ARMY AVIATION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00001R000400430017-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: November 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 7, 2000
• Sequence Number: 17
• Publication Date: July 20, 1959
• Content Type: OPEN

JUL x 0 1959
STATINTL
Approved For Relea0/ LO 109
from sales outside the United States, they
extoll reciprocal trade. Yet, upon close
examination, we see that their position
is hypocritical.
On the one hand, they demonstrate a
passion for the export of their products.
On the other, they show a violent antip-
athy toward imports of products compet-
itive with their own.
General Electric and Westinghouse no
longer claim that their profits are being
trimmed on account of occasional con-
tract awards to our friends overseas. In-
instead, they predicate their opposition
on the alleged belief that these two re-
cent purchases constitute a threat to our
security!
We need not be deceived, Their meth-
od of attack has changed. Their object,
however, has remained the same-elimi-
nate foreign competition and preserve
the managed price system of operation.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the Congress
well knows of my deep concern for the
welfare and strength of our Nation. A
substantial part of my activities, as a
Member of this body for the last 16 years,
has been devoted to insuring that the
security and defense of the United States
be maintained at the highst possible
level. Therefore, I would look carefully
at any claim that this strength of ours
was being threatened.
I must confidently and strongly reject
the bogus charges that have been di-
rected at these two contract awards.
We must not let the flag wavers ob-
scure the real issues.
We are all concerned with the econ-
omy of governmental operations, is it
not manifestly clear that these two
purchases under discussion will result in
tremendous dollar savings to the agen-
cies concerned and to the taxpayers' of
our Nation?
Are we not also interested in the posi-
tion of the United States in relation to
the rest of the world?
Thus the interchange of ideas and
products being highly desirable and eco-
nomically beneficial to all countries par-
ticipating should be promoted, not op-
posed by the governments involved.
Let me say, too, that this is not
partisan issue. The Los Angeles Herd
and Express, on February 26, 1959, made
the following editorial comment:
Vice President RICaeaD NixoN, on his re-
cent visit to Los Angeles, said gravely that
the inflation caused by spiraling wages and
prices threatens to force us out of the world
market, and already has forced us out of
several European markets. And yet, in the
instance of the Los Angeles generators, in-
flation has priced our own U.S. firms out of
the U.S. markets. The people, communities,
the industries of the United States should
be encouraged to buy American as much as
possible in these critical times, but the
prices of American goods must be brought
down to practical levels where they can
afford to buy them.
I agree with the Vice President's state-
ment generally, and I believe I have
proven that in this case it is not the
wages paid to American workers that
have caused the inflation, but rather the
extraordinary high profits of the man-
aged price corporations. These man-
aged prices have forced our Government
purchasers of equipment to exerciselku-
Approved For Release
I affirm that the facts completely'fail
to disclose an impairment or a threat of
impairment of the security of the United
States or even of its domestic electrical
industry. Any action that might have
impaired the awarding of these contracts
would have injured the United States as
a trading nation in the eyes of the world.
It would have deprived this country of a
valued source of supply and the cost of
our Government operation would have
been vastly increased.
The Office of Civil and Defense Mobil-
ization understood what the real issues
were and ruled clearly and firmly against
the protest of the American manufac-
turers. These contracts which were
honestly and effectively awarded will
now be proceeded upon as originally in-
tended.
Recent events show the wisdom of this
course of action. General electric has
announced price reductions in the field of
heavy electrical generating equipment.
It also announced that it would modify
the escalator clause In its contracts.
The New York Times noted this step
with approval and stated editorially on
July 16:
One of the giants of American industry
has just administered some of its prices
downward. The General Electric Co. has
announced on successive' days reductions in
prices of its turbines, both large and small.
What the announcements did not say was
that foreign competition is a large element
in the decision at least for the big turbines.
The revival of Western Europe is producing a
benefit that Americans had perhaps not fore-
seen-the infusion of an extra element of
competition in parts of American industry
that have been to some extent immune dur-
ing most of the postwar period.
In a sense, we as consumers are getting our
Marshall plan money back.
