On 11 December 1961 the United States aircraft carrier USNS Card docked in downtown Saigon with 82 U. S. Army H-21 helicopters and 400 men. The 57th Transportation Company (Light Helicopter) from Fort Lewis, Wash., and the 8th Transportation Company (Light Helicopter) from Fort Bragg, N. C., had arrived in Southeast Asia. This event had a two-fold significance: it was the first major symbol of United States combat power in Vietnam; and, it was the beginning of a new era of airmobility in the United States Army.

Just twelve days later these helicopters were committed into the first airmobile combat action in Vietnam, Operation CHOPPER. Approximately 1,000 Vietnamese paratroopers were airlifted into a suspected Viet Cong headquarters complex about ten miles west of the Vietnamese capitol. The paratroopers captured an elusive underground radio transmitter after meeting only slight resistance from a surprised enemy. Major George D. Hardesty, Jr. of the 8th Transportation Company and Major Robert J. Dillard of the 57th could report that their units had performed outstandingly under their first baptism of fire.

The events of December 1961 prefaced a decade of unparalleled growth of airmobility. But they also were a culmination of many decisions during the preceding decade which allowed the President of the United States to exercise this option in support of the Government of Vietnam.

In its broadest sense, the airmobility concept envisages the use of aerial vehicles organic to the Army to assure the balance of mobility, firepower, intelligence, support-and command and control. The story of airmobility in the Army is inextricably interwoven with the story of Army aviation. Airmobility could be

viewed as the warp of new tactics and techniques with organic aviation providing the woof of skills and technology to make the whole cloth.

The airmobility concept was not a product of Vietnam expediency. It would probably not be practical to make a record of every decision which formed a part of the airmobile concept. It certainly had its roots in both the airborne techniques of World War II and the early doctrine for organic aviation for ground forces for that era. However, from a practical viewpoint, the embryonic decision can be said to be the Army's move to form twelve helicopter battalions on 21 August 1952. This key decision was made to commit the Army to airmobility even though a practical troop-carrying helicopter was still unproven and the helicopter tactics and techniques existed only in the minds of a handful of men. Though the twelve battalion goal was overly optimistic at that time, it dramatized how the impact of Korean experience had influenced Army planners.

In Korea the Army had learned that the difficult terrain in that land mass and the numerical superiority of the enemy combined to provide the communist with an advantage that was not easily balanced by the qualitative superiority of the American soldier and his supporting firepower. Many thoughtful officers had watched the little observation helicopter-turned ambulance-flit up and down the steep hills with effortless agility. It was not hard to envision the possibilities inherent in hundreds of larger machines carrying combat troops up and over those deadly slopes. The Marines had already demonstrated the possibility of a small unit being carried into combat and the helicopter itself was beginning to mature, with more power and more dependability.

After Korea many senior commanders restudied the lessons of that war and compared actual campaign operations with hypothetical airmobile operations under the same conditions. Various Army aviators and members of the helicopter industry were keeping a close watch on the French and British helicopter operations in Algeria and Malaysia.

The mid-fifties were gestation years for new tactics and technology. Major General James M. Gavin's article in Harper's magazine (April 1954) "Cavalry, and I Don't Mean Horses!" was indicative of the sort of vision some enthusiasts had for the future. The article was an unofficial summation of several staff studies prepared in his office while he was G-3, Department of the Army. During this period I was General Gavin's Director of Doctrine and Combat Development, and through his Deputy, Major General

Paul D. Adams, he had tasked my shop to design new hypothetical cavalry organizations around the potential of the helicopter. These new units were to perform the traditional missions of horse cavalry using a third dimension and a ten-fold increase in speed. Not entirely by accident, one of the key action officers was a young Major Edwin C. ("Spec") Powell, later to become Director of Army Aviation.

The growing helicopter industry was groping for direction from the military. At the same time, its engineers were pushing design proposals to potential military customers who weren't it all sure of their requirements. Many new approaches to vertical (or near vertical) flight were being tested as a replacement for, or an extension of, the helicopter. For the first time, the Army placed major Research and Development funds in aeronautic programs.

There were precious few guidelines for airmobile doctrine in the early fifties and none had the formal stamp as official U. S. Army policy. Recognizing this deficiency, General Gavin decided to plant the seed in the Army School System. Through the good offices of Major General Robert M. Young, G-1 of the Army, and Major General Joseph H. Harper, Commandant of the Infantry School, I was ordered to Fort Benning with instructions to develop tactical doctrine for the combat employment of helicopters.

As Director of the Airborne Department, I was able to broaden its charter and change the name to the Airborne-Army Aviation Department. A new Airmobility Division was established as the focal point for doctrinal innovation. We started gathering the necessary people and equipment to develop procedures, organizational concepts, and materiel requirements for airmobility. A helicopter company, equipped with H-19's and, later, H-34's was placed at our disposal for field experiments. The company commander, Major William C. Howell, Jr., was to become President Eisenhower's personal helicopter pilot and, after retirement, curator of the U. S. Army Aviation Museum at Fort Rucker.

The results of a few months of concentrated activity were climaxed with the publication of a new field manual, FM 57-35, "Army Transport Aviation-Combat Operations." The basic tactics and techniques described in this manual stood the test of time and would be vindicated in the tests of the 11th Air Assault Division and in Vietnam.

