FORT RILEY, Kan. -Soldiers and families from the 1stInfantry Division Combat Aviation Brigade gathered during a ceremony to mark the activation of Foxtrot Troop, 1st Attack Battalion, 1st Combat Aviation Brigade on January 23, 2026.

The Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System – Launched Effects (TUAS-LE) unit introduces advanced technology to the 1st Infantry Division, signifying a new chapter in Army aviation.

“Standing up a new unit is a significant moment,” said Army Cpt. Paul Shorkey-Chacon, company commander. “We’re here to activate a Troop that will push the Army forward. But as we look forward, we also need to acknowledge the legacy we now inherit. We are filling the role once held by 1-6 Air Cavalry Squadron and their Apache helicopters. They set a standard of excellence, and it’s our job to honor their history by building a future they’d be proud of.”

The activation of Foxtrot Troop represents the cutting edge of Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T), effectively extending the eyes and ears of Apache pilots, allowing them to detect, identify and engage threats long before they enter the enemy’s weapons engagement zone.

“As part of a sweeping modernization effort, we are retooling our formations to confront and defeat a contemporary peer threat,” said Army Col. Eric Megerdoomian,1st Combat Aviation Brigade commander. “This requires us to be more agile, more lethal and more resilient than ever before.”

The Soldiers of Foxtrot Troop are tasked with a mission that did not exist a decade ago. They will operate systems designed not just for surveillance, but the ability to confuse, disable and destroy adversary defenses autonomously or under the control of aviation crews.

Shorkey-Chacon ended his ceremonial speech with a message of resolve and mission focus.

“Wherever this Division goes, from Europe to the Middle East, to the Americas, I am proud that we are establishing this unit to get ahead of the threats we will face.”

Story by Joseph Siemandel

A story, years in the making, came to an end for the city of Oak Harbor when a CH-47 Chinook air crew from the Washington Army National Guard air lifted a World War II-era PBY-5a bomber from downtown Oak Harbor to the Pacific Northwest Naval Air Museum on January 21, 2026.

“This event marks a proud and memorable milestone not only for the PNW Naval Air Museum but also for the many volunteers, agencies, and government officials whose dedication and perseverance made it possible,” said Barry Meldrum, executive director of the Pacific Northwest Naval Air Museum. “It is truly a triumph for our community and for all who have supported the museum along the way. We are deeply grateful for the passion, hard work, and belief that helped turn this dream into reality.”

The event had significant meaning for Whidbey Island, which was home to a Squadrons of PBYs in 1942 when they were put into service during World War II. The PBY-5A served in patrol, search-and-rescue, and long-range bombing roles. Known for its versatility, it could operate from water or runways, dropping bombs/torpedoes and carrying heavy armament, serving as the “eyes of the fleet” in various roles from the Atlantic to the Pacific, with famous “Black Cat” night attack missions. The Navy retired the plane in 1957 and many found their way to plane bone yards, some to museums. In 2010 the museum won the plane in an auction and a private helicopter company lifted it to Oak Harbor. Since that time the museum has moved to a permanent location and wanted the PBY to also have a permanent display.

As the museum began looking at options of how to move the plane, they realized the issues they had moving something that heavy and large. They looked at trailering the plane, but the road system and crossings would be too small. They looked at using a boat but that still wouldn’t get it to the museum. That is when Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Mike Bobeck, former state aviation officer for the New York Army National Guard and museum board member, suggested tapping the Washington Army National Guard for assistance.

The team at the Pacific Northwest Naval Air Museum reached out to the Guard this past summer and began building the packet and conducting stress tests on the plane to see if it could withstand the air travel for one last trip.

“That is when we thought that maybe this is possible but of course needed to do that paperwork to see if it was allowed,” said Chief Warrant Officer Four Crosby Olsen, pilot in charge of the mission.

For the city of Oak Harbor, the significance of the day and the 83-year-old PBY-5a Catalina, were on full display the morning of January 20, 2025, when the aircrew flew in to attempt the lift. More than one thousand community members came out to watch as Guard members from Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 168th General Support Aviation began doing preparation for the lift and movement.

“The whole town came out to see this event,” said Olsen. “It’s a cool opportunity. I’ve been doing this for 18-and-a-half years and this is the first time something like this has come across for me to fly.”

Originally scheduled for October, this lift was postponed numerous times and almost didn’t happen and the morning of the 20th, spectators probably thought that the PBY would never make it to the museum. As the Chinook hovered about the PBY, the plane spun around right as it was lifting.

“We noticed that the amount of down draft coming off the Chinook was causing the PBY to move too much, and we knew that the window of time we had was limited so we decided that safety was the number one priority and disconnected and repositioned the plane,” said Crosby. “We came back the next morning with different equipment ready to go.”

Equipped with a long cable the Chinook lifted the PBY, hovering above the park before making the turn over the harbor and towards its forever home at the museum.

“Though I have been impressed on several occasions in my life, this experience will rank atop the list as the most inspiring, most jaw-dropping of operations I could have participated in. I am humbled by the professionalism and dedication of the Army National Guard and was privileged to work with them on this mission,” said Meldrum. “The determination and clear focus of the men and women who fixated on the success of this fantastic idea – with no casualties of any kind – was truly remarkable. Many thanks to everyone involved in making this happen. It took many months, and overcame many hurdles, but our friends at the Washington Army National Guard persisted. Thank you to the ‘slingers,’ engineers, mechanics and crew for the creativity to solve problems, and for agreeing to work with our ‘Old Lady.’ We all know there was no flight manual on how to lift a WWII PBY but working with everyone at the Guard was smooth and friendly.”

 

Story by Staff Sgt. Robert Whitlow

CLAY NATIONAL GUARD CENTER, Ga. – Master Sgt. Jerome “Jay” Rademacher’s military journey began in 1984, long before many of today’s Soldiers were born. On Dec. 7, 2025, surrounded by family, friends, and fellow Soldiers, he closed out more than 40 years in uniform at the Army Aviation Support Facility in Marietta, Georgia.

Before his retirement ceremony began, the focus was on a new beginning. Rademacher’s youngest son, Nathan, raised his right hand and took the oath of office, joining his father and two brothers in the ranks of those who wear the nation’s uniform. With one son already serving as a second lieutenant while deployed to Washington, D.C., and another as a sergeant in Army aviation, the commissioning completed a picture of service that spans two generations of the Rademacher family.

The commissioning ceremony followed longstanding Army traditions, including the oath and first salute. “This ritual recognizes those who have paved the way and is a commitment to serve with the same honor,” the master of ceremonies explained as Second Lieutenant Nathan Rademacher presented a silver dollar to his father.

