Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1919-12-21


n service was stated to be al.
most unanimous on the par,
or naval officers in an article which
appeared in the Editorial Section OF
The Star OF Sunday. December :
which was entitled, "Demur to Sepa
rate Service for Airmen," and which
gave some of the various reasons or
which naval officers base their objec-
tions.
The present writer. thoroughly ia
miliar with aviation conditions. feels
that practically all the statements in
the article referred 70 were incorrect
that their inaccuracy must have been
known to the naval officers RESPONSE
BILE for the views quoted. and tina,
the men who furnished the material
on which the story was based are
Hkely to have been those who, how
ever disinterested they might SEEM
wished to profit their own ends.
Questions Extent of Opposition.
Nor is the present writer prepared
TO agree to the dictum that objection
In Navy circles is prevalent. The
fact that he himself was engaged in
various capacities with aviation has
siNeh MIN opportunity Oh ledrnlHS
the real views of Navy men-oppor-
tunities fully as valuable and as nu-
merous as any available to news
paper man.
Time and space forbid the con-
trovefsion of every point in the ar
briefly to refute or criticise certain
of the more important arguments
advanced cannot be ignored and
should indicate sufficiently the gen
eral faultiness of the anti-air service
sentiment held by a selfish and short
sighted element in the Navy.
For instance. under the heading,
"Airmen Either. but Never 9TH
the statement was made that the
Navy does not favor a separate de-
the first and most essential line of de-
Tense and wants the responsibility
and glory of doing it's own job in its
own way. The utter self1saness of
such a view is apparent. Greatest
results are always obtained by the
head. Nor will those excellent au-
thorities who believe that the next
great war will be won or lost in the
air admit that the Navy can be. in
such case, the first and most essen
tial defense.
Corps OF Actual Flyers.
Perhaps the majority of naval men
OSoAiS ~ hSCp tHcIT own air service.
Why? Is 1T, perhaps. because a naval
aviator receives so per cent increased
pay for flying, while the Army fyer
receives only 25 per cent and because,
IN new combined organization the
former might lose this advantage? Or
might 1t be because officers in naval
aviation who are not flyers would
nave to return to the Navy proper?
The writer understands that the con-
tempiated separate department will
be composed mostly of actual flyers.
familiar with aviation requirements.
familiarity not possible in a man
who does not ny regularly in different
types of machines. Broadminded
interest at heart. have expressed
themselves privately as desiring a
separate service.
1t was stated that it is necessary
for the Nays aviation personnel to
be under the orders OF the fleet COM
mander. This is exactly what is pro-
posed. The men of the third service
will be trained to the highest degree
in every branch of aviation. combat
and otherwise. and then specialized in
naval tactics and attached to the
Navy forces. This training would al
low a concentration of Army or Navy
forces at any time. With such a
contingent a feet commander would
be better of than with the same num-
Der of naval flyers. The essential fact
is that an army is land force and
must be trained in land tactics; a
navy is a sea force and must be train
ed in sea tactics. and the air. neither
land nor sea, has its own tactics. and
men who fly and fight in it must be
trained accordingly. The air depart
ment will be a combination of all the