The first formal military requirement for an aerial weapon for Army helicopters was initiated during this same period at Fort Benning and, subsequently, approved through the chains of command by Department of the Army. The requirement specified a

light-weight, simple, flexible turret gun to be provided for all Army transport helicopters. Tactical experiments had proven the obvious requirement for some type of suppressive gunfire to be delivered by transport helicopters during the critical approach phase of a combat assault. Unfortunately, the light turret gun was never developed as conceived, but the Ordnance Corps latched onto the requirement as the justification of expenditures in the initial development of helicopter armament.

During this same time frame, a small group of pioneers, with the blessing and backing of Brigadier General Carl I. Hutton, Commandant of the Aviation School at Fort Rucker, Alabama, were making the first crude experiments with armed helicopters. Scrounging discarded hardware from the other services' junkyards, they improvised various combinations of machine guns and rockets in the face of ridicule and outright opposition. At the same time they began to develop tactics and techniques which they felt would prove useful when the technology of helicopter armament caught up to the theory.

The guiding genius for much of this development was a colorful officer, Colonel Jay D. Vanderpool. Colonel Vanderpool was Chief of the U. S. Army Aviation School's Combat Development Office, which was under the direct supervision of the Assistant Commandant. This arrangement was fortuitous since we could make all the assets of the School available to his project if required. In June 1956, with two officers, two enlisted men, and unbounded enthusiasm, Colonel Vanderpool went to work without a charter, without money and, by explicit direction, without publicity.

With borrowed personnel from the Department of Tactics, Colonel Vanderpool formed a "Sky-Cav" platoon which became notorious for its hair-raising demonstrations of aerial reconnaissance by fire. By mid-1957 this provisional unit, redesignated Aerial Combat Reconnaissance Platoon, had somehow acquired two H-21's, one H-25, and one H-19 armed with a wondrous variety of unlikely weapons. Colonel Vanderpool and his "hoods" were to see their efforts officially recognized when the Aerial Combat Reconnaissance Platoon became the nucleus of the 7292d Aerial Combat Reconnaissance Company (Provisional) with an approved Table of Distribution sanctioned by the Department of the Army on 25 March 1958. In subsequent work, Colonel Vanderpool and his group developed, on paper, organizations for an "Armair" troop,

squadron, and brigade. As the Assistant Commandant of the Army Aviation School, I was present when Colonel Vanderpool gave a briefing to Major General Hamilton H. Howze, the first Director of Army Aviation, on the organization of an "Armair Division."

Near the end of the 1950's, the Army staff recognized the overwhelming need to get its "aviation house" in order. It was becoming big business. Too many programs were going in too many directions. Many Army agencies had separate responsibilities and were pursuing their own program in happy isolation of the rest. The Transportation Corps and Signal Corps had reluctantly brought their test activities to Fort Rucker with the Army Aviation Test Board, but there were still many fragmented efforts at many echelons. The Army seemed uncertain of its goals; Congress was unhappy with some of the budget justifications; and, the aviation industry was uncertain.

At the end of June 1959, the Army had 5,500 aircraft, most of them substandard, with a requirement for 6,400. Taking into account normal losses, wearout, and attrition, the aviation picture was very poor for 1970. The greatest need was for a light observation aircraft to perform the "bread and butter" mission of Army aviation.

One of the most important milestones during this period was the decision to develop the XH-40 Bell Utility Helicopter and to power it with a turbine engine. Although designed as an aerial ambulance, it was recognized even then that this machine might turn out to be the most useful aerial platform ever put in production.

In October 1959 the Army Chief of Research and Development, Lieutenant General Arthur G. Trudeau, initiated an Army Aircraft Development Plan to advance firm guidance for research and development efforts during the next decade. He felt the plan would bridge the gap between the Army and U. S. Air Force capabilities and give the Army the initiative in the manned aircraft field. Industry was expected to contribute a major effort.

To implement the Army Aircraft Development Plan, the Office of the Chief of Research and Development prepared three broad development objectives which they called Army Study Requirements. These study requirements forecast a need for light observation, manned surveillance, and tactical transport aircraft. They were presented to all members of industry on 1 December 1959 at

Fort Monroe, Virginia. The requirements spelled out enough information, along with available parallel U. S. Air Force and U. S. Navy studies, to enable industry to explore technical approaches to meet the requirements.

On 15 January 1960 the Army Chief of Staff established the Army Aircraft Requirements Review Board chaired by Lieutenant General Gordon B. Rogers, the Deputy Commanding General of the Continental Army Command, to consider the Army Aircraft Development Plan and to review the industry proposals. Other members of the Board were Major Generals Robert J. Wood, Hamilton H. Howze, Thomas F. Van Natta, Alva R. Fitch, Richard D. Meyer, and Ernest F. Easterbrook; and Brigadier Generals Lawrence J. Lincoln, William M. Thames, Jr., and Clifton F. von Kann. The Board was supported by the Army general staff and elements of the Continental Army Command. Colonel Robert R. Williams, then Chief of the Airmobility Division, Office of the Chief of Research and Development, was the guiding genius behind the formation of the Rogers Board and Secretary (without vote). As the Deputy Director of Army Aviation, I also served on the Board without vote.

On 1 February 1960, forty-five companies submitted 119 designed concepts as their solutions to the problems posed by the Army Study Requirements. These concepts were evaluated in two phases-a technical evaluation under the direction of the Chief of Transportation from 1-15 February and an operational evaluation from 16-28 February under the direction of the Office of the Chief of Research and Development.

