Army Aviation Digest - May 1992

7/28/2019 Army Aviation Digest - May 1992

1/76

years ofARMY AVIATION

1942 -1992


2/76

AVIATION DIGESTPROFESSI ~ L BULLETIN

MAYIJUNE1992

136

101822272931

33343638

43485255586264 Aviation Personnel Notes: Enlisted Aviation Personnel Structure

B ~ v o n d 200065 Armament Maintenance e c ~ h n i c i ~ m67 Home?68 Now Heed the Need69717273 SDotliiah,t: Personnel Malnaigernelnt

This issue commemo-50 years

I"h!:anl'1lt:1l and its

observation aircraft in WorldWar II to thestate-of-the-art RAH-66Comanche (bsICk!:Jroul a


3/76

Warfighter 6 Major General Dave Robinson

50th Anniversary of Army Aviation

From North Africa to NorthKorea, from the islands of the SouthPacific to the deserts of SouthwestAsia, from the plains of CentralEurope to the jungles of Indochina,and from the night patrols over thewaters of the Caribbean to the nightinvasion of Panama City, Army Avia-tion was there, when needed. Thatsums up the past 50 years of ArmyAviation.

Army Aviation, born out of neces-sity on 6 June 1942, and the newest ofthe combat arms, has been battletested in six armed conflicts during itsbrief 50-year history. From its humblebeginnings, with the flights of the L-4Grasshopper as spotter planes for thefield artillery during World War II, toou r latest success in the Persian Gulf,flying the most advanced aircraft theworld's industrial base has to offer,Army Aviation has established itselfas a true combat multiplier.

This June marks the 50th anniver-sary of Army Aviation as we know ittoday. We have come a long way sincethe "Class Before One." Thousands offixed-wing and rotary-wing Armyaviators have joined the ranks andfought for our country because theybelieved what they were doing wouldmake a difference, and they wereright. Since its inception, Army Avia-tion has contributed to our nation'ssuccesses in every conflict.

Army Aviation has not developedover the past half century without a

u.s. ArmyAviation Digest May/June 1992

struggle. It took the monumentalcourage and relentless efforts of greatvisionaries to overcome the ridiculeand the roadblocks that the Armytraditionalists put up at every turn.

These visionaries have foreverchanged the way that the Armyfights:

Lieutenant Colonel William W.Ford, Commander of the "ClassBefore One."

Colonel Jay D. Vanderpool, and hisstaff, who not only dared to thinkabout, but also experimented with,machineguns and rockets onhelicopters.

Lieutenant General Gordon B.Rogers, whose 1960 Board deter-mined that Army Aviation shouldmove forward with its modernization plan and produce the UH-IIroquois and the CH-47 Chinook,among other aircraft. Major General (MG) Hamilton H.Howze, who chaired the HowzeBoard that developed and provedthe concept of modern airmobility.

MG Carl E. McNair, who workedwith General Edward C. Meyer,then Army Chief of Staff,}'b makethe dream of an AviationBranch areality.


4/76

MG Ellis D. Parker, the first Aviation Branch Chief, responsible forfielding so many of our modem andmost lethal systems, such as theAH-64 Apache, OH-58D KiowaWarrior, UH-60 Black Hawk, andCH-47D Chinook.

The world haschanged dramati-cally over the past50 years. The coldwar has ended andwe have replacedour old militarystrategy of wardeterrence with oneof war avoidance.The Department ofDefense is undergoin g major re -structuring an dreshaping. Theworld is at war in noless than 30 locations today. Yet, wecontinue to downsize our militaryforces. The threatsto our national security did not disappear with the collapse of the WarsawPact. Future military operations willrun the gambit from peacekeepingmissions, to counterdrug operations,to fighting a major regional conflict.For the United States to maintain itsposition as the world's unilateralmilitary power, we simply must havelethal, early deploying forces that areready to fight at a moment's notice.

Army Aviation forces are a decidedcomplement to the combined armsteam. Army Aviation assets wereamong the first units to deploy in support of Operations Urgent Fury, Just

2

Cause, and Desert ShieldlDesertStorm. Army Aviation assetsfrom the 160th Special Operations Regiment and the 4thSquadron, 17th Cavalry,patrolled the Persian Gulf to sup

port Operation Prime Chance. Today,active duty and Reserve Componentaviation units continue to help law enforcement officials fight the war onillegal drugs in this country and innations abroad.

The future of the branch is bright. Withthe fielding of the AH-64 LongbowApache, OH-58D Kiowa Warrior, andRAH-66 Comanche and the modernization of the AH-64, UH-60, andCH-47 fleets, Army Aviation's conventional helicopters will continue to bethe most modem in the world. We alsowill reshape our fixed-wing fleet, maintaining only our four most modernsystems.

The role of Army Aviation haschanged dramatically over the pasthalf century. Our mission has expanded greatly from the days of fieldartillery adjustment. Today, Army

Aviation must perform across the entire operational continuum.

From the first use of aviation on thebattlefield by Thaddeus Lowe in 1861,Aviation has demonstrated that the abilityto break friction with the ground is not atrivial capability. The training and theaircraft our aviators fly today havechanged dramatically over the past 50years, but one thing remains constant: theheroic acts of Army aviators throughoutour history are legendary.

The names of distant battlefields andaircrews may havebeen forgotten, butthe legacy that ou rpredecessors haveleft for us will live onforever. We owemuch to those earlyvisionaries who sawt ha t a v iat io n po s-sessed th e uniqueability to control thebattlefield by reachin g ou t an d cap-turing th e thirddimension. Theyhave foreverchanged the waythat warfare will bewaged.

"It wasn't alwayseasy, and it wasn't always fair, butwhen freedom called we answered, wewere there." Our mission is warfighting, and we must never forget it.

u.s. Army Aviation Digest May/June 1992


5/76

VIEWS FROM READERS

Editor:I read the article "TEXCOM (Test

and Experimentation Command) TestNoncommissioned Officer" in theNovember/December 1991 issue ofth e U.S. Army A viation Digest. Iwould like to inform your readers thatTEXCOM is not the only organizationinvolved in the testing of Aviation assets. The U.S. Army AviationTechnical Test Center (USAATTC),Fort Rucker, AL, and the AviationQualification Test Directorate, Edwards Air Force Base (AFB), CA (adetached element of the test center),also are involved in many of the testsstated in your article. But I find nomention of that.

TEXCOM does have a lot to beproud of. They do a lot for the aviationcommunity. But let's not forget thatthere are people, at Fort Rucker andEdwards AFB, who work these typetests, and others, on a regular basis.

I also would like to inform yourreaders that TEXCOM is not the onlyagency that has a test officer's course.Our command (U.S. Army Test andEvaluation Command) also has acourse of which I am a graduate thatprepares project officers for testing.

The statement that the TEXCOMtest officer's orientation course contains sufficient subject matter for theaward of the special skill identifier"R" is partially incorrect. The requirement for award of the "R" identifier is


outlined in Army Regulation (AR)611-20 I, Enlisted Career Manage-ment Fields and MilitaryOccupational Specialties. It statesthat to qualify for award of the "R"identifier the individual must havesuccessfully completed 60 days' onthe-job training in a designatedresearch, development, test, andevaluation position and then berecommended by the unit commander.While the TEXCOM course may contain the need-to-know material, it doesnot suffice as a requirement for theaward of the skill qualification identifier "R" in accordance with AR611-201.

Finally, I would like to add that thetest arena is the cutting edge. The noncommissioned officers (NCOs)assigned to this type duty are of thehighest caliber. The duties we performand the scope of those duties are farbeyond "normal" NCO functions andgo far beyond the "job description" ofa 67 or 68 series military occupationalspecialty. While our peers are responsible for troops and their equipment,we are responsible for millions ofArmy test dollars-multimillion-dollar aircraft and aircraft systems.

We are here to ensure that the soldier gets a product he can trust anddepend on to do what it was designedto do every time he uses it. That, initself is a task most NCOs will neverperform, but is a normal function of

our everyday job. There is no other"job" in the Army that places the NCOin a position of such high responsibility, visibility, and accountability.

We appreciate your interest in ourline of work and maybe your articlewill help dispel the rumor that this isjust another cushy assignment. "Testfor the Best."

SFC William M. BauerProject CoordinatorMaintenance Support BranchUSAATTCFort Rucker, AL

Editor:The Sixth National Conference on

High-Power Microwave (HPM) Technology will be held 24 through 28August 1992 at the Hope PerformingArts Center, Air Force Training Command, Lackland Air Force Base(AFB), TX. The theme of the Conference is "HPM Technology for the90s." The Conference and its proceedings will be classified SECRET, NOFOREIGN NATIONALS, an dWARNINGLIGENCE

NOTICE-INTEL-SOURCES OR

METHODS INYOLYED.Th e Conference will provide a

forum for technical exchange in bothnarrowband and wideband technologies, effects, and systemconcepts. Members of the Department of Defense and other Federal

3


6/76

agencies, their contractors, industry,and academia are invited.

Phillips Laboratory, Directorate ofAdvanced Weapons and Survivability, Kirtland AFB, NM, issponsoring the Conference.

For information concerning thetechnical program contact Mr. DonaldJ. Sullivan , Technical Coordinator,Mission Research Corporation atcommercial phone number 505-768-7670. For a complete registrationpacket contact Ms. Carolyn A. Keen,Conference Administrator, BioneticsMeeting Support Division at toll-freenumber 1-800-868-0330.

Editor:The Test Technology Symposium

V will be held 14 through 16 July 1992at the Kossiakoff Conference andEducation Center, Johns HopkinsUniversity, Laurel, MD. The theme ofthe unclassified Symposium is "Meeting Test Technology ChallengesThrough Multiservice Partnerships."