With the new lieutenant’s first salute complete, the formation turned its attention to honoring a career that stretched across the active Army, Army Reserve, and Georgia Army National Guard. Rademacher’s service began as a combat medic after training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and Fort Sam Houston, Texas, followed by assignments at Fort Bliss and later as a flight medic and crew chief in the Reserve. He mobilized in support of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, joined the Georgia Army National Guard in 1995, and went on to serve as a Huey and Black Hawk crew chief, platoon sergeant, aviation maintenance inspector, and senior S3 noncommissioned officer for the 78th Aviation Troop Command.

Over four decades, he deployed to Kuwait and Iraq, supported disaster-response missions for hurricanes and other emergencies, and helped maintain aviation standards across the National Guard through years on the Aviation Resource Management Survey team. His decorations include the Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medals, multiple Army Commendation and Achievement Medals, campaign and service medals for Iraq and the Global War on Terrorism, the Master Aviation Badge, and the Combat Action Badge.

Speakers emphasized that his impact could not be captured by awards or dates alone. “Those words, and as comprehensive as they are in his bio, only capture part of who Master Sergeant Rademacher is, and what he has meant to our formation here, our aviation community, and our Army,” said Brig. Gen. Jason Fryman, commanding general of the 78th Aviation Troop Command. “For four decades, Master Sergeant Rademacher has embodied what it means to be a noncommissioned officer… with competence, honesty, and a level of reliability that made commanders breathe easier, Soldiers feel confident, and missions succeed.”

Captain Chris Garner, speaking on behalf of the 78th Aviation Troop Command, framed the day’s theme in a single word: time. “Master Sergeant Rademacher stands before us with 40 years in uniform. Just think about that for a second. That’s four decades… marked by dedication, leadership, mentorship, and impact,” he said. “He didn’t just exist in those 40 years, he filled them. He filled them with service, with purpose, and with an unwavering commitment to Soldiers.”

When it was his turn to speak, Rademacher kept his remarks characteristically modest and direct. Rademacher, who once enlisted “for the college money,” as he joked, ultimately filled four decades with service, completing a mechanical engineering degree from the Georgia Institute of Technology along the way and growing into one of the aviation community’s most experienced senior enlisted leaders. For Rademacher, some of the most meaningful moments came during natural disasters when aviation units brought help directly to communities in crisis. “When you actually help people and you see their faces, it really makes it all worth it,” he told the audience, reflecting on missions that supported hurricane and wildfire responses Rademacher closed by thanking those who had served alongside him and supported him, from Vietnam-era aviators who mentored him early in his career to the Soldiers he later trained, inspected, and led. Looking out at his family and the newest lieutenant in the Rademacher lineage, he left the Army knowing the legacy of service he helped build will continue long after his final formation.

Story by Joe Lacdan

SAN DIEGO — Last October, 1st Lt. Waverly Schnetzler jogged along rocky paths of Prehistoric Trackways National Monument, an expanse of the Chihuahuan Desert in New Mexico that sits 4,500 feet above sea level.

There in the backdrop of the Robledo Mountains, Schnetzler entered a backyard ultra; a grueling elimination ultra marathon where competitors run four-mile loops until one competitor remains. Also known as a “last man standing” race, exhausted runners file out one by one and the last remaining competitor gets crowned champion. Competitors run backyard ultras often more than 100 miles.

“She’ll approach something that’s crazy hard, and it’s fun for her,” said her triathlon coach, former USA athlete Amy Maxwell. “She’s got a really adventurous and curious spirit.”

The first lap circled near a thousand foot drop off. Every turn pushed competitors further and further testing the limits of their fitness and endurance.

Schnetzler, a Soldier stationed at Fort Bliss, Texas, used the race to continually build her endurance and stamina for annual Ironman triathlon races.

Schnetzler had always searched for the most challenging route in athletics and her military career. The West Point graduate has become one of the Army’s top triathletes with more than 20 Ironman and triathlon races under her belt, including last September’s Armed Forces Triathlon Championships in San Diego, California where she finished 5th and the 2025 Ironman Arizona in November (8th place).

Schnetzler has qualified for two Ironman World Championships.

Charting her own path

Schnetzler, grew up in the D.C suburb of Nokesville, Virginia competing as a multi-sport athlete in cross country, swimming and track at Osbourn Park High School.

She applied for West Point because she didn’t want an ordinary job, but a career that would test her physically and mentally.

At 18, Schnetzler, became the first member of her family to join the military after earning acceptance into the U.S. Military Academy in 2017.

“I thought West Point would give me an opportunity to be around like-minded people who wanted to be challenged,” she said. “And I love structure.”

In the middle of her plebe or freshman year at West Point, the environmental science major decided to walk away from two sports she had dedicated years of her life, cross country and track, for a sport that would challenge year-round on a larger scale: the triathlon.

In the triathlon, Schnetzler found more than a sport that gave her a release of energy from the stresses of balancing academics and drills as a West Point cadet.

In the winter of 2019, Schnetzler learned that the West Point Triathlon team coached by Maxwell had been hosting tryouts. Admittedly burned out from cross country, Schnetzler decided to attend.

With experience competing in cross country, track and swimming, Schnetzler boasted the experience needed to become a triathlete. She learned to balance academics, field training and drill with 20 hours a week of triathlon training.

Schnetzler impressed Maxwell with her willing attitude, embracing new variations of training, whether improving her transitions between events or gradually building her strength.

Schnetzler eventually became West Point’s top female triathlete, placing a career-best 13th at the 2021 Women’s Collegiate Triathlon National Championships. Following her graduation from the U.S. Military Academy in 2022, the Army assigned Schnetzler to fly Apache helicopters and flight school at Fort Rucker, Alabama.

Three years later, Schnetzler pilots Apache helicopters for the Army as a member of the 1st Armored Division, Combat Aviation Brigade at Fort Bliss, Texas.

Last September running along San Diego Bay, Schnetzler competed against the best triathletes in the U.S. Military, including eventual champion, Navy Ensign Hannah Walz.

The Soldier said triathlon workouts helped her cope with the demands of training as an Apache pilot. Apache pilots must log 70 flight hours in six months, while learning the intricacies of the airframe’s sophisticated weapons systems, and reconnaissance and attack missions.

“It just has a lot going on with shooting and flying,” Schnetzler said. “I think being able to compartmentalize, like after having a long day of flying, and then be able to release any built-up stress through triathlon really helps me reset mentally.”

She signed on to continue to receive coaching virtually from Maxwell. Together, they formulated a plan for the Soldier to compete in Ironman races annually.

“I think the triathlon, it’s whatever you put into it,” Schnetzler said. “I feel like I could just do it for my whole life. I feel like it’s kind of like a lifestyle almost.”

