Long load times. Graphics intensive page due to loading of photos. Please be patient... If you're interested in learning about K8 (Kunsan AB during the Korean War) and the units that were at Kunsan, the wait is well worth it. The opinions expressed are those of the author and in no way represents any official statement of Kunsan AB or the USAF.

If you wish to listen to some golden oldies from 1940s-1990s, click on the selection on the list below.
There are about 80 full-length songs to choose from.
(NOTE: Song audio degraded due to space limitations, but adequate for computer listening.)

Free JavaScripts provided
by The JavaScript Source


HOW IT WAS!

Eagle

KUNSAN AIRBASE

VMF(N)-513 "FLYING NIGHTMARES"
(1951-1954)

Page 5 of 9


RETURN TO MAIN TABLE OF CONTENTS

America


Gap
Excellence 2000 Award
Standing in the Gap -- Scarface (NR)
Semper Fi
Brad Ryti
An award this site has received. To view our awards, go toAwards.


bar

HOW IT WAS:
KUNSAN AIRBASE
(1951-1954)

Marine Squadron VMF(N)-513 (1952-1953):
"The Flying Nightmares"

Click on to enlarge

Acknowledgment: Special thanks to Ron Stout of Burien, Washington for his narratives and invaluable technical information. Special thanks to Paul Noel of Oak Harbor, Washington for his invaluable assistance in providing information, proofing the text, providing guidance in assembling the materials and contributing his narratives. Special thanks to Jack Kio of Oswego, New York for his narratives, photos, and invaluable technical information. Thanks to Jim Curzon for his narratives and photos of Kunsan. Thanks to Eugene "Mule" Holmberg for the patches of the VMF(N)-513. Thanks also to Ken Gates for his research materials and photos. Thanks to Ron Harribson for his narratives. Thanks to Bill Brennen for his narratives and photos. Special thanks to Robert Frankovich for his narrative of a 22d CRBS rescue attempt. Also thanks to Ray Bourgholtzer; Gil Garcia; and Ray Harvey for their contributions. Thanks to Joseph S. Rychetnik of Point Richmond, California for his narratives and technical information. Primary Source Material: The Flying Nightmares: A History and Assessment of VMF(N)-513 at War in Korea 1950 - 1953 by Benjamin Huston Kristy, History Thesis, Kansas State University, 1995; U.S.Marine Corps Aviation: 1912 to Present by Peter B. Mersky); Air Power, January 1986; Naval Fighters Number Four Douglas F3D Skyknight, by Steve Ginter.


Close Air Support:

There were many problems for the Marines operating in an Air Force environment. Some of it was over doctrinal differences at the highest level. According to The Three Wars of Lt. Gen. George E. Stratemeyer, His Korean War Diary, edited by William T. Y'Blood, 1999, General Stratemeyer, Commander of the Far East Air Force (FEAF), was plagued by the constant in-fighting as the Navy sought to promote their views of the superiority of a carrier-based air attack force over land-based units. He even sent messages to the CINCPAC to request solidarity in the fight in Korea instead of the divisive in-fighting.

Some of it had to do with with the structure of the newly formed Air Force. Preference was given to the strategic bomber commands over the tactical air units. It was only later after the lessons learned in Korea that the Tactical Air Command (fighter) was formed on an equal footing with the Strategic Air Command (bomber). There were also problems with the Far East Air Force (FEAF) itself. The FEAF in its occupation role in Japan had been keyed into air defense of Japan and had almost no experience or training in close air support.

Some of it was doctrinal...dealing with how things would get done at the highest levels and some conflicts of how Marines go about completing their missions. James A. Field, Jr.,History of United States Naval Operations in Korea, states "The problems of air-ground coordination in the Korean War were compounded by the inability of FEAF to adequately communicate and coordinate with naval (including Marine) aviation. Although routine interservice problems were easily handled, doctrinal clashes over control of tactical air power between USAF and naval aviation were not solved in Korea. Again, the lack of a joint command structure contributed to these problems and the failure to completely resolve them."

The Close Air Support Controversy in Korea by Capt. Keith Kopets, states, "Close Air Support (CAS) was the most controversial offensive tactical air mission performed by the major United Nations (U.N.) air services in Korea. The U.S. Air Force and naval air forces of the seventh fleet employed two diametrically opposed systems of CAS."

