Army Aviation Digest - Jun 1967

8/12/2019 Army Aviation Digest - Jun 1967

1/68


2/68

UNITED

DIRECTOR OF ARMY AVIATION ACSFORDEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

MG Robert R. Williams

5

COMMANDANT, U. S. ARMY AVIATION SCHOOLMG Delk M. Oden

ASST COMDT, U. S. ARMY AVIATION SCHOOLCOL M. H. Parson

DIGEST EDITORIAL STAFFMAJ L. J. Herman Jr., Editor-In-ChiefRichard K. Tierney, EditorWilliam H. SmithDiana G. WilliamsTina Johnson

GRAPHIC ART SUPPORTHarold G. LinnHarry A. PickelDorothy L. CrowleyAngela A. Akin

DIRECTOR U. S. ARMY BOARD FOR AVIATIONACCIDENT RESEARCHCOL Warren R. Williams

USABAAR EDUCATION AND LITERATURE DIVPierce L WigginWilliam E. CarterTed KontosCharles Mabius

ARMY AVIATION1GESJJUNE 967 VOLUM 3 NUMBELEITER, GEN Harold K. JohnsonARMY AVIATION OF THE FUTURE,MG Robert R. WilliamsDAYS OF DECISION-YEARS OF CHALLENGE,MG Delk M. OdenTHE CARE AND KEEPING OF ARMY AVIATION,MG W. N. RedlingARMY AVIATION, THE NEWEST MEMBER OF THETEAM, MG Robert H. YorkTHAT SOMEBODY UP THERE, MG Harry H. CritzTHE FLYING PART OF ARMOR, MG A. D. Surles, Jr.TALONS FROM THE SKY, BG G. P. Seneff, Jr.A COLORFUL QUARTER CENTURY OF ARMYAVIATION AIRCRAFTFIXED WING AIRCRAFTROTARY WING AIRCRAFTARMY AVIATION IN ACTIONPEARL SCRASH SENSESHARE ITSU-21, THE ARMY S NEW UTILITY AIRCRAFT

The mission of the U. S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST is to provide information of an operatiofunctional nature concerning safety nnd aircraft accident prevention, training, maintenance, operresearch and development, aviation medicine, and other related data.The DIGEST is an official Department of the Army periodical published monthly under the supeof the Commandant, U. S. Army Aviation School. Views expressed herein are not necessarily thDepartment of the Army or the U. S. Army Aviation School. Photos are U. S. Army unless othspecified. Material may be reprinted provided credit is given to the DIGEST and to the author,otherwise indicated.

Articles, photos, and itcms of interest on Army Aviation nre invited. Direct communication s aized to: Editor.inChie , U.S. Army Aviation Digest, Fort Rucker, Alabama.Use of funds for printing this publication has been approved by Headquarters, DepartmentArmy, 29 December 1964.Active Army units receive distribution under the pinpoint distribution system as outlined in AR 20 l\larch 62, and DA Circular 31057, 4 March 63. Complete DA Form 12-4 and send directly tAG Publications Center, 2800 Eastern Boulevard, Baltimore, ;\ld. 21220. For any chanJ e in distrirequirements, merely initiate a revised DA Form 12-4.National Guard and Army Reserve units submit requirements through their state adjutants generU. S. Army Corps commanders respectively .For those not eligible for official distribution or who desire personal copies of the DIGEST, paid

scriptions, 54.50 domestic and S5.50 overseas, are available from the Superintendent of Documents,Government Printiog Olbce, WashioJ ton, D. C., 20402.


3/68

UNITED ST TES RMYTHE CHIEF OF ST FF

TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF ARMY AVIATION

On behalf of all the men and women of the United States Ar myI extend hear t ies t congratulat ions to Ar m y Aviat ion as wel l as app re -ciat ion for i ts achievements of the pas t twenty-f ive yea r s . Since i tsbeginnings in 1942 Ar m y Aviation has advanced with the Ar my inacquir ing new capabil i t ies and ref ining old approaches to land w a r -fare. In recent years especial ly aviat ion has been essent ia l to ourconsiderat ion of concepts and techniques for improving the Army1sperformance in combat.

fledgling in World War II Army Aviation proved i ts value tothe combat commander and went on to develop inc reas ingly impor tantabil i t ies for fulfi l l ing Ar m y ro les and missions . Today in the wa r inSoutheas t Asia Army ai rcraf t a re involved in vir tual ly every combatand combat support operat ion. Aviation personnel have met the chal -lenges of operat ing in a difficult environment agains t an unseen enemyand they have accompl ished the i r tasks regardless of these hazards .Their brave ry profess iona l i sm and dedicat ion to duty representthe noblest of soldier ly vi r tues .

I join your comrades in a rms in express ing pr ide in your outstanding accompl ishments . We know you will maintain th is r eco rdof service to our country throughout the coming yea r s .& ~eneral United States Ar my

Chief of Staff


4/68

2

RMY VI TIONOF THE FUTURE

Major General Robert R WilliamsDirector of rmy viation

A FEW predictions for 1980: The Army will have 18,000 aircraft. The Chief of Staff or the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, theCommandant of the Infantry School, Armor School, and half thedivision commanders will be Army aviators. The Army s tactical transport aircraft will be VTOL but will becruising at speeds of well over 300 knots. The Huey will still be with us in large numbers. The 0 1 may still be in the inventory.

These predictions for 13 years in the future will no doubt startlemany. Some tacticians will say it s ridiculous; the budgeteers will planfor some new locks to put on the budget; proponents of other highcost Army programs will gird themselves to protect their share of thebudget, for they will realize the funds for such an expanding programmust come from somewhere; and personnel management people mayshudder a bit thinking about providing pilots to fly all these aircraft.As background and possibly to place some of the older readers in abetter frame of mind to accept the rationale that led me to thesepredictions, I ask that each reader step back in his memory an equaldistance 13 years.

U. S ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


5/68

In 1954 would you have believed that by 1967:The Army would have over9,000 aircraft and a still rapidlygrowing inventory?The Army would pay in themillions for a single aircraft?There would be one Army di

vision with over 450 aircraft?Two four s ar generals wouldwear wings (Howze and Powell);two commandants of the InfantrySchool would have been Armyaviators, (Powell and York); inone infantry division in 1963 allthree general officers would bepilots; the youngest general offi-cer in all the services today wouldbe an Army aviator (GeneralKlingenhagen) and three of theyoungest generals (Klingenhagen,Blanchard and Burdette) wouldbe Army aviators?

The Army Aviation Schoolwould be expanding to an outputof 625 pilots per month.The UH-l, just an idea in theminds of a few in 1954, would becoming off the production line attoday's rate?The armed helicopter would bea very effective weapons system

and one would be designed specifically for the mission of directfire support?Helicopters would attain speedsof over 175 knots?A small observation helicopter(the OH-6) would fly nonstopfrom coast to coast?

The 0-1 would still be in highdemand in 1967 and will probably be with us for some time?The argument will be madethat the demands for Army aviation and its present somewhatexplosive growth is o'Ccasioned bythe conflict in Vietnam and is justa fad. I will grant that the conflict in Vietnam has provided analmost ideal military applicationfor Army aviation, but I will alsocontend that it is providing aproving ground for Army aviationand indoctrination of personnelJUNE 1967

that will have a lasting effect onfu ture Army organiza tion andtactics in all levels of war. Theleaders of our Army for the 1970-80 time period will almost without exception have fought inVietnam. They will fight as battalion or brigade commanders.For one year they will conducttheir operations based primarilyon airmobility. Troop movementby air, resupply by air, air reconnaissance, -aerial command postsand direct fire support by armedhelicopters will become a way oflife with them. In the future asthey write doctrine, draw up organizations, or prepare equipmentrequirements for the Army of thefu ture they will lean heavily ontheir past experience with airmobility.

This is the beginning of thetrue air age - not -the crest. Froman Army standpoint, we have inthe past employed aircraft primarily in specialized or high priority roles. Aircraft were usedonly when they were the onlymeans of accomplishing the mission or when the priority washigh enough to justify the use.Our aircraft were in addition toour ground vehicles. N ow we arelearning to depend on aircraft asa primary and accepted means ofaccomplishing our mission andlearning to capitalize on thespeed and effectiveness they provide. This has come about in largepart through the greatly improveddependability of aviation. Ouraircraft are much improved; ourpilots are more highly trained;and we have learned much aboutoperating in adverse weather andin the field.A direct parallel exists in civilair travel. The combination ofspeed, comfort, dependability,safety and convenience offered tothe customer by the present dayairlines has caused a rapid increase in airline travel.

