Viewing page 46 of 75

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

ARTILLERY LEADER ADMITS PLANE IS SAFE FROM GUNS
Sta[[?]] 12/11/25
10,000 Anti-Aircraft Weapons Held Inadequate to Defend Capital.

Ten thousand anti-aircraft guns could not protect the city of Washington, Man. Gen. Frank W. Coe, chief of Coast Artillery and in charge of developing anti-aircraft artillery, testified before the Mitchell court-martial this afternoon under cross-examination.

The declaration of the artillery chief came as a climax to a long wrangling over the meaning of a statement given a congressional committee by Brig. Gen. H. A. Drum, assistant chief of staff, that if he were given 12 anti-aircraft guns of 3-inch caliber he could keep any bomber that came within their range from doing serious damage. Branding this statement as "meaning nothing and indefinite," Gen. Coe said nothing had been mentioned as to numbers or conditions. He thought, however, that if the statement referred to one bomber, the 12 guns could prevent it doing any serious damage to an area the size of Washington provided it came within their range.

Reid Quizzes Witness.

Representative Frank R. Reid, cross-examining the witness, asked him "if twelve 3-inch guns can protect the city of Washington."

"I didn't say they could," interrupted Gen. Coe.

"Oh, didn't you?" replied Mr. Reid, as he proceeded to hunt up a question along that line asked under direct examination.

While he was searching for this Gen. Coe volunteered this statement: "Ten thousand anti-aircraft guns can't protect the City of Washington."

"That's all," replied Mr. Reid, giving up the search while the audience roared.

Gen. Coe earlier in his testimony declared without qualification that an air force is the best means of defense against enemy attack of any description. To carry out their program, he explained, the planes must take the offensive.

Places Planes First.

In arranging a system of defense for important points, like New York, San Francisco of Hawaii, Gen. Coe said he would have an adequate air force force first and then a ground defense with anti-aircraft guns, searchlights and other necessary equipment to resist aerial attacks.

Evidence that foreign aeronautical concerns have secured concessions in Latin America and that the American Government has not yet completed its plans for action to combat such a foothold was given earlier today by Maj. George V. Strong of the Army general staff, who appeared as a witness in rebuttal to the charge that "the War Department is guilty of criminal negligence" in allowing foreign enterprise to locate within striking distance of the Panama Canal.

Maj. Strong's admission that such concerns were located both north and south of the Panama Canal supported a portion of the accused's charge, but he declared emphatically that the War Department had concurred in an Air Service report that action be taken to remedy this.

This action was to take the form of an air mail route from the United States to Panama through Central America, but, the witness said. a trial flight was not undertaken because the State Department had refused to ask Mexico for permission to fly over its territory, and the Post Office Department saw no advantage in an air mail route through that area.

Find Menace.

The Air Service report was made by Maj. Roycroft Walsh, who made a flight from Panama through Central America about a year and a half ago. In this report Maj. Walsh cited certain conditions he found which might be a cause for serious menace to the Panama Canal region. Two phases of the report, which a the present is confidential matter, were approved by the department, the witness said, but final action on the entire matter still is undetermined. 

Under cross-examination by Representative Frank R. Reid, chief civilian counsel, the witness admitted two foreign concerns already were located in Latin America. The first, he explained, was in Colombia, and financed by foreign capital. This firm is known as the Scadta, and is German in origin. 

It now is endeavoring to operate a mail service from Colombia past the Panama Canal to Guatemala and Mexico, thence to Cuba and Key West. The other firm, Maj. Strong said, is known as the Junneau, a French organization which has secured a concession to operate in Nicaragua, Guatemala and Honduras. 

Other witnesses who testified at the morning session were Capt. R. W. Mackie of the Texas National Guard Air Service and Lieut. Col. Christian A. Bach, head of the historical section of the Army War College, and Gen. Coe. These witnesses were offered in rebuttal to defense claims that the JN and DH planes now in use are inherently dangerous and worthless; that the effect of anti-aircraft fire against allied planes was practically negligible, and that the anti-aircraft tests of the past Summer at Fort Tilden, N.Y., and Camp Dix. N.J., were not productive of tangible results.

Capt. Mackie, a former Army pilot and now in commercial aviation, testified he has had 3,500 hours in the air-an unusually high figure-and most of this time has been in JN and DH planes. He testified these types were not dangerous; that he never had an accident due to structural defects, and always felt at home when flying them.