The U.S. Army Test and EvaluationCommand, Directorate for Technology, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD,is sponsoring the Symposium.

For a complete information packetcontact Ms. Carolyn A. Keen, Symposium Administrator at toll-freenumber 1-800-868-0330 or telefax 1-804-722-0894.

Editor:In response to Major General (MG)

Dave Robinson's invitation to submitaviation-related articles, "Let's Exchange Ideas," in th e January/February 1991 issue of the U. S. ArmyAviation Digest, I offer the followingdiscussion on fixed-wing close alrsupport (CAS) by the U.S. Army.

4

Army fixed-wing CAS is an ideawhose time has come. Whether themission is necessary is not an issue;that is a given. The issue is whether ornot the Army should be doing the mission. In my opinion, "yes!"

Presently, the military is in transition. The name of the game now isefficiency. Conceptual changes arenecessary; "packages" are in. The U.S.Air Force (USAF) recognizes this andis consolidating and collocating unitsinto go anywhere, do anything units.The USAF's forte is strategic deterrence, heavy airlift, air refueling, anai r superiority. That all is as it shouldbe. The USAF also has the fixed-wingCAS mission whose job is to support,guess who, the U.S. Army. It wouldseem to make a lot more sense for theArmy to be supporting the Army.

Army supporting Army: Armyaviators supporting ground maneuverunits doing tactics that they, Armyaviators, study, understand, and appreciate. Army aviators who are at thebeck and call of the ground commander, not removed by layers ofinterservice bureaucracy. Armyaviators who sit in on Army tacticalbriefings, who 'speak Army,' who areintensely schooled on vehicle recognition, which is so necessary on themobile battlefield, and who are ratedby the Army chain of command. Armyaviators who are an elite, to be sure,but who understand GP (general purpose) medium an d MRE (meal,ready-to-eat).

Picture it. Army Aviation as a totalpackage: helicopters for close inwork; fixed-wing for deeper, heavierfirepower work; and working with infan try, armor, and artillery under oneArmy command. That is a package;that is efficient. The conceptualchange to achieve it is accomplished

by allowing the Army to do the fixedwing CAS mission.

The Army only needs another 500feet above the ground to do the job.The USAF generally gives 500 feetand below to the Army for its helicopters. Fixed-wing CAS needs onlyanother 500 feet or so on top of that toget the job done. The USAF can haulthe Army to destination, air refuel theArmy fixed-wing CAS aircraft to destination, clear the skies above with airsuperiority, and then let the Army goto work gaining the ground with all itsassets, to include rotary- and fixedwing aviation. Makes sense to me.

I am not the only one it makes senseto. The 1991 Defense AppropriationsAct mandated the transfer of. USAFA-IO Thunderbolt aircraft to the U.S.Army for OV 1 Mohawk aircraftbeing turned in. As reported in theSeptember 1991 issue of the ArmedForces Journal, the Senate ArmedServices Committee recentlyreiterated that mandate.

I am not so naive as to be unawareof the politics involved in such a transition. The USAF is giving up amission and that means giving up dollars, sometime services are not wontto do. However, in the current fiscalenvironment, dollars are disappearinganyway. It would be best for theUSAF to stick to its forte: strategicdeterrence, heavy airlift, air refueling,and ai r superiority. Let the Army havethe air-to-mud job.

I also am aware that the Army mayfirst be hesitant to embrace the fixedwing, CAS mission. There is simplynot a lot of institutional knowledgewithin the Army to go about it. Thereis enough to begin.

Let us speak of OV 1 units and OV-1 aviators. I have been in the ActiveArmy and on active duty with the



7/76

Army National Guard, for 14 years.These units and aviators can make thetransi tion and do the jo b easy. Ipromise. Here is why I think so: I wasan active duty USAF pilot for 5 years,have 2,000 hours in the OV -1, and Iam an airline captain in civilian life. Ihave been around a lot of pilots in mylife. A good pilot is a good pilot is agood pilot. A good OV -I pilot will bea good A-I 0 pilot. Again, I promise.

While we are at it, let me offeranother concept to ge t this thingstarted. The USAF, US Navy, and USMarine Corps have had aviator exchange programs for years. It is timethe USAF and Army had one: Assignsome Army OV -I aviators to theUSAF A-tO transition course. Upongraduation, send them out to USAFA-I0 operational units. These Armyaviators will be gaining fixed-wingCAS experience and, equally important, introducing Army dialogue to themission. They will be with the USAFas equals. That is how to build communication and respect. And that ishow to get this thing started. I have thebackground to help. Call me.

Is Army fixed-wing CAS achievable? Of course it is. Not withoutchallenges, but it is achievable. Will itserve to create a more combat effective Army? Absolutely. And that isexactly why the U.S. Army should bedoing the fixed-wing CAS mission.

LTC Lauran PaineState Aviation OfficerOregon Army National Guard

Editor:I am wntIng to place the article

"What is the SPH-4B?" in th eMarch/April 1992 issue of the U.S.Army Aviation Digest in its properperspective. Newer does not always


mean better. Although, the development of th e SPH-4B wa s wellintended, in the rush to procure helmets for Operations Desert Shield andStorm, we somehow fell short on thequality control process.

Fielding of the SPH-4B is notwithout problems: Presently, nightvision devices are still not authorizedon the dual visor mount of the SPH-4B, pending research by the U.S.Army Safety Center, Fort Rucker, AL,on tilt adjustment. Although fieldedwithout a technical manual, U.S.Aviation Systems Command, St .Louis, MO, is allowing aviation lifesupport equipment (ALSE) shops touse the manual from the old SPH-4when working on the new helmet.ALSE shop technicians have beenable to get around the problem of norepair parts available by substitutingparts from the old SPH-4. Parts thatare available, such as the dark visor($45.00), are inordinately expensive.Commanders will soon start feelingthe impact on their ALSE budgets.

Two pages worth of qualitydeficiency reports have been submitted on the SPH-4B; unfortunately,the deficiencies may only be correctedon a very small portion of the helmetsordered. For the thousands an dthousands of helmets that have already been issued, it will be theburden of ALSE techniciansworldwide to correct problems suchas: sending back cracked helmets, installing missing parts, attachingearcup seals with tape, etc.

Army Aviation can live with theSPH-4B but at the cost of a horribleheadache to our hardworking ALSEtechnicians. Personally, I am treatingmyoid SPH-4 with kid gloves so thatI will not have to trade it in for a newhelmet, which has chinstraps that

choke and napestraps that prevent mefrom fully clearing the aircraft.

CW3 Alfred L. RiceAviation Safety Officer1/14th Aviation RegimentAviation Training BrigadeFort Rucker, AL

Editor:Combined Arms Command-Train

ing (CAC-TNG), Fort Leavenworth,KS, is the proponent for Army trainingmanagement doctrine written in FieldManual (FM) 25-100, Training theForce, an d FM 25-101, BaffleFocused Training.CAC-TNG is soliciting commentsand suggestions from the field on howto revise and improve FM 25-101 tobetter meet the needs of the ActiveArmy and Army Reserve before thenext scheduled rewrite. Suggestionsshould include the specific recommendation, page, and paragraph aswell as well as textual changes andadditions. Use of Department of theArmy Form 2028 (RecommendedChanges to Publications and BlankForms) also is recommended but notrequired.

Comments and recommendationsshould be sent to the Deputy Commanding General for Training,Combined Arms Command, ATTN:ATZL-CTT, Fort Leavenworth, KS66027. Comments may be faxed toDSN 552-4458. If you have any questions contact Captain Bill Hedges atDSN 552-3919.

Readers can obtain copies of thematerial printed in this issue bywriting to the Editor, U.S. Army Aviation Digest, ATZQ-PAO-AD, FortRucker, AL 36362-5042

5


8/76

ReshapingAn

Army

by LTC Colin K. Dunn Commander, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command

Excerpts from a recent interview conducted by Lieutenant Colonel Colin K. Dunn, Editor, Field ArtilleryProfessional Bulletin, Fort Sill, OK, with General Frederick M. Franks Jr, Commanding General, U.S. ArmyTraining and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, VA.

As the Army moves toward acontinental U.S. [CONUSJ-basedcontingency force, what do yousee as the capabilities critical toresponding to crises?General [Gordon R.] Sullivan

[ChiefofStaffofthe Army] is reshaping our Army into a post-Cold WarArmy and not just a smaller versionof our Cold War Army. We are reshaping both intellectually and in our training and leader development programs.

As we move toward a strategicArmy, the majority of our forces willbe in the United States. But forwardpresence also will be part of our national military strategy. So we'lldeploy from either forward presenceor CONUS locations.

With this strategy, rapid mobilization and deployment become increasingly important. The circumstancesunder which the Army can deploy aremore ambiguous now than they werea few years ago. When we had the

6

certainty of the Cold War contingencies, commanders trained andprepared to win in those particular circumstances.

Now we must be more versatilemix and match units in tailored forcepackages, fight battles at the tacticaland operational levels, and organizeour contingency theater to defeatthreats in many scenarios. This versatility is critical, but we've shownsuch versatility before. A lot of thecapabilities we demonstrated inoperations such as Just Cause andDesert Shield and Storm will continueto be important for our contingencyArmy in the future.

What are some of the greatestchallenges the Army faces intraining for joint operations?

First, we have to base our trainingon the situations we could face-thecircumstances unified commandersneed their forces to practice. We must

have a relevant set of circumstances orconditions within which the trainingtakes place.