Mr. Speaker, it is for these reasons that
I have felt impelled to take the floor and
present a true story of these contract
awarq&M the Congress and to the peo-
ARMY AVIATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania [Mr. FLOOD] is
recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, you will
recall that I had occasion to discuss the
very essential roles and objectives of avi-
ation in the U.S. Army on this floor last
June 29. At that time I traced the his-
tory of Army aviation, its mission and
the size of this operation in the Army
today. Today I would like to take a few
minutes in discussing this subject fur-
ther.
First, there is apparently some misun-
derstanding In certain segments of the
American public as to the distinction be-
tween Army aviation and the U.S. Air
Force. Let me emphasize at this time
that we can be sure that the Army has
neither any intention of competing for
missions in the aviation field with the
Air Force, nor any remote design of cre-
ating another air corps within the
Army's ranks. Both by executive direc-
tive and by operations instructions,
Army aviation is intended for use in the
ground battle area. Within this area it
accomplishes essential work of two broad
categories. First, as an extension of the
combat reconnaissance effort, aviation is
used in very much the same way that our
Indian fighting Army once used horse
cavalry; namely as a more rapid means
of acquiring that information of the
enemy and of the terrain which is essen-
tial to the ground combat role. In sup-
plementing this effort Army aircraft are
used to assure reliable communications
among combat headquarters and to
search for, identify, and bring fire to
bear on enemy targets. The second
broad mission of aviation, again serving
in the ground combat area, is to move
troops and equipment to places where
they are needed and where the tactical
situation or the time element or both
dictate the use of aircraft for this pur-
pose. I am sure that all of you, particu-
larly the combat veterans amongst us,
are aware that there are occasions in
battle where the timely delivery of a crit-
ically needed item of equipment can spell
the difference between victory and de-
feat. The same reasoning applies to the
movement of critically needed personnel
to man our weapons. These, then, are
in laymen's language the functions of
aviation in the Army. As is obvious,
there is no conflict here with the mis-
sions of the Air Force.
Now I do not pretend to infer that
there are no proponents in the Army of
using Army aircraft for certain combat
missions formerly performed by the air
service of World War I, the Air Corps of
World War II, and even the Air Force
in Korea. In looking into this subject I
had occasion recently to read of the ac-
tivities of that great patriot and com-
mander of our expeditionary forces in
France during the First World War,
General of the Armies Pershing-
"Stamps and Esposito," a short military
history of World War I, USMA, 1950,
page 323. In the initial combat opera-
tion of the 1st U.S. Army as an entity
during September of 1918, General
Pershing, assisted by his 1st Army avia-
tion officer, Col. William Mitchell-
known later to history as Gen. Billy;
Mitchell-used the aircraft available to
him In about three equal portions..
These were strategic bombing, ground
support, and observation. This propor-
tion, which worked admirably in the
open warfare of the St. Mihiel salient,
has changed progressively in the years
since 1918 up to today where, at one end
of the spectrum we see the Air Force
charged exclusively with the strategic
bombing mission, and at the other end
the Army charged with the mission of
providing its own local tactical observa-
tion.
The Army is already experimenting
quite successfully with the use of armed
helicopters. These air vehicles are being
developed to provide the same firepower
capabilities to sky cavalry units that the
repeating carbine provided to the cavalry
formations of both Confederate Gen.
J. E. B. Stuart and later Union Gen. Phil
Sheridan, both of whom, incidentally,
operated most effectively in the terrain
 Approved For Releas
2512
to the west of and not too distant from
this city of Washington.
This, then, is the shape of things to
come, and represents a large step for-
ward in the race to develop a tough, ag-
gressive ground combat force, prepared
to defy tyranny and oppression wherever
it may appear on the face of the earth.
This expanded use of air vehicles to help
materially in the composition of such an
Army-mobile and determined and
ready-is being quietly and competently
developed by a group of devoted Army
officers both here in the Pentagon and
out in the field, who are concerned in the
final analysis with only one subject, and
that is an adequate defense posture for
our country.
Let me now turn briefly to a person-
ality who has 'recently arrived on the
Washington scene as the newly ap-
pointed Director of Army Aviation in the
Pentagon. Brig. Gen. Clifton F. von
Kann is a member of that elite group
within the Army who is both a soldier
and a scholar. Armed with a graduate
degree from Harvard University as well
as a diploma from our National War
College, General von Kann has had the
opportunity for broad and responsible
service as an officer of his young years.