Between flight school and her duties as an Army officer, she has limited time to train for Ironman events. Schnetzler tries to dedicate a minimum of two hours of workout per day, in the mornings with her unit and later in the day with the Army 10-miler running team. The Soldier uses a bicycle trainer to work out at home and goes on runs with her rescue dog, a one-eyed Plott Hound named “Lefty.”

Schnetzler ran her best race in 2023, finishing first in her division at Ironman Florida Triathlon in Panama City Beach. There, she clocked a person-best time of 10:39:14, finishing in the Top 300.

Schnetzler reached a new pinnacle, taking part in the 2024 Ironman World Championships in Nice, France, where she placed a respectable 33rd in her division and 241st overall. She recently began competing as a member of the All-Army Triathlon team.

“She’s able to remain positive and focused under really heavy workloads and a lot of competitive pressure,” Maxwell said. “But I think part of what allows her to do that is the curiosity that she brings to her workouts, too.”

U.S. Army Soldiers assigned to 2nd Battalion, 2nd Aviation Regiment, 2nd Combat Aviation Brigade, 2d Infantry Division/ROK-U.S. Combined Division, alongside 1st Battalion, 38th Infantry Regiment, 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, conduct fast-rope air assault isolated personnel extraction training, Dec. 18, 2025. The training integrated aviation assets with infantry elements, as well as small unmanned aircraft systems and U.S. Air Force joint terminal attack controller capabilities, demonstrating 2CAB’s ability to operate with both conventional and unconventional joint forces in support of readiness across the Korean Peninsula. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Nicholas Childers)

U.S. Army Soldiers assigned to Task Force Brawler work on a U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawk assigned to the 3rd Combat Aviation Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, at Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base, Romania, Dec. 5, 2025. The 3rd Infantry Division Combat Aviation Brigade’s mission in Romania is to conduct training while generating warfighting readiness and combat-credible forces along NATO’s Eastern Flank. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Joseph Bartoszek)

We just completed our “new-format” 2025 Cribbins Futures Forum in Huntsville, AL. It was touch-and-go for a while with the government shutdown, but AAAA staff, our exhibitors and attendees executed with aplomb!

At the end of the day, very few exhibitors cancelled, our sponsorship was up, and attendance was only slightly down. Truly a remarkable result considering that early Monday November 10, three days before the AAAA staff arrived on site in Huntsville, we made the decision to go ahead after cancelling the prior Friday night when all Senate talks had completely collapsed!

Thank you to our Soldier and Industry Partners and all our subcontractors and vendors who stuck with us through the chaos and uncertainty. It was humbling indeed to witness your loyalty and support. AAAA is truly one big family! See the wrap-up on page 68 of this issue.

We’re declaring our new Cribbins format an unmitigated success! Special thanks to our National Treasurer, MG (Ret.) Todd Royar, who developed a very innovative plan for the Cribbins agenda that proved very effective. The afternoon “Open Mic” sessions on topics like artificial intelligence (AI), manned/unmanned aircraft ratios, airspace congestion, were particularly productive and resulted in well-received back-briefs to the Aviation General Officer Steering Committee (AVGOSC).

The AAAA National Executive Board (NEB) meeting, held at Cribbins, highlighted a few new items. Following feedback from chapter officers, going forward, the national AAAA organization will pay for all bank charges on transactions with the new chapter banking vendor. Three new National Executive Board Members Emeritus were approved to include MG (Ret.) Richard Sherlock, MG (Ret.) Kelly Thomas, and LTC (Ret.) Jan Drabczuk. Finally, the Strategic Plan, first developed over two years ago, was formally approved by the NEB as a living document that will continue to evolve and be modified with the goals and objectives of the officers and committees of AAAA.

Our lineup for future AAAA Summits looks like Nashville in 2026, Kansas City in 2027, New Orleans in 2028, and although not yet officially contracted, it looks like we will be going to Atlanta in 2029 and St. Louis in 2030.

Less than an hour after the Cribbins Forum closed, the AAAA staff, along with MG (Ret.) Todd Royar, BG (Ret.) Tim Edens and COL (Ret.) Liz Martin executed our first in-progress review (IPR) for the upcoming AAAA sponsored Army Best Drone Warfighter Competition. This event will take place at the University of Alabama Huntsville’s (UAH) 2,300-acre drone and counter drone range near the Huntsville airport. Things are moving fast and furious on this first-ever Army competition. By the time you read this, registration will have opened, and we will be well on the way to execution on 17-19 February 2026.

The 2026 AAAA Annual Summit in Nashville, 15-17 April, will be on us before you know it. Check out the 4-page separate handout shipped with this issue for all the details. We are tracking record attendance so don’t wait to register!

Finally, Jo Ann and I and the entire AAAA leadership and staff wish you all a peaceful and restful Holiday season and a very happy New Year. See you in 2026!

MG Wally Golden, U.S. Army Retired
37th President, AAAA
walter.golden@quad-a.org

Story by Joseph Siemandel

Guardsmen from the Washington National Guard’s 96th Aviation Troop Command conducted an Aviation Subject Matter Expert Exchange (SMEE) with Royal Thai aviation partners across multiple locations in Thailand from Nov. 28 to Dec. 16, 2025, strengthening long-standing relationships and advancing aviation safety and interoperability within the State Partnership Program (SPP).

“The exchange began in Lopburi and Bangkok from Nov. 28 to Dec. 12, where our team worked alongside aviators and maintainers from the Royal Thai Army’s 9th, 41st and 2nd Aviation Battalions,” said CPT Taylor Payne, Army Aviation Support Facility 2 commander and SPP aviation liaison during the exchange. “The purpose of the engagement was to identify aviation operations, training, maintenance, supply and standardization needs, challenges and opportunities in order to build a foundation for future engagements and help prevent aviation mishaps.”

Since 2015, Washington Guardsmen and Airmen have routinely traveled to Thailand to exchange aviation best practices and work side by side with Thai counterparts. What began as a small technical exchange has grown into a mature program led by the 96th Aviation Troop Command, expanding collaboration beyond the Royal Thai Army to include the Royal Thai Air Force and Royal Thai Navy.

Throughout the Lopburi engagement, participants shared knowledge on aviation maintenance, safety, standardization, supply chain management and operational practices. The exchange also resulted in recommendations for future engagements, updates to technical manuals and safety messages, and the continued development of professional relationships critical to partner nation interoperability.

Building on that momentum, a follow-on SMEE took place in Pattaya from Dec. 15–16 at the request of Royal Thai Navy leadership.