It is important to note that this was the first time that most of the major aircraft companies took official notice of the aviation potential within the Army. Before the Rogers Board, only the helicopter manufacturers and a few light airplane companies had any comprehension of the Army's requirements.

After the evaluation period, the Rogers Board met at Fort Monroe from 29 February to 6 March. During that time it reviewed the Army Aircraft Development Plan, discussed roles and missions of Army aviation, projected Army funding, assessed combat surveillance requirements, and detailed procurement plans.

The Rogers Board made recommendations regarding three types of aircraft-observation, surveillance and transport. In the observation field it advocated conducting an immediate design

competition to develop a new helicopter, selecting at least two designs for full development, and competitive tests. The selected design would begin production in Fiscal Year 1964 and eventually phase out the existing observation aircraft, the L-19, H-18, and H-23. In the surveillance field, the Rogers Board believed that more testing on sensory devices, data link, and intelligence processing were necessary before military characteristics could be prepared for a penetration surveillance aircraft. Pending these studies, the Board recommended a new aircraft be developed with an operational target date by 1970. In the area of transport aircraft, the Board determined that more specifics were needed on exact requirements for Army airlift to support contingency plans and a program was needed to provide a vertical or short-take-off-and-landing long-range replacement for the Chinook and Caribou in the early 1970's.

Two other recommendations were made by the Board which are not generally well-known. The Board recommended the establishment of a policy to replace each model of aircraft at least every ten years or sooner if warranted by operational requirements or technological advances. It also recommended that Department of the Army and Continental Army Command prepare an in depth study to determine whether the concept of air fighting units was practical and if an experimental unit should be activated to test its feasibility.

On, 19 March 1960 the Army Chief of Staff approved the Rogers Board recommendations with implementation for planning purposes and assigned various staff agencies primary responsibility to carry out these recommendations. Regarding air fighting units, he charged Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations with the responsibility for preparing recommendations in this area.

The importance of the Rogers Board has been somewhat obscured by the later Howze Board and tests of the 11th Air Assault Division. However, it was a remarkable milestone in Army airmobility. It set forward a chain of actions which had a profound effect on later concepts.

With historical hindsight, it is apparent that the scope of the 1960 Rogers Board review was limited. It obviously did not constitute a major advance in tactical mobility for the Army. But in comparison with the advances made during the 1950's, the Board's objectives, if obtained, would have represented a substantial gain in mobility through the use of aviation. The Rogers Board provided essential aviation guidance for development, procurement, and personnel planning.

The work of the Rogers Board was symptomatic of a renaissance throughout many segments of the Army-in its schools and its fighting units. As an example of the latter, Lieutenant Colonel Russell P. Bonasso, the Aviation Officer of the 101st Airborne Division, made what could be called a drastic organizational proposal in 1960. After studying the fragmented aviation assets in the division, he briefed the Commanding General, Major General William C. Westmoreland, on the advantages of centralized control. At the conclusion of a lengthy discussion, General Westmoreland authorized the formation of the 101st Combat Aviation Battalion ((Provisional)- the first such organization in the Army.

The early development of the airmobile concept was not without controversy. As the direct result of the experiences in Korea and the disagreements over Army aviation between the Air Force and the Army, Secretaries Frank Pace, Jr. of the Army and Thomas K. Finletter of the Air Force signed a special Memorandum of Understanding dated 2 October 1951. Under the terms of this document organic Army aircraft would be used by the Army "as an integral part of its components for the purpose of expediency and improving ground combat and logistics procedures within the combat zone." Detailed functions under the exclusive control of the ground force commander which might be performed by Army organic aircraft were spelled out in this Magna Carta of Army aviation. Predictably this did not settle the so-called roles and missions issues between the Services. Other memoranda were to follow.

The Air Force witnessed the rapid growth of Army aviation during the 1950's. From 668 light airplanes and 57 light helicopters that comprised the Army inventory on 30 June 1950, it saw the Army acquire over 5,000 aircraft of fifteen different varieties by 1960. The Air Force had watched the Army become the acknowledged leader in vertical flight and ground effects machines. Against strenuous objections, the Army had "borrowed" three Air Force T-37 jets for testing and a number of Army aviators were being qualified in various transonic aircraft from other Services and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Worst of all, the Air Force found itself with a growing number of "technologically unemployed" pilots and they heard themselves described in front of a Congressional committee as the "silent silo-sitters-of-the-seventies."

A briefing of particular significance took place in the late afternoon of 12 December 1960. General Thomas D. White, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, had requested this briefing on the future Army aviation program and, as the Deputy Director of Army Aviation, it was my duty to present the formal portion of the briefing in the presence of General George H. Decker, the Army Chief of Staff; and many senior officers of both Services.

At that time the focus in the Army was on the nuclear battlefield. Organic aviation was viewed by the Army as the best means of maintaining combat operations in an area characterized by great depth and frontage with the dispersion of many small self-contained units. The major threat was viewed as a sophisticated enemy attacking with masses of armor on the plains of Europe. Counter-guerrilla warfare at that time was viewed as a secondary mission. Nevertheless, the early planners in airmobility perceived that one of the automatic fallouts in organizing the Army for greater airmobility would be much greater capabilities in the lower spectrums of warfare.