A recently completed 'Gallup

he Army leaders of 1970-80 will almostwithout exception have foughtin Vietnam

Poll' for TransWorld Airlinesshowed that in 1964 only 34of the adult U. S population hadflown on an airliner. By the endof 1966 this proportion was 42 %and growing at a rate of 12 ayear. By the 1970s, when the new,air transportation-conscious generation reaches adulthood, theywill boost the figure to 60%. *Figures I and 2 on the followingpage depict the increase in the airline fleet and passengers over thepast 20 years and the forecast ofthe future on which the airlinesare basing multibillion dollar investments.Another parallel exists in general aviation, the civilian counterpart of Army aviation. Companiesand individuals are finding that

Gen Clifton F. Von Kann; Text,U ir Transport Forecasts and an n-swer to the Challenge


6/68

THOUSANOS

-L L

FLEET SIZE OF U.S. SCHEDULED AIRLINES

3 0:::U0:::

50

SOURCE ' AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAICy 6680 PROJECTION IS BASED ON INFORMAL FORECAST)

60 65 80CALENDAR YEARS

Figure 1today's aircraft provide a dependable means of getting theirjob done. General aviation (whichcan best be defined as all civilaviation outside of the airlines)has considerable similarity toArmy aviation. T ~ l e typescraft found in general aVIatIonare of the same size and characteristics as Army aircraft and areemployed in much the s a ~ e way.The following charts depIct thegrowth of general aviation overthe past 20 years and the forecastgrowth (fig. 3 and 4).A similar plot can be made forthe growth of Army aviation overthe past 20 years (fig. 5).The similarity of the data presented on airline, general aviationand Army aviation growth shouldbe noted. These statistics providethe basis for my first prediction.My second prediction is basedon the growing importance ofArmy aviation and on the peoplewho are now Army aviators. Let'sdo a little analysis of the groupwho are potential generals in the1970-80 .period. They are nowlieutenant colonels and colonels.

4

Graduates of War Colleges(colonel on active duty): Armyaviation 35.9%; overall 34.7%.Selected for promotion tocolonel on last list: Army aviation 45.4%; overall 28.6%.

. Selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel on last list:Army aviation 76.0%; overall 74.5%.

MILLIONS400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

45

CIl0:::( )ZUJCIlCIla

PASSENGERS OF U.S. SCHEOULED IRLINES / /

55

//,,/1- . .0 ,~ ; ,

-


7/68

the money and brain power tha thave gone into trying to crossbreed the helicopter and he airplane during past 15 years.Starting with the XV-l and XV-3in 1952 and continuing throughthe composite research aircraftproject now in progress, slightlymore than one-half billion dollarshave been spent to achieve ausable high speed VTOL aircraft.Several of these programs havebeen highly successful in demonstrating the technical feasibilityof V/STOL systems. However,they have not yet been proved tothe extent that they can live inthe unrefined environment of theArmy in the field.Concurrent with the V/STOLeffort, much has been done to improve the speed, stability and reliability of the helicopter. I foresee that there will be marked increases in rotary wing aircrafttechnology and that aircraft, whichlift off on rotors, will be able tocruise at speeds above 300 knotsby stopping, stowing or tilting therotor blades to eliminate rotordrag.My fourth and fifth predictionsare based on the time-proved factthat a really good aircraft justwill not go away. Every now andthen off the production l ine comesa real winner. It makes a namefor itself early in life and everybody just has to have one. Production gets stretched out. Then theaircraft lives long after production ceases. A good utility aircraft can have an amazingly longlife. The uey will in my opinionlast as a highly serviceable aircraftjust as the old DC-3 has. In 1980the pilots of all U S services andof many nations will probably becussing it as slow, hard to fly andobsolete but they will still beflying it.No matter how many studieswe write showing that the 0-1should be replaced, they are stillin demand. Maybe the next generation of pilots will give up.JUNE 1967

Flying has been described ashour after hour of boredompunctuated by moments of starkterror. Army aviation s growthhowever, can best be described asmonth after month of stress andlabor punctuated by days of desperation. I am sure that all aviators and nonaviators, who haveworked so hard to bring airmobility to the Army, feel proud andwell rewarded for their long hoursof work.N ow before the rotor wash completely clouds my crystal ball, I

This is the beginning of thetrue air age not the crest

want to say that I see continuedgrowth for Army aviation, withits future development limitedonly by the imagination and ingenuity of those of you who willbe at the controls. As moderntechnology rapidly advances, Armyaircraft of the 1980-90 time periodmay even stagger the imaginationof those of us who have witnessedour progress from the Cub to theCobra. Army aviation is on themove and all of us should considerit an honor to be a member ofthe team.

5


8/68

D YS OF DECISION-YE RS OF CH LLENGE

Maior General Delk M denCommandant U. S. Army Aviation School

The success of rmy aviation can be traced primarilyto the Aviation School (both at Fort Sill, Okla., andlater Fort Rucker, Ala.) where most of today s air-mobile concepts were born.

A RMY AVIATION'S starburns brightly in Vietnamtoday. Our aviation personneland units have accepted the challenge of combat and have provedthe validity of many of the concepts and tactical applications ofArmy aviation for which theyalso fought valiantly, but in adifferent way, on the home front.Today in Vietnam airmobile operations supported by Army helicopters are the backbone of operations against the elusive VietCongoAlmost without exception operations begin with helicopterlifted forces moving into strategicpositions to surprise the enemy,to block his retreat, to capturehis base camp, or to fix his position. Regardless of the size of theencounter, Army helicopters areemployed throughout the operation in lifting reinforcements, ef-fecting vertical envelopment, resupply, reconnaissance, and evac-

uation of casualties. When theoperation ends the Army helicopter is the last combat vehicle toleave the battlefield. This normally involves lifting the rearguard from its last contact withenemy forces to the security of itsbase camp.

Our ground forces in Vietnamare sold on airmobility. Theylike the idea of being picked uprefreshed and rested at their basecamp.~ e y look over their shouldersas the lift helicopters depart the

landing zone, knowing they ll beback with food, ammunition, andreinforcements. They know toothe helicopters will be availableto return them, as quickly asthey brough t them, to medicalattention i they re wounded inthe engagement. When the battleis over and uppermost in theirminds is rest, hot food, and ashower, the sound of familiarpopping blades of Army helicop-

ters is heard in the distance, anthey are soon back wi thin the scurity of their home base.Yes the ground trooper likethis kind of support because it alows him to meet the enemwhen he, the trooper, is at his beboth physically and mentallyOur ground forces returning fromVietnam will be Army aviationstrongest supporters in the future, because they have foundbetter way to go to war and thewill insist on that way for the future.

Since the first shipment oArmy aircraft from the UniteStates in 1961, the whirling bladeof the Army s choppers have nevestopped turning in defense ofreedom in Vietnam. Our firaircraft commitment, the bananashaped CH-21 helicopter, watransported to Vietnam by aicraft carrier. These choppers lierally hit the beach runningin flying from the carrier deckunder their own power, and i

U. S. ARl\IY AVIATION DIGES


9/68


10/68

Blades of rmy helicopters have never stopped turning in the defense of the Republic of VietnamHere a sergeant of the st Cavalry DiVision directs the landing of a Huey arriving with supplies

than anyone would have anticipated would be required just afew years ago.

We know that Army airmobility through the use of helicoptersis an accepted doctrine today asa result of the test of combat inVietnam. However, during theearly ye rs o ch llenge that began on 6 June 1942, only a fewstout hearted individuals foughtthe battle for the advancement ofArmy aviation.Following its birthdate andduring the early years of the reignof the fixed-wing aircraft, theprogress of Army aviation movedslowly. The helicopter was theshot in the arm needed to get theprogram going, and the turbinepowered Huey was the championthat permitted the breakthroughin airmobility. Armed helicopterdevelopment closely paralleledthe airmobility concept, meetingwith similar difficulties.

The revolutionary concepts ofaerial firepower and troop mobility were brought to the forefrontwhen the Army shocked the military world with the introductionof Sky Cav during ExerciseSagebrush in the middle 50s. Re-8

percussions went all the way tothe Secretary of Defense, andthere a decision was made to allow the Army to continue its experiments with the Sky Cav concept. The lid was off; a programthat had been pushed laboriouslyforward by the sweat and tearsof a few individuals began tomove under its own momentumgathering size and speed. InVietnam it matured.The nucleus for the advancement and growth of Army aviation has been the Aviation Center and School. It was at theschool that the early battles werefought through concepts, doctrine, and experimentation withairmobility and the armed helicopter. The campaign had startedat Fort Sill, Okla., with the Artillery School. Aviation movedon to Fort Rucker in search ofits own place in the sun and anopportunity to spread out.Since this early beginning manyother military posts have addedmomentum to the big pushthrough significant contributionsto the advancement of airmobility. On the birthday of Army avia tion, the center and school pause

to acknowledge the loyal supportand well wishes of the many andvaried military and civiliangroups and activities.

The A via tion Center andSchool have reacted in a mostcommendable manner to the challenge of the accelerated demandfor Army aviation supportthroughout the free world. Thegrowth of the school during thepast 18 months has far exceededany other growth period in thehistory of Army aviation. Manynew training programs are underway at Fort Rucker, most of whichare heavily Vietnam oriented. Anoticeable sense of combat urgency and direction is associatedwith all training now being conducted at the Aviation School.A look at some developmentdata and statistics from the Aviation Center will reveal the magnitude of this expansion in aviation training. During the pastyear Fort Stewart, Ga., was se-lected as an addition to the training base for the original purposeof conducting primary fixed wingflight training. The 16 weeks ofthe initial entry primary fixedwing training was moved from



11/68

Fort Rucker and established atFort Stewart in July 1966.In a very recent addition to the:Fort Stewart complex, the facilities of Hunter Air Force Base atSavannah have been turned o v ~to the Army. This installationhas been designated Hunter ArmyAirfield and is part of the FortStewart command. Hunter willbe primarily a helicopter trainingarea and will be the school'straining base for the AH-l GHueyCobra. We will graduateand send to Vietnam the first instructor pilots from our Cobracourse this August.

As a result of the steady expansion of training the flying hourprogram at Fort Rucker morethan doubled during the past 8months. This is represented by anincrease from 31,000 flying hoursper month in January 66 to 70,000per month in June 67. In fiscalyear 68 this monthly rate will increase to in excess of 80,000 flyinghours per month for a yearly total of approximately one millionfiying hours.