“This marked the first aviation engagement between the Washington National Guard and the Royal Thai Navy under the State Partnership Program,” said Payne. “This was the first time the group has engaged and operated with the RTN within the State Partnership Program. The Squadrons consisted of S-70B (Seahawks), MH-60S (Nighthawks), and the Do228 Dornier within the 2nd and 101 SQDN.”

Royal Thai Navy leaders provided tours of their facilities and participated in deliberate discussions focused on expectation management, aviation safety and establishing a framework for future engagements. The assessment identified several critical gaps, which the Washington team discussed in detail with Joint U.S. Military Advisory Group–Thailand (JUSMAG-Thai) leadership.

With more than a decade of partnership experience with Thai aviation forces, the Washington Army National Guard has built a foundation of trust through consistent, high-quality aviation maintenance and safety exchanges. Based on the success of this program, Royal Thai Navy leaders expressed interest in developing a similar sustained engagement to foster joint interoperability and align aviation safety practices.

“These exchanges reinforce the Washington National Guard’s continued commitment to the State Partnership Program and strengthen regional security through enduring professional relationships and shared aviation excellence,” Payne added.

Story by Staff Sgt. Erica Webster

MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, Ala. — Exercise Gallant Tower brought together Reserve and active duty Airmen from the 908th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron, 71st Rescue Squadron, the 729th Airlift Squadron, and Soldiers from the Alabama Army National Guard Detachment 2, Charlie Company, 111th General Support Aviation Battalion, for a joint patient-movement and refueling event unlike anything executed before in the state.

Held between Sept. 5-7, 2025, the exercise was designed and led by the 908th AES, to push ground and flying crew to operate in conditions that mimic future contested environments, scenarios they expect to face in emerging theaters.

The primary objective of Gallant Tower was to assess and validate the operational effectiveness of ground-based Unit Type Codes in support of aeromedical evacuation missions. By enhancing these capabilities within the Theater Aeromedical Evacuation System, the squadron sought to evaluate its ability to transition seamlessly from peacetime readiness to contingency operations.

This intense focus on ground interoperability was rooted in a critical observation: while aircrew members constantly train to maintain proficiency, the opportunities for ground personnel to get high-fidelity repetitions are significantly scarcer.

“We [flight crew] will fly and train all the time. We get so many reps and really good finished products,” Capt. Kristian Taylor, 908th AES flight nurse noted. “Ground just doesn’t get a lot of those opportunities, so this is about them.”

Gallant Tower was not merely a simulation; it was a complex logistical ballet involving assets that rarely train together in such a capacity. The exercise featured a Forward Armed and Refueling Point operation and complex patient movement scenarios involving Alabama Army National Guard HH-60M Black Hawk helicopters and an HC-130J Combat King II from Moody Air Force Base, Ga.

For the participants, this combination of forces was unprecedented.

“It was the first time that Army National Guard in Alabama conducted a FARP with an Air Combat Command asset,” said Capt. Corey Reaves, 908th AES ground training officer in charge. “They’ve never done a ground FARP for my running C-130. That was something brand new for both parties.”

The scenario flowed like a forward-deployed medical evacuation chain. The HH-60M’s hot refueled – the process of receiving fuel with engines still running — from the C-130J, while crew members shuttled patients from one aircraft to the other, giving both services practice under conditions that mimic the unpredictability of combat medical operations where speed and precision are matters of life and death.

A vital component of the exercise was the integration of the U.S. Transportation Command to validate the digital side of the patient movement chain using the TRANSCOM Regulating and Command & Control Evacuation System or TRAC2ES.

TRAC2ES manages the entire patient journey from the point of injury to air evacuation and final treatment destination, providing essential situational awareness of casualties and medical assets across the theater.

“This kind of hands-on training rarely occurs here on site,” said Reaves. “They helped the [Aeromedical Operations Team] build the mission packets and use the TRAC2ES system. It’s something we use operationally but don’t get to replicate and get reps on.”

Receiving this level of training, the unit was able to verify their ability to maintain the digital data integrity, a necessity for sustaining the global medical evacuation network alongside the physical movement of patients during real-world conflict.

The “why” behind Exercise Gallant Tower is inextricably linked to the changing nature of global conflict and aligns directly with the Air Force Reserve Command’s priorities of being ‘Ready Now!’ and ‘Transforming for the Future’ giving units to look toward degraded environments involving scenarios where support is limited, communication is challenging, and teams must be self-sufficient.

To meet these future challenges, 908th AE leadership is pushing for maximum realism and stress exposure. Taylor explained the push for more complex patient scenarios: “More max configuration, patient loads, max amount. Let’s get more poly trauma impact patients…because…you don’t want their first iteration to see something for the first time.”

This focus on joint, multi-platform patient movement also fits squarely into the Agile Combat Employment concept ensuring Airmen can accomplish the mission.

“When chaos happens, most people fall back to whatever their level of training is,” said Reaves. “If we can provide a higher the level of training for these real-life situations, they’ll be better prepared. We need to train outside of our comfort zone to execute at a high level.”

Pulling off an exercise of this magnitude was no small feat, particularly for a unit that does not possess its own organic aircraft for these specific missions. It required months of planning, coordination, and relationship-building. “I think May was the very first email we sent out. It was three to four months of constant work,” Reaves said.

The AE team also coordinated with 908th Flying Training Wing Safety, the Inspector General, and Standards offices to model the structure of major readiness exercises. Taylor explained, “We made a measle and all these contingency plans to have all this in writing for it to be as legitimate to those exercises where one might look at it and say, ‘This is a certifying event’.”

The result was a training exercise that not only met but exceeded expectations, proving that with determination and vision, units can create high-value training opportunities internally without needing to deploy to a flagship training center.

“It was more successful than we thought,” he concluded. “Just with as many moving parts and different parties involved, you fully expect the hang ups along the way but ended up being a productive weekend for everyone involved.”

As the 908th continues to pivot toward future readiness, Exercise Gallant Tower stands as a prime example of how unit-level innovation can drive the mission, ensuring that when the call comes, the ground forces are as ready as the aircraft they support.

 

Looking Back
By Mark Albertson

“The Army Air Corps is Back,”[1]

* * * * *

Few taxpayers are aware of the needless expense caused by the duplication of Air Force functions through the formation of another air force by the United States Army. In fact, this Army air force comprises a fourth air force. Complementing those now existing of the Navy, the Marines, and the United States Air Force itself. The wastefulness of this action is shown in the plans of each commander of a field army to use 939 Army aircraft. These are in addition to the Air Force aircraft available to him from normal theater support. The latter alone could adequately supply all his needs. The assignment to individual commanders of airplanes is a throwback to the penny packet method of distributing aircraft learned to be so fallacious in the early North African campaign of World War II. This requirement of almost a thousand Army airplanes in each field army, (of which three are now eight) to perform functions which the Air Force can do most economically, without increased cost to the taxpayer in additional planes, merits careful consideration. It is a subject which should receive close scrutiny by the public, the Bureau of the Budget, and Congress.

