Viewing page 74 of 270

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

4. Similarly, our Naval Air Forces should be relieved of the function, at present assigned in Paragraph 2b (5) of Reference (A), of operating from Naval Air Stations on shore against enemy vessels engaged in attacks on the coast. The weakness of such assignment is recognized in Paragraph 3 of Reference (A) which prescribes a method by which proper cooperation may be attempted. It should be apparent to all that if the Army Air Forces are to be relied upon to meet a major enemy attack on our coast they may and should be relied upon to meet similar inferior attacks. In an approved Joint Board report (J.B. Serial No. 85) it is prescribed the "the handling of artillery on shore, except, such as may be landed from ships and that pertaining to advance base equipment, is an activity of the Army." In another approved Joint Board report (serial No. 48) it is prescribed that "All anti-aircraft armament in a given locality should be under one authority, which, on shore , should be the Army except by the Army." For analogous reasons the responsibility for the defense of our coasts and costal shipping by aircraft operating from land bases should be placed upon the Army.

5. Reference (C) is now in the hands of the Joint Board, for the formulation of a joint Army and Navy program which will provide an adequate Air Service for our national defense. The views expressed herein vitally concern this work. Therefore, I urgently recommend that this communication be forwarded as expeditiously as possible to the Joint Board and that they be instructed to reconsider the present policy of the Army and Navy relating to Aircraft, and recommended a policy which will conform with existing law, prevent unnecessary and wasteful duplication of facilities, and provide a more effective system for the protection of our coasts. 

Mason M. Patrick,
Major General, A.S.,
Chief of Air Service.