He further testified that parachutes can and are being used in JN training planes, which the accused said were so constructed as to prevent this. Under cross-examination he admitted he was unfamiliar with the more modern types now in the service, but declared they are no safer than the old ones when in the hands of inexperienced pilots. Mr. Reid, however, got the witness to admit an experienced pilot could overcome defects in the older types and get splendid performances from them.

Statistics, purporting to be official and secret, on the number of allied planes destroyed during the was by the central powers were presented by Col. Bach, who declared 15 per cent of all allied planes destroyed between January, 1917, and August, 1918, were brought down by the anti-aircraft fire of the Teutonic forces. Col. Mitchell's contention is that less than 1 per cent of all allied planes shot down during the war was credited to anti-aircraft fire.

Figures From Germany.

The figures offered by Col. Bach were compiled from bulletins issued monthly during the foregoing period by the Germans under the caution of "secret" and were not given publicity at the time, he said.  He had received copies of the original bulletins in Germany about four weeks ago and since has been busy translating and compiling a table from them.  He admitted he would not accept these figures for historical permanence without a check with allied accounts, but believes them to be true.

As far as could be learned, the figures obtained by Col. Bach have not been published in this country.  He declared the total number of allied planes and balloons destroyed during the 1917-1918 period by central powers planes totaled 5,144.  The number of allied planes forced down and captured was 123 and the total shot down by anti-aircraft fire was 911. This figure, he said, is 15 per cent of the total of 6,0245 representing all planes brought down by the Teutons.

Advantage With Guns.

Gen. Coe told the court under direct examination that the advantages in general were with the guns on the ground and the Fort Tilden tests, which the defense has attacked from time to time.  The speed of the target was slowed down owing to the drag on the plan and it had no maneuverability, he explained, which enabled the gunners to fire at a target going somewhat slower than under war conditions.  Further, he testified, the target almost always was going straight across the line of fire.  The point against the gunners was the poor visibility of the target.

As a result of the tests, Gen Coe thought a battery of four 3-inch gins could fire 60 shots a minute and make a 5 per cent hit on a moving target at 13,000 feet.  He also thought a bomber flying at 12,000 feet and 100 miles per hour would be hit 24 times by a battery of 12 3-inch guns.

Local Aviators Say Equipment Here Inadequate
12-13-25
[[Straton (Sen.) Chawali?]]

If Captain R.W. Mackie is quoted correctly in Friday afternoon's press dispatches from Washington, where he was summoned as a defense witness in the Mitchell court martial trial, his fellow flyers in Houston are indignant and hurl the ugly word. 

Captain Mackie is a flight commander in the 111th Observation Squadron, Texas National Guard, occupying Ellington Field.

The squadron has 10 airplanes, one Dehaviland, two TW3 training and seven Jenny training planes.

Major Bernard A. Law, commander of the squadron, is absent on a flight to Beaumont, and could not be reached for a statement.  His under officers would not permit their names for publication on the Mitchell case, stating that Mark McGee, former adjutant general, had issued special orders prohibiting comment by guard officers, and that the order was still in force, although General McGee had been succeeded by Dallas Matthews.  But it could be easily seen that Mackie's reported testimony had stirred a tempest among officers of the Ellington squadron.  From remarks passed, it was learned that the Texas National Guard air squadron has built three parachutes, received a year ago.  The squadron carried on two years without chutes.  It is understood that seven more chutes have been shipped to Ellington, but they have not yet been received.

Thus the Ellington squadron, with 10 airplanes, all two-seaters, can carry 10 pilots and 10 observes, but the squadron has but three chutes.  Therefore, because positive orders have been issued by the war department prohibiting flight without parachutes, the Ellington squadron can put put one and one-half ships in the air carrying both pilots and observers, and three ships carrying pilots only.  But an observation squadron always caries observes in each ship, hence nothing is gained in the ways of training by flying ships with pilots only.  Yet the squadron could put 10 ships with 10 pilots and 10 observers in the air if it was equipped with a full supply of chutes.

Transcription Notes:
3/30/21 - Page had been marked as complete but only transcribed up to "Figures From Germany" in middle panel. I have reviewed through this point, and have transcribed the remainder