The natural desire of an Army commander to control his own aviation, while commendable from the individual commander’s limited viewpoint, must be evaluated in the light of what will give the greatest good to the nation. It has been reiterated many times in recent months that the most pressing problem facing the nation is the maintenance of adequate defense forces for security within our national economy. This cannot be done if the Army continues to obtain and to use airplanes based on concepts of operation learned in World War II and Korea. In truth, some Army concepts of operation even harken back to the Civil War when the mule-drawn vehicle was the best transportation known. The Army is unfortunately downgrading the use of airpower in these obsolete fashions, for it treats the plane as a faster kind of truck or horse to be used over the same route and distances established by trucking methods. Similarly concept of tactical operations still confine its activities to a combat zone geographically defined based on former ground limitations. However, one lesson now being relearned through hard experience by other users of airpower is now being relearned by the Army. That is, the requirement for centralized control of the airpower that it does possess to obtain maximum usefulness. Attempts are being made to do this in the Army Transportation Corps over the objections of other branches and corps of the Army desirous of capturing individual control. This fourth air force, in addition to airplanes, is wastefully duplicating pilot and mechanic training schools as well as supply and maintenance facilities. In fact, with plans for completed world-wide air mobility of the Army, the Army is building up an air force with which it hopes to become entirely independent of any support of the present Air Force.

One example of the wasteful use of aircraft planned is the assignment, within the 939 planes of the field army, of sixty helicopters to be used for the sole purpose of medical supply and evacuation, in addition to this, 467 helicopters may be secondarily used for this purpose. Actually an Air Force troop carrier assault squadron of sixteen helicopters could evacuate from 1,000 to 5,000 casualties per day, which should be adequate for the most pessimistic of commanders. For if this commander intended to use as many as 527 helicopters for casualties, his war would soon be over in favor of the enemy.

However, this wasteful duplication is not the most serious problem presented by the fourth air force. The real problem which will exist with the large number of Army planes programmed for a combat area, will be that of tactical control. A single centralized tactical control system must be set up to identify all planes, locate targets for friendly aircraft, and permit flexibility of assignment of aircraft in a theater of operations. This centralized combat system is now possessed by the Air Force. A duplicating system set up by the Army Air Corps or none at all, to control Army planes would soon make the air over the battle area a snarled-up mess and lead to disaster. Proper air cover must be given throughout a controlled system, for any reconnaissance, supply troop carrier or evacuation missions. One single agency must control all types of air operations in combat, whether fought on the patterns of pre-atomic days or the new concept of flexible mobility and dispersion.

It is to be noted that the Army appears justified in its demands for more air transportation and air support, when considered with the requirements presented unilaterally by the Army. However, when an analysis is made of the actual airlift needed to fight a new type of war with a hard-hitting compact army devoid of many weighty, obsolete, logistical organizations, it is seen that the requirements are preposterous. They are based on the airlift needed to move World War II type armies from mudhole to mudhole.

In the past, budgetary limitations have necessitated the expenditure of most Air Force funds, and justifiably so: To build up the Strategic Air Command as a ready striking force to prevent war. Now, with the need to develop armies that are truly air mobile, it is logical that the Air Force should be the proper custodian of the job in order to do it best and most economically. We should not be influenced by the precedent set in the recent past, of the Army attempting to enter the air business due to default of the Air Force because of its limited budgets. Millions can be saved by taking from the Army all aircraft other than a few small planes needed by commanders for liaison, and even this latter allocation is probably not necessary. It is not unlikely that billions could be saved if the Army coordinated its tactics with proper use of airpower and cut out obsolete methods of operation based on surface-bound views. The claim that scientific advances have now made one airplane capable of doing the work that thousands did in World War II also can be applied to the functions of the infantry. As an example, one ground soldier controlling a number of rocket field pieces can do the work of an entire field artillery regiment.

The resolution of this problem will require a little knocking of heads together by the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of Defense. It will require telling the Army to stick to its own business. It will require that the Army cooperate and not compete with the Air Force in developing techniques of using air and ground power to the best advantage of the Nation. It will require that this fourth air force concept be abandoned by the Army.

There is a best way to do a job. The nation’s economy demands that it have that best method through proper unification of the services and the prevention of duplication or quadruplication. National survival and not service survival is at stake.

Colonel Moneysaver

* * * * *

Rebuttal

Colonel Moneysaver’s concluding line is a summation more in tune with that of a political culture as opposed to that of a military dogma: “National survival and not service survival is at stake.” For starters, neither the Air Force nor the Army was in danger of closing its doors in 1955. Rather, it is the control of tactical aviation that is the bone of contention. Indeed, during the late 1940s, even naval air and Marine Corps air will feel that Air Force confidence in controlling airpower. But, of course, the butt of the argument is Army Aviation, as it had graduated, by 1955, from what it once actually was, the Air Observation Post. The Korean War was proof positive where the Army was taking the development of tactical air and, doing so with the helicopter. And, as the writer’s name indicates, the issue of money, taxpayer dollars, is another focus. Control the money, control the agenda. After all, this is a Capitalist country. So follow the money.

The argument posed by Colonel Moneysaver was decades in the making. Go back to the first chapter of the Great War,[2] on the Western Front, the stalemate of the trenches, where the armies of the Triple Alliance and Triple Entente were mired in that gridlock of shot and shell and mud and No Man’s Land. Far thinkers such as Sir Hugh “Boom” Trenchard, Giulio Douhet and our own Billy Mitchell thought the airplane could break the stalemate. That with the proper bombers an air fleet could take war to the enemy’s capability to wage industrialized war. And do so by targeting such necessities as the factories, port and dock facilities, railroad tracks and rolling stock, communications infrastructure, fuel supplies, ammo dumps, and other targets of consequence to an industrialized war effort. Douhet even added the bombing of the enemy population, since the people might put pressure on their government to conclude the conflict quickly.

History will bear out that Douhet’s notion of bombing the civilians will not always prove an advantage. 1940, the German “blitz” against the British; 1942-1945, Allied bombing of Germany; the later U.S. bombing of North Vietnam, if anything raised the people’s ire to resist.

But to strategic airmen in the United States, the bomber was that medium for an independent service, that ticket for that divorce from the Army. For the bomber represented offensive airpower, in lieu of the fighter which represented defensive air power. And during the 1920s and 1930s this ideal became more and more prevalent.