The Army had already made a decision to replace its light fixed-wing observation airplane and the two light observation helicopters with a single light turbine helicopter. This had been a fundamental decision of the Rogers Board the year before and was another example of the Army's commitment to the turbine engine. The early Bell XH-40 had been standardized as the HU-1 and was envisioned then as the replacement for the L-20 utility airplane and the H-19 utility helicopter. Further growth versions of the Bell machine were planned to replace the bulk of the missions then performed by the Sikorsky H-84 and the Vertol H-21. The Vertol HC-1B Chinook was then on the drawing boards to replace the piston powered Sikorsky H-87.

To provide background for understanding the question and answer period which followed the briefing I must digress to comment on the Mohawk and the Caribou aircraft.

Since its inception as a joint Army and Marine program, the OV-1 Mohawk had been a center of controversy. Actually the Army and Marine requirements were never compatible and compromises were made that suited neither. From the Army's viewpoint, the original design was compromised by shipboard requirements and other specific Marine specifications which had little application for an Army observation aircraft. From the Marine viewpoint, they were looking for a fixed-wing replacement for the old Cessna light observation aircraft and they did not require sophisticated sensor systems which they planned to carry on other aircraft. As it turned

out, the Marines dropped out of the development program before the first prototypes were ready for flight.

Because the Mohawk was an exception to the Secretary of Defense's memorandum on weight limitations for Army aircraft and because it had inherent capabilities for armament, the Air Force had opposed its development from the beginning. There is no doubt that certain Army extremists viewed the Mohawk as the "nose of the camel within the tent of tactical air support." The Army was to suffer for their enthusiasm for years to come. The manufacturer, Grumman, did not help by publishing carefully placed brochures which showed the Mohawk in a variety of attack roles.

The Mohawk was originally designed as a visual reconnaissance aircraft with better survivability than the L-19 of Korean vintage. In addition, it was to have an integral camera system for spot photo coverage. Above all, it was to land and take off in the same distance as the L-19 which it was to supplement. It was not long, however, that "improved" versions of the Mohawk were visualized carrying sophisticated sensor systems developed by the Army surveillance agencies such as infra-red and side-looking radar. Weight, space, and power provisions had not been made for these systems in the original design. As a result, the gross weight increased and performance declined. These growth versions of the Mohawk were coming off the drawing board before the first "A" model had even been tested throughout its entire flight envelope and subsequent tests were to prove that major engineering modifications to both wing and power plants would be necessary in the latter versions. Furthermore, the addition of all this sophisticated sensor equipment not only raised the unit cost significantly but, in the view of many, watered down the Army contention that this was truly a front line low echelon aircraft.

Turning to the Caribou, this aircraft came into the Army by the sheer persistence of a few perceptive representatives of deHaviland Aircraft Corporation of Canada and a few equally perceptive Army aviation enthusiasts who recognized the natural affinity of the deHaviland aircraft to the Army environment. Starting with the Beaver-which was designed as a "bush pilot's dream," and progressing to the reliable, but somewhat clumsy Otter-the Caribou seemed a natural to those Army planners who saw a significant gap between the Army's organic capability and the C-130 Air Force transport.

The Caribou was the second exception by the Secretary of Defense to his memorandum on the weight limitations for Army fixed-wing aircraft. Its very size threw down a gantlet to the Air

Force strategists. It could carry as much as the venerable C-47 and land and take off of remarkably short unimproved airstrips. It had a rear end loading door which facilitated rapid cargo handling and was relatively easy to maintain and operate. The Air Force saw this 32 passenger aircraft as a second invasion of its domain and the projected rise of the Army's inventory at a time that the Air Force aircraft inventory was declining was bound to cause more heat than light.¹

The Caribou proved to be an extremely useful addition to the United States aircraft inventory and did yeoman service in Vietnam. Later it would be transferred to the Air Force in 1966 as part of another Army-Air Force agreement, but in the early 1960's the Caribou and the Mohawk were the two major symbols of Army-Air Force disagreement and more time was devoted to these systems than to the entire airmobility concept itself.

The question and answer period that followed the briefing began with a discussion about the Russians' effort in the helicopter field and the Russians' method of organizing their aviation. General White then turned to the growth of aviation in the United States Army and got to the heart of the meeting. To the obvious dismay of some Air Force staff officers, he said,

I don't disagree with the Army concept. Obviously there is always going to be the clash of budgetary impingements. Your idea of supplying yourselves and this "Sky Cav," I can't quarrel with. But what worries me and must worry you for other reasons is what does the future hold? Two of these airplanes are probably as big as our bombers were eighteen or twenty years ago. What does the future hold? How do we get along, because the air does clash at a certain point? How do we work this out?

General Decker indicated that Army aviation would take up where the Air Force left off and that he was perfectly happy to leave it that way-provided the Air Force provisioned the necessary airlift and tactical air support to complement the Army's need. The conversation then shifted to the type of close air support that the Army felt was best. General Decker espoused a single-purpose,

¹ The very existence of the Caribou in the Army inventory changed one Air Force program-the Fairchild C-123 "Provider." This latter aircraft was scheduled to be phased out of the active Air Force inventory in 1961, with a few programmed to the reserves and the remainder to be declared surplus. When Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara suggested that the Air Force turn over the C-123's to the Army (to train on this type aircraft prior to the receipt of the Caribou) , the Air Force suddenly discovered new and pressing Air Force requirements for the C-123. Thus the Army Caribou protagonists not only pushed the Caribou into being, but-incidentally-saved the C-123 for much-needed duty in Vietnam.

simple combat airplane for close support, while General White defended the Air Force viewpoint that a multi-purpose aircraft could do the job better and also perform as an air defense weapon. The rest of the conversation centered about the Army's testing of certain jet aircraft for deep surveillance. Finally, the problems of command and control of two distinct systems-Air Force and Army-were discussed.