It continued, "The Air Force Method: The Far East Air Force (FEAF) was the senior U.N. air command in Korea. FEAF designated Gen. Earl Partridge's Fifth Air Force as the tactical air force for Korea. As such, Partridge's headquarters served as the executive agent for planning and implementing CAS for the Eighth U.S. Army Korea (EUSAK). During the first two months of the war, Fifth Air Force provided the majority of the CAS in Korea and employed high-performance jet driven F-80 and F-84 aircraft as the primary CAS platforms. The limitations of these aircraft vis-a-vis fuel bomb payload -- and more importantly -- runway requirements forced the Air Force to resurrect the World War II-era F-51 piston engine Mustang. The Mustang required less runway space, burned less fuel, carried a heavier payload, and could remain on station longer than jets. Unlike the jets, the Air Force could base the Mustangs in Korea and thus provide more responsive support."

The Air Force regarded interdiction as a philosophically and doctrinally sounder approach to offensive tactical air support than CAS. It was better to destroy the enemy before, rather than after he reached the battlefield. This philosophy conditioned the U.S. Air Force's approach to CAS. Likewise, the Army (principal recipients of Air Force tactical support) did not expect to receive CAS except beyond the range of their organic heavy artillery and did not integrate CAS into their fire support plans. For the most part, all of the aforementioned contributed to the acrimonious CAS debate that developed between Eighth Army and FEAF in the first year of the war."

Unlike the Marine/Navy, who had practiced CAS as part of their offensive strategy, neither the Army nor the Air Force were prepared for air-to-ground operations in May 1950. The formation of the Joint Operations Center (JOC) was initially handicapped because Eighth Army did not adequately staff the JOC creating problems of command, control and communication. These were later smoothed out and the Fifth Air Force ably provided support to the Eighth Army.

However, when the Marines arrived with their organic aviation, problems surfaced in the relationship between the Army and the Fifth Air Force. Remember that on June 1, 1951 the First Marine Aircraft Wing (1st MAW) inaugurated the policy of basing one squadron immediately in the rear of the First Marine Division to provide ground alert aircraft which were on call through the Joint Operations Center for close air support missions. The conflict between the Army and the Air Force arose because FEAF response times were averaging 40 minutes at the start of the war, while a dedicated Marine force had 10-15 minute response times. It was only natural that adjacent Army commanders would expect the same quality and quantity that the Marines received. It would never materialize.

As for the feelings between the Navy and the Air Force, it was even more acrimonious. The Air Force had complete responsibility for air interdiction. Everything had to go through Air Force control and the Navy resented this. In addition, the 5AF attempted to have all air elements in Korea (including carrier-based aircraft) under their control, but the Navy resisted this due to their regional responsibilities. However, for the Marines permanently shore-based like the VMF(N)-513, they fell under the control of the Fifth Air Force...and resented it...though not officially.

FromNaval Aviation 1950-53, it states that on July 8, 1950, that "to obtain maximum effectiveness in the employment of all air resources in the Far East Command and to insure coordination of air efforts, Commander in Chief, Far East, approved and adopted as policy the agreement of Commander Naval Forces, Far East and Commanding General, Far East Air Forces. Under it, the Navy controlled the operations of its carrier aircraft whenever they were on missions assigned to Commander Naval Forces, Far East, and of its shore-based aircraft whenever they were on naval missions. On all other missions, the operations of naval aircraft, both carrier And shore-based, were under the Air Force. For shore-based Marine air this control was direct, but for naval aircraft the control was of a coordination type. The selection of targets and their priority by a General Headquarters Joint Service Target Analysis Group insured that the air campaign was coordinated with the overall objectives."

In Air Power in Peripheral Conflict -- The Cases of Korea and Vietnam by Dr. Richard P. Hallion, the U.S. Air Force Historian, it states, "The most serious controversy involving air power concerned schemes of air support - whether, for example, "Air Force" or "Navy-Marine" close air support was "better." While these arguments continued to rage in war colleges after the conflict ended, it should be noted that both schemes together - the former based on a traditional and mutually derived Army and Air Force view that air support would complement organic artillery fire, and the latter based on a traditional Marine view that air support would substitute for the lack of organic artillery - ensured that the entire area of approach of a Communist force seeking contact with UN forces was covered by at times devastating amounts of on-call air power, whether of Air Force, Navy, Marine, or coalition air force origin."