The total operating budget forthe Aviation School and Centerfor fiscal year 67 stood at 80 million. In fiscal year 68 the budgetwill increase to 96 million.

Expansion in student trainingis even more impressive. The bigbuildup in student load beganearly in 1966. The history of thetraining program at the AviationSchool in the several years immediately preceding 1966 had beena very gradual buildup of rotarywing training and a gradual decline in fixed wing training. Inthe three years prior to 1966 theaverage student load was 74 helicopter pilots and 85 fixed wingpilots. By September 1966, theschool was graduating 290 helicopter pilots and 30 fixed wingpilots.

This number has steadily in .creased. In April 1967 the school'soutput reached an all time highJUNE 1967

viation tr ining ge red to combatof 375 helicopter pilots and 50fixed wing pilots each month.

These figures of traininggrowth and expansion are impressive, but the end is not yet insight. A new training goal hasbeen established and this fall theschool will begin its buildup tograduate an additional 200 helicopter pilots per month at theArmy Aviation School element atFort Stewart, Ga. This will bringthe total school ou tpu t to 625pilots per month for an annualtotal of 7,500 Army aviators. Asyou are well aware this yearlyoutput will exceed the total aviators in the Army aviation program before the beginning of thebig buildup.

We have proved in Vietnamthat the helicopter has a survivability on the battlefield beyondmany peoples' expectations. Thetestbed for this survivability hasbeen at treetop level within rangeof even the smallest of the enemy'sindividual weapons. With appropriate modification of our tacticalemployment of helicopters wehave every reason to believe thatour survivability against a sophisticated enemy would be as goodas it has been against the guerrilla. The battlefield advantageof maneuver, mobility, and aerialfirepower will be just as important, just as decisive, in a sophisticated environment as we havefound it to be in the counterinsurgency environment.

f you think back to WorldWar II and the Korean war youcan recall numerous instanceswhere a heliborne force couldeasily have broken a deadlockwith enemy forces, traversed animpenetrable wooded area, performed a critical river ~ r o s s i n g orassaulted the enemy rear areas.The Rhine River would not in

itself present any obstacle to aheliborne force on the offensive.Our hasty retreat from the YaluRiver in Korea when heavily outnumbered by Red Chinese forcescost us thousands of lives andmillions of dollars worth ofequipment. This costly retreatcould have been accomplished asan orderly withdrawal by the useof helicopters in a defensive role.

Horizons Unlimited are themarching words for Army aviationin the future. At the same timewe must bear firmly in mind thatwe cannot march off and leave theground trooper for the sake ofaircraft sophistication. The limitiug factor must not be budgetaryconsiderations or size, but theability of our aircraft to continueto live with and be maintainedby our forces under field conditions.

On this 25th anniversary ofArmy aviation we honor our deadand wounded of the war in Vietnam. We are ever mindful thatthe sacrifices of many of thesegallant flying s o l d i e ~ s were madefreely for their country. Manyfactors unite in the motivation ofa man to achieve such a highplateau of service and sacrifice,not the least of which is his desire to advance the capability ofthe Army through its aviation.

Army aviation looks to the future. With the coming of theCobra and follow-on systems fordirect fire support airmobile operations will improve. Increasedpayload, fuel range, and speedfor all our helicopters will allowus to better support our surfaceforces. The future of Army aviation is bright and we are onlybeginning to exploit the possibilities for the application of ournew found aerial firepower andtactical airmobility.

9


12/68

Army aircraft maintenance and supplytraining accounts for the major portionof the activities of the TransportationSchool at Fort Eustis, Va.

he arenti KeepingO RMY VI TIO

Major General W. N. RedlingCommandant U. S. Army Transportation School

As MANY PROPONENTSof Army aviation are probably aware, Department of theArmy General Order No. 761952) assigned the responsibilityfor logistical support of Armyaviation to the TransportationCorps. The number of this general order is not important; thedate of the document is becausethe order charged the Transpor-ta tion Corps wi th a grea t andgrowing responsibility a responsibility that all personnel in theCorps continue to shoulder withpride in the field of fixed- androtary-wing aircraft.

Today Army aircraft maintenance and supply training accounts for the major portion ofthe activities of the Transporta-tion School at Fort Eustis. Ameaningful insight behind the rationale of this newly acquired responsibility can be gained by re-1

viewing some of the factors whichled up to this most significant development.During the period followingthe Korean war, the Transporta-

tion Corps in carrying out its mission - that of transporting menand equipment - was acquiringmore and larger helicopters andwas rapidly becoming a majoruser of Army aircraft. Simultaneously, maintenance and supplyproblems were becoming increasingly complicated in all arms andbranches that used rotary-wingaircraft to satisfy mobility requirements. It was soon concluded that the Ordnance Light Aviation Maintenance Companieswhich were charged with most ofthe logistical support of this typeof activity were no longer capableof accomplishing the specializedmaintenance and supply responsibility demanded by the ever-

increasing inventory and varietyof aircraft.These considerations, combinedwi th a general concern for moreeffective supply and maintenanceprocedures, led to the decision to

concentrate all responsibility formaintenance and supply, including training, in one branch of theservice and, if possible, at onelocation. Accordingly, in 1952 theDepartment of the Army, havingdecided to give the responsibilityfor aviation maintenance andsupply to the TransportationCorps, started looking for a suitable location.

A team visited the Transporta-tion School at Fort Eustis, Va.,to determine the caliber of instruction given by the School andto survey existing facilities. Sufficient space was desired not onlyto conduct aviation maintenancecourses but also to institute other

U. S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


13/68

courses of instruction related tothe logistical support of aircraftand aircraft units. Since somebuildings previously used formarine and highway training werefound suitable for aviation maintenance training, it was not longbefore the maintenance trainingprogram was established at FortEustis. At the outset the entirestaff was composed of two officersand a civilian who supervisedabout 85 instructors.

The reminiscences of an earlymember of the aviation group atFort Eustis illustrate the growingpains initially experienced at theTransportation School. Fresh outof flight training and still wearing Ordnance insignia, he reported to Fort Eustis in mid-1953.Not knowing where to go, heasked the MP at the front gatefor directions to the flight strip.The MP replied, There are noairplanes around here. You bettergo over to Langley Air ForceBase. That's where all the aviators are.

At this time, there was so littleaviation activity at the Transportation School that only two aviators were assigned; they were instructing the officer classes on theemployment of Army aviation.

Our reminiscing aviator recallsthat in 1953 the only visible evidence of aviation activity at Eustiswas the airstrip. This was a runway 2,000 feet long covered withpierced steel planking but without a control tower. The onlyfacility available was an oldwooden building left over fromthe days of the CCC which wasused as an operations office. Infront of this operations buildingwas a Lister bag and in back,that obsole te necessity, a twoholer. The total flying equipment at this time was one H-13.one L-19 and an LC-126, which,i your aviation history is not upto snuff, is a Cessna 195 purchasedfor military use.JUNE 1967

Initial planning for maintenance training started late in1953, about the same time thatour early aviator changed hisOrdnance insignia for a TC wheel.At this time, he was issued a directive to get ready to teach aviation maintenance training subjects and to prepare requisitelesson plans. From October 1953to June 1954, he and his few associates wrote lesson plans like mad.

Another stimulating challengefor these pioneers was the acquisit ion-a better word might bescrounging of suitable train

ing aids. They went all over theTidewater area gathering up partsfrom wrecked aircraft. They paidweekly visits to the Navy junkyard in Norfolk, Va., to pick upcomponents that could be used intraining the classes. Dedicationwas much in evidence. One instructor made a monthly trip witha rental trailer to a Naval AirStation a few hundred miles downthe coast to pick up any aircraftsalvage that had accumulatedduring the month.

Little or no attention was paidto the origin of the component.After all, a pump was a pump. Inthe process they acquired a collection of components of every description. These were t i r l s ~ l ytorn down and reassembled, andstep-by-step lesson plans were de-

veloped. Eventually, the first students arrived and classes startedabout I July 1954.

Other than the airfield the onlyarea available for flight line activity was an old driver trainingrange used by the Highway Department of the TransportationSchool. The instructors movedsome L-19s and H-13s out thereand taught inspection, runupprocedures, operational checks,taxiing. and other related maintenance procedures right out inthe open field. There were nohangars or shops. The only permanent facility was a bleacherwhich had been covered over tokeep out the wind and rain, andequipped, of course, with thatmodern convenience-the Listerbag.A major addition to the physical plant was made in 1955. Members of the Field Servicing Branchprocured and erected, by theirown effort, a surplus metal building to accommodate personneland training aids during inclement weather. For the next fewyears, no great changes were madein the physical plant, but manyimprovements in training aidswere made as the junkyard itemswere replaced by components ofaircraft in the Army inventory.