General White and General Decker closed the session with a resolution to have Major General David A. Burchinal and Major General Barksdale Hamlett work on more specific agreements between the Air Force and the Army. The two Chiefs of Staff closed the session with the following remarks:

General White: We waste more money; we waste time; we waste energy; and we waste dispositions. I doubt that we will solve all our problems but I am certainly for solving as many of them as we can.

General Decker: Well, I am, too. We will go halfway or even more. I will say this, that there is a group around this city not confined to the Army, who think the Army is not-doing itself justice for coming out and making a pitch to take over some of these things such as tactical air support. I won't agree with them. I think as long as the Air Force has the mission and can do it they ought to do it. We don't want to take it over, but there is that kind of pressure as you probably know. I want you to know that that is not my position.

The Air Force and the Army differences brought out in the briefing just described were not to be entirely solved during the next decade, but many problems between the services disappeared in the crucible of combat. Working agreements between those actively engaged in battle were developed and standardized. But the fundamental differences remained between those who viewed aviation as an end in itself and those who saw aviation merely as a means to free the ground soldier from the "tyranny of terrain."

Reviewing the Army's position in 1960, a full year before the first helicopter companies landed in Saigon, it should be noted that the Army was well along its way in airmobility. At the time it had the following basic objectives: each division to have the capability of moving at least a company of Infantry by its organic airlift; aerial surveillance to match the firepower of the unit at each echelon; rapid purification of the aircraft inventory to reduce the types of aircraft to the minimum; acquisition of a limited number of flying cranes; and, increased logistical capabilities as represented by the Caribou and Chinook team and any possible successor. It is important to view these objectives in their proper time frame for they were not necessarily geared to the prospect of an increased involvement in Vietnam, but rather to a new Army

structure, worldwide. The planners at that time felt certain that if they provided increased airmobility for most Army units it would be useful for the major contingencies that could be forecast.

Early in 1961 General Maxwell D. Taylor, who was then the Military Advisor to the President, made a situation survey visit to Southeast Asia. During his visit he felt that the lack of adequate roadnets, lines of communication, and means of mobility contributed heavily to the government's problems in South Vietnam. As a result of General Taylor's recommendations, President John F. Kennedy approved a more active support program to South Vietnam to assist in the fight against the communist-directed Viet Cong. Generally, the support included the establishment of a joint headquarters for directing the program; increasing the number of U. S. advisors for the South Vietnamese armed forces; and additional support through Army Aviation, communications units, and Navy and Air Force units. This began a chain of events culminating in the arrival of the helicopter units mentioned at the beginning of this study.

The first few helicopters to arrive "in country" were based at Tan Son Nhut and provided support to all the Army of the Republic of Vietnam units they could reach. Naturally, this support was based on operational priorities-the average Army of the Republic of Vietnam infantry unit saw very few helicopters in its day-to-day operations. This was, however, a period of innovation and of "trial-and-error" schooling for the U. S. pilots and crews, and also for the Viet Cong.

There is one hair-raising tale of the H-21 pilot who put down in a landing zone only to see a squad of Viet Cong step from the woods and open fire on him at point blank range. Fortunately for the pilot and crew, the Viet Cong squad leader had firmly embedded in the minds of his men the necessity to "lead" the helicopter with their fire. The amazed pilot watched the squad pour their fire into the ground 20 yards in front of him. He took off without a single hit. This kind of strange tale in a sense characterizes the early days-you might say the bailing wire days-of airmobility in the Vietnam War.

Following the 57th and 8th, the 93d Transportation Company (Light Helicopter) arrived off the coast of Vietnam in January 1962. Ten miles out in the South China Sea from DaNang, the aircraft were flown off the carrier deck of the USNS Card to Da

Nang Air Base. This unique delivery was accomplished without serious incident even though ceilings were down to 100 feet over the ocean. These three aviation companies experienced seemingly insurmountable difficulties because of a critical shortage of engines and deterioration of rotor blades and aviation equipment due to high humidity. Nevertheless, they continually overflew their programmed flying hours and exceeded aircraft availability normal rates.

To some extent the support gap was bridged upon arrival from Fort Riley, Kansas, in January 1962 of the 18th Aviation Company (U-1A Otter). These aircraft were spread throughout the four corps areas to provide a utility supply net throughout the length of the country. Most of their missions involved delivery of aircraft parts and supplies to rotary wing aviation units that were widely separated from their support elements.

The first Marine helicopter squadron arrived in country in April 1962 and was established at the old French base at Soc Trang in the Mekong Delta. In June and July of that year the Marines swapped bases with the 93d Transportation Company at Da Nang because of the greater capability of the Marine H-34 helicopters to operate in the higher elevations of the northern region.

To provide better command and control of the Army's growing fleet, the 45th Transportation Battalion was deployed to Vietnam in early 1962 from Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and assumed command of the three Army helicopter companies and the fixed-wing Otter company. Shortly thereafter two more light helicopter companies, the 33d and the 81st, were deployed and also came under the command of the 45th Transportation Battalion.

The first of "a long line of Hueys" arrived in Vietnam as part of the 57th Medical Detachment (Helicopter Ambulance) in early 1962. They were shortly followed by the 23d Special Warfare Aviation Detachment equipped with OV-1 Mohawks to provide reconnaissance and photographic coverage in support of ARVN forces.

