Evening Star Newspaper, July 5, 1931, Page 55

BY JOHN LEO. COONTZ. S Washington safe? Is the National Capital, the seat of the» Government, the city ‘where Congress meets in peacetime and wartime and where all our precious na- tional archives are, secure from destruc- tion by an enemy country under modern warfare attack? Recently there gathered over the Capital the @reatest air armada ever assembled since avia- tion became a part of the United States’ na- tional defense. Six hundred and seventy-two Army airplanes zoomed and roared and dived over Washington. An awesome spectacle was presented to the populace of the city by these more than half a thousand war planes racing and tearing through the blue in every known combat formation and war maneuver. ‘There were pursuit squadrons from Selfridge Field, Mich.,, and Rockwell Field, Calif.; ob- servation squadrons from Mitchel Field, N. Y., and National Guard centers throughout the country; bombardment squadrons from Langley Field, Va., and the Far West; attack squadrons from Texas; planes from Ohio, Illinois, Bolling Field and half a hundred other places on the continent. Their presence over the Capital was the finale of the Spring grand maneuvers of the Army Air Corps in practice defense of the Eastern Coast, made to gather infor- mation on defense by the corps. - UT did the maneuvers spell safety for the coast, for Washington? 1Is it possible in modern warfare to save the Capital from & raiding enemy? If war should come to American shores, would not there be a repeti- tion of the sacking of Washington which occurred in 1814? The writer, interested to know the views of modern warriors on the subject, interviewed the two heads of the United States’ national military aviation establishments, admittedly the two branches of service uppermost today in any plans for war or preparedness—Rear Admiral William A. Moffett, chief of the Bu- reau of Aeronautics of the Navy, and Maj. Gen. James E. Fechet, chief of the Army Air Corps, under whose administration the corps bas so brilliantly performed. Says Rear Admiral RJoffett: “I don’t believe any place is safe from air- eraft attack if it is within reach of large numbers of aircraft based on land or large numbers of aircraft based on aircraft carriers or other surface vessels. When there are a sufficient number of attacking planes, you can no more stop them from coming through than you can stop mosquitoes or flies. The only way to make any place relatively safe from air attack is to have a sufficient number of planes based on aircraft carriers or other vessels as well as on shore, not only to intercept as far as possible the attacking planes, but also to destroy the sources from which they come, either land bases or ship bases.” War is a game different today from anything In the history of the world, declares Maj. Gen. Fechet. Even considering the World War, there is no comparison. Planes were there then “strafing” each other on the battlefronts of France. But compare their efficiency with those of today for combat purposes and you will see readily that war is a completely differ- ent game today than it was in 1914, Compare the speed limit of 90 miles per hgur in 1914 with 250 to 300 miles per hour in 1931. Com- pare battles in the air in 1918 at 20,000 feet with ceilings at 30,000 feet for combat planes in 1931. Compare loads of 800 and 1,000 pounds for planes in 1917 and 1918 with bombers of today carrying 4,000 pounds of TNT ‘bombs in 200-pound units or 2,000- pound units. g VEN the last two years have seen the effi- ciency of airplanes stepped up as fighting craft. Where two .30-caliber machine guns with a range of 2,500 yards were first-class equipment in 1929, today it is .50-caliber guns with a range of 5,000 yards. Two years ago the high speed of pursuit planes was around 165 miles per hour, with a cruising range of 135 miles. Today they have a top speed of 192 miles per hour with a cruising range of 150. Two years ago bombers carrying crews of five men had a flying speed of 105 miles per*hour with a 2,000-pound load. Today they carry crews of six and speed at 130 miles per hour with a load of 4,000 pounds. Further, they are equipped with four machine guns and can cruise for 700 miles. With a ton load these bombers can rise to 15,000 feet in a half hour’s time, as compared with 10,000 feet in an hour’s time two years ago. And so on down the line. But if these statements astound, what of this by Rear Admiral Moffett: “If a few submarines, with 400-pound torpedoes and a range of a few hundred yards, operating at a speed of 12 knots below the water, nearly won the last war, what will hundreds, nay thousands, of airplanes carrying 2,000-pound bombs or torpedoes at speeds of more than 100 miles per hour, operating in air, do? “The