Scenarios are very important injoint operations. So, as we watchscenarios being developed in unifiedcommands, in our schools, leaderdevelopment programs, and CTCs[combat training centers], they shouldbe relevant for the U.S. Army now andin the future. Next, we must capi talizeon the significant strengths each service brings to the operation and harmonize them in accordance withemerging joint and Army doctrine.For example, joint special operationsat the JRTC [Joint Readiness TrainingCenter, Fort Chaffee, AR] harmonizeair-ground fires, both close and deep.As the organic fires of our Army systems reach out farther and fartherMLRS [multiple launch rocketsystem], cannon artillery, Army tactical missile system [Army TACMS],AH-64 Apaches-as the ground com-



9/76

mander can employ these assets atgreater distances, that requires morecoordination and more training injoint operations.

How do you see the Army's in-creasing the lethality of our earlydeploying forces in a contingencyoperation?

We can increase our lethality inseveral ways. The most talked aboutway is through materiel solutions.Certainly, we'll pursue developing thearmored gun system [Armor's lightlyarmored gun system with a highvelocity cannon, which is transportable by C-130 Hercules aircraft];HIMARS [Artillery's high-mobility,artillery rocket system, a lightweight,wheeled version of MLRS]; theJavelin llnfantry's one-man-operated,fire-and-forget, advanced antitankweapon with a 1.25-mile range]; andothers that give us more lethality onthe ground early.

Fielding the M 119 light howitzerand adding fuel pods to UH-60 BlackHawks, Apaches, and the CH-47DChinook plus th e helicopters 'capability to be refueled in midairgive us lethality options early on. Ouraviation now can self-deploy as wellas deploy aboard ships and insidestrategic aircraft. Again, versatility iskey.

Depending on the contingency'scircumstances, deployment means,and time available, the commanderca n increase th e lethality of hisdeploying light forces by introducingother types of units early on. He canmix and match his light, specialoperating, and heavy forces to meetthat particular threat.

You'll see more mixing and matching in your NTC [National TrainingCenter, Fort Irwin, CA] and JRTCrotations as you train on contingencyoperations. Those CTCs are employing heavy and light forces in operations specifically aimed at developingversatility.


In the joint arena, our sister servicesare help ing us get forces on the groundfaster in contingencies. The Navy, forexample, is committed to buildingmore fast sea-lift ships in the next fewyears. So we'll see a dramatic improvement in our forces' ability todeploy by surface means. The AirForce has committed to the C-17 Airlifter. So our strategic transportaircraft capability is improving. Additionally, we can preposition Armymateriel on ships at selected locations.

The materiel, force package, andother solutions to increasing ou rlethality early on are all part of beingversatile enough to meet any contingency. What we don't want to do is getlocked into inflexible formulas fo rspecific scenarios. Our doctrineshould guide us-describe how tothink about mobilization and deployment-how to think in terms of versatile force mixing and matching incombat, combat support, and combatservice support forces, etc. Using suchdoctrine, we would be flexible enoughto organize and operate in any situation.

As the sponsor of he "Fightingwith Fires" initiative beingworked by the Field ArtillerySchool, would you explain yournotion of the combined armscommander's role in synchroniz-ing operating systems?

My goal-with Major General[Fred F.] Marty, Brigadier General[Tommy R.] Franks [Field ArtillerySchool Commandant and AssistantCommandant], and the Field ArtillerySchool leading the way-is to ensurethe Army makes the most of our increasingly lethal fires.

In what General George S. Pattoncalled the "Musicians of Mars," thecombined arms commander is the"conductorof his orchestra" of operating systems performing on the battlefield. He's responsible for pullingtogether all the elements of combat

power to fight and win. In the tacticalbattle, major engagements or campaigns, the elements of combat powerare the same: firepower, maneuver,protection, and leadership.

The combined arms commandermust be as involved in the fires part ofhis battle as he is in the maneuver part.I want combined arms commandersArmy-wide to know how to skillfullymaneuver fires, and we accomplishthat first in our doctrine and leaderdevelopment programs and then intraining. An d I want those skillshoned.

The lethality of our fires has increased significantly. During DesertStorm, in one-half hour we deliveredmore fires more effectively thanWorld War II artillery could havedelivered in 8 hours. So we haveextraordinary fires capabilities-andthe systems and munitions underdevelopment promise even greaterlethality.

The maneuver commander mustbecome the combined arms commander an d fight more than themaneuver battle-know how to fightwith fires and make them an integralpart of the battle. He must be able toquickly maneuver and mass fires andskillfully employ counterfire. If thefire support officer [FSO] plans firesas a separate entity-not integrated inthe total battle by the combined armscommander-the plan ends up havinglittle relevance to the conduct of thebattle. Fires are too important to beleft solely to the artillery.

Fire planning by the FSO is certainly necessary, but the plan has to havean agility built in-an interrelationship with maneuver-to make themaximum contribution to winning.Planning is one thing, fighting isanother. The fire plan can't be "put onautomatic" and executed as though theenemy's not going to react to it. Hewill. In a fight, you've got two mindsworking on the same problem: thecommander's and the enemy's.

7


10/76

Points of Main Effort

In this interview, General Franks emphasizes five "points of main effort"to guide TRADOC in helping to shape the Army for a changing worldsituation:

Lead the Army through intellectual change. Propose modernization alternatives to maintain the technological

edge for soldiers on future battlefields. Sustain excellence and relevance in training and leader develop-

ment. Foster organizational excellence. Focus on soldiers.

How would you rate our abilityto synchronize operating systemsat the combat training centers?I was enormously proud of theDesert Storm commanders ' orchestrating capabilities, at least thoseI observed personally. Their abilitiesto synchronize fires and maneuverwere superb. The Ist Infantry Divisionin the breach; th e I st ArmoredDivision (United Kingdom) with the142d Field Artillery National Guardfrom AR; and the I st Cavalry Divisionin their raids, feints, and demonstrations; the artillery raids and counterfire ambushes with MLRS were allprofessional, skillful operations. TheIst and 3d Armored Divisions in theirzones of action against the Iraqisdemonstrated their success in employing massed fires. (I define "massed" asthe fires of two or more battalions, notbatteries.)

We need to continue this awarenessof the capabilities of fires, an awareness forged in Desert Storm. And weneed to practice it at the CTCs. I'mencouraged by some recent work atthe NTC. Both counterfire and targetacquisition are beginning to get theattention they deserve. I also see someencouraging changes at the JRTC,such as th e participation of keyplayers, for example ANGLICO [airnaval gunfire liaison company] teams.We need continued emphasis on get-

8

ting every player on the combinedarms team on the field at the CTCs.Thus, combined arms commanderscan train to synchronize the team.

How do you envision the futureCTCs' evolving to maintain ourArmy's warfighting edge?

We've got to ensure our practicefields remain relevant to the circumstances in which the Army findsitself. At one time we trained to fightbased on the Cold War world order.Now the playing field has changed,and we've changed our training accordingly.

General Sullivan has directed weconduct contingency operations atboth the NTC and JRTC. At the JRTC,you'll see joint operations on a continuing basis and armor-mech, light,and special operating forces. You'llsee light and armor-mech forces at theNTC. Units now face the threat in avariety of configurations as opposedto one threat. In our BCTPs [battlecommand training programs] for ourdivisions and corps, you'll see thesame type of changes occurring.We're shifting quickly to post-ColdWar warfighting.

But relevancy is key. Our traininghas to be relevant to the circumstancesin which the Army finds itself. Wemust sustain excellence and relevancein training and leader development.

Current doctrine addresses thecommander's intent in his concept for fires and maneuver but ingeneral terms. What should firesupport and maneuver expectfrom the combined arms commander?The commander needs to preciselydescribe the effects he's trying toachieve and where and when he wantsthem. In simple, straightforward language, he should describe his desiredeffects in the conduct of the operation,the point of his main effort, a sensingof the speed of the operation, andwhere it needs to be relatively tightlycontrolled. And, depending on theechelon, the commander may have totell where he chooses to fight thedecisive battle over time. I f he's thecorps commander, he's probablydescribing 2 to 4 days of operations.

But the combined arms commanderdoesn't come up with his intent inisolation. Before he expresses the intent, either verbally or in the order,there needs to be continual dialogueface-to-face with subordinate commanders and his staff so he can harmonize his operating systems. He getsadvice for his running estimate bytalking to subordinate commanders,members of his staff, commanders offire support and engineer units, and soforth. That's the way to make the combined arms orchestra play.

But when the intent arrives, thenit's the responsibility of the logistician, fire supporter, engineer, etc., tosay, "How can I involve my organization to best achieve the desired effects?" For example, at the division orhigher level, the fire support officershould give the commander some alternatives for task organizing the artillery and weighing the effects of firesto achieve his desired outcome.

What impact do you believe fu-ture intelligence and fire supportsystems will have in terms ofachieving success on the bat-u.s. Army Aviation Digest May/June 1992


11/76

tlefield without major engage-ments of maneuver forces?Most combined arms commanders

would tell you that the major intelligence shortcoming in terms of identifying targets is their inability to seeover the hill. What they ' re trying toavoid is unplanned meeting engagements. Friendly reconnaissance outfront , either in the defense or the attack, is of utmost importance to commanders . Our ability to see over thehill will be improved, by and large, bythe UA V [unmanned aerial vehicle].

We need the ability to rapidly targetand deliver fires that contribute to theoverall tactical scheme. For example ,in Southwest Asia, we were fortunateto have the Pioneer [UA V]. So weflew it and, with a quick-firecapability, spotted and fired on targetsin real time. It 's th e real-timecapability we ' re looking fo r indelivering fires- not only with cannon s, but also with the Army T ACMSand MLRS.

As fa r as fire s sub stituting formaneuver engagement s are concerned, you have to watch how youthink about that. Fires and maneuverare I inked; one contributes to theother.