What probably helped most atthis early stage was the degree andAn instructor discusses the T5 turbine engine troubleshooter trainer


14/68

Care and Keeping of rmy viation it was noted that some of thetorque functions on one component of the H-19 required as muchas 500 foot-pounds. The largesttorque wrench we had in our toolsets was for 400 pounds. So wefabricated a wrench and then attached 5 feet of gas pipe to itwith a 10-pound fish scale on theend of it for calibration. Totighten the fan hub nut-the onecausing the problem-we detailedabout a dozen men to hold thefan steady, applied a K factor tocompensate for both the weightand the bend in the pipe and applied the requisite amount ofpressure. The next step was towrite to the Chief of Transportation to urge him to get the toolsets equipped so that the maintenance training mission could beperformed in a satisfactory manner. It might be i n t r ~ s t i n g tonote though that the nuts tightened under this less-than-recommended procedure went their fulllife.

type of dedication found amongaviation personnel of all grades.Many of our members were recenttransferees from other arms andbranches of the Army. These people, rather than be separated fromtheir first love, pulled up longestablished roots and joined theTransportation Corps family.Above all, they wanted to staywith and contribute to furtherdevelopment of the new conceptof mobility.Most Army aviation personnelwill agree that this strong senseof belonging has persisted sincethe first steps were taken towardinitiation of the concept to permit the Army to develop and employ aircraft responsive to its ownunique requirements. Withoutthis firm loyalty, this strong desire to be associated with aviation, it would have taken us manymore years to develop the program to the point we have attained.

An interesting expedient developed by this early group ofdevotees was in the area of crashrescue training. A couple of instructors went up to PatuxentNaval Air Station and picked upa crashed Navy F6F. This wreckwas hauled down to Fort Eustison a commercial flatbed and installed with great pride in thetraining area. Apparently the instructors would push it over abank and then haul it out withwreckers to show the studentsproper crash rescue and recoveryprocedures.

This aspect of the training program eventually caused a bit oftrouble to the Aviation Department. Among the instructors wasa very eager first lieutenant-areal bug as far as airplanes wereconcerned. On nights and weekends, he would go dowri to thecrash rescue site and work on the]2

engine. He finally fixed it upenough to run, but it made somuch noise and caused so manycomplaints from residents on thepost that the IG made an inquiryand declared it to be illegal.In our efforts to establish proper maintenance training procedures, we soon learned that:standards of aircraft logistics areextremely rigid, aircraft components are most sensitive to logistics, aviation supply is an extremely complicated matter, andan acceptable level of aircraftavailability cannot be attainedin terms of the supply responseadequate for ground vehicles.Furthermore, we learned that aircraft, once procured, no matterhow refined in design and quality,require a high level of maintenance.

Each plane had its own complement of. special tools as wellaf its individual peculiarities andsensitivities to certain maintenance techniques. This was something new. Our experience withrailway equipment, landing craft,and trucks had not, to say theleast, completely prepared us forthis new role with its finer tolerances. After all, with a truck orboat, if something goes wrong,you can stop in the shade or drift;with an airplane, you do not havethis alternative. A basic philosophy was adopted and continuestoday: Out of ground effect isno time to discover the part wasfaulty or the mechanic untrained.Each must be proved before becoming a part of the aircraft oraviation team.

Another problem confrontingthe School was that of securingthe proper type of equipment foruse in training. The tool systemhad not caught up with the aircraft. We often found that wehad to improvise. For example,

Particularly vexing problemsencountered resulted from lack ofcontinuity of assignments and thedifficulty of maintaining a reservoir of skilled aviation maintenance personnel. As aircraft became more complex and theinventory rose, maintenance andmechanical problems also becamemore complex. Aircraft were being brought into the inventorymore rapidly than the MOS code,which identified the skill of themechanic, could be revised. As aresult, mechanics were beingtrained and fed into the maintenance system without an adequatemeans of identifying their typeof skill. The personnel people didnot always recognize the requirements of the aviation field. Theysometimes made personnel assignments on the basis that maintenance or supply were the samewhatever the type unit.

Many addi tions have beenmade to maintenance training



15/68

facilities. We now have grownfrom a few bays in boat sheds toa total of 36 buildings, occupyingover 540,000 square feet. Morespace and facilities are being builtor are on the drawing boards.During the past year, three newhangars have been constructedand 23 World War II buildingshave been converted to classroomsto accommodate the increasedworkload, which has grown about300 percent since the summer of1965.

Today the maintenance training program consists of 20 aviation maintenance military occupational specialty (MOS) producing courses and two other coursesfor officers. Nine of these coursesapply to rotary-wing aircraft, nineto both rotary-wing and fixedwing aircraft, and the remainingfour to fixed-wing only. Duringfiscal year 1967, in-resident student personnel in excess of 14,000will be undergoing training inthe aviation maintenance courses.Approximately 350 officers willreceive training in aircraft maintenance and 30 pilots will betrained annually in the AircraftMaintenance Test Pilot Course(UH-l). The Aircraft Mainte-nance Test Pilot Course is thenewest of the officer courses; thefirst class was graduated in September 1966. A total of 491 classesof all types will be conductedthroughout the coming year.

On an average day 3.200 enlisted students and 107 officerstudents in residence are attending 103 enlisted and five officercourses.

Nine different types of helicopters and six different types orfixed-wing aircraft are used fortraining in the aviation maintenance department at the presenttime. including the OH-6A(LOH) and the CH-54A FlyingCrane. Programs are being developed for the HueyCobra, the

JUNE 1967

Advanced Aerial Fire SupportSystem (AAFSS), and the U-21A.With extensive resources available, an ever growing body oftalent, and more efficient equip

ment to use for training, the contribution of the U. S. ArmyTransportation School to Armyaviation continues to keep pacewith aviation developments. Constant liaison is maintained withindustry. Experiences in Vietnamare being studied and pertinentchanges are already being madein the curriculum and in methodsof ins truction.

Great progress has been madein Army aviation in the past 25. years; growth continues as current challenges are met and futurerequirements anticipated . Thecontribution that Army aviationis making in Southeast Asia, indeed throughout the world, isbeing documented in many waysand in many forms. We might askourselves, When can or whenwill its contribution be assessed?It is probably a bit too early to

make any conclusive assessment.Everyday, through experiencegained in teaching aviation maintenance or in studying the achievements of the graduates of theTransportation School, we findthat change is needed here, thatimprovement is required there.New units are being created. Newequipment is coming into theinventory.Army aviation is now in theprocess of receiving its first bigfield test. Its capabilities are being tested under a variety of condi tions, and new lessons are constantly being learned. It is functioning as an effective member ofthe military team. This may bethe answer to the question of howor when will the contribution ofArmy aviation to he overallArmy effort, indeed that of theTransportation School to Armyaviation, be assessed. In the finalanalysis, the .achievements of theteam are dependent upon the individual contribution of eachmember.

Students at Fort Eustis receive instruction on a CH 34 transmission


16/68

ARMY AVIATIONthe newest mem er of the te m

The real reason Army aviation has progressed so dynamicallyis that it has never lost sight of its real purpose: to augmentthe capability of land forces to conduct prompt and sustainedcombat operations incident to land warfare.

Maior General Robert H YorkCommandant U S Army Infantry School

VERYONE is looking up toArmy aviation, and right'iy so.

Remember when the InfantryDivision was authorized onlyaviators and 10 aircraft? Comparethis to the modern airmobile division with over 938 aviators and434 organic aircraft. What accounts for Army aviation's growthby seven league bounds? Whatfed it and kept it alive duringthe cutback in military resourceswhich occurred after World War

and Korea? What is its future?The Army airmobility concept

was born of necessity to reducethe widening gap between firepower and mobility of the individual soldier. That gap, oncerecognized, had to be breached iwe were to maintain a balanceamong the combat functions offirepower, mobility, intelligence,support and command and control.

So' time and circumstances dictated the airmobile approach. Theconcept was developed, tested,and as we all well know, it has14

withstood the final test of combat. But what about the formativedays of Army aviation? Why didit grow so rapidly and strong?The real reason Army aviationhas progressed so dynamically isthat it has never lost sight of itsreal purpose: to ugment thecapability of land forces to con-duct prompt nd sustained com-bat operations incident to l ndwarfare In my opinion the keyword here is augment} because byproviding this essential augmentation to our combat forces, Armyaviation has taken its rightfulplace alongside the other members of the Army team.

Another major reason Armyaviation has become a full-fledgedand highly respected member ofthe Army team is through thedemonstrated professionalism ofthe men who make up its ranks.

This professionalism not onlyapplies to the officer and warrantofficer aviators but also to themany others who perform the lessglamorous but nevertheless im-

portan t tasks from crewchief tofuel truck driver. These are unsung heroes, bu a lion's share ofthe credit must be attributed tothem. Perhaps special recognitionshould go to crewchiefs, many ofwhom not only must fly longhours wi th their aircraft, bu t alsoput in equally long weary hoursmaintaining them under the worstpossible field conditions. It wouldbe impossible to fully recognizeall the many different jobs beingdone by these soldiers, but thespirit to render the best possibleservice has permeated throughoutthe men of Army aviation and isstrongly reflected in their prideof performance. Although theirindividual contributions vary, collectively they make up the totaleffort, and that effort is overwhelming

I could reiterate some of theimpressive statistics accrued bythe men of Army aviation, but bythe time you read this article theywill undoubtedly be surpassedby others even more impressive.Besides, statistics are not all that



17/68

Obstacles such as dense jungle right) slow down and tire the infantryman. ButArmy aviation provides the means to bypass these obstacles and arrive in thetarget area fresh and ready for combat above)

important. What s important isthe feeling of mutual respect thatis being established as a result oftheir deeds and the developingreliance on Army aviation by theother members of the Army team.N ow that Army airmobility isan integral part of our thinkingwhat is it doing to further en-hance its future? In SoutheastAsia, this bold new concept hasopened a dimension in warfarethat is perhaps the greatest tacti-cal innovation since the Germanblitzkrieg of World War II.

