Evening star., 1951-09-03
Dispute on Tactical Air Control
RumbIes From Pentogon Walls
defense Department Photo


controlled jointly by the Army
and Air Force at Army level. A
joint staff decides where the air.
craft will be used and how.
One Army argument is that an
Army commander-in planning
an offensive push-knows pre-
cisely how many guns, tanks.
mortars and infantrymen he will
have under his command. But he
never can be sure of the number
of planes.
Gen. Mark Clark. chief of the
United States Ground Forces, said
recently that the Army command
er should have full operational
control of the aircraft turned over
to him by the Air Force. Once
these planes are allotted, Gen.
Clark argued. then the Army COM
should be able to direct
how. when and where they are
to be used.
Most ground commanders who
have been in combat would like
to see the ighter-bomber as an
other weapon in his arsenal Of
guns. tanks, mortars, machine
guns and rifles.
Il want tactical air to help me
get my detectives and to keep the
enemy of my back" one officer
told me recently. The main pur-
pose of tactical air should be to
help the doughboy by hitting the
enemy in front of him"
Many want fighter-bombers in
the skies above their troops not
only to hit the enemy-but for
the morale Of their own troops.
Cites Morale BuiIdup.
A combat officer once said to
me in Europe:
I'D rather have one of our
planes up. there above the enemy
just circling around-than to have
him drop his bombs and then head
for home.
"a plane in the sky makes the
enemy nervous. He's afraid to
move. too much. He never knows
when it might strike. And this
fear is worse for the enemy than
being shot at-because once the
plane gets rid of its firepower and
leaves. the enemy can relax"
And there are some Army men
who believe if the Allies ever stop
the Communist hordes in another
world war-it will have to be done
with the help of close air support
and a great deal of it.
On the other side, Air Force
spokesmen argue that if the Army
has its way. then the tactical air
power will be broken up into
penny packets" it will lose its
and its firepower will be
dissipated.
One airman said:
, I'VE tired giving the Army con-
troll of tactical air back in North
Africa-and it almost ruined us.
I'VE allotted our planes to
corps commanders. Our units
were assigned to work exclusively
with these corps and under the
direction of the corps COM
manders.
"At that time, we actually had
more planes in North Africa than
the Germans. But they had air
superiority because we had broken
up our tactical air into packages.
Tossed Plan Overheard.
when we tossed this plan over
board and got centralized control,
we had the mobility and striking
power to whip the Germans in
The air."
Air Force men argue this lesson
n North Africa taught them
never to disperse tactical power
and they insist this doctrine won
air supremacy in Europe and re-
mains the foundation of their
policy.
Another air officer argued:
IF the Army is so concerned
over firepower in the frontline,
hey should look into their own
artillery. If they have enough
artillery and it's good enough, /
can't see why they are so con-
'erned about firepower within $50
,ards of the frontlines."
Airmen say the best tactical
is to hit enemy tanks,
yuns and troops before they reach
he front lines. One officer put
I this way:
Using tactical air power can be
compared to trying to save
Kansas City from a food.
you car build a levee for
close supp6rt' of the, city and
put all your effort into that-or
you can go upstream and build
some dams to control the water
evel above Kansas City. I think
,he engineers would say the safest
hing to do would be to control