Of course, it depends on the type oftarget you're talking about. WithMLRS and Army TACMS, you canachieve lethal effects without involving maneuver forces. For example, ifyou ' re firing at a SAM [surface-to-airmissile] site with Army TACMS, youcan probably put it out of business.

How can the combined armscommander make the most of hisfire support and aviation assets?In the factors of METT-T [mission,

enemy, terrain, troops, and time available], he looks for those elements ofcombat power he can rapidly shiftfrom one part of the battlefield toanother. I call those "reusable combatassets." Though the commander canusually shift his artillery the quickest,

We've go t a great Army, andI'm proud to be part of it.

his reusable combat assets also include aviation and close air support.

So the commander formulates hisplan to take advantage of reusablecombat power available to him. But afire plan is just that-a plan. The firesupporter, the aviator, and the AirForce representative must understandthe commander will have to deviatefrom the plan to seize opportunities,and rapidly adjust to take advantage ofsituations as they occur during thefight.

The Army's capstone warfight-ing doctrinal Field Manual [FM]100-5, Operations is underrevision. How is this manualchanging?

The Chief of Staff of the Army hascharged TRADOC with leading theArmy through this intellectual changeto a post-Cold War world by usingdoctrine as the engine of change. Apart of this effort includes revisingFM 100-5. Our doctrine isn't broken.But we need to include in it the operational versatility our Army now requires in a post-Cold War era.

FM 100-5 will describe how tothink about mobilization and deployment, how to think about employingArmy forces in actions short of warand other intellectual changes wemust make- all of which we 've donebefore in some form or other. But thecenterpiece of the revised FM 100-5will continue to be fighting at the tactical, operational , an d strategiclevels- guidelines for employing forces, conditioned by the factors ofMETT-T.

We're engaging not onlyTRADOC, but the total Army in


developing FM 100-5. The process isas important as the product. I f we dothe process right, if we have the kindof dialogue we need, we'll accomplishtwo things. First, we'll inform theArmy about the need for change as wechange. And second, by the time wepublish the manual sometime in 1993,we'll have tapped the collective wisdom of the Army to include in therevised manual. FM 100-5 isTRADOC ' s "point of main effort" andrequires the full attention of leadersArmy-wide.

What message would you sendto combined arms soldiersworldwide?We've got a great Army, and I'm

proud to be part of it. It's one that'sconfident in itself, as proved by itssuccesses in Just Cause, the Cold War,and Desert Storm.

But we have work to do. We mustrapidly shift our focus from preparingto fight the battles of a Cold Wa rworld to the battles of the future. Andto do that in our smaller Army, wemust optimize al l our combatcapabilities, including making themost of our fires. So our doctrine,training, and leader developmentstrategies must evolve as we reshapethe Army.

Then, as we reduce forces inEurope , move units to our TRADOCinstallations and as our Army getssmaller, we must do it all while caringfor our soldiers, civilians, and theirfamilies. For those who leave theArmy, we must show our great appreciation for their service in peaceand war, helping to make the Army thebest in our nation's history. EveryArmy alumni should depart with asense of dignity and respect.

To our many soldiers who willremain in the Army, all of whom playsome part on the combined arms team,I thank you for all you've done andchallenge you to continue your recordof excellence. 0

9


12/76

anieAnnyAviation inWorlThis study of Army Aviation in World War II was excerpted from a longer work in progress. Part 2,

covering the latter part of the war, will appear in a later issue. The opinions expressed in this article arethose of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any Department of Defense agency.

10

BELOW: A "Grasshopper" stopped at afilling station for gas during theLouisiana Maneuvers In 1841.INSET: Captain Joseph M. Watson, Jr. andhis L-4 "Mary Ellen," which heflew throughout the Tunisian. Italian campaigns.



13/76

Part 11940-1943

U.S. Army Aviation Digest May/June 1992

Dr. John W. KitchensAviation Branch Command HistorianU.S. Army Aviation CenterFort Rucker, ALo 6June 1942, the secretary of war ordered the establishment of organic air observation forField Artillery. Through companionmemoranda sent to the commandinggenerals of the Army Air Forces(AAF) and the Army Ground Forces(AGF), the War Department issuedspecific instructions for organizingorganic air observation. It also provided guidelines for relations betweenthe AAF and this new air arm of theAGF.For example, the air forces were tosupply the ground forces with smallone-engine planes, called "liaisontype airplanes," and spare parts. Theair forces also were responsible forall third echelon aviation maintenancein the Army, basic flight training,and rating the student pilots "according to standards established for liaison pilots."

Organic air observation in FieldArtillery was intended not to replace,but rather "to supplement the AAF'sresponsibility for aerial adjustmentof artillery fire" from high-performance aircraft. The order of 6 Juneauthorized two organic aircraft foreach artillery battalion and two foreach brigade, division, and groupartillery headquarters, without affecting existing obligations of the AAF.l

The establishmentoforganic ArmyAviation in June 1942 complied witha recommendation from the office ofthe commanding generalof he AGF.This recommendation followed a series of tests and experiments that haddemonstrated the efficacy of organicaircraft for Field Artillery units.

The AAF of the World War II(WWII) period had evolved from the

19th century Balloon Corps, the ArmyAir Service of the WWI era, and theArmy Air Corps of the 1920s and1930s. The h i ~ t o r y of the U.S. Army's air arm from the Civil War erauntil 6 June 1942 is the commonheritage of both the Aviation Branchof the Army and the U.S. Air Force(USAF).

After the birth of organic ArmyAviation in 1942, the evolutionarypath of the future Aviation Branch ofthe Army diverged from that of thefuture USAF.

During WWII, and until the establishment of the USAF in 1947, however, the large and powerful AAFand the minuscule new air arm of theAGF were both parts of the Army.Even during these early years, theyoften competed for resources andmission assignments.The Louisiana Maneuvers

The movement in the AGF thatwas to result in establishing a newArmy air arm began around 1940.Joseph McCord Watson, Jf., a youngartillery officer, had been experimenting with the concept of artillery fireadjustment from small aircraft.

In 1940, he requested that the PiperAircraft Corporation furnish twoPiper Cubs to experiment with fireadjustment during Army maneuvers .These experiments, conducted atCamp Beauregard, LA, in August1940, proved successful notwithstanding the absence of radios in theaircraft.2In the fall of 1940, Major General(MG) Robert M. Danford, the chiefof Field Artillery, and other artilleryofficers became interested in further

11


14/76

testing the organic spotter-plane concept.They were motivated by two major factors. First, Air Corps planeswere not always available to provideartillery spotter support when needed.Secondly, some artillerymen werecoming to believe that lightweightaircraft, piloted by artillery officersand dependent on ground commanders, could do a better job. 3 Interest inthe concept of using small organicaircraft for fire adjustment becamemore widespread as a result of anarticle by Major (MAJ) William W.Ford, "Wings for Santa Barbara." Thearticle was published in the FieldArtillery Journal in April 1941.4

Army General Headquarters conducted maneuvers in Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, and the Carolinas in1941. Three light aircraft manufacturers, Piper, Taylorcraft, andAeronca, placed 11 planes at the dis-

posal of the Army during themaneuvers.These cub-type planes, mostlyPiper J-3s, flown by civilian pilotswere tested for artillery spotting aswell as for courier service and otherliaison roles.

During the maneuvers, these 11"Grasshoppers," as they were namedby MG Innis P. Swift, commandinggeneral, 1st Cavalry Division, flewabout 400,000 miles in some 3,000missions.In comparison to the larger airforces planes, the Grasshoppers costmuch less, could take off and land onalmost any level surface, and couldmaintain much more effective contact with the ground units that theysupported.Furthermore, according to General Danford, the "only uniformlysatisfactory report of air observationduring the maneuvers .. [came] from

Colonel William W. Ford (left), was the first director of theDepartment of Air Training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, in 1942, andLieutenant Colonel Gordon J. Wolf was the first deputy director.

12

those artillery units where . .light commercial planes operated by civilianpilots were used."5After the 1941 maneuvers, Gen

eral Danford renewed his efforts toobtain War Department permissionto conduct formal tests of light aircraft organic to Field Artillery units.On 8 December 1941, the day afterthe Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor,a War Department memorandum authorized Field Artillery to proceedwith the proposed tests and directedthe AAF to make 28 YO-59 (Piper J-3 or Piper Cub) aircraft available toField Artillery as soon as practicable.6

With the new liaison "L" classification introduced on 2 April 1942,the YO-59 became the L-4, the aircraft most widely used by organicArmy Aviation during WWII. TheAGF also used a few L-:2 Taylorcraftand L-3 Aeroncas, but they were farless satisfactory.7

The Class Before OneOn 2 January 1942, LieutenantColonel (LTC) William W. Ford be

came director of air training at FortSill, OK, for the purpose of training agroup of licensed pilots in the techniques of aerial artillery spotting fromsmall aircraft. Ford selected MAJGordon J. Wolf, a Field Artilleryreservist, as his executive officer.First Lieutenant (1 L T) Robert R.Williams and 2LT Delbert L. Bristolassisted Ford and Wolf in setting upthe program. Nine civilian flight instructors also joined the team.

Training began on 15 January atFort Sill's Post Field with 24 PiperCub J-3 airplanes furnished by theAAF. The students, who have cometo be known as the "Class BeforeOne," consisted of both officers andenlisted men. At Fort Sill, they weretrained in both tactical flying andairplane maintenance. For artilleryspotting, they had to learn to fly lowand slow: low in order to avoid hostile aircraft and slow in order to landu. S. Army Aviation Digest May/June 1992


15/76

Flight B of the Class Before One passes in review at Fort Sam Houston, Texas in April 1942.

on the shortest possible landing strip.Upon completion of the training

on 28 February, the detachment wasdivided into two groups for the tests.