Because of it we are now ableto employ more effectively oursingularly most important asset-a physically fit, well equippedhighly motivated combat soldieron or very> near his assignecLo.b-jective area. His strength is nolonger sapped by exposure torigorous approach marches overdifficult terrain. Instead he hasJUNE 1967

bypassed that terrain by helicop-ter. We have emplaced him re-placed him resupplied him andelimina ted his need to burdenhimself with heavy equipment.We have reinforced him and pro-vided close intimate fire supportwhen he got into a scrap. Mostsignificantly, we have withdrawnhim from one area within thebattlefield to another. All of thesehave been accomplished over andover again by aerial meansObviously then the value ofthe individual combat soldier hasbeen greatly increased throughArmy aviation simply because wecan now accomplish much morewith our resources.

In addition to being able torapidly deploy airmobile forcesand their equipment and suppliesabout the battle area, Army avia-tion has performed other essentialcombat functions equally well.

Through the speed and range ofthe aerial vehicle and its abilityto overfly obstacles, the procure-ment of timely, accurate intelli-gence information by our combatforces has been tremendously in-creased. Army aircraft have pro-vided the ground commanderswith airborne eyes and ears thathave significantly enhanced theirreconnaissance, surveillance andtarget acquisition efforts and en-abled them to greatly expandtheir area of influence.

Perhaps one of the greatest con-tributions Army aviation hasmade has been in the area ofcommand and control. In the pre-vious wars our Army has foughtcommanders in many instanceswere required to assess the tactical

Continued on page 625


18/68

TH TSOME ODYUP THEREupports his annoneer

Major General Harry H. CritzCommandant, U. S. Army Artillery and Missile School

F OR AN 80-YEAR period extending from the Civil Warthrough the ini tial commi tmen tof U. S. Forces in World War II,field artillerymen valued aviation as a supplement to groundobservation teams, and it wasn t awholly reliable supplement atthat. Whether it was a hydrogenfilled balloon of Civil War vintageor a stubby Piper Cub, the mission was the same-observe andadjust fire. It was for this purposethat aviation organic to the artillery was first authorized on June6 1942, at Fort Sill, Okla.

Today, the artilleryman s appreciation of aviation has sharp-16

ened. Operations being conductedin Vietnam bear witness to amuch larger role than that whichprompted the War Departmentto provide the artillery wi th organic aircraft. Aircraft now servenot only as aerial observationplatforms, but provide the Armywith airmobile capabilities, aerialresupply, aerial reconnaissance,and a growing aerial artillery firesupport. Despite these innovations and diverse applications ofaviation, the role of observationnow merits greater emphasis thanever before.Aerial observers were first tactically employed by U . S. forces

during the Civil War. ProfessorThaddeus Lowe became the firstaerial forward observer of anAmerican unit when he successfully directed artillery fire froma balloon against Confederateforces on September 24, l86l.Aerial observers continued t support Union ground forces throughout the Civil War with varyingdegrees of success.Balloonists were trained at FortSill during World War I, and balloon units continued their training until the last unit was deactivated in 1942. Only one balloon was on station at Fort Sillat the outbreak of World War I,

U. S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


19/68

but with America's entry into theconflict, the artillery's penchantfor balloon observation ushered ina hectic period of training.During World War I, Fort Sillwitnessed the construction of the

Henry Post Airfield, named inhonor of Second Lieu tenan tHenry B. Post, a pioneer militaryaviator, who was killed in an airplane accident near San Diego,Calif. on February 9 1914. Construction of the field started Augus t 8 1917, and the field wassufficiently completed by January1918 to accommodate the balloonschool-a five-week course with acapacity for 315 students.A Balloon Corps training schoolwas established at the post whereaviators and observers weretrained and special technicalcourses were given to enlistedpersonnel. During the war years,the school trained more than 700balloon officers and organized 89balloon companies. Thirty-threeof these companies were sentoverseas.

Although development of theairplane during World War Imade the balloon obsolete, theArtillery saw little applicationfor the airplane in an observationrole. Thus, balloon companieswere kept on active duty throughthe years between the two worldwars.

What dealt the balloons theirdeathblow was the inevitableadoption of the airplane for aerialobservation purposes. The decision to use the plane for this purpose was not a sudden change ofheart but merely a revival of tacticians' though s. Also, development of the airplane had progressed significan tly from the

Ba oons played an important role as o b s e r ~vation platforms in the early history ofArmy aviation. But they were extremelyvulnerable to airplanes and fire. The b l ~loon t right bursts into flames andjures 24 men on the afternoon of 2 April1918 t Post Field, Fort Sill, OklaJUNE 1967

planes used in the Army as earlyas 1915.

t was in 1915 that America'sfirst squadron arrived at Fort Sillto conduct experiments in artillery fire observation. Designatedthe First Aero Squadron, the unitconsisted of airplanes of the J. N.tractor type (Curtiss JN3). Inclement weather conditions and mechanical difficul ties grounded theplanes for more than two months.As a result, the experiment failedto convince the artilleryman ofthe airplane's potential.

While at Fort Sill, however, thesquadron did contribute a firstin aviation. The first aerial photomosaic was developed, using aBrock automatic camera. Theaerial photographic work done atthis time resul ted in the redesignof the Brock camera and in furtherdevelopment of aerial cameras.

Only one plane was stationed atFort Sill at the outbreak of WorldWar II. Development of aerialobservation with planes continuedon a sporadic and generally ineffective course until 1941. A variety of aircraft were in the experiments, including a strange lookingcraft, tagged an autogiro, whichprovided a modified plane bodywith rotor blades. At that time

no one could see any use for theweird looking flying machine.

In 1941 aviation organic to theArtillery received its big shot inthe arm which led to the establishment of the Air Training Department at the Artillery Schoolat Fort Sill in 1942. Results fromlarge maneuvers undertaken inMay 1941 and later trials in Tennessee during June resulted inrecommendation to the War Department that the light airplanesbe made a regular component ofthe artillery. But it may havebeen an article wri tten by MAJWilliam W. Ford, a field artilleryman, aviation enthusiast, andsportsman pilot, which served asthe major inducement to the WarDepartmen ' s proposal. In hisarticle Major Ford outlined hisconcept of aviation in the FieldArtillery. The article, publishedin the FIELD ARTILLERYJOURNAL, was forwarded toMG Robert M. Danford, then theChief of Field Artillery.

Following a visit to Fort Silland a discussion of aviation withMajor Ford, General Danford resubmitted an earlier recommenda tion to the War Departmen tthat light aircraft manned by artillery officers be made organic to


20/68

That omebody p There Under the organization inaugurated in 1942, two airplanes-Iowperformance aircraft of the PiperCub type-two pilots, and onemechanic were made organic toeach field artillery battalion, toeach divisional field artillery headquarters, and to each field artillerybrigade or group headquarters.Thus, each infantry division wasauthorized 10 aircraft-2 in eachof the four field artillery battalions and 2 in the division artillery headquarters-and each armored division was authorized 6aircraft-2 in each of the threefield artillery battalions. It wasnot until later that the armoreddivision had an artillery headquarters.

division and corps artillery units.Prematurely, the recommendationwas disapproved. Major GeneralLeslie J McNair, Chief of Staffof General Headquarters and laterthe first Commanding General ofthe Army Ground Forces, felt thata fair trial must be given the newsystem of air support commandsand generally favored the massingof suppon elemen ts as opposed toGeneral Danford's proposal.Subsequently, however, the Office of the Chief of Staff ordereda test of General Danford's proposal. After the originally scheduled test was interrupted by theattack on Pearl Harbor, the Sec-ond Infantry Division and the13th Field Artillery Brigade weredesignated test units. LieutenantColonel Ford, recently promotedfrom major, was placed in chargeand the tes t was ordered to proceed at Fort Sill.

Major Gordon J. Wolf, a reservist who had been corresponding with Colonel Ford, was recalled to duty to help selectpersonnel for the test group andorganize the air training detachment under which they wouldfunction.

Instruction began on 15 J anuary 1942. The students, thereafterreferred to as the Class BeforeOne, were divided into A and Bflights. Instruction consisted offlight and ground training, andboth of these were further dividedinto three stages.

Training was completed at FortSill on February 28, 1942. Thecivilian instructors returned totheir homes while the Class Before One students split into twogroups and departed for continued testing elsewhere.By the end of April 1942, thetests were completed, and thegroups reassembled at Fort Sill toawait the outcome of more than18

three months of tedious work.The boards appointed to observe the tests were impressed.

Their findings and recommendations to the War Department highly favored organic aviation for fieldartillery units. Despite concernover the vulnerability of the lightplanes, General Headquartersconcurred in the recommendations.

On June 6 1942, the War Department authorized organic Armyaviation. That same month, Lieutenant Colonel Ford was promoted to colonel and named director of the Department of AirTraining of the Field ArtillerySchool.Al though the Artillery hadproved the advantage and thefeasibility of organic aviation, itcould not rest on its laurels. Opposition to the concept of organicaviation persisted and was heardon several occasions. Frictionsoon developed between the ArmyGround Forces and the Army AirForces over the organization andcontrol of liaison aviation. Thisissue was further complicated in1943 when the question arose asto what type of plane should beused by the ground force. In thisyear General McNair, who bythis time had been firmly convinced of the need for organicaviation, offered the followingarguments:

The planes are right wherethey are needed, not back at somecentralized airfield.The present organization, unlike any other, insures satisfactory

unit communications.By daily association, completeunderstanding between the pilotsand other battalion officers isobtained.