In The Sea War in Korea (p47) restated this as, "Simple definitions notwithstanding, the concepts and technique of providing close air support can be exceedingly complex and difficult, as will be seen. The close air support system developed and perfected by the Navy and Marines (the system least used in Korea) was substantially different from the system developed by the Air Force and the Army (the system most used in Korea)."

The book (p48) continued to point out the difference in the Navy-Marine system of close air support which was perfected in World War II. Its battle test was Tarawa in November 1943. "For the first time in combat, front-line units were accompanied by air-liaison parties whose main duty was to assist unit ground commanders in selecting suitable targets and in transmitting this target information and instructions for attack to the airplanes overhead. At Tarawa, also, liaison aircraft were flown by senior experienced aviators who were conversant with the ground plan, and who were in radio contact with the close air support airplanes."

Naval and Marine aircraft, under the control of foot soldiers, had learned to quickly and effectively deliver their bullets and bombs upon "close" targets (50 to 200 yards distant) directed by trained parties in the front lines. It continued (p48), "The final innovation, however - the direction of attack aircraft by frontline ground units -- was not extensively used until the Battle of Okinawa, at which time sufficient portable radio communication equipment made air-ground communications reliable." This is the system the Navy-Marines preferred, but it was not the one in use. (NOTE: A historical note was added by Paul Noel as to the CAS missions dealing with Naval and Marine aircraft under the control of "foot soldiers." He stated, "At any rate, actual CAS Control was by Marine Naval Aviators; one was assigned to each Bn (1st Lt/Capt), each Rgt (Capt)---these ranks may be slightly off--- and a bird Colonel was the "Division Air Officer". At Guadalcanal there was only a Capt as Div Air O. who was also the CG's pilot. The point being the guy on the mike on the ground was "on the same page" as the guy in the air.)

The book continued (pp71-72) pointed out the three fundamental differences between the AIr Force system and the Navy-Marine system of close air support in the 1950s-1960s:

1. A difference in philosophy over the use of air power
2. A difference in techniques
3. A difference in semantics
"The root of the disparity is one of concept. First of all the Air Force believes the proper place to apply air power is first and foremost upon the sources of the enemy's war-making potential, and second, in the immediate battle area. Isolation of the battlefield, in their view, takes precedence over air strikes in the battlefield. And control of aircraft, they believe, must never degenerate to individual ground commanders whose limiting perspective cannot result in the most effective theater-wide use of the airplanes' potential."

It went on, "The second major difference is one of technique. The Navy-Marine system of close air support requires that pilots be trained to recognize terrain features and to appreciate the capabilities and limitations of ground arms in order that strikes can be performed very close to friendly forces. Marine pilots are especially well trained in this respect, naval pilots less so. Air Force pilots do not receive the same degree of training." It continued, "One of the basic presumptions is that unless close air support is immediately available (within 10 to 15 minutes), its value to the frontline commander is questionable or considerably reduced."

The final problem was semantics as each service defines "close air support" differently. To Navy-Marines, "close" is considered to be that area immediately in front of friendly troops -- 50 to 200 yards. The Air Force on the other hand, considers "close" to mean within several thousand yards of the front line .. the distance to which field artillery pieces would effectively reach. The Navy-Marine called this "deep support".

This was summed up by Lt. Gen. Lemuel C. Shepherd, Commanding General, Fleet Marine Force, Pacific, in 1951: "We believe in providing for a small number of on-station planes; the Air Force does not. We believe in continuous direct communication between the frontline battalion and controlling air agency; the Air Force does not. We believe that close air support of the frontline troops should take precedence over routine interdiction missions; the Air Force does not."

It's amazing how times change. Now the Air Force boasts of its on-station E-3Bs AWACs airborne command and control aircraft and its forward air controllers (FAC). It boasts of its command and control concepts which focus on support of the frontline troops.