Flight A consisted of six officersand eight enlisted men. It was sent toFort Bragg, NC, and then to CampBlanding, FL, for tests with the 13thField Artillery Brigade.

Flight B consisted of Major Wolf,six other officers, and seven enlistedmen. It was sent to Fort Sam Houston, TX, for tests with the 2d Infantry Division artillery. LTC Ford divided his time between the twogroups.s

In the tests, the Piper Cubs operated by artillery officers performed


fully as well as their advocates expected. Several advantagesof he lightaircraft were clearly demonstrated.Piper Cubs were easy to operate andmaintain; they could be easily dismantled for ground movement; andthey could take off from and land onunimproved strips.

The tests also demonstrated theeffecti venessofclose contact betweenpilots and ground commanders andof providing maintenance training topilots. The validity of the organiclight aircraft concept was proven.

The tests were completed in lateApril of 1942. At that time, BrigadierGeneral Mark Clark, chief of staff tothe commander of the AGF, Lieuten-

ant General Lesley J. McNair, approved the test reports and recommended the establishment of organicair observation for Field Artillery.9The memoranda of 6 June 1942 resulted from this recommendation.Training

The Department of Air Trainingwas established in the Field ArtillerySchool at Fort Sill a few days after theWar Department memoranda of 6June. The original training staff consisted of most of the people involvedin the test group, including LTC Fordand MAJ Wolfe, who continued asdirector and executive officer, respectively. The first tactical flight train-

1


16/76

ing class, "Class One," began in earlyAugust, 1942.

Maintenance was an important partof organic Army Aviation trainingfrom the beginning. The first class formechanics began in July 1942. LTMarion J. Fortner, an aeronauticalengineer and a member of the ClassBefore One, was primarily responsible for the development of maintenance courses for both pilots andmechanics.

Initially, all tactical flight trainingstudents already had civilian pilotlicenses. As the supply of licensedpilots ran out, the AAF, which hadresponsibility for providing rated pilots to the AGF, contracted with civilian companies to conduct primaryflight instruction.

The primary training phase consisted of around 9 weeks of liaisonpilot training at Pittsburg, KS, andDenton, TX. After primary flight instruction, the new pilots recei ved from5 to 10 weeks of advanced tacticaltraining in the Department of AirTraining at Fort Sill. 10Army Air Forces and ArmyGround Forces RivalryRivalry between the AAF and theAGF over organic aviation had surfaced in 1940, when the ground forcesbegan testing the concept. Frictionbetween the two major Army commands became more pronounced during the latter halfof 1942. One aspectof the dispute concerned the selection, training, and rating of pilots.Field Artillery preferred that its"pilot-observers" be officers, branchtrained artillery officers insofar aspossible. On the other hand, all AAFliaison pilots were noncommissionedofficers (NCOs). War Departmentleaders originally expected that mostof the Field Artillery pilots would beNCOs also. Furthermore, the AAFbelieved that the liaison pilot shouldbe trained only to operate light aircraft and that the "passenger-observer," who need not be a pilot,14

should be responsible for fire adjustment.Most of the licensed volunteers

who completed the tactical trainingcourse during the early months of theprogram were officers. When the AAFbegan training and rating pilots tosend to Fort Sill in September 1942,the air forces selected and trainedenlisted men according to their policyregarding the rank of liaison pilots.Since the AAFhad already combedthe Army for aviation volunteers,however, it was difficult to find q ualified persons willing to serve as enlisted pilots. All trainees of the firstgroup sent to Fort Sill, for example,consisted of rejected aviation cadets.

The instructors at Fort Sill foundmany of the men selected, trained,and rated as liaison pilots by the AAFto be inadequately trained, or otherwise unqualified, when they arrivedfor advanced tactical training.Conversely, the air forces, withexclusive authority to rate Army pilots, challenged the qualifications ofsome of the licensed pilots admittedto the advanced course at Fort Sillwithout having received training under the auspices of the AAF. Thecommandant of the Field ArtillerySchool reported, on 28 September1942, that the procedures for the selection, training, and rating of pilotswere "chaotic." He proposed that theground forces be given exclusive responsibility for these functions.

The assistant secretaryofwar calleda series of meetings of high-levelAAF and AGF representatives in response to reports of personnel selection and pilot rating problems in organic Army Aviation. Compromiseagreements were reached in late 1942and early 1943. Field Artillery wonon two points and lost on two others.First, the "pilot-observer" conceptwas accepted; the pilot-observers wereto be officers trained to adjust artillery fire. The pilot -observer of eachaircraft was to be accompanied by aradioman-mechanic, who also helped

watch for hostile planes and assistedin fire adjustment.

Second, the AGF gained responsibility for and control over the selection of volunteers for the organicaviation program. The AAF, however, retained responsibility for providing primary flight training and forconferring pilot ratings. 11

Most of the enlisted men rated asliaison pilots before April 1943 weresubsequently commissioned. It shouldbe noted, however, that some NCOsremained in organic Army Aviationand performed creditable service inall major theaters throughoutthe war. 12

The conflict between the AAF andthe AGF erupted on another issue inlate 1942. General McNair had beenlukewarm toward organic aviation inField Artillery when it was established. However, he became a staunchsupporter before the end of the year.He accordingly proposed, on 16 November, that the program be extendedto other branches of he ground forces.MG George E. Stratemeyer, Chiefof the Air Staff, responded 3 dayslater with a counterproposal that allField Artillery aviation be discontinued and replaced by air forces liaisonflights. All AGF aviation personneland planes were to be transferred tothese AAF liaison flights, whichwould be assigned to each army, corps,and division to support the groundcommanders. 13

Organic Army Aviation was already coming to be recognized as anexcellent solution to the problem ofaerial fire adjustment. Since the AAFobservation squadrons continued tofail to provide reliable artillery support, the General Stratemeyer's proposal was not given serious consideration.

General McNair's proposal, however, in effect called for the acquisition of more liaison-type planes thanwould have become available for allthe armed services during 1943. 14Therefore, the War Department rejected it. Although organic groundu.s. Army Aviation Digest May/June 1992


17/76

force aviation continued to expandgradually, its official mission did notchange until 1945.

These AAF-AGF conflicts duringthe infancy of organic Army Aviationwere harbingers of a rivalry that wouldcontinue for more than three decades.The very existence of a second Annyair ann, albeit minuscule in comparison to the AAF, constituted a constant temptation for the AGF (laterthe Army) to expand it; it also createda potential rival for the AAF (later theUSAF) to either absorb or destroy.

Combat: MediterraneanTheater of OperationsOrganic Anny Aviation first entered combat in North Africa in late

1942. On 9 November, four Annyliaison pilots flew three L-4s from thedeck of the USS Ranger, a carrierparticipating in the invasion of NorthAfrica.

Since the captain of the Rangerrefused to break radio silence to announce the presence of these PiperCubs-unusual aircraft to be seen atsea during an invasion-they werefired upon by American ships andshore batteries. The plane flown bythe squadron leader, Captain (CPT)Ford E. Allcorn, was hit and crashlanded on shore, but all of the pilotssurvived.

Before the end of November, several other L-4s and Army aviatorsarrived in North Africa, where theywere assigned to armored and infantry divisions. L T Paul A. Dewitt wasreported to be the first Army aviatorto fly a Grasshopper in an artillerymission in combat. 15

During the North African campaign, there were not enough aircraftand pilots for all artillery units. Aprogram for training additional pilotobservers in North Africa encountered bureaucratic hurdles andachieved only limited success.

With the aircraft available to themin North Africa, the pilot-observers

U.S. Army Aviation Digest May/June 1992

learned several valuable lessons thatthey passed back to the Departmentof Air Training at Fort Sill. Theseincluded staying airborne much longerthan had been intended, flying atduskto locate enemy artillery positionsmore effectively, and nighttime flying.

As early as the North African campaign, the exigencies of war and theavailability of the organic aircraftcaused them to be used for purposesother than artillery fire adjustment.These other uses included commandand control, medical evacuation, andaerial photography. 16

The obvious value of the L-4s inthese missions fomented the AGFeffort to expand organic aviation toother Army branches in 1943.

With more planes and pilot-observers available, the role of organicAnny Aviation expanded as the alliesmoved from North Africa to Sicily.During the landings on Sicily, CPTBrenton Devol, Jr., who had flownone of the first L-4s off the U.S.

Ranger, constructed a flight deck ona landing ship transport (LST).

Later at Anzio, in the Italian campaign, L-4s took offfrom the decks ofLSTs and participated in combat.Nighttime artillery fire adjustmentbecame common during the Italiancampaign. Since the L-4 had no builtin navigational instruments and nopanel lights, however, night flyingwas a problem; hand-held flashlightswere sometimes used. Army aviatorswho made significant contributionsto the development of techniques forartillery fire adjustment at night included O. Glenn Goodhand (later abrigadier general) and Delbert Bristol (later a colonel).17

Additional missions performed byorganic Army Aviation during theItalian campaign consisted of adjustment of offshore naval gunfire, laying wire, emergency light transport,courier service, aerial photography,and reconnaissance.

In northern Italy, and later in southern France and in other theaters, AGF

An L-4 takes off from the improvised deck of an LST duringMediterranean invasion rehearsals.

15


18/76

planes were also used in so-called"Horsefly" missions. These missionsassisted high-perfonnance fightersand bombers in locating close-in targets on which Anny ground unitsdesired air strikes.18 One of the pioneers in planning and conductingHorsefly operations was MAJ JohnOswalt. 19Organic Army Aviationand the L-4

The aerial adjustment of artilleryfire was both the purpose for theestablishmentof organic Army A viation and its single most importantfunction during WWII. After it came16

TOP: Captain Ford Allcorn flies his L-4 Cubfrom the USS Ranger during the invasion ofNorth Africa in 1942.LEFT: An L-4 on the hangar deck of the USSRanger.ABOVE: Lieutenant William Butler (front seat)and Captain Brent Devol prepare to takeoff.

to be accepted by artillery commanders, organic aviation was a completesuccess in this mission.