Not yet 45, General von Kann has served
in troop assignments, in the Office of the
Army Comptroller, and in an executive
capacity at the Central Intelligence
Agency. He comes to Washington from
duty as assistant division commander
of our famed 82d Airborne Division at
Fort Bragg. While at Fort Bragg he
had the opportunity to serve with Maj.
Gen. Hamilton H. Howze, until very
recently the division commanding gen-
eral, who was the first Director of Army
Aviation.
General von Kann shows a clear and
canny grasp of the multitudinous prob-
lems and challenges which face Army
aviation in the coming years. To illus-
trate this point I would like to introduce
for the RECORD a speech which General
von Kann delivered to the Army Avia-
tion Association of America on June 6.
I urge all Members of this body to give
this very astute speech their careful at-
tention when it appears in the CoN-
eech follows:
OFER. Oi' AL TRENDS IN ARMY A ON
(Speech for the Army Aviation Association
of America by Brig. Gen. Clifton F. von
Kann, June 6, 1959)
May I say that it is a threefold honor to
be here today. It is an honor to address this
outstanding group which I know is destined
to make very significant contributions to the
future of Army aviation. Secondly, it is
an honor to be pinch-hitting for my dis-
tinguished boss, Maj. Gen. Hamilton H.
Howze, who did so much to further the cause
of Army aviation. And finally, it is an honor
for me to be speaking as the newly desig-
nated Director of Army Aviation.
Now it is obvious that I cannot speak from
a platform of long service in aviation. How-
ever, my last 2 years have given me some
opportunity to deal with operational prob-
lems involving combat units. I have worked
closely with Army aviation in five major di-
visional maneuvers involving the 82d Air-
borne Division and the 101st Airborne Di-
vision. Twenty-four hours ago I was ac-
tively participating in Exercise Dark Cloud/
Fine Cone II, a large joint maneuver involy-
@ff
)9ftLR01 J&JJ430017-9
July 20
the'ision in the exercise: and all were in
continuous use, both day and night. I have
seen Army aviation operate tactically in
midwinter in Alaska and have wargamed
Army aviation in three major command
post exercises Involving field army and
higher units. On this basis I would like to
offer a few observations.
My first is that even with the limitations
of some current models, I am deeply and
completely convinced that Army aviation is
the one major breakthrough 'in mobility
the Army has made since World War II.
We have lightened some items of equipment
(while adding to many others). But when
we strike the balance, the only quantum
jump is the fact that right now, today, a
squad, a platoon, or a rifle company can be
in position A one instant, and 10 minutes
later can be in position B b miles away-
and ready to fight. Thus we are combining
the two most mobile elements in warfare-
the foot soldier and the airplane.
Significant, too, is the fact that the com-
mander can once again ride around the
battlefield, can see for himself the actual sit-
uation on the ground, can give appropriate
orders on the spot, and then take off to other
decisive areas. In short, the helicopter has
returned command by physical leadership to
the battlefield in place of command via the
situation map. All this can be done with
existing aircraft. Also very important is the
fact that we are on the threshold of develop-
ments by which light but potent weapons,
such as rockets and missiles, can be married
with low performance aircraft and possess
the same mobility as the troops to be sup-
ported.
I am also convinced that the problems of
the atomic battlefield can only be solved by
intelligent application of our aviation poten-
tial. We can no longer tie our infantry to
key terrain features; we can no longer hold
on to the highest ground, or to any key real
estate, for that matter; to do so is to invite
annihilation. On the atomic battlefield we
must rather depend upon elusiveness, speed
of maneuver, quick concentration and dis-
persion, and more than anything else, main-
tenance of the integrity of our force. Army
aviation Is unique in its ability to offer many
and varied solutions to this basic problem;
and with our aircraft we have the high
ground when we need it.
