Responses to: "is it time for the ADA and FA to merge?".

In addition to the responses to Colonel Mark McDonald's article printed in our January-February edition, the two printed here and the article "Operation Red Net--A Dynamic Plan for a Fires Branch" by Major L. Cristine Gibney, Air Defense Artillery (ADA) in this edition, Air Defense Artillery magazine has received several responses: "Air Defenders Must Retain Separate Identities" by Sergeant Major Dennis M. Burch, 35th ADA Brigade, Korea; "Thought Provoking Points" by Lieutenant Colonel Matt Michaelson, Air and Missile Defense/Air Defense Airspace Management Cell Senior Trainer, National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California; "Common Ground--The Antiaircraft and Field Artillery Merger of 1950" by John Hamilton, ADA Historian, ADA School, Fort Bliss, Texas; and "Managing Fires: The Army Needs to Look Beyond Merging Air Defense Artillery and Field Artillery to a New Organizational Structure for the Application of Firepower" by Lieutenant Colonel Elliott Bales, Commander of the 1st Battalion, 44th Air Defense Artillery (Patriot and Avenger), Fort Bliss. These pieces appear in the April-June edition of Air Defense Artillery and are available online at airdefense.bliss.army.mil/adamag.

Ed.

Branches Will Lose By Becoming One

The article by Colonel (Promotable) Mark McDonald in the January-February 2006 edition is similar to the arguments that were advocated in the 1950s by well intentioned personnel planners. Those arguments proved flawed in Vietnam when Field Artillery officers and NCOs with backgrounds in ADA [Air Defense Artillery] were assigned to FA [Field Artillery] units.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Many of these officers were graduates of the FA OBC [Officer's Basic Course] and Artillery Career Courses when Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and Fort Bliss, Texas, conducted training in both branches. Most of the ADA NCOs had never seen FA systems in action. The ADA background, in most cases, failed to provide officers and NCOs with the experience and tactical mindset for competence in FA skills.

Similarly, FA officers who trained in ADA missile systems struggled to survive in ADA units. When these officers returned to their original branches, either ADA or FA, they had fallen behind their peers who had remained single-tracked in either ADA or FA--they had missed out on valuable unit experience that expanded their branch professional base.

Serving in both FA and ADA assignments did little or nothing to help me in combat as a battery commander, assistant S3 and battalion S3. I was fortunate to have had superb FA battery commanders who taught me branch skills as a lieutenant and outstanding FA battalion commanders who polished my FA skills, enabling me to become a successful battalion S3 in combat as a captain and, later, a cannon battalion commander.

It wasn't long ago that some were concerned about achieving branch proficiency in both cannons and missiles. There were others who worried that all missile battalions (Pershing and Lance) would eventually be commanded by women because they could not serve in cannon units; therefore, they would remain missile-tracked and would then become the true experts in our missile systems and their employment.

I believe that Colonel Al Pace, USMC, has hit the nail on the head in his response to the article [January-February edition, Page 3] when he suggests that we carefully examine the rationale for the branch split in 1968. I'm sure there still are some "gray beards" around who could shed light on the basis for the decision to create two separate branches. I suspect that both branches benefited from the split.

I agree that some efficiencies can be achieved by combining the two branch schools at a single location. Much of the professional training has a common thread. But the missions of the two branches remain distinctly different, as does the branch specialty training. FA remains an offensive force multiplier. ADA is primarily defensive. It is my opinion that both branches will lose by becoming one again.

COL(R) John A. Seitz III, FA

Alexandria, Virginia

Merge the Branches

I served 28 years in the Army from 1961 to 1989 with eight years in the Artillery and four years as an ADA officer.

I served as an Artillery officer in the 2nd Battalion, 126th Artillery (1-126 Artillery), 32nd Infantry Division, WIARNG [Wisconsin National Guard], during the Berlin Crisis of 1961-1962. I remained on active duty and served in the 1-20 Artillery (8-inch/Honest John) and 2-77 Artillery, 4th Infantry Division (4th ID). During my first tour in Vietnam, I was an assistant battalion advisor to the 51st and 52nd ARVN [Army of the Republic of Vietnam] Artillery, 5th ARVN Division.

I served as an ADA officer in the 50th ADA Group and 3-68 ADA, ARADCOM [Army Air Defense Command] in Minneapolis-St Paul, Minnesota.

During my second tour in Vietnam, I served as a battalion S3 and, subsequently, as a battalion XO [executive officer] in the 5-4 FA, 5th ID. My additional Field Artillery assignments included serving as an instructor at the Field Artillery School; FA Team Chief of the Readiness Group, Fort Sheridan [Illinois]; and Assistant Fire Support Coordinator, VII Corps, USAREUR [US Army Europe].

I also served several years in intelligence assignments and as an Inspector General [IG].

The unique aspect of my assignments in the Field Artillery and Air Defense Artillery is that I served as the battery XO of B Battery, 2-77 Artillery with a battery commander whose previous experience was only in Air Defense. I commanded A Battery, 3-68 ADA. This was my first battery-level experience with Air Defense, although I had spent six months as an operations officer at a SAGE [semi-automatic ground envisionment] BUIC [backup intercept control] site. These two assignments gave me some significant insights into the combined branch concept.

Over my entire career, as influenced by the combined branch experiences, I found my Air Defense knowledge valuable. For example, when serving as a member of the Army Training Study (ARTS), I was the ARTS representative for the Redeye Gunner Training Proficiency testing we conducted as the study group did not have an ADA officer assigned. Later in my career, I also found my knowledge valuable during a field exercise conducted in Europe using Nike Hercules as a surface-to-surface weapons system.

Finally, my ADA background was useful when, as the IG of the 59th Ordnance Brigade, I was the responsible IG for the 5th Air Defense Group in the brigade.

My initial concerns with the combined branch concept are that branch officers need to provide expertise in areas outside of fires, such as in intelligence, general staff and inspector general assignments. The combination of the time devoted to a combined branch and other assignments limits the time officers have to spend in their primary branch developing a real mastery of their duties. During my 28 years of service, I thought that I was frequently placed in positions where I had to learn new jobs by OJT [on-the-job training]. While this was challenging, it is not the way to go to war.

In summary, my first impression is that I was able to perform both ADA and FA missions. When pressed into service outside the branch, I gained the required skills without a major loss of mission efficiency. If merging the branches is a move toward a Fires Branch, then there may be some significant advantages.

LTC(R) Peter T. Zielenski, FA

New Braunfels, Texas