It wasn't until more than ayear later that organic aviationwas assured permanence.

With the organization established, necessary courses for thistactical training were organizedin the Air Training Departmentset up in the Field Artillery Schoolat Fort Sill. The first graduationoccurred on September 18, 1942,with 18 graduates constituting thefirst class to follow the Class Before One. A majority of the earlygraduates and all available planesexcept those used for training atthe school were sent overseas toinitiate the equipping of unitstaking part in the invasion ofNorth Africa.

While the first graduates wereexperiencing combat action, training at Fort Sill continued. TheArmy Aviation School reached apeak enrollment of almost 300students and by the end of thewar 263 pilots and 2,262 mechanicshad been trained there.

It was from combat reports thatthe Army recognized that requirements existed for aircraft usageother than merely for observation.In 1943, artillery aviators startedaerial medical evacuation, particularly in jungle areas of theSouth Pacific. At the same time,artillery aviators in both theatersbegan flying limited supply, com-

U S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


21/68

munication relay, surveillance andreconnaiss3.nce and wire layingmissions. In addition, they alsowere used in controlling advancing armor and infantry, and making aerial photographs.By the end of the war, prepara-tions were underway to expandorganic aviation to other branchesbased on the variety of missionsundertaken by aviators in combat.

During the late forties, testswere conducted on various modelsof observation planes to replacethe L-4, which was used extensively during the war. Most werefound wanting, although the L-17,thought to be strictly an airportairp lane, later far ou tperformedits supposed capabilities in Korea.Finally, the Army settled on theL-19, which was designed byCessna. The original contract for420 L-19s was let in 1950. The aircraft, with slight modifications, toinclude designation (now 0-1),remains, pending replacement bythe light observation helicopter.

While the Army was trying todecide on a light observationplane for the Artillery, trainingcontinued at Fort Sill with theL-4 Piper Cub and a variety ofexperimental models.Much of the aviation trainingat Fort Sill was concerned withfixed-wing aircraft; however, rotary-wing aircraft were to play amost important part of theSchool s overall operations.

The acceptance of the helicopter gave the Army greater mobility and versatility and gave FortSill aviation a heavier trainingrequiremen .

This latest concept in aVIatIOnwas introduced formally to FortSill in October 1948 when theArmy established the advancedtactical training course there.Colonel Hubert D. Gaddis set upthe flight training course andflight standardized the first Armyrotary-wing instructor pilots. InAugust 1954, when the Army Avi-JUNE 1967

L 4s with pontoons were tested at Fort Sill during World War IIation School was moved to CampRucker from Fort Sill, the rotarywing course was changed from asection of the flight departmentto a department of its own.While at Fort Sill, aviatorswere trained to fly the H-25 andthe OH-13 helicopters. With arequirement for a greater numberof pilots, the Army implementedthe first warrant officer class atFort Sill in 1951. August 1953witnessed the first full class ofthese rotary-wing aviators.Also in 1953 the first instru-ment examiners course was startedat Fort Sill. The LC-126 was theinstrument trainer for the firstfour examiners.

The loss of the Aviation Schoolin 1954 dealt a blow to Fort Sill saviation activity, but did not terminate it. A new role was adoptedfor Fort Sill in 1955 with thetraining of CH-34 Choctaw helicopter aviation companies.

Instrument training resumed atFort Sill in 1957. The Cessna 182sand Piper Comanches were usedas primary instrument trainers forthis program. The Spartan Aviation School and, later, Ross Aviation were the instrument programcontractors. In addition to thisprogram, tes ts were begun on theT-37 Cessna jets which were to beused as high performance planesfor artillery observation.

During the summer of 1958, the

54th Transportation Companyreceived twelve CH-37 mediumhelicopters. The CH-37 was thefirst helicopter with the capabilityto lift a 105-mm howitzer andcrew. CH-37s and attached slingloads were a common sight at FortSill until the Chinook assumedthe old Mojave s role.

Fort Sill was first affected bythe growing involvement in Vietnam when Headquarters andHeadquarters Detachment of the45th Transportation BattalionHeadquarters deployed in 1961.This Sill unit, which had servedas training headquarters, was thesecond aviation unit to move toVietnam.

The loss of Fort Sill s aviationtraining headquarters broughtnew changes, and the aVIatIOnunits stat ioned at Fort Sill wereassigned to the 1st Field ArtilleryBrigade. This was Fort Sill s aviation headquarters until 1963 whenthe Artillery Aviation Group(Provisional) was formed.

Aviation continued growing anddiversifying at Fort Sill as a newbreed of tiger was born. Thearmed helicopter tiger coursewas implemented in 1963 to trainhelicopter aviators in tactical, terrain and combat flying.It was also in 1963 that FortSill became further qualifiedmedium weight in the Army

aviation arena. The CH-37 Mo-19


22/68

That omebody Up There viding our maneuver forces witartillery fire suppDrt. This systemhas the capability not only to deliver indirect fire from thground, bu t also to fire on targetof DppDrtunity frDm the air whilmoving to a new position. Furthedevelopment of the aerial artillerc ncept will lead to even moravenues fDr employment of a sytem of this type. At present, method of quickly detaching throcket mounts from the aircrais being develDped. This development wDuld allow the battery tcontinue firing from dug-in postions while the aircraft were being used for ammunition resupply. Wars, both present and future, could use a system as flexibland mobile as this.

javes, already on station, werejoined by the CV-2 Caribou ofthe 57th Aviation Company. FortSill aviation was now capable ofmoving the artillery to just aboutany place at any time.With Fort Sill s Arti llery Aviation Group capable of handlingany assigned mission, III CorpsArtillery moved on post in August1964. Henry Post Army Airfieldhad a new face to meet these requirements. Three new hangarsand a cDmplete taxiway could nowhandle any aircraft in the Armyinventory. The Artillery AviationGroup (Provisional) was redesignated the Artillery AviationCDmmand.With an expanding traInIngprogram, Fort Sill branched outinto other areas. With a need formore responsive fire support forairmobile forces, test and evaluatiDn of future fire support systemswas initiated in 1963. In Marchof that year the Committee forAerial Artillery Test and Evaluation (CAATE was formed. Thecommittee was composed Df members from each department of theSchool with the director of theGunnery Department as chairman. To provide the committeewith an DrganizatiDn capable ofaccomplishing its required missions, the 1st Aerial Artillery Battery (ProvisiDnal) was organizedin May of that year.

One of many missions assignedthe committee was to determinethe most feasible means of employing aerial artillery. Four CH-34sand 50,000 rDunds of 4.5-inchrocket ammunition were madeavailable for test purposes.Since direct firing of aerialrockets was an accomplished fact,emphasis was placed on developing a suitable indirect fire capability. Certain adaptations wererequired before the CH-34 heli-20

copter could be used fDr this purpose. One 10-tube, 4.5-inch rocketpod was affixed to each side ofthe aircraft. Initially all quadrantelevation and traverse was accomplished manually. Later developments resulted in a more sophisticated system featuring electrically controlled quadrant elevation and traversing mechanisms.

Although this system has yet toaccomplish the accuracy desiredfor a direct support artillerypiece, progress has been made toward an acceptable weapon. Theability of the aerial artillery battery to receive a fire mission in theair, to land, and to complete themission with indirect fire was aptly demonstrated by the test group.The battery was laid for directionand the first rounds in adjustmentwere on the way in 2Y2 minutesafter the first aircraft landed. Firefrom two aircraft equaled that ofa battalion of 105-mm howitzersfiring two vDlleys.

In April 1964, for the first timein the histDry of the Artillery, anaircraft was placed on line withother artillery weapons at FortSill s Artillery Firepower DemonstratiDn. This was true recognition by the Artillery and MissileSchool of the concept of a flyingartillery weapon.

Tests have proved the helicopter-mDunted rocket system to beas accurate as the ground launcherfor the same rocket. However,research indicates product improvement in the rocket propellant and launcher conditions willincrease range and accuracy forthe aerial system. The feasibilityof combining the 4.5-inch rocketand the UH-I helicDpter is beingconsidered.

The First Aerial Artillery Battery (PrDvisional), in its testingat Fort Sill, has given the Armyan entirely new concept for pro-

Fort Sill s cDntributiDn to aviatiDn spans a period of more tha50 years. Indications are thatwill continue. Artillery observation testing and training broughthe first tactical Army aviatiosquadron to Fort Sill in 1915 anit was fDr this purpose that Dganic aviation was authorized 2years later in 1942. As U. S. unibecame engaged in combat, avition was fDund to be extremeluseful in Dther aspects of opertions. Artillerymen were early iexpressing their preference fothe plane over the balloon andin turn, promoted the adoptioof the helicopter.

ThroughDut the gradual dvelDpment of Army aviation, thveteran redleg, recDgnizing thsignificance of aerial suppormustered greater respect fDr thArmy aviator.

Having gained the cDnfidencof the veteran redleg, the ArmaviatDr continues to strive foeven greater proficiency in suporting the Artillery. Howevehe retains enough professiDnpride never to allow the artilleryman to forget that he s that sombody up there watching out fhim.

U S. ARMY AVIATION DIGES


23/68


24/68

The lying Part of rmorIt has that great advantage of

not being restricted by the terrain, thus markedly enhancing theelements of surprise and subsequent shock effect on the enemy.