The Ground Forces of the Army were very much concerned that the tactical requirements of the rifle totter would not be addressed; a concern that was justified. For many of the observation aircraft being designed were large, speedier and hardly conducive for proper ground forces observation and reconnaissance. Yet, too, military aviation was becoming too sophisticated to be controlled by ground officers; or, so it seemed. . .

During the second chapter of the Great War, the United States Army Air Forces will never field an aircraft that was devoted solely to ground support and tank busting. Nothing that was American-built of was of a similar effort to the superlative Illyushin IL-II Shturmovik. Indeed, Eddie Rickenbacker, “was shown a demonstration of the Shturmovik’s capabilities and recorded the view that it was the best aircraft of its type in the world; that his country had never produced anything in the same class of machine. . . “[3] The Shturmovik will go on to become the most produced combat aircraft in history at 36,183 copies.

The American equivalent was the P-47 Thunderbolt. The “Jug” was one of the best fighter planes produced by the United States during the second chapter of the Great War. Yet as a ground support tank-busting aircraft, it was a distant second to the Shturmovik. Quite frankly, the United States Army Air Forces did not design an aircraft of the Shturmovik’s quality because it was focused on strategic aviation, which was the strategic airmen’s concern.  Arguably then, the best “ground support” aircraft produced by the United States was the L-4 Piper Cub. Manned by Field Artillery personnel, pilots and observers, these flivver planes could focus battalions of artillery onto a single target so as to obliterate same.[4] These aircraft, too, were organic to the units assigned to. And were on the beck and call of the units assigned to. Meaning, they were controlled by the Ground Forces, not the United States Army Air Forces, something of an anathema to the U.S.A.A.F. and, which helped to plant the seeds for that continuing difference of opinion as to who will control ground forces tactical aviation after 1945.

The L-4 Cub was that aircraft that proved the signature expression of the Air Observation Post, later to evolve into Army Aviation. But following 1945, growing obsolescence will see to the Cub’s replacement, owing to the changing nature of ground forces requirements.

Demobilization followed the cessation of military operations with the conclusion of the global conflict. Starting after September 2, 1945 and out to March 31, 1947, the U.S. Army downsized from 89 divisions to 10, with many of these understrength. The Navy shrank from 1,000 ships to some 300, a seventy percent drop. The U.S. Army Air Forces declined from a high of 213 combat groups to 63; and of these, only 11 were up to full strength.[5]

A corresponding drop in military spending fortified the “peace dividend” leading up to the Korean War. Starting with 1946 from $42 billion down to $14 billion in 1947 to $10 billion in 1949. As a percentage of G.N.P., from 20.7 percent in FY 1946 to 4.4 percent in FY 1947.[6]

* * * * *

July 26, 1947, the National Security Act. With this significant development the U.S.A.A.F will be divorced from the Army to become the United States Air Force. Marine Corps air will remain under the umbrella of the Navy. The War Department was done away with. Instead, three new departments were formed: Department of the Air Force, Department of the Army, Department of the Navy. With the latter, the Marine Corps will retain their air capability and will utilize said capability so as to fulfill those requirements assigned to them as part of the Department of the Navy.

Then the newly-minted Air Force: “In general the United States Air Force shall include aviation forces both combat and service not otherwise assigned. It shall be organized, trained, and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained offensive and defensive air operations. The Air Force shall be responsible for the preparation of the air forces necessary for the effective prosecution of war except as otherwise assigned and, in accordance with integrated joint mobilization plans, for the expansion of the peacetime components of the Air Force to meet the needs of war.”[7]

Now within the second stanza of Colonel Moneymaker’s “The Army Air Corps is Back,” he levels criticism as to the Army commander’s control of his own aviation, or aviation organic to said command, as detrimental to the Nation, based on the concepts of World War II and Korea. Adding here, too, of the duplication of pilots and training schools.

Armies glean and review the mistakes and successes of the previous war so as not to repeat the sins of same in fighting the next. This is precisely what Major General James M. Gavin was attempting when he wrote, “The future of our armed forces is in the air. All the fighting men and everything they need to fight with in the future and live on as they fight must be capable of movement by air.”[8]

General Gavin understood the limitations of parachutes and plywood gliders for the purpose of inserting troops behind enemy lines. For his concept will necessitate new aircraft, new tactics, new training methods. Thinking along the same lines was Lieutenant General Roy S. Geiger, Commander, Fleet Marine Force, Pacific Fleet. In 1946, he attended the Navy’s atomic bomb tests at Bikini Atoll, where 247 ships were moored in the Bikini lagoon. Upon his return to his office at Pearl Harbor, he wrote a letter to Marine Corps Commandant, General Alexander “Archie” Vandergrift. To the effect that amphibious landings as seen at Sicily, Normandy and Okinawa were becoming a thing of the past. Warning of the devastation of a single atomic bomb dropped on a beach crowded with troops, he suggested the use of light aircraft to disperse assault forces in and around the beaches and then at the proper time the use of such aerial assets to effect the consolidation of such forces to commence operations.

General Vandergrift supported Geiger’s thinking out-of-the box which will result in the Vertical Assault Concept. To which concern as to the effects of the atomic bomb will help lead to the post-1945 development of the helicopter. With the Marine Corps, the Vertical Assault Concept will see to the conversion of World War II escort carriers into amphibious assault ships able to carry helicopters and marines. It would seem that here, both Gavin and Geiger understand that the helicopter unlike parachutes are much more accurate in landing airborne assault troops in assigned areas of operations and are consistently more reusable than plywood gliders. Unlike the French in 1940 who fought the Wehrmacht as it did the Kaiser’s army in 1914, both Gavin and Geiger were not seeking to fight the next war as it was done in 1939-1945.

 

Stanza three, Colonel Moneymaker’s criticism of Army aircraft being used for “medical supply and evacuation.” Author’s argument was that “an air force troop carrier assault squadron of sixteen helicopters could evacuate from 1,000 to 5,000 casualties per day . . . for the most pessimistic of commanders. For if this commander intended to use 527 helicopters for casualties, his war would soon be over in favor of the enemy.”

Let us understand the reality here. Colonel Moneymaker is elaborating on a long-sought agenda by airmen for airmen for independence from the Army. This is in the face of now the Army’s expression of pseudo-independence from the Air Force. And same is based on why? Recent history.

March 1946, Tactical Air Command was formed, based on a promise Army Air Forces Commander, General Carl A. Spaatz, made to Army Chief of Staff, General Dwight D. Eisenhower. Yet nine years later, 1955, the Air Force had no intention of fielding an aircraft solely for the purpose of close air support; rather, aircraft to establish air superiority and, once established, support of the ground forces will rely on jets of high speed, to which, too, are multi-role aircraft in keeping with Air Force independence. Indeed, T.A.C. aircraft were being modeled for low-level nuclear ordnance. Hardly the C.A.S. requirements of the ground forces. In fact, during the early stages of the Korean War, the Army Chief of Staff called for the subordination of Air Force aircraft conducting air support to army corps and division commanders, including Air Force fighter-bomber squadrons being attached to each Army division.