According to The U.S. Air Force in Korea by Robert F. Futrell (p121), General Stratemeyer stated on 22 July 1950, "At such time as the Marine Wing may be committed to shore-based operations in Korea, it will operate under the control of the Commanding General, Fifth Air force, except as may be directed by special operations." It continued, "One of the the Marine squadrons -- VMF(N)-513 -- was a night-fighter unit, equipped with F4U-5N all-weather Corsairs. This squadron joined the 8th Fighter-Bomber Wing at Itazuke Air Base and began to fly night-intruder attacks under the coordination of the Fifth Air Force." During July, the Corsairs provided eight to ten sorties per night. In continued (p136), "Because their all-weather Corsairs were short-ranged, the Marine pilots of VMF(N)-513 operated almost entirely over hostile lines of communication immediately behind the Naktong perimeter."

As was mentioned before, there was a basic difference in which the Marine aviators and the USAF viewed their missions. The Marines deployed to Korea with organic aviation. The aviators saw their mission as directly supporting the ground troops. By long-standing doctrine, the marines enjoyed continuous and responsive CAS from their teammates in the air to compensate for weaknesses in organic artillery. However, USAF units viewed their mission as supporting the Theater. The Marine unit was caught between two masters pulling at their loyalties...with the Fifth Air Force exerting the prime control.


Initially the VMF(N)-513 was employed exclusively in an air interdiction role because of their night capability. However, in 1952-53 they were called upon to assume night CAS roles as allied fighter support were strictly daytime -- and the Chinese learned to plan their attacks accordingly. Ron Stoutwrote, "Road recces and night attack work were performed by both VMF(N)513 AND VMF(N)542 from the very beginning of the war. They started doing them from Itazuke then moved to Pusan and from there to several other bases including K-25 (Wonsan) where off duty personnel fought on the base perimeter with their M-1's." (Note: K-25 (Wonsan) was on the east coast of North Korea. For Locations of K-Bases in Korea go toK-Base Map.)

Ron continued, "513 spent a lot of its time in 1952-53 working out methods for providing close air support for the infantry at night since the Chinese early on found that U.N. airpower tended to disappear at night." He later added, "The B-26's at Kunsan had the same specular black paint as we used but they had white markings while ours were red. There were a couple of other AF B-26 squadrons doing road recces but I don't know where they were based. My first dice with an enemy aircraft was doing a head on just over top of an AF B-26 being shot at by an enemy prop plane (probably a YAK-9). We went close enough to the AF guy to see his exhaust flames even though he was equipped with flash hiders." (Note: Besides the B-26s at Kunsan, the 17th Bomb Group was at K-9 (Pusan) and a recon outfit was at K-14 (Kimpo). The recons had sealed bomb bay doors (Bombay held radar equipment, etc.) and other mods for recon and weather use.)

Maj. Paul Noel (later Colonel)
of the VMF(N)-513 (1953)

Paul Noelexplained that CAS support is the Marine specialty -- and had been since they invented it! He went on to say, "WWII night fighters maintained air superiority. We taught very little in night air-to-ground in F7F training, Idea was to be exposed to the flash, noise, and smoke. Emphasis was on maintaining night vision. It was not until 1947 that my squadron exercised night delivery of cannon fire, rockets, and practice bombs. Most of us interceptor types did not like it and I am sure the R/Os liked it less as I fired at altitude of 300 feet on the radio altimeter and pushed over to check the hit! But these pilots are the guys that did the night road recces when the F7Fs first got to Korea. Of course they had success. Until Korea we never dreamed of running up and down a road shooting up trucks. CAS was the name of the game. But in Korea JOC needed road recces and the F7Fs were assigned to do so. They did. And that was the way the system worked."

Paul continued, "Marine Corps squadron's primary mission had nothing to do with day-to-day operations, within reason. Transports were not kicking bombs out the door, but they would have if it came down to that. The 'dictator' was the guy who controlled all aviation assets in Korea. CG 5th AF comes to mind. His agent was JOC who issued the frag orders. Control was through a command center. When we pulled up the landing gear lever the R/O switched from tower to command center. After a vector and identification we were handed off to a GCI station for the intercept or patrol. Upon establishing firm radar contact the R/O would TAKE control from the ground controller and complete the intercept. About all a pilot does is take off, follow directions, pull the trigger, and land the airplane. Surplus baggage most of the time. At least that is the way I recall events. It was standard and can be traced back to the Battle of Britain."

At the local level, there