Another basic contribution of Army avia-
tion is its ability to offer solutions to the
problem posed by a numerically larger en-
emv#fter World War II we realized that
we could beat down these masses by fire-
power. From the standpoint of firepower
and equipment, it is now evident that this
will not be the road to victory on tomorrow's
battlefield. We may be able to win out over
superior numbers; but If we do, it must be
by capitalizing on techniques which allow
one of our men to be in as many places as
3 or 4 or 6 or 10 of the enemy in the same time
period. This is another way of saying that
the mobility offered us by aviation can be
used to overcome the fact that we are out-
numbered. Provided, of course, that we uti-
lize our potential more effectively than the
enemy. In this respect I do not want to be
an alarmist; but I know that our enemies
are not asleep to the possibilities in this field.
So there is pressure upon us to develop our
capabilities faster than he.
If we can develop and realize this great
potential before the enemy does, then we
can become the Innovators and reap the ad-
vantages which go with originality. Mili-
tary history Is replete with examples of de-
cisive advantage being gained through In-
novation particularly in the field of mobility.
Every great captain in history won key bat-
tles by moving faster than the enemy
thought possible. With the ICBM stalemate,
it should be evident that the United States
must insure its own ability to win limited
conflicts fought under the umbrella of the
stalemate. Nowhere else in our arsenal of
new weapons and techniques can I see even
the beginning of such possibilities for inno-
vation in mobility as lie in the developments
which the aviation industry is straining to
fulfill. I therefore say with the sincerest
belief that not only the future of ground
tactics but quite possibly our national secu-
rity may depend on how we use and exploit
aviation to support ground combat.
However, I must temper my own enthu-
siasm by pointing out that the road is not
an easy one. First of all, with any break-
through item there is the time problem of
getting these items into the hands of com-
manders and under conditions where com-
manders and their troops may develop the
best techniques for using them. In the case
of aviation many of our commanders do not
understand aviation, and we all tend to re-
coil from things we don't understand. We
must remember that only a few years ago a
lieutenant colonel didn't dare ask for a heli-
copter ride. He could not foresee the possi-
bility of having fulltime use of such a ve-
hicle. Five years later our lieutenant colonel
comes back to troop duty a grade higher and
in command of a battle group. He now has
his own helicopter, he has fixed wing over-
head to give him eyes on the battlefield; and
he can call for cargo helicopters to move his
rifle units. Is it any wonder that it takes
time before he can effectively utilize these
and many more aircraft in the accomplish-
ment of his mission?
We must also remember that training
people to use aviation effectively does not
come easily, especially when we are flying
in and out of dusty strips and confined
areas. Combat maneuvers in these places
are frequently dangerous and always time
consuming to set up and rehearse. There-
fore bear in mind that it takes time to
train aviators to work with tactical units.
An even more critical factor is the time
it takes the tactical units to learn to work
with aviation. This is not a serious prob-
lem in flying from airfield to airfield; but
when the destination or pickup point is a
small clearing in the woods; it becomes a
problem of different dimensions.
I would like to leave the thought in your
mind that it takes approximately a year
to develop a truly professional standard of
teamwork between the infantry units of a
division and the aviation which must work
with these units. A great deal of hardware
and gadgetry must be improvised. Land-
ing aids, ground handling gear, and other
auxiliary items must be fabricated; this
takes time, patience, practice, and funds.
None of these are readily available resources
in today's Army, especially the funds.
What this really means is that Army avia-
tion is in the position of the man who is
trying to build a house and at the same
time extinguish a fire that has broken out
inside. We must keep building for the fu-
ture; and there is real time pressure upon
us to realize the great potential that avia-
tion has for the Army. On the other hand
we must not be so preoccupied with the fu-
ture that we fail to extinguish the fires that
are now burning. In this respect we have a
real obligation to police up our program as it
now stands-to make of Army aviation a con-
sistent, constructive, and well-balanced pro-
gram-managed by truly professional avi-
ators.
Another area of difficulty is that of ration-
alizing the role of Army aviation with that
of Air Force aviation. This problem lends
itself to many unfortunate misunderstand-
ings. Now with regard to the functions of
Army aviation vis'-a-vis' those of the Air
Force, I feel that we should not duplicate
functions and services which the Air Force
Approved For Release 2000/05/05 : CIA-RDP75-00001 R000400430017-9