Much of this early effort was classified. As a result, many Army aviators felt a bit frustrated that they were being kept "under wraps" at the same time they read of Marine exploits around DA Nang in the daily newspapers. Nevertheless, their operations were receiving official attention at the highest levels.

While the first Army aviation units were deploying to Vietnam, settling in-country and making their first tentative tests in combat,

events in Washington were occurring which would have a profound influence on the future of airmobility.² Some of the events which greatly influenced an increasing use of airmobility included the reorganization of the Army divisions, an increase in the number of divisions, the Berlin buildup and call up of reserves, insurgency operations in general, and additional requirements for Army-type aircraft in military assistance programs throughout the world. The Army found that the requirements for its aircraft outpaced current procurement and deployment of aviation units depleted the inventory in the Continental United States.

In late September 1961 Secretary of Defense McNamara reviewed the Army aviation plans and indicated tentative decisions concerning procurement of Army aircraft and the number of Army aviation companies. Uneasy over his tentative decision in this matter, he sought further information. On 4 October he conferred with General Clyde D. Eddleman, Army Vice Chief of Staff, Brigadier General von Kann, Director of Army Aviation, and Major James J. Brockmyer, Army Aviation Action Officer. During this conference he sympathetically questioned the Army program, especially the Bell utility helicopter program, stating that he felt the procurement was strung out too many years. If the Army really needed these helicopters and its design offered many advantages over the current models, he felt the early procurement of large numbers would best serve the national interest.

As a result of this conference and the previous study effort of his own staff, Mr. McNamara sent a short memorandum to the Secretary of the Army on 5 October requesting a study of all Army aviation requirements. As part of this study, he desired an Army evaluation of his previously proposed cuts in the Army aviation program. He asked for a progress report by 20 October and a final report by mid-November.

General von Kann, as Director of Army Aviation, began to compile his own report of the entire Army aviation program and a forecast for requirements for aircraft through 1970. By the time Mr. McNamara's memorandum reached the Army Staff, this report was well underway. General von Kann's report and the reclama of the proposed reduction in Army aircraft procurement constituted the Secretary of the Army's answer to the Secretary of Defense.

² After living with the early problems of airmobility for six full years, it was a disappointment to me that I would be out of the mainstream of airmobility actions for the next exciting two years. I was promoted out of my job as Deputy Director of Army Aviation in the spring of 1961 and served as Chief, MAAG, Ethiopia until 1963. 1 was then fortunate to return to the Pentagon as Director of Army Aviation.

Analysts in the Office of the Secretary of Defense reviewed the Army's submission during January and February 1962. Their review was extremely critical of the Army's so-called caution. Key action officers prepared a draft for Mr. McNamara which would have a long-range effect on the structure of the Army.

On 19 April 1962 Mr. McNamara sent a now famous memorandum to the Secretary of the Army in which he stated he felt the Army's program was dangerously conservative. He believed the procurement program fell short of meeting requirements and failed to give a rationale for an optimum mix of aircraft types. The staff paper supporting the memorandum listed three major criticisms of the Army aviation program. First, OSD did not think the Army had fully explored the opportunities offered by technology to break their traditional ties to surface mobility. Second, they claimed that air vehicles operating close to the ground offered a possible quantum increase in effectiveness. Third, they stated that air transportation, all things considered, was less costly than rail or ship transportation even in peacetime, and wartime urgency would make it even more important. Therefore, the OSD staff stated that the Army needed a major effort to exploit the aeronautical potential and increase its effectiveness vis-a-vis ground transportation systems.

The Secretary believed the Army needed to re-examine its aviation requirements with a bold "new look" at land warfare mobility. Though previous studies had produced doctrinal concepts, action was needed to carry the concepts into effect. Studies of air vehicles were needed also. He directed the re-examination of tactical mobility requirements divorced from traditional viewpoints and past policies, and free from veto or dilution by conservative staff review. He felt the Army should be willing to substitute airmobile systems for traditional ground systems if it would improve capabilities and effectiveness. The final objective of the reexamination was to recommend action which would give the Army the maximum - attainable mobility in the combat area within the bounds of aeronautical technology, within alternative funding levels.

The Secretary of Defense directed that the results of reexamination be presented in terms of cost effectiveness and transport effectiveness, and that full use be made of field tests and exercises. Mr. McNamara urged Secretary of the Army Elvis J. Stahr, Jr. to give the matter his personal attention and, in a most unusual departure from accepted procedure, suggested the following individuals to manage the Army's effort: Lieutenant General Hamilton H. Howze, Brigadier Generals Delk M. Oden, Walter

B. Richardson, and Robert R. Williams; Colonels John Norton and Alexander J. Rankin; and Mr. Frank A. Parker Jr., President of the Research Analysis Corporation, Dr. Edwin W. Paxson of the RAND Corporation, and Mr. Edward H. Heinemann, a well-known aviation consultant.

Secretary McNamara summed up the emphasis he placed on the Army reexamination of tactical mobility this way: "I shall be disappointed if the Army's reexamination merely produces logistically oriented recommendations to procure more of the same, rather than a plan for employment of fresh and perhaps unorthodox concepts which will give us a significant increase in mobility."