The AAF observation squadrons,which were to have shared responsibility for artillery fire adjustment,proved unworkable in combat, andvirtually all aerial artillery fire adjustment was provided by organic aviation.20

That the 65 horsepower L-4s wereeffective in artillery fire adjustmentand that they had several advantagesover AAF aircraft had been amplydemonstrated before they first entered combat. However, many observers still doubted that L-4s could

survive in a hostile environment. Asit turned out, they were very survivable.

Their defense against enemy fighters' when the allies did not have commandof he skies, was to roll over anddive toward allied anti-aircraft batteries, which would then open fire on thepursuing enemy aircraft. Their defenseagainst enemy ground fire was theirradio, with which they could directartillery fire on the enemy battery.

The result was that, when the L-4swere in the air over enemy lines,enemy aircraft tended to stay away,and enemy anti-aircraft batteriestended to hide. 21 In many cases, inu.s. Army Aviation Digest May/June 1992


19/76

fact, an L-4 was kept in the air duringdaylight hours for its counterbattery effect-not only on enemy artillery but also on antiaircraft batteries. 22

Shortcomings of the L-4 included itslack of panel lights, its limited rangeand speed, and its inability to operateat high altitudes in mountainous terrain.

advantages of the L-4 were related toits being used for unintended purposes.

The L-4 was an excellent aircraftfor daytime adjustment of artilleryfire, as well as for many other uses.Major advantages included itsmaneuverability and the small spacerequirement for take-off and landing.

Two other problems were the danger ofloss of life from fire when crashlanding (because of the location ofthe fuel tank) and the difficulty ofusing a parachute (because of spaceand weight limitations).23 Other dis-

In the absence of the required aiforces liaison air support, L-4s cameto be used for many missions fowhich larger and better equipped aircraft were needed. Because of theserequirements, the AGFrequested andeventually acquired larger aircraft tosupplement the L-4s.

NOTES

1. Memos, WDGCT 320.2 (2-5-42), B G. I. H. Edwards for commanding generalsof the Army Air Forces and Army Ground Forces, 6 June 1942, subj: organicair observation for field artillery , Aviation Branch Command Historian Officefiles (hereinafter referred to as ABCHO). See also Kent Roberts Greenfield,Army Ground Forces and the Air-Ground Battle Team Including Organic

Angus Rutledge, "Organic Air Observation for Field Artillery, " Field ArtilleryJournal, XXXII, 7 (July 1942), pp . 498-501.

10. Ford, Wagon Soldier, pp . 127-29; Tierney and Montgomery , The Army AviationStory, pp. 65 -79.

LightAviation (Study No. 35, Historical Section, Army Ground Forces, 1948), II . The best account of this dispute and of the compromise agreement is in Greenfield,pp. 23-25.

2. Laurence B. Epstein, "Army Organic Light Aviation : The Founding Fathers,"U.S. Army Aviation Digest XXIII, 6 (June 1977), pp . 2-17.

3. Boyd L. Dastrup, King of Battle: A Branch History of the U.S. Army'sField. Artillery (Fort Monroe, VA: U.S . Army Training and Doctrine Command,1992), pp . 206-207.

4. Field Artill ery Journal, Vol. XXXI , No. 4, pp. 232-34. Santa Barbara isregarded as the patron saint of artillerymen .

The Army Gro und Forces, pp. 25-26 and 57 -58. See also Futrell, "Control ofObservation Av iation, " pp. 44-45.

12 . See Wakefield and Kyle, The Fighting Grasshoppers, pp . 73, 76, passim;Transc ript of Interview with LTG Robert R. Williams (ret ), conducted by Ralph 1.Powell and Philip E. Courts, 1978 , p. 15.

13. Memo, George E. Stratemeyer for CofS, 19 Nov 42, subj : organic liaison aviationfor ground units, ABCHO; Greenfield, The Army Ground Forces, pp. 26-28.

14. Greenfield, Army Ground Forces , pp . 58-59.15 . Tierney and Montgomery. The Army Aviation Story , pp. 119-26; Wakefield and

Kyle, The Fighting Grasshoppers, p. 3\ .16. Tierney and Montgomery, The Army Aviation Story , pp. 125-33; Herbert P.

5. Written by General Danford in a memo of 28 Oct 41 to CSofA, cited byGreenfield, Army Ground Forces, p. 23. See also Christopher R. Gabel, TheU.S. Army GHO Maneuvers of 1941 (Washington: Ce nter of Military History,1991), pp . 180-82; Robert F. Futrell, "Control of Observation Aviation: A Studyof Tactical Air Power," (Unpublished manuscript, U.S. Air Force HistoricalStudy No. 24, Air University), p. 40.

LePore, " Eye s in the Sky: A History of Liaison Aircraft and Their Use in World War

6. Memo G-3 42989, BG Twaddle , ACofS, for TAG, 8 Dec 41, ABCHO ; WilliamW. Ford, Wagon Soldier (West Redding , CT: privately printed), p. 120 ;Epstein, "Army OrganiC Light Aviation, " pp. 15-17.

7. See Futrell , "Control of Observation Aviation," p. 41 , passim; Ken Wakefieldand Wesley Kyle, The Fighting Grasshoppers: U.S. Liaison AircraftOperations In Europe, 1942-1945 (Leicester , England: Midland CountiesPublications , c. 1990), p. 21.

8. This summary is based on accounts in Ford, Wagon Soldier, pp. 122-26 and161 -63; Richard Tierney and Fred Montgomery, The Army Aviation Story(Northport, AL: Colonial Press), pp . 56-61; and Wakefield and Kyle, ~Fighting Grasshoppers, p. 17.

II ," Army History PB-20-9 1-\ , No. 17 (Winter 1990-\991),pp . 33-34.

17. Transcript of interview with COL Delbert Bristol (ret ), conducted by Ralph 1.Powell and Ronald K . Andreson, 1978 , pp. 10- 12; Biographical sketch of BG O.Glenn Goodhand, ABCHO.

18. The General Board, United State s Forces, European Theater, " Liaison Aircraft withGround Force Units," (unpubli shed study, 1945), ABCHO.

19. Wakefield and Kyle , The Fighting Grasshoppers, pp . 79 and 118 .20. See "Williams Interview, pp . 7, 9, 25; Greenfield,Army Ground Forces,

p. 60; and lePore, "Eyes in the Sky," p. 35 .21. "Williams interview," pp. 23-24.22. Greenfield, Army Ground Forces, p. 97 .

9. William W. Ford, "Fo rty Years of Army Aviation: Part I, Grasshoppers," U.S. _Army 23. See "Bristol Interview," pp . 18, passim; Ltr , LTG Gen. Robert R. Williams (ret) toAviation Digest XXVIII, 6 (June 1982), pp . 2-10; Lowell M . Riley and author, March 1992 , ABCHO.

u.s. Army Aviation Digest May/June 1992 1


20/76

Aviation, cavalry, infantry, and artillery all worked and trained together at FortSill, OK, in early years of this century. Each branch grew and developed its owndistinct missions. The Army Aviation School moved to Fort Rucker, AL, in 1954.

Henry Post Army AirfieldFirst Home of Army AviationMs. Jean SchuckerAssistant Editor

The CannoneerFort Sill, OK

From the earliest days of cloth and wooden biplanes totoday's unique mission to train noncommissioned officer helicopter pilots to serve as forward observers, thehistory of Henry Post Army Airfield, Fort Sill, OK, isrich with adventure, invention, and challenge.

During the early years of the 20th century, cavalry,infantry, and artillery troops all worked and trainedtogether at Fort Sill. The separate branches grew anddeveloped their own distinct missions. The cavalry leftthe post in 1907. The School ofFire for the Field Artillerywas established in 1911. When the infantry left for Fort18

Benning, GA, in 1917, the Field Artillery, a separateArmy branch, inherited the post.

Army Aviation history began at Fort Sill on 28 July1915, with the arrival ofthe 1st Aero Squadron. (In 1954,the Army Aviation School moved to Fort Rucker, AL.)The squadron's mission was to conduct experimentsobserving artillery fire from airplanes. Pilots also performed experiments in aerial photography using a Brockautomatic camera to make the first aerial mosaic map.

The squadron's Curtiss IN-3 aircraft, known as "Flying Jennys," began the first cross-country flight of theU.S. Army Aviation Digest May/June 1992


21/76

fledgling air service when it took off from Fort Sill 19November 1915, for Fort Sam Houston, TX, flying 439miles in 2 days.

The 1st Aero Squadron became the first U.S. tacticalair unit in the field when it began operations with General John Pershing's expedition into Mexico. Althoughthe pilots were stationed on the border, their orders stillcame from Fort Sill. After duty with Pershing's expedition, they went on to France in 1917 to participate in thewar-again acting as aerial observers. Henry Post AnnyAirfield was officially designated in 1917 after SecondLieutenant Henry Post, an aviator who died in Californiain 1914 trying to establish a world altitude record.

After World War I (WWI), the airfield continued as acenter for all types ofaviation activities. With the importance of aircraft in general and tactical aerial observationfor the field artillery established during the war, the entire

u.s.Army Aviation Digest May/June 1992

ABOVE: Curtiss IN-4D "Flying Jennies"were used at Fort Sill from 1918 to1922. An earlier model, the IN-3 wasused by the Aero Squadron, the first airunit in the U.S. military service. Theseaircraft arrived at Fort Sill in 1915.LEFT: Aerial observers prepare for aphotographic mission with the Brockcamera.

