Eyes of Artillery: The Origins of Modern U.S. Army Aviation in World War II

On 24 February 1991, some two hundred helicopters, UH-60 Blackhawks, AH-64Apaches, CH-47 Chinooks, 0H- 8 Kiowas, and a few UH- I Hueys, carried the 1stBrigade, 101st Airborne Division, ninety-five miles into Iraqi territory - the longest airassault heretofore attempted. It was a striking display of operational mobility during theshort, sharp ground combat portion of the Gulf War and an indication of why some militaryanalysts, most notably Richard E. Simpkin, used the phrase "rotary-wing revolution"to describe warfare in the late twentieth century. The helicopters that made possiblethe 1st Brigade's assault into Forward Operating Base Cobra were operated and supportedby members of the U.S. Army. The Department of the Army had organized the Aviation branch in 1983, but the origins of Army Aviation go back much earlier to World War II.This monograph discusses the institutional beginnings of Anny Aviation in the FieldArtillery's Air-Observation Post Program of World War II. It seeks to explain why theArmy turned to organic aviation as a solution to the doctrinal and tactical problems itfaced in 1942 and how it implemented this change. [n essence, this study argues thattransformations in the art of war created the necessity for reform, which new technologiesprovided the means that previously had not existed. The how is also important. A loosecoalition of senior officer mentors and mid-level and junior officer reformers maneuveredto organize a test of the organic aviation concept, demonstrate its efficacy for the FieldArtillery, set up a training program, use light aircraft effectively in combat, and expandthe program to the other combat arms. In the process the center of innovation shiftedfrom the Office of the Chief of Field Artillery in the War Department to Headquarters,Army Ground Forces, to the Department of Air Training at the Field Artillery School, tothe air sections in field artillery battalions overseas, and back again to the WarDepartment. Depending on the issue and the circumstances, senior officers, mid-levelofficers, junior officers, or some combination of the above were most important at anyparticular time. . . . (An excerpt from the author's Preface)