Lack of a ground gaining andholding capability of our presentaviation units should be recognized by all commanders and off-set by integrating their combatpower and favorable characteristics with the ground forces' planof operation. No pure force, tank,infantry, etc., possesses all the ingredients essential to conduct ef-fective sustained combat operations. It was recognized early byarmor leaders that Army aviationfrom inception was a necessarypart of the combined arms team.

The first use of Army aviationelements to extend the reconnaissance capability of ground elements cannot easily be fixed. InWorld War II, for example, Cubsorganic to the field artillery battalions were used on numerousoccasions t perform reconnaissance for ground elements otherthan their parent organizations.The arming of the first Army air-

craft would also be very difficultto specifically pin down. It isknown, however, that an aviatorin the 4th Armored Division asearly as August 1944 threw handgrenades from his iper Cub.Later he wired the struts of theaircraft with bazookas on eachside.I am sure tha t many other ideaswere in the minds of our earlyArmy aviators that were not triedfor one reason or another. Thefact remains that the concept ofusing Army aircraft in a unit designed to perform the tradi tionalmissions of armored cavalry wasborn through the farsightednessof many officers. This discussionof the air cavalry concept is notintended to be a historical recordwith documentation, but is to outline the development and growthof this concept.

AIR C VALRY CONCEPTDevelopmen t of the air cavalry

concept was based on the needfor a reconnaissance and securityunit with greater mobility thanground mobile forces.

The first experimental SkyCav company was organized andtested on Exercise Sagebrush in1955. A follow-on Sky Cav company (provisional) was organizedand tested in 1957 on ExerciseSledge Hammer. These test results indicated the feasibility ofintegrating Army aviation elements with ground elements, butfurther study and testing wereneeded to perfect a suitable organizational structure.

In 1957 the term Sky Cavwas replaced by the term AerialCombat Reconnaissance. TheArmy Aviation School already hadby this time an ACR platoon(provisional) that had been conducting demonstrations at FortRucker, Fort Benning, Fort Knox,and other military installations.These demonstrations greatly as-sisted in spreading the word andstimulating imagination and interest in the promising capabilities of air cavalry units.

The first Aerial Combat Reconnaissance Company (experimental) was activated in 1958 at FortRucker. Aircraft organic to thisunit were equipped with weaponssystems fabricated and designedat Fort Rucker. This unit, al-

Left: General Bruce Clark of CONARCvisits the Aviation School in late 1960where MG Ernest F. Easterbrook center),the school commandant briefs him onearly helicopter armament experimentsMAJ Carroll M. Cook ACR company com-mander pOints to a kit which lateevolved into the M-1 and M-2 armamensubsystems. WO Clarence J. Carter oACR is at right. Above: a closeup of thekit Major Cook is pointing outU.S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


25/68

though equipped wi th jerry-rigweapons systems, demonstratedsuch potential it caused many ofthe doubters to change their viewson the armed helicopter mobiletask force.

Major General Robert Growsaid, Leading cavalrymen havecontended from time immemorial,reconnaissance to be effectivemust include fighting; therefore,our reconnaissance units must beable to survive and accomplishtheir mission on the modern battlefield. The ACR company wasgiven this capability tQ fight forinformation through use of itsarmed helicopters and airmobileelements. Although the ACR company was never fully tested in thefield, it did accomplish, throughthe use of many demonstrations,the objective of assisting in gettingother actions taken which didresult in a similar unit beingorganized and tested.

The Armor School made itscontributions to the Sky Cav andACR units through recommendations to CONARC, direct liaisonwith the Army Aviation School,providing test evaluators, andclosely monitoring the entire program. During this period, theArmor School was also applyingall the capabilities of this conceptto the area of traditional missionsperformed by armored cavalryunits. Therefore, it was no surprise when CONARC in 1959 directed the Armor School to prepare advance plans for an armedhelicopter mobile task force whichwas to be specifically designed toaugment the traditional missionsperformed by armored cavalryelements. The school was furtherdirected to prepare a draft training text and a tentative plan oftest.

In meeting the requirementsoutlined in these directives, theArmor School worked in close co-ordination with the Army Aviation School. The unit designedJUNE 1967

The 55 10 on the H-13 above) is an early helicopter armament experimentwas an Aerial Reconnaissance andSecurity Troop (ARST) whichclosely paralleled the organizationof the ACR company. The original uni t proposed by the ArmorSchool was as shown in the diagram on this page. It is significant to note the similarity of thisoriginal unit with the present aircavalry troop. This is primarilydue to the original unit beingorganized with a combined armsteam, a combat proved organizational concept that optimizesflexibility.

The weapons systems were thebest that had been developed atFort Rucker. The ARS test troopwas organized a t Fort Benningand in January 1960 moved toFort Stewart for training and testing. Final results of this test

1 LOH

1 LOH

1 HELCARGO,IT)

proved beyond a shadow of adoubt the requirement for andthe feasibility of the air cavalryconcept.

This unit was also evaluated inEurope on Winter Shield I in1960. A provisional ARS troopwas activated and trained underthe supervision of the 14th Armored Cavalry Regiment. TheArmor School provided the regiment with all the informationthat was available at that time toassist them in training and operat-ing. The troop was attached tothe 14th Armored Cavalry Regiment for the entire exercise, although it did perform missionsfor other ground elements.

The ARS troop was the firs t aircavalry unit that really had thecapability with its aircraft and

44 HEL,CARGO, LT

1 HEL 1 HEL 1 LOHCARGO, CARGO,LT) LTl

3


26/68

The lying Part of rmorarmamen t systems to perform thetraditional missions of the armoredcavalry. It, like our present aircavalry troop, was primarily employed to extend the security andreconnaissance of a ground element by working in conjunctionand in close coordination withthe supported ground element.This does not mean that it cannot operate independently but itis most effective when employedwith a ground force.

In 1961 Armor School representatives headed a test and evaluation team wh ose primary objective was to determine if the lightobservation helicopter (LOH)could be maintained and logistically supported, if assigned at thearmored cavalry troop level. Anair scout section consisting of fourLO H was assigned to an armoredcavalry troop, 8th Cavalry, 4thInfantry Division. Tests were conducted at Fort Lewis and YakimaFiring Center.

The air scou t section performedits own organizational level support, and backup organizationalmaintenance support was providedby helicopter mechanics who hadbeen integrated into the squadron's maintenance elements. Scouthelicopters remained with thetroop at all times and were employed by the troop commanderto augment and extend his reconnaissance and security capability.Test results indicated that theLOH could live with the armoredcavalry troop, could be maintained by the pilot and crewchiefobserver, and could be logisticallysupported in the same manner asother troop elements.

In 1962 the air cavalry troopwas made organic to the divisional armored cavalry squadronwi th the reorganization of theArmy division under ROAD. TheTOE for this troop provided it

with the most advanced helicopters and armament systems. Somearmament systems specifically designed by civilian industry throughthe research and developmentprogram of the Army were nowavailable.

It was also in 1962 that theArmor School provided representatives for the Army Tacticalbility Requirements Board (theHowze Board) that was beingformed. The work of this boardlaid the foundation for the fundamental concept for the 11 th AirAssault Division, Air CavalrySquadron, and Air Cavalry Combat Brigade.The Air Cavalry Combat Brigade later changed to the AirCavalry Brigade and was neverorganized, primarily due to otherhigher priority commitments foraviation equipment and personnel.

The th Air Assault Divisionhad an organic air cavalry squadron. This squadron now is organized with three air cavalrytroops and one ground armoredcavalry troop. The 1st CavalryDivision (Airmobile) has beenoperating very successfully inVietnam for over a year. Its aircavalry squadron, 1/ 9 Cavalry,has proved itself in combat.

In 1964 an air cavalry troop replaced the aviation company organic to the armored cavalryregiments.

Two separate air cavalry squadrons, 3/ 17 and 7/ 17 Cavalry, wereactivated at Fort Knox in November 1966. These squadrons areorganized under the same TO E ofthe air cavalry squadron organicto the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile).

Air cavalry units presently authorized in the Army include: oneair cavalry troop organic to eachdivisional armored cavalry squadron; one air cavalry troop Of-

ganic to each armored cavalryregiment; one air cavalry squadron organic to the 1st CavalryDivision (Airmobile) ; and twoseparate air cavalry squadrons intraining at Fort Knox, Ky.I think it is obvious to everyone that the air cavalry conceptis on the move. Advanced scoutand fire support helicopters willbe entering the inventory of Armyaircraft in the near future thatwill greatly enhance the capability of these units to perform theircombat mission.DIVISIONAL COMMAND ANDCONTROL HELICOPTERS

Armor historically has usedArmy aviation elements to assistin the command and control ofits formations. General 1 D.White, when he was commanderof the 8th U. S Army in Koreasaid, Army aircraft have been mylong right arm. With them I canreach out to any part of the command as the need arises."

Armor commanders need Armyaviation support for performingsuch missions as radio relay, formation control, command visits,staff visits, liaison activities, etc.The Armor School position onthe G-series TOE as pertains tocommand and control aircraftau thorized is that there are notenough. The division headquarters command aviation sectionneeds more than six helicopters ifit is to fulfill its mission. Forexample, where will the DISCOM(division support command) elements get helicopter support forcommand and control? These elements are scattered throughoutthe division's area of operation,and it has been proved that thetactical elements aren't going toofar without this support.Brigades need more than fourLOR becaust each commanderof the attached combat maneuverbattalions should have one LOHunder his operational control, in

24 U S ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


27/68

addition to requirements of brigade headquarters. Divisional armored cavalry squadron headquarters should be provided withan organic aviation section forcommand and control. The squadron commander should not usehelicopters assigned to the aircavalry troop for this purpose.This would be the same as takinga reconnaissance vehicle or tankfrom one of the ground cavalrytroops.After-action reports from Vietnam reinforce this need for increasing divisional command andcontrol helicopters. We shouldtake another hard look at thedivisional requirements for organic Army aviation support.