This benchmark in airmobility history resulted from the fortunate confluence of several trends: first, the personal dissatisfaction of the Secretary of Defense with the Army's failure to exploit the potential capabilities of airmobility; secondly, an undeniable attitude of many office of the Secretary of Defense civilian analysts who looked upon the service staffs and most officers as reluctantly being dragged into the twentieth century; third, there was a nucleus of Army aviation oriented officers both in the office of the Secretary of Defense staff and Army Staff who recognized the possibility of capitalizing on Mr. McNamara's attitude to sweep aside ultraconservative resistance within the Army itself. Finally, there was an opportunity to present to the Secretary of Defense for his signature directives that would cause the Army to appoint an evaluation by individuals known for their farsightedness and to submit recommendations directly to the Secretary of Defense in order to avoid intermediate filtering. For the record, it should be noted that General Howze knew nothing of this background maneuvering and would have sternly protested had be been aware.

The Army Vice Chief of Staff immediately alerted the General Staff of Secretary McNamara's requirements. The staff suggested the appointment of a board of general officers and selected civilians with subordinate working groups similar to the organization of the Rogers Board. Department of the Army directed General Herbert B. Powell, Commanding General, Continental Army Command, to establish the Board which would have three suspense dates to meet. On 10 May 1962 the Board would submit an outline plan of how it would conduct its review, including an estimate of funds required. Beginning 1 June the Board would submit monthly progress reports and by 24 August a final report incorporating a recommended program for development and procurement of Army aircraft. Department of the Army directed other agencies to pro-

vide appropriate support and assistance as required to Continental Army Command and the Board.

Within a week after Secretary McNamara's memorandum of 19 April, Continental Army Command appointed General Howze, Commanding General of the Strategic Army Corps and of the XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, as president of the ad hoc U. S. Army Tactical Mobility Requirements Board to conduct a reexamination of the role of Army aviation and aircraft requirements. On 25 April Continental Army Command contacted General Howze to alert him of the job to be done, outlined preliminary instructions, and provided pertinent details. The formal directive dated 3 May was not issued until the Board had begun work. In fact, General Howze did not read it until 5 May. Continental Army Command warned General Howze that the deadlines were extremely demanding. On 25 April, the same day on which General Howze was notified that he was to form the Board, General Decker, Chief of Staff of the Army, informed his staff of the establishment of the Board and outlined the Board's purpose and function, composition, direction and control, and administrative procedures. His directive formalized the verbal instructions previously given.

General Howze initial reaction was that the magnitude of the job and the consideration of avoiding false starts might prohibit the Board from accomplishing all the assigned tasks by the deadline. For example, he believed that exercises and troop tests should be continued beyond that time frame to further refine requirements for aircraft and of the materiel. However, he felt that within the time limitation the Board could arrive at most of the essential conclusions and provide a conservative estimate of the proper program on which the Army could embark without wasting assets. General Howze was free to convene portions of the Board at installations other than Fort Bragg if convenient. He could organize the Board as he saw fit. Within the first few days of May, aviation units and support elements awaited his bidding, funds had been earmarked, and instructions had been issued to insure that supply and maintenance priorities were clearly understood throughout the Army. General Howze was free to deal directly with the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, the other military services, government agencies, and civilian industry for coordination on the technical aspects of his evaluation. Seldom has there ever been such a broad and open-end charter in military history.

The basic Board membership was thirteen general officers and five civilians.³ Some 3,200 military personnel and 90 civilians participated in various phases of war games, equipment and troop testing. Whole units were diverted from overseas deployments to be included in the tests. For example, a Caribou company which had been planned for the Pacific was delayed specifically by the Secretary of the Army, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, so that it might take part in the tests.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense instructed the Department of the Air Force to support the Howze Board. On 8 May the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Roswell L. Gilpatric, requested the U. S. Air Force to contribute to the efforts of the Board through the use of its air transport capability, especially as a means of achieving air lines of communication within a combat theater. He stated that the Army would request up to a squadron of C-130's in its exercise and tests and that this would be a good chance for the U. S. Air Force to "sell" its services and capabilities. After detailed requirements were formulated, Secretary Stahr contacted Air Force Secretary Eugene M. Zuckert to work out arrangements between Continental Army Command and the Air Force Tactical Air Command.

The most significant major activity of the Board throughout its deliberations was the investigation, testing and evaluation of the organizational and operational concepts of airmobility. The findings and evaluations of field tests, war games, operations research, and visits to overseas combat theaters provided support to the final Board report.

Much effort was devoted to field experimentation for the purpose of comparing a conventionally equipped force with one made airmobile by adding aircraft. The Board had for a test force one battle group and part-time use of two others plus the artillery and engineers of the 82d Airborne Division. In addition, the testing

³General Howze was not only President of the Board, but Chairman of the Steering and Review Committee as well. In addition to General Howze, seven other officers and six top-level civilians originally composed the Steering and Review Committee. These included Major General Ben Harrell, Major General William B. Rosson, Brigadier General John J. Lane, Brigadier General Edward L. Rowny, Brigadier General Delk M. Oden, Brigadier General Robert R. Williams, Colonel William M. Lynn, Jr., Dr. Jacob A. Stockfisch, Dr. Edwin W. Paxson, Eugene Vidal, Fred Wolcott, Frank A. Parker, and Edward H. Heinemann. Mr. Parker, General Rowny, and Colonel Lynn also served as chiefs of working committees. Other senior board members (eventually added to the Steering and Review Committee) were named working committee chiefs-Major General Clifton F. von Kann, Major General Norman H. Vissering, Brigadier General Frederic W. Boye, Jr., and Brigadier General Walter B. Richardson.

committee used 150 Army aircraft, both rotary and fixed-wing, for eleven weeks, augmented by aircraft support from the U. S. Air Force. About fifty officers designed, controlled, and evaluated the tests assisted by an advisory group of civilian scientists.