“In Korea itself, in 1950, the Army got to experience the apparent benefits of Marine tactical air doctrine at first hand when Marine aircraft provided dedicated support to Army units during the defense of the Pusan perimeter and Inchon landings, and Army officers liked what they saw. Drawing on this experience, General Edward M. Almond, commanding the Army’s X Corps, recommended in December 1950 and again in July of the following year, that a group of fighter-bombers be allotted to the operational control of each Army division.”[9]

Yet following Korea, President Eisenhower did not want America in such a conflict, believing that the constant repetition of war would turn the United States into a garrison state. So between 1953 and 1957, the Army was cut from 20 divisions to 14. Ships were mothballed from the Navy and there were reductions in personnel. But the Air Force increased by 30,000 men and more air wings as its budget increased. For this was the era of the New Look Defense with a cornerstone of “Massive Retaliation” with the strategic bomber delivering atomic ordnance. The threat of bombing an opponent back into the “Stone Age,” was deterrence.

Yet the Army will plan and train to fight on a nuclear battlefield. It will reorganize the division structure to conform to a developing reality in the late fifties, the Pentomic Division. And the Army will bet the ranch on the helicopter, an aircraft that will be under constant development for the ground forces. And this will include Colonel Jay D. Vanderpool, who was not an aviator, experimenting with arming the helicopter, paving the way for not only the troop carrying helicopter, but future rotary wing aircraft able to provide close support for the soldier on the ground and flown by Army aviators.

Colonel Moneymaker’s article was a continuation of Lieutenant General Henry “Hap” Arnold’s earlier warning of the Army developing a rival air force. Yet there was the prophetic observation later by Pete Quesada who stated, that if the Air Force did not service the Army’s tactical requirements, that a rival air force will arise. He was, of course, proven correct.

Stanza Four: Note here, Colonel Moneysaver states that the Army “appears justified in its demands for more air transportation and air support, when considered with the requirements presented unilaterally by the Army. However, when an analysis is made of the actual airlift needed to fight a new type of war with a hard-hitting compact army devoid of many weighty, obsolete, logistical organizations, it is seen that the requirements are preposterous. They are based on the airlift needed to move World War II type armies from mudhole to mudhole.”

Rebuttal: What is preposterous here is the concerted lack of regard for history. To start with, strategic bombing, as it would come to evolve, would not have been possible without the horrific and grievously costly gridlock of the trenches in eastern France north through Belgium on the Western Front, 1914-1918. Far ranging thinkers such as Trenchard, Douhet and Mitchell saw strategic aviation as that option of taking war to the enemy’s industrial capability of waging war; to which, strategic aviation will be another facet of Levee en Masse, with the growing sophistication of waging modern industrialized, corporatized, commercialized war, Total War.

But then, within this whirlpool of Total War, one cannot just give the tactical requirements the short shrift; which lends to the question, just where does Army Aviation fit in?

Well let us begin with the demonstrated ability of the Air OPs to perform a variety of tasks other than that of the aerial direction of artillery fire, which not only enhanced its value but broadened its appeal. This became evident when other branches of the Ground Forces utilized Field Artillery Cubs for tasks and missions other than that originally intended.

In August 1945, the War Department gave the Air Observation Post a boost by enabling other branches of the Ground Forces—Armor, Engineers, Infantry, Cavalry, Tank Destroyers—to adopt the capability.[10] The agreement, which had been reached privately by Jacob L. Devers, C.G. Army Ground Forces and General Ira C, Eaker, C.G. Army Air Forces, also called for additional light aircraft for the A.G.F.[11]

Yet following the divorce of the Army and the Air Force, the latter was still procuring aircraft for the former. And despite the Army truly beginning to focus on the helicopter, the Air Force considered tactical aircraft a distant second on the priority list to that of strategic aviation.

For instance, “in 1948, Lieutenant General James M. Gavin, in his capacity as president of the Army Airborne Panel, attempted to convince the Air Force director of requirements of the Army’s need for more and larger helicopters. Finally exasperated by LTG Gavin’s persistence, the Air Force general replied,–

“I am the director of requirements and I will determine what is needed and what is not. The helicopter is aerodynamically unsound. It is like lifting oneself by one’s bootstraps. It is no good as an air vehicle and I am not going to procure any. No matter what the Army says. I know it does not need any.”[12]

In just two years, those words will be meaningless. Actually, they were without foundation when uttered. For with the opening of the Korean War, the Air Force committed two rescue squadrons, the 2^nd and the 3^rd. The 2^nd served the needs of the 13^th and 20^th Air Forces and was based out of Clark Field in the Philippines; while the latter served the Fifth Air Force and covered the area in and around Japan. Among their aircraft, the Sikorsky H-5 (S-51) helicopter.

July 7, 1950, a pair of Stinson L-5s were sent to Korea as rescue aircraft; to which among the tasks was to recover downed airmen behind enemy lines. These proved unequal to the task. For instance, the L-5, unlike the L-4 Piper Cub, was not as suitable a choice for soft ground landings such as on cow pastures and paddy areas. This, of course, was rectified with the use of helicopters. H-5s were put to work for rescue operations, flying out of Taegu[13] in the Pusan perimeter.

“By the end of August, meanwhile, the 3^rd Rescue Squadron’s helicopters had flown 83 critically wounded soldiers from the battle area. All of them would almost would certainly have died had they been forced to make the journey to a field hospital by ambulance.”[14]

“By the end of 1950, the H-5s had transported 618 medical cases, compared to the 56 flown out by L-5s.”[15] Indeed, an aircraft viewed as “aerodynamically unsound,” by the Air Force director of requirements for the Army was being proved as “in error.” Though one must consider the alternative here, that the Air Force or, at least said officer, had little regard for the tactical requirements of the Army.

The Marine Corps, too was making use of the helicopter for moving men and stores and retrieving downed airmen, besides shuttling wounded to doctor’s care.

The Army did not get into action until December 1950. Bell H-13s, to be complemented in short order by Hiller H-23 Ravens, were to be used for artillery fire direction, chores of liaison and evacuation of battle casualties. By January 1951, Captain Albert Seburn was in command of the 2^nd Helicopter Detachment based at Seoul. And in just a month, some 500 casualties had been evacuated.

For the Army, the eclipse was now becoming complete: The Air Observation Post was now becoming Army Aviation.

