remain in force.”31
But Smith’s legacy of cooperation with the Navy and technological innovation also remains. There are many examples: helicopters for vertical assault, command-and-control systems, expeditionary basing, electronic warfare, vertical short takeoff and landing capability, and tilt-rotor development. And today, expeditionary advanced base operations in the South China Sea have Marines thoroughly integrated with Navy operations.
Cunningham and Smith were both important for establishing the foundation for Marine aviation. Major General John Condon put it best. In writing the history of Marine aviation on its 75th anniversary, he said:
Cunningham favored complete emphasis on support of the Corps as the function of Marine aviation, whereas Smith viewed Marine Corps support as a combined effort of Navy and Marine aviation. It would seem the passage of time has confirmed the soundness of both their concepts.32
1. LtCol Edward C. Johnson, USMC, Marine Corps Aviation: The Early Years, 1912–1940, ed. Graham A. Cosmas (Washington, DC: History and Museums Division, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, 1977), 2-4; and James A. Ginther, “Marine Aviator Number One: Alfred Austell Cunningham and the Development of Early Marine Aviation,” thesis, Abilene Christian University, 1993, 1–2.
2. Donald D. Brammer, Revisiting the Old Corps: Colonel Bernard L. “Barney” Smith, undtd, unpub ms, National Naval Aviation Museum, Pensacola, FL, 1-2; and Johnson, Marine Corps Aviation, 4.
3. This idea is mentioned in a short biographical write-up by Marine Corps Col Denis Kiely (Ret.), who worked on Marine aviation issues at the National Museum of Naval Aviation. See: “The Case for Colonel Bernard L. Smith, USMCR,” undtd, unpubl ms. This piece resounds in praise for Smith with lots of good information, but, alas, it is not footnoted, so this author did not much rely on it.
4. Peter B. Mersky, U.S. Marine Corps Aviation Since 1912 (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2009), 2; and Johnson, Marine Corps Aviation, 4.
5. Johnson, Marine Corps Aviation, 4; MajGen John P. Condon, USMC, U.S. Marine Corps Aviation (Washington, DC: Deputy Chief of Naval Operations [Air Warfare], and the Commander Naval Air Systems Command, 1987), 3.
6. Laurence M. Burke II, “What to Do With the Airplane: Determining the Role of the Airplane in the U.S. Army, Navy and Marine Corps, 1908–1925,” PhD diss, Carnegie Mellon University, 2014, 658.
7. Johnson, Marine Corps Aviation, 6–7; Burke, “What to Do With the Airplane,” 286; Kiely, “The Case for Colonel Bernard L. Smith”; and Matthew Ritchie, “Advance Base Force Operations,” Marine Corps Gazette 99, no. 2 (February 2015): 32–33. At 5,000 feet they were out of small-arms fire range, and the ships’ guns could not elevate at an angle enough to hit aircraft directly overhead.
8. The Chambers Board, officially the Bureau of Aeronautics, was, in the earliest days of naval aviation, directed to establish policy for the direction for the fledgling “Naval Aeronautic Service.” See Burke, “What to Do With the Airplane,” 277.
9. Johnson, Marine Corps Aviation, 7, 10. Johnson details Smith’s recommended aviation element: five pilots, four aircraft, one of which could operate from land, aircraft equipped with radios, 20 enlisted mechanics, equipment and tentage to support expeditionary operations, and that the Marine transport, then under construction, be equipped with a catapult to launch aircraft.
10. “Bernard Lewis Smith Biographical Sketch,” Contact, undtd, National Museum of Naval Aviation.
11. Kiely, “The Case for Colonel Bernard L. Smith”; and Brammer, Revisiting the Old Corps, 3.
12. Clark G. Reynolds, Admiral John H. Towers: The Struggle for Naval Air Superiority (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1991), 78–79. Whether Smith and Towers ever operated ashore from the Navy land base is not clear. It is fairly certain that Smith never was able to fly in support of the Marines, although Ginther, “Marine Aviator Number One,” 61, says he did lobby for that job. Burke, “What to Do With the Airplane,” 287–88; Johnson, Marine Corps Aviation, 7–8; and Brammer, Revisiting the Old Corps, 5. It is significant that they flew from ashore because leaders had insisted that the Navy was not to fly from shore, this was the Army’s element and to do so might subject Navy aircraft to control by either the Marine Corps or the Army.
13. Burke, “What to Do With the Airplane,” 295.
14. Ginther, “Marine Aviator Number One,” 132. Most Marines and historians would agree with aviation pioneer Major General Ford O. Rogers’ assessment of Cunningham: “Cunningham was the father of Marine aviation…absolutely, completely. Without him there would be no Marine aviation.”
15. Johnson, Marine Corps Aviation, 14–19; and Burke, “What to Do With the Airplane,” 716–17.
16. Secretary of the Navy to First Lieutenant Bernard L. Smith, 1 September 1914, Bernard L. Smith official personnel file, NARA, St. Louis, hereinafter “Smith OPMF.”
17. Reynolds, Admiral John H. Towers, 91–92, 99; and Burke, “What to Do With the Airplane,” 294–95.
18. Director of Naval Intelligence to Bureau of Navigation, 11 June 1914, Smith OPMF. He received preparatory orders to return to the United States three days before war was declared, yet did not receive actual orders until June. It appears from the correspondence available there was a mix-up in getting Smith back to the United States as aviation officers arriving in France thought Smith to be in Washington.
19. Bernard L. Smith, biography files, Reference Section, Archives, U.S. Marine Corps History Division, Quantico, VA, hereinafter, “Smith Biography files.”
20. Reynolds, Admiral John H. Towers, 113.
21. There are letters and telegrams for each trip in Smith OPMF; Johnson, Marine Corps Aviation, 11.
22. Telegram Sims to BuNav, 29 December 1917, Smith OPMF; Smith to Bureau of Navigation 8 January 1920, and Smith OPMF.
23. Smith, OPMF.
24. Smith Biography files.
25. Smith Biography files.
26. Maj Alfred A. Cunningham, USMC, “Value of Aviation to the Marine Corps,” Marine Corps Gazette 5, no. 3 (September 1920): 221–33.
27. Johnson, Marine Corps Aviation, 30–31.
28. Ginther, “Marine Aviator Number One,” 121.
29. Burke, “What to Do With the Airplane,” 671–72.
30. Fred H. Allison, “The Black Sheep Squadron: A Case Study of U.S. Marine Corps Innovations in Close Air Support Development,” PhD diss., Texas Tech University, 2003, 284–87.
31. After World War I, Cunningham became the head of the Marine section of naval aviation. This section was responsible for recruitment, training and supply requisitions, and training facilities all in coordination with the Navy. Because Marine aviation was to operate closely with Navy units, Cunningham reported to both the MajGen Commandant of the Marine Corps and Director of Naval Aviation. All Marine aviation matters were handled by this office. Johnson, Marine Corps Aviation, 27–30.
32. Condon, U.S. Marine Corps Aviation, 3.