The Board conducted approximately forty tests ranging in magnitude from fairly elaborate live-fire exercises and three major week-long exercises against an assumed force of irregulars to auxiliary tests of new items of equipment. Results of the three largest tests indicated that Army aircraft would enhance combat effectiveness-in both conventional and counter-guerrilla actions and that Army tasks could be accomplished by smaller forces in shorter campaigns.

The final report of the Howze Board was submitted on 20 August 1962. The air assault division was the principal tactical innovation. As compared with about one hundred aircraft in the standard division, it would have 459. Airmobility would be achieved by extensive reduction in ground vehicles from 3,452 down to 1,100 which would also reduce the airlift requirement for strategic deployment. Despite the reduction in total number of vehicles the cost of the new division, based upon the initial investment and a five-year operating cost, was about half again the cost of an infantry division. Artillery consisted of only 105-mm howitzers and Little John rockets (airtransportable in the Chinook helicopter) . Augmenting this greatly reduced firepower, the division would employ twenty-four armed Mohawks and 36 Huey helicopters armed with 2.75-inch rockets.

The aircraft of the division could lift one third of its assault elements at one time. Three brigade headquarters provided major tactical sub-divisions to which the fighting battalions and support elements would be assigned according to the nature of the task and the terrain. The brigades in turn could mix units assigned to them as could the battalions and to a lesser extent the subordinate units of the battalions. All the essential elements of combat power-maneuver forces, reconnaissance, firepower, communications, and service support-were present.

The Board also recommended the organization of an air cavalry combat brigade having 316 aircraft, 144 of which would be attack helicopters. Its function was the classical one for cavalry-to screen, reconnoiter, and wage delaying actions. Unlike the air assault division which was designed to join battle on the ground, all of

the air cavalry combat brigade was to be airborne including its anti-tank capacity.

A distinct feature of the proposed air assault operations was the requirement for an -increased use of support aircraft to carry supplies as far forward as the tactical situation would permit. The Board envisioned Caribous and Chinooks located in the forward Army area to deliver men, equipment, and supplies after Air Force aircraft had deposited them as far forward as possible.

The Board presented Mr. McNamara five alternative programs which would modernize the Army structure by replacing conventional forces by airmobile forces. Of the five programs the Board recommended its Alternative Three as the "most responsive to the requirement and most compatible with the Army's mission and overall structure." This program within six years would provide eleven Reorganization Objective Army Divisions, five air assault divisions, three air cavalry combat brigades, and five air transport brigades. It would also increase the mobility of other combat units and the effectiveness of their logistical support.

The Board emphasized the quantitative and qualitative improvements that would be necessary for Army aviation personnel programs. Its proposed alternative would require 8,900 aviators in 1963, growing to 20,600 in 1968. The Board foresaw an increased need for warrant officer pilots and recommended an officer to warrant officer ratio of one to one by the end of five years. It also recommended major changes in the officer career program to enhance their training, administration, and utilization.

In a letter prefacing the final report, General Howze commented that the job was in some respects incomplete and further testing was recommended. He said, "The foregoing does not indicate that I consider the Board's findings unvalidated or its judgment faulty. The time made available although not sufficient to prove all details of the Board's recommendations as respects organization, personnel, equipment, maintenance and doctrine, was quite sufficient to enable it, with conviction, to chart a course of action which will serve to increase markedly the combat and logistical efficiency of the Army." The Board was aware that its proposals were not infallible and that subsequent tests and developments could alter some elements of the proposed force structure. Therefore, the Board recommended a continuing program of field tests using the first units becoming operational under the activation schedule. It also recommended that progress on the Board's proposals be reviewed annually as a safeguard against any errors in

details of organization and any slippage in implementing the program.

The single major conclusion reached by the Board was terse and emphatic. "The Board has only a single, general conclusion," stated General Howze. "Adoption by the Army of the airmobile concept-however imperfectly it may be described and justified in this report-is necessary and desirable. In some respects the transition is inevitable, just as was that from animal mobility to motor."

The Howze Board accomplished its mission in 90 days, from the original assignment to the finished report. In view of the enormous staffing task involved, and the sheer size of the analytical task, such alacrity has few parallels in staff work in or out of the military service.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense, having received what it had asked for, now turned the report over to its systems analysts in the Office of the Comptroller to study in minute detail all 3,500 pages of the main report. The review by the office of the Secretary of Defense Comptroller was to focus on certain procurement actions and to make certain recommendations of its own which had no relation to the Howze Board's basic recommendations.

In mid-September 1962 the Chief of Staff directed General Howze, Colonel Norton, and one of the editors of the Board Report to work in his office in preparing rebuttals for the various attacks that were coming from all directions. This "ten-day" TDY mission was to last almost until Christmas (with General Howze being replaced by General Williams when the former had to return to his command at Fort Bragg as commander of the Strategic Army Corps during the Cuban missile crisis).

Throughout the fall of 1962 it appeared, at times, that the work of the Howze Board was going to be studied to death and finally filed away for historians. The fact that it survived attacks by members of Congress, the Air Force, and conservative elements within the Army was a tribute both to the soundness of its basic conclusions and to the dedicated officers within the Army who believed that airmobility was the wave of the future.