FUTURE TRENWhere does Armor go fromhere? Within the decade a newhighly sophisticated main battle

tank will appear. Although thistank will possess a greatly enhanced capability in firepower,protection, and mobility, it willstill be tied to moving and fighting on the ground. Yet, at thepresent moment a bold new ideaof mo,ring and fighting from theair by ground forces is emerging.

The Infantry has taken full advantage of the potential of airmobile formations to ride theriflemen to the battle scene wherehe dismounts to fight on foot.The air cavalry units conductreconnaissance and security operations from the air to complementthe ground force formations. Asmobility of our ground forces in

crease, the need for more air cavalry units will continue to grow.Armor is looking forward to aDynamic Tri-dimensional Mobility (DTM) concept for maneuver

ing and fighting mounted, fromair and ground combat vehicles.Integration of air-armor maneuverunits into armor formations willprovide a marked increase in rna.JUNE 1967

bility over present armor formations. These air-armor maneuverunits must live within the battleareas with other ground armorunits and have a capability ofseizing and holding ground. Yet,while these air-armor units liftfrom the ground, their firepowerand shock effect will remain andbe enhanced.

The key to the Armor DTMconcept will remain the balanceof firepower, protection, and mobility. Just maneuvering rapidlythrough the air without the capability to seize and hold groundwill be improper. Likewise, armorprotection to the point of reduc-

Armor looks to the futurewith the Dynamic Tri-dimensional Mobility DTM)

on ept which promisesair-armor maneuver unitsl iving among otherground armor units andboasting firepower, sho keffect, and a capabilityof seizing and holdinggrounding mobility and, therefore, losing rapid mobile reaction will beundesirable.

The Armor DTM concept willnot infringe upon the missions ofthe tactical air force, infantry airmobile forces, or even air cavalryforces. Army aviation elementswill play an even bigger role inthis concept, which assuredly willgrow and thrive on the battlefieldof the future. The horse was replaced by wheeled and trackedvehicles; yet, the role of the cavalry did not change to any extent,and its capability for conductingtradi tional missions was grea tly

enhanced. N either will the DTMconcept change Armor s role, butit will change its methods of operating and greatly enhance itscapabilities.

Charging horse-cavalrymen withdrawn sabers became a thing ofthe glorious past with development of the machinegun. Reluctantly, the cavalrymen dismountedfrom their horses and mountedth eir new fire-spurting armoredvehicles. Again, we face the challenge of mounting a portion ofour forces in air vehicles that dartabout the battlefield, very closeto the ground, bringing heavyvolumes of firepower to bear onthe enemy with great speed, surprise, and shock effect.

Major General Adna R. Chaffee said, I t is often said, and itmay be true in the abstract, thatthe principles of war do notchange. It is nevertheless, absa.lutely true that methods dochange and are constantly changing. We may study the great captains of the past to learn of theirprinciples and, above all, of theircharacter, ,but do not let us betied too much to their methods.For methods change with everychange of armament and equipment.

We will continue to stress, aswe have in the past, at the U. S.Army Armor School, that thearmor commander must take maximum advantage of the most favorable characteristics of each element of his combined arms team,which I am sure will continue togrow in Army aviation strengthand combat effectiveness.

take pleasure in extending mycongratulations to all Army aviation personnel, on the 25th anniversary of Army aviation, for ajob well done. am sure each ofyou will continue to exercise yourtechnical know-how, imagination,and ingenuity that has contributedso much to the success enjoyedby the Army aviation program.

25


28/68

T LO M KYtilt is with extreme pride deep humility and great expectation

that I congratulate Army aviation on its silver anniversary. I amproud to be associated with the magnificent men who wear theArmy aviators badge-humble s I recall the many whose fantasticaccomplishments in the skies over every battlefield of the last 25years have brought us to our position of high esteem today-havegreat expectations s I study the faces of our newest members shin-ing with dreams and plans of even greater deeds to come. --G P SENEFF JR. BG USA Commanding 1st Aviation Brigade.

T HEIR FLIGHT log boasts amillion hours in the skies ofVietnam. Their insignia depictan attacking golden hawk spreading its awesome talons, set againstthe sword of U. S Forces in Vietnam. Their motto is NguyHiem, the Vietnamese phrasemeaning DANGER. Flight plansfor their aircraft record theirpresence over Vietnam from the6

northern reaches of jungle covered mountains, southward to therice-rich paddies of the vast Mekong Delta.

This profile describes the officers and men of the Army s largest aviation unit, the 1st AviationBrigade. One must, however, seesuch an organization in action tofully realize its impact on the war,for the Army force structure has

not reflected an aVIatIOn unit ofthis magni tude since the ArmyAir Forces days of World War II.I t is necessary here to view thecourse of events which led to thebrigade s establishment in May of1966 before reviewing part of itsfirst year in operation as a fullfledged member of the ArmyTeam in Vietnam.

The year was 1965. The Army sU. S ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


29/68

air role was destined to play anincreasingly vital part in the Vietnam war-a war which was takingon the appearance, if only innumbers alone, of a conflict foughta few thousand miles to the northin the fifties. There was no doubtin 1965 that Army aircraft werein Vietnam to stay. Many morewere to come.

As D. S. ground troops pouredinto this region of Southeast Asiait became necessary to chartcourse for the arrival of greaternumbers of faster, larger, moresophisticated aircraft. This tookon urgent and immediate importance, as did pilots and crews toman them.

Aviation units settling in readily met the challenge as the massive buildup shifted into highgear. Battalions, companies, platoons, detachments, sections ofaviation, however small, were debarking at so fast a clip thatdiminishing control and management became apparent.

This rapidly changing situationspawned the inevitable. A headquarters was established to provide command, control and staffplanning for aviation units, otherthan divisional, to more effectively supP.ort D .. S. ARVN (ArmyRepublIc of VIetnam) and the increasing numbers of Free World

~ i l i t a r y Assistance Forces. Thisheadquarters was labeled an Avia

~ i o n Group (Provisional). LaterIn the same year it became the~ t h Aviation Group, commandIng the several battalions andcompanies of aviation which thendotted the battle map.

The months that followed sawArmy aviation reaching dimensions in Vietnam not dreamed ofa year before. Four of thesemonths had hardly elapsed beforeit was realized that arriving aviation uni s were ou tgrowing thecontrol of the new group. Theproblem was intense. The solution was obvious: another group.JDNE 1967

Few escape th fury of th HawksBy winter, the 17th AviationGroup was formed with a missionakin to that of the 12th.

Only the D. S. divisional organic aviation and special aviation support units remained outside the command of the twonewcomer groups.

It wasn't long after the oldArmy Support Group had blossomed into its own massive headquarters called D. S. Army, Vietnam, that the need for a singlesubordinate aviation headquartersbecame apparent. Needed was aheadquarters that would becharged wi th the hierarchy ofcommand, staff planning and administrative supervision of thetwo groups. The result was calledan Aviation Brigade (Provisional). On 23 May 1966 the bJ. i-gade became officially the 1stAviation Brigade.

July saw the creation of thenewly named Capital AviationBattalion by the brigade. In thewake of reorganization, the 13thAviation Battalion parted company from 12th Aviation Groupcontrol to continue Army aviation s involvement deep in theDelta.August found the 13th AviationBattalion and the Capital Aviation Battalion trading their variety of patches for that of theGolden Hawk. Early that month

the new shoulder patch had beenapproved by the Institute ofHeraldry.

Early 1967 saw more new unitscoming-to relieve men and machines who had been flying twiceas much as either are supposedto fly.

No major combat operationsince the brigade s inception hasfound itself without support inone form or another from one ormore of the brigade s ten battalions, whose 44 aviation com-

panies hold ti tIe to more thanhalf of the Army s aircraft onVietnamese soil.

The wide assortment of aircraftcast their shadows over the entirelength of Vietnam. These machines lent to combat operationsthe versatility and awesomenessof the Huey slicks and gunships;the strength of the Chinook; theeyes of the Bird Dog; the reliability of the Otter; the variety of theBeaver; the sophistication andelectronics of the Mohawk; and,for a few months, the STOLcapability of the Caribou.

The accomplishments of theseaircraft and the gallant men whofly them provide the basis for anyreview of the brigade s first year.A glance at their results is toknow success in combat.

During a 6-month period, astaggering 1,008,167 operationalsorties were flown under severeweather and hazardous combatconditions. Brigademen entered atctal of 460,069 hours in theirlogs for this half-year period inevery variety of mission. One

Continued on page 6327


30/68

Above: Professor Lowe at Fair Oaks

COLORFUL QUARTER CENTURYOF RMY VI TION IRCR FT

T HE OFFICIAL birthday of Army aviation is 6 June 1942, whenthe War Department authorized light aircraft organic to the FieldArtillery. However, this climaxed an endeavor that began on anotherJune

Army Aviation Digest - Jun 1967

Documents

Transcript of Army Aviation Digest - Jun 1967