Midwest became a hotbed of military and civilian aviation experimentation.

The joys of flying captured the nation's interest anenthusiasm. Almost every town boasted a pilot or twwho flew in and out of cow pastures, dirt roads, and jusabout any level spot they could find. Henry Post Fielbecame one of the frequently visited stops for rich aninfluential flyboys to drop in for a polo game or to refuefor cross-country flights.

In January 1918, the School for Aerial Observerswhich included balloons and fixed-wing aircraft, openeat the airfield. Hanger and landing strip constructiobegan in August of that year. Although the hangers arlong-gone, some tie-downs for fixed-wing aircraft anballoons remain.

Balloons used for aerial observation came into theiown during this period. The concept was not new-bot

1


22/76

Henry Post Army Airfield

annies used balloons during the Civil War for adjustingartillery fire. But now, Fort Sill became the home ofexperimentation for this method of aerial observation.

Observers went aloft in two types of balloons. "Free"balloons, which flew from the airfield, were restricted toflying within a 50-mile radius of the post. "Captured"balloons, towed to the ranges by trucks, carried two tofour people and flew as high as 8,000 feet.

Aerial observation from hydrogen-filled balloons wasa risky business. Sometimes balloons and their pilots andaerial observers were scattered as far away as Mexico,depending on the prevailing winds. Fire and explosionscontributed to losses of men and equipment.In fact, fire was an ever-present danger to flight crewsand ground crews. The wooden hangers fell prey to arsonduring the early 1930s. It was not until the culprits werecaught and sent to jail at Fort Leavenworth, KS, that theDepartment of the Anny approved funding for newconstruction at Fort Sill. The huge metal hanger, whichexists at the airfield today, was part of the post-widebuilding boom of 1934 and 1935.

Shortly afterwards, balloons lost their popularity as amode of aerial artillery observation and fixed-wing aircraft came into their own. L-4s, the military version ofthe Piper Cub, became the most widely-used aircraft byorganic Anny Aviation.

With the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941,military activity picked up at Henry PostAnny Airfield.With it, a new method began by using airplanes in fieldartillery fire.

Lieutenant Colonel William Ford, a field artillerymanand private pilot, sold the Anny on training pilots in thenew concept of organic aviation in field artillery. Thisidea meant each battalion would have its own aerialobserver pilot, or "spotter," equipped with a light airplane.Both would "live" with the battalion.

The little planes, dubbed "grasshoppers," could takeoff and land on dirt roads and in cow pastures. The pilotobserver could dash into the air when a call for fire came,quickly observe and adjust fire, and land again, thusavoiding the usual long wait for aerial observer supportexperienced during WWI.

In January 1942, an experimental group of civilianpilots and field artillerymen became the "Class Before20

One." Ford drafted field artillery officers, enlisted men,and reserve pilots who held a pilot's license .The test group didn't have the luxury of time to gothrough basic flight training. Time was of the essence.The class trained as pilots, aerial observers, and mechan

i c s ~ a c h man servicing his own plane while stationedwith his battalion.

After brief initial training from 15 January to 28February 1942, the pilots flew to Fort Bragg, NC, andFort Sam Houston to perfonn field tests with fieldartillery units. The tests were a success.

BELOW: Henry Post Army Airfield in 1929TOP RIGHT: L-4s, the military version of thePiper Cub, became the most widely-usedaircraft for organic Army Aviation,nicknamed the grasshoppers.


23/76

On 6 June 1942, the War Department officially established organic air observation for Field Artillery. Eachbattalion was authorized two airplanes, two pilots, andone mechanic.

Ford was promoted to colonel and became commander of the new Department of Air Training at FortSill. Nineteen students entered the first class during thebeginning of WWII in August 1942. By the end ofWWII, 262 pilots and 2,262 mechanics had completedtraining at Fort Sill.

Ninety percent of all artillery fire missions in thePacific was directed by air observation.

Students learned everything from water landings andtakeoffs at nearby Lake Lawtonka to landing with Brodiegear, a wire-and-pulley device suspended high above theground that hooked aircraft in midair. The curriculum

was designed to meet with every conceivable takeoff andlanding possibility when the pilots went overseas to war.

Army Aviation proved its success in WWII and wasmade organic to all combat branches of the Army. In1945, the Army Ground Forces Air Training School,later designated the Army Aviation School, was established at Fort Sill. In 1948, H-25 and H-13 helicoptertraining began and the first warrant officer class startedtraining in 1951. Continued expansion and support ofArmy Aviation caused the aviation school to outgrow itsbirthplace at Fort Sill and move to Fort Rucker in 1954.

During the intervening years, Henry Post Army Airfield has continued to serve the Army and the civiliancommunity with test projects for the Field ArtilleryBoard, helicopter testing, and search and rescue missions.

Today, the airfield continues its varied missions. TheDirectorate of Plans, Training, and Mobilizat ion, A viation Division, provides a safe environment for Armyaircraft to arrive, depart, house, and maintain planes andequipment. The 2d Platoon, A Company, 158th AviationRegiment-a platoon of CH-47 Chinook helicopters,provides training and transportation for the field artilleryand aviation missions. The 4th Platoon, 507th MedicalCompany (air ambulance), performs rescue missions forthe military and civilian communities. Army reservistsand National Guard aviators use the airfield for flightsimulator and other training.

Henry Post Army Airfield also will serve as one of 16hub airfields for fixed-wing aircraft. The new system,scheduled for completion this year, will centralize fixedwing flights and reduce costs Armywide.

The airfield al 0 continues the tradition of trainingaerial observers with the Air Forward Observer School.This unique course, run by the Fire Support and Combined Arms Operations Department of the Field ArtillerySchool, trains staff sergeants and sergeants first class inthe 13 Foxtrot military occupational specialty.

A prerequisite is at least 10 year ' experience in fieldartillery. Students spend the fir t 9 week of the courselearning to fly OH-58 Kiowa at Fort Rucker, then 3weeks at Fort Sill to learn aerial observer tactics. They flyfive missions-three reconnaisance mis ions and twosecurity missions--calling for and directing artillery firewith the Digital Communications Terminal.

After the 13 Foxtrot students complete the course atFort Sill, they are sent either to a target acquisitionreconnaissance platoon to support an aviation brigade fora heavy division or a similar platoon to support a corpsaviation brigade.

21


24/76

Mrs. Susanna BarteeArmy Family MemberIllesheim , Germany

Women inArmyAviation

A mother and her two small daughters are playingoutside on a beautiful spring-like day at Fort Rucker, AL ,the home of Army Aviation. As a helicopter flies over,the mother shades her eyes from the sun as she looks upand thinks for a moment that she could be flying insteadofenjoying her children in the backyard. When she looksback down at her family, she smiles-never regretting22

Lieutenant Sally Murphy, whograduated from flight schoolat Fort Rucker, AL, in 1974 asthe first female Army pilot, iscommanding a battalion inZama,]apan.Shekftthedoor open for other women tofollow. Today, because ofwomen like her, the Army hasabout 338 female pilots, morethan any other Armed Service.

her decision to leave the Army at the peak of her career.Less than a mile away at the u.s. Army Aviation

Warfighting Center, a female sits diligently typing at acomputer terminal. She's working on an article for theA viation Digest about a woman 's perspective of theArmy in general and aviation in particular."My goal,"she says, "is to see all positions in the Army open toU.S. Army Aviation Digest May/June 1992


25/76

women." The next step to seeing that happen, she explains, is allowing women to fly the AH-64 Apache andother combat helicopters.On another day at Fort Rucker, a beautiful bride makesher way down the aisle of the chapel on the arm of herfather, a full bird colonel and deputy assistant commandant, Aviation Warfighting Center. Once at the front ofthe church, she clasps hands with her husband-to-be, asecond lieutenant just finishing flight school. Even thoughshe is in a white dress today, after the honeymoon shewill travel with her husband to Fort Bragg, NC, whereshe, too, will put on a uniform. She will go to her job asa lieutenant flying CH-47 Chinook helicopters.

And in Houston, TX, a female captain works patientlyat the National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA). She waits for her name to appear on a list ofastronauts who will ride the space shuttle next year.These are four different women with four differentcareer goals. They have in common a love of flying andleadership the Army offers its officers. Each respects therole female soldiers have played and will continue to playin today's Army. As in any other career field, categorizing women in Army aviation is impossible. Women, likemen, enlist or are commissioned into the Army for scoresof different reasons. The twists and turns their careerpaths take are just as varied.From balloon-piloting women in the early 18oos, tothe autumn day in 1910 when Blanche Stuart Scottbecame the first woman in the United States to solo in aheavier-than-air aircraft, and to modem day astronautSally Ride, women have heeded the call to fly.