gun projects a shell 20 les; the airplane 10 times as far. The airplane is a flying human projectile that can change direction in flight; the gun's projectile, once launched, cannot change. The airplane THE SUNDAY STAR, WASHINGTON,; D. C., JULY .5, 1931. Is Washington Safe From Air (13 . . . - I don’t believe any place is safe from aircraft at- tack if it 1s within reach of large numbers of aircraft based on aircraft carriers or other surface vessels.” Rear Admiral William A. Moffett, Chief of Bureau of Aeronautics, United States Navy. “If an enemy should get surface control from carriers in the Atlantic Ocean or one or two shore sta- tions, or establish itself in Chesapeake Bay. Wash- ington would be destroyed." Maj. Gen. James E. Fechet, Chief of Army Air €Corps, United States Army. is a flying bomb, torpedo and scout, a spotter, a high-altitude bomber a diving bomber, a flying machine gun, a means of radio com- munication; and in the not-distant future of television, is it not possible that the gun, as we know it and use it today as our main reliance’ may take a secondary position? Alr- craft had a comparatively minor role in the last war, but it will profoundly change the methods of all future wars to an infinitely greater degree than we can vision today.” UT one conclusion from these statements is admissable. In the words of Maj. Gen. Fechet, they are: “If an enemy should get surface control from carriers in the At- lantic or one or two shore stations, or estab- lish itself in Chesapeake Bay, Washington could be destroyed. Control of the air is essential. An enemy base established within 420 or 500 miles of Washington, either land or carrier, would spell doom for the city.” The same view is also held by Brig. Gen. Benjamin D. Foulois, field commander of the vast Army air armada which lately swarmed over the Atlantic Seaboard. An attacking fleet of planes the size of the Army division could not be held in check by our present air force. For defense purposes it is estimated there must be four defense planes for every attack- ing plane. Six hundred enemy planes swarm- ing in from sea bases over the cities of the Eastern Coast would require for effective re- sistance 2,400 defense planes. And the United States does not have them. Even at the con- clusion of her five-year program for the Army, she will not have them. That program calls for only 1,800 planes. NE of the essentials of successful combat is mobility, whether of troops or supplies. To “get there first with the most men,” as Gen. Forrest, the great Confederate cavalry leader, once expressed it, is as true today as the day he made the statement. No agency of transportation surpasses the airplanes— whether it be of men, munitions or supplies. And the cruising range of planes is being increased each year, their gunnery equipment is being made more efficient and their carry- ing capacity greater. Altitude and speed are also being increased. An enemy air attack on the Capital likely would be made with bombs rather than gas. Gas warfare has not developed materially since the World War. Mustard, phosgene and chlo- rine have not been greatly improved on for the destruction of human life in warfare. Nor, for that matter, has TNT. But the size of planes and bombs have. A 2,000-pound TNT bomb dropped on the National Capitol would do more damage to the country’s moralé than any number of gas attacks on the populace. As a matter of fact, counteracting gases can be brought into play against poison gases, masks may be worn and the people may depart from a city. But a fleet of swift planes raid- ing at night and dropping small and large bombs over a city, destroying life and prop- erty, have no comparable counterpart for de- structiveness. And that is the manner in which Washington would be approached by the enemy. The recently concluded Air Corps maneu- vers mark the initial demonstration of the efficiency of that service unit as a whole, following the recent understanding arrived at by Navy and Army officials as to the line of demarcation between the two branches regard- ing coast defense. Heretofore the Army held that it was the Navy's duty to defend the coast, and vice versa the Navy held that this was the Army’'s duty. This difference, not many months ago, was wiped out and the job of coast defense fell to the Army. Hence the demonstration as to how well the job could be done. At the same time, because of the new deal in national defense, the Army desired to know something of the problems that might con- front it were actual warfare conditions to exist at any time in the future calling it to Continued on Eighteenth Page The recent air maneuvers by a gigantic fleet of Army held over Washington, demonstrated how easy it would be to destroy the Capitol and other buildings,