Evening star., 1926-11-28

SS n Long Island if we had air force
~ to defend them from air attack,
could be rapidly put out of commits
sion. and then your batteshlps
could walk into New York if they wanted 10.
Any hostile craft that approaches our shores
is bound have its own aircraft with II. IL
must be so"
Assuming the truth and logic Of the above
statement it applies with equal dangerous ef-
feet to every city on the Atlantic, Gulf and Pa
cic sea boards. and to exterior cities to the eX-
tent that invading airships are able 10 come III
land.
The above warning does not come from Wis
ionary, or an aarmist. 1t was uttered by Mai
Gen. Mason NJ. Patrick, chief of the Air service
of the United States Army Gen. tatflck> Is d
conservative officer, not given to bombast or
publicity seeking. Furthermore, he is not
theoretical airman. He has flown thousands OF
miles and kept pace with every development of
the instrument that will play the major role IN
the determination of the next war--a ship deal
ing bombs and explosives from the air
The statement of the chief of the Army Air
Service made before the House appropr1a-
tions committee at executive session during
conSidera ton Of the Army appropriation DIN
then pending in Congress- Portions of the testi-
mony made public, and buried in the
printed pages of the committee hearing are
startlingly frank discussions by Gen. Patrick
and Brig. Gen William Mitchell, former assist
ant chief of the Air Service, of what America
must do to protect her coastlines and her In
habitants if another war comes.
Their testimony demonstrates that battle
SHIPS, cruisers ana VIII lioI
If another war comes the mstion that is Mis-
tress Of the Air. will Win.E%
From the days of tribal warfare, Gen. Pat
rick recalled, whenever man has conceived q
device or used a new weapon Of attack he has
held his enemies helpless until they have armed
themselves in the same way, or with better
weapons.
so I tell you," said Gen. Patrick, there is
no adequate defense against an air attack eX-
cept air force of your own. That does not
mean that the air forces does away with armies
and naves 1t means it modifies their tactics, so
far as armies concerned, and 1t modlties
the construction ideas of the Navy. l think It
for the Navy to decide what they ought to
have; whether they should do away with bat
tleshipS and go to submarines or fast cruisers
They have to determine that in the light OF s eX,
perience. But if you want to defend yoursef
properly you must have aircraft; If you lack
them you will be wiped off the land and water.
X X X x
In this connection the Army already has
demonstrated the ability of airships to circle
send them to the bottom. The last vessel to be
destroyed-ths particular one because of the
limitation of armaments treaty-Was the
Washington. The Navy bombarded the giant
vessel for approximately two days and event
ualIy scrapped her. Army men say she should
have been sunk by arplane bombs in less than
two hours, matter how desperately she
might have defended herself by anti-alrcraft de
vices
Can Sink WarsEips.
The Navy made attempt to destroy the
Washington from the air. She used broad
sides from surface ships-tirst for experimental
observations then for destruction. The Army
armen did not seek to lombard the Washing
ton because, Gen. Patrick said, there was
no necessity for the Army 'to pile proof on
proof" It is incontrOvertible fact. he said,
that bombs from airplanes will quickly send
surface vessels to the bottom and hence the
problem before Congress and all America today.
In three maneuvers, extending over as many
years, the Army demonstrated its ability to
sink naval vessels by airplane attack.
While the House committee was drafting its
bill which authorized a cash appropriation of
only S14 100000 for the entire Air Service for
the last fiscal year (and but $4,000 of this is
to be used for procurement of new atrplaneS,
most of them training panes) the Senate was
passing without debate $14,000000 appropra-