Women have had the opportunity to fly in the Armysince the mid-1970s. The World War II Women 's ArmyAuxiliary Corps did participate in some aviation roles,such as aircraft mechanics and radio operators. However,a 1946 study by The Adjutant General's Office concluded only 65 percent of all military occupationspecialties (MOSs) could be performed by womenexcluding piloting aircraft.Some women did fly in the 1940s with the Women'sFlying Training Detachment and the Women's AuxiliaryFerry Squadron. These organizations later fused togetherto form the Women's Air Force Service Pilots (WASPs).The catch was these women were still technically civilians, unlike their Women's Army Corps (WAC) counterparts. However, the pride of flying far outweighed thepride of military rank for these women.In spite of Eleanor Roosevelt 's staunch support, Congress gave orders to demobilize the WASPs in December 1944. The 1,074 WASPs had flown more than 60million miles in almost every kind of military aircraft.When the Women's Armed Services Act of 1948 wassigned into law by President Harry Truman, the U.S.U.S. Army Aviation Digest May/June 1992

Navy and U.S. Air Force opened some aviation roles towomen, although no pilot slots were made available.However, the Army reduced the number of aviationspecialties open to women.Today, there are about 338 female pilots in theArmymore than in any other armed service. They proudly flyboth fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters in every type ofmilitary situation except combat.Though the Navy and'Air Force are required by law tokeep their women out of combat roles, the Army devisesits own policy, closely following Congress's order to theother services. The Army's Direct Combat Position Coding System classifies each position in the Army according to the risk it poses of direct combat. That means,although women may be assigned to units that might seeenemy fire during a conflict, they are not assigned topositions that guarantee enemy contact-positions suchas piloting an Apache or AH-1 Cobra attack helicopter oran OH-58 Scout.Change may be imminent with the Commission on theAssignment of Women in the Armed Forces meeting inWashington, DC. This commission will study the exclusion of female soldiers from combat aviation. The commission is scheduled to deliver its report to the Presidentin November 1992.It wasn't until 197 4 that the doors opened for a femaleArmy pilot-and it was then Second Lieutenant (2LT)Sally Murphy who walked right through to graduate asthe first female pilot. Murphy graduated from flightschool with 24 male classmates in class 74-14 at FortRucker. She stressed that her colleagues were quiteaccepting."I was allowed to maintain my femininity, butthe men did not pamper me or give me special treatment,"she said. "They maintained a perfect balance in ourrelationship. "Murphy is now a lieutenant colonel commanding aprovisional battalion in Zama, Japan. Her name comesup often during speculation about who will be the firstfemale commander of a regular battalion. There is noquestion she left the door open behind her for manywomen to follow in her footsteps.

Until then, female soldiers will continue pushing tosee the last barrier fall. One example is Major (MAJ)Deborah Ridout, special assistant to the deputy assistantcommandant (U.S. Army Reserve), Army WarfightingCenter, Fort Rucker.

"I agree with Congresswoman Pat Schroeder ofColorado that women have been studied to death," says MAJRidout, "i f the Army would open combat aviation rolesto women, it could lead the Department of Defense intothe 21 st century."Right now, women are allowed to transition into theAH-l helicopter. A total of only four female soldiers23


26/76

In 1974, 2LT Sally Woolfolk (now LTCSally Murphy) was the first femalegraduated from flight school.

have ever been qualified in the Cobra, but have servedonly as maintenance officers. They are not allowed to flytheir aircraft into combat.Though MAl Ridout says sheis eager to see a female train to fly the Apache , she doesnot envy that person. For men in the Army, the majorsays, combat roles are the "las t male bastion." They don'tlook forward to seeing women coming to join them onthe front lines. It won't be easy for the first woman, shesays.MAl Ridout knows from experience what it feels like

to be a pioneer. She became the firstUH-l instructor pilotin the U.S. Army in April 1978; first female executiveofficerof an assault helicopter company; and first womanto join every unit in which she has been a part. She saysafter 16 years her flying ability is still occasionallyquestioned by new commanders, especially those whohave never served with another female.MAl Ridout seems to think the ideas that have always

kept women out of combat are considered outdated bythe majority of society. It is not the general populationthat believes women are not qualified for combat, according to her. She says it is the very senior leaders whoare hesitant to lift the combat exclusion policy.

These men are genuinely concerned, not only aboutthe effectiveness of a gender-integrated combat unit, but24

In 1980, 2LT Marcella A. Hayes was thefirst black female aviator in the armedforces.

also about the welfare of the female soldier, MAl Ridoutbelieves. She says, "Now, women are getting impatient."Female aviators want to be afforded the same opportunity as male aviators to defend their country, both duringpeacet ime and in war. The challenge, then, is to convincethese leaders to give women the same opportunities, shesays. "Yes, we may be held by a glass ceiling, but glasswill shatter."

Today, women comprise more than 11 percent of theactive Army and 4.7 percent of the Aviation Branch. TheArmy Reserve is more than 20 percent female, and 7percent of the soldiers in the Army National Guard arewomen. Those numbers have more than doubled in thelast 15 years. Since 1988, more than 11,000 positionshave been reevaluated and opened to women. While 90percent of all Army MOSs have become available towomen, only 51 percent of the military jobs are open. Inthe Aviation Branch, 42 percent of the MOSs are open tofemale officers.

"Women aviators welcome the opening of positions tothem; however, most are concerned about which positions remain closed. Currently, a number of those positions are viewed as 'key positions' on the path to becoming a general officer. Keeping positions closed restrictscareer opportunities and understandably discourages some



27/76

women from continuing service," MAJ Ridout says.Perhaps the biggest reason for keeping women out ofcombat roles, many agree, is the fear of more women

coming home in body bags. The nation experienced thehorror of soldiers-both male and female-killed inaction during the recent Operations Desert Shield andDesert Storm, MAJ Ridout says. There was no moremourning for the 11 female soldiers than for the men whodied during the deployment, she continues.

More than 26,000 female soldiers were deployed toSaudi Arabia-making up 8.6 percent of the total force.Five women were killed in action, 21 wounded, and twotaken prisoner. In nonbattle accidents, 6 women werekilled and 16 injured. "Tragedy knows no gender, "MAJRidout says. "Every female aviator I know thoroughlyenjoys flying, but more important, each has made a deeppersonal commitment to theArmy-a commitment thatincludes serving in combat."

Captain (CPT) Nancy Sherlock, the astronaut-in-waiting, also knows what it's like to feel alone as a woman inthe Army forging new paths. After graduating from flightschool in 1982, she also became a UH-l Huey instructorpilot and later a standardization pilot for the AviationTraining Brigade at Fort Rucker. She is now an Armyastronaut for NASA, Houston, TX.

"Determination is the key to making it," CPT Sherlocksays. "The ability not to be considered a Lone Ranger isimportant. Whether the goal of a young female pilot is tofly in combat or soar in space, knowing her stuff is whatcounts. Be as technically competent as possible," thecaptain advises, "and set high goals."At one point, she remembers some senior male warrant officers who had far more experience than she tryingto stump her with lots of questions. She says she hadstudied enough that she was confident and soon succeeded in becoming "one of the boys."

"It takes an edge," CPT Sherlock says, "and that edgecan be obtained by advanced education." She is now aPhD candidate in industrial engineering with only herdissertation to go. She did it all in night school whiletraining to be an astronaut by day. "That's what makesyou really stand out," she says. "You really have to standout as a woman," she adds.

There 's another aspect to the pressure a military careerputs on its soldiers-bothmale and female. Long hours,frequent moves, and lengthy absences can contribute toa stressful family life. CPT Sherlock is an example. Shewill probably soon fly on a mission only a few will everhave the privilege in which to be a part. She has a youngdaughter who is most likely headed for a successful longterm career in the military.

The hardship of being away from her husband whilehe served two tours in Korea put serious stress on theirU.S. Army Aviation Digest May/June 1992

marriage, CPT Sherlock says. Just when it came time forhim to come back to the United States, she was acceptedto NASA in 1987. He went on to Fort Ord, CA. They arenow divorced.It is possible for two soldiers to marry, have children,and make it through the frequent separations and thepossibility of both being deployed to combat. However,this is not likely, says Colonel (COL) Robert Seigle,deputy assistant commandant, Aviation WarfightingCenter, Fort Rucker. "It's natural for a marriage to beoriented toward a family," he says. "Family responsibility falls mostly to the wife. That naturally argues againstvery many women making it to the top-they had to giveup something en route," he continues. "You have to makethe choice-family or combat-up front."

Not only does COL Seigle often address the issues ofwomen in the military in his position at For t Rucker, butthe issue is hitting close to home. His daughter, LeighAnn, graduated from flight school last September andmarried an Apache pilot. Her commitment to the Armyis only 6 years, a result ofher Reserve Officers' TrainingCorps (ROTC) scholarship. She and her father acknowledge she and her husband, Mike, may start a family andthen both be deployed to combat."The military is unlike the civilian world where awoman can have chidren, take some years of f to raisethem if she so chooses, and still reenter the work forcelater." COL Seigle adds, with a smile, he and his wifewill happily keep any grandchildren. Over the long run,what Mike and Leigh Ann decide is fine with him.

Leigh Ann, now 2LT Musiol, a Fort Rucker-trainedChinook pilot and Chinook section leader, 18th AviationBrigade, XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, sees achoice for her on the horizon between a family and career."Right now, I'm not looking at the Army as a career,because I do want a family," says 2LT Musiol. "Childcare is a big issue for women in the military " she says,"because as you progress up the ranks, the chances of ahusband and wife being stationed together become lessand less."

"The higher a female soldier's rank," 2LT Musiolobserves, "the higher the chance she is divorced."Child care was a big enough issue for Mrs. DianaJuergens, a formerUH-l pilot, that she stepped out of theArmy just when she was offered the chance to commanda company-a position held by only 45 female aviationofficers.In 1985, she graduated from the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay, under an ROTC scholarship and wascommissioned into the regular Army. Mrs. Juergensdecided to join the Army, because a cousin was marriedto an Army officer and their lifestyle seemed exciting."The Army seemed great to me," Mrs. Juergens says,

25


28/76


29/76


30/76


31/76

1. P re p a ra t i o n .2. Tak ing the tes t .3. Deal ing wi thanx ie ty .

Preparing for the SOT

C ertain things continue torecur during our lifetimethat, although seeminglyunpleasant, are necessary. In theArmy, one of these necessities is theself-development test (SOT). TheSOT roll

Documents

Army Aviation Digest - May 1992