Stanzas 5 and 6: In opposition to Colonel Moneysaver, the lack of regard for history is quite evident here . . . that being, of course, the repetition of history. For history does repeat, though it is never exact, but does repeat. Or as put forth by Mark Twain, as opposed to repeating, history rhymes.

1914-1945, the evolving nature of strategic aviation, the desire of the proponents of same to seek a separate service, is based, in part, on the growing sophistication of military aviation in the era of Levee en Masse. Strategic aviation is becoming too sophisticated to be overseen by ground officers. But with the atomic age and the evolving transition of the Industrial Revolution to that of the Technology Revolution, there was and still is the evolving transition of the sophistication of ground warfare; to the extent that it should be the province of ground officers. For in the end, they will be the best qualified for understanding the rudiments of close support tactical air because they have to wage it. Marine Corps air supports the man with the rifle. So, too, Army Aviation, which provides one with a better understanding of why it is no longer the Air Observation Post. But please note, . . .

. . . thinkers of their time, such as Trenchard, Douhet, Mitchell, later William Wallace Ford, Delbert Bristol, Robert Williams, James Gavin, Roy Geiger and others like them, were revolutionaries, minorities within accepted convention but, who will alter and change the status quo. It is those who follow who cement these revolutionary ideals into the new convention and therefore, give way to a new generation of reactionary proponents who will be difficult to unseat. For as General George Seneff observed, Yesterday’s revolutionaries are tomorrow’s reactionaries.” Such is the article being critiqued, an effort into maintaining the new status quo and penned by Colonel Moneysaver, versus the perceived threat posed in 1955 by those upstarts in Army Aviation.

Endnotes

[1] See page 46, Army Aviation, February 28, 2001 issue. Reprinted with permission of Air Force Magazine, September 1955.

[2] Those familiar with past Looking Back efforts know that this writer does not conform to the accepted historical progression of World War I, 1914-1918 and World War II, 1939-1945. There is only one war, Man’s greatest industrialized, corporatized, commercialized conflict, the Great War, 1914-1922; 1931-1945. Levee en Masse, the conscription of entire economies and populations for industrialized Total War was in full bloom. The result will be the demise of European domination of the globe and a new balance of power, that of the United States and the Soviet Union. The resulting faceoff will be known as, the Cold War.

[3] See pages 12 and 13, Aircraft Profile, No. 88, The Ilyushin-2, March 1982, by Witold Liss.

[4] The venerable L-4 Piper Cub was one of the most cost effective military aircraft in American history. It was rugged, easy to maintain, able to operate from hard airfields at the rear or soft fields near the front, and, it was a bargain at some $2,000 per unit. A crew of two, pilot and observer from the Field Artillery, could zero in battalions of gun batteries onto a single target in a devastating display of firepower, as acknowledged by Germans who were on the receiving end of such firepower. A distinct improvement from World War I where hundreds or even thousands of guns shelled opposing forces minus such an advance in targeting methods.

[5] See page 2, Army Aviation: The Interwar Years, 1945-1950, A History of Army Aviation Logistics, 1936-1961, Study No. 5, by Dr. Howard K. Butler.

[6] See pages 1 and 2, Dr. Howard K. Butler.

[7] See pages 44 and 45, “The National Security Act of 1947,” The Department of Defense, 1944-1978, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Historical Office.

]8] See page 178, The Field Artillery Journal, May-June 1947, by Major General James M. Gavin, U.S.A.

[9] See page 16, Chapter 1, “The Doctrinal Background,” Inter-service Rivalry and Airpower in the Vietnam War, by Dr. Ian Horwood.

[10] See page 3, Chapter 1, “The Field Artillery in World War II,” History of the Field Artillery School, Vol. II, by the Field Artillery School.

[11] See page 15, “Academics and Training,” Part II, The Army Aviation Story, by Richard K. Tierney.

[12] See page 25, “Army Aviation Between WWII and the Korean Conflict,” by Dr. John Kitchens, Aviation Branch Command Historian, U.S. Army Center, Fort Rucker, Alabama, U.S. Army Aviation Digest, September-October 1992.

[13] Today known as Daegu.

[14] See page 108, Chapter Ten, “Battlefield Support, 1951,” Air War Over Korea, by Robert Jackson.

[15] See page 109, Robert Jackson.

Bibliography

ADA951856, History of the Field Artillery School, Vol. II, “World War II, U.S. Army Field Artillery School, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, October 31, 1946.

Butler, Dr. Howard K., “Army Aviation: The Interwar Years, 1945-1950,” History Study No. 5, A History of Army Aviation Logistics, 1935-1961, Historical Division, U.S. Army Aviation Systems Command, St. Louis, Missouri, 1988.

Fort Rucker and Army Aviation History, “20^th Anniversary of Army Aviation: The Army Aviation Story,” Part II: “Academics and Training, 1942 to the 1950s,” by Richard K. Tierney, United States Army Aviation Digest, U. S. Army Training Center, Fort Rucker, Alabama, July 1962.

Gavin, Major General, James M. U.S.A., “Airborne Armies of the Future,” The Field Artillery Journal, Vol. 37, No. 3, U.S. Field Artillery Association, Washington, D.C., May-June 1947.

Gavin, Lieutenant General James M., War and Peace in the Space Age, Harper & Brothers Publishers, Inc., New York, NY., 1958.

Horwood, Dr. Ian, Inter-service Rivalry and Airpower in the Vietnam War, Army Combined Arms Center, Combat Studies Institute, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 2006.

Jackson, Robert, Air War Over Korea, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1973.

Kitchens, Dr. John W., Aviation Branch Historian, “Army Aviation Between WWII and the Korean War,” United States Army Aviation Digest, Professional Bulletin 1-92-5, U.S. Army Aviation Center, Fort Rucker, Alabama, September-October, 1992.

Liss, Witold, The Ilyushin Il-2, Profile Aircraft, No. 88, Profile Books Limited, Berkshire, England. Printed in Canada by the Bryant Press Limited, Toronto, Ontario, March 1982.

Moneysaver, Colonel, “The Army Air Corps is Back,” Army Aviation, Vol. 50, No. 2, Army Aviation Publications, Inc., Westport, Ct., February 28, 2001

Munson, Kenneth, Aircraft of World War II, Ian Allen, 1962. Published by Doubleday & Company, Inc., and printed in Great Britain by Crampton & Sons, Ltd., Sawston, Cambridge, 1968.

The Department of Defense, Documents on Establishment and Organization, 1944-1978, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Historical Office, Washington, D.C., 1978.

Tierney, Richard with Montgomery, Fred, The Army Aviation Story, Colonial Press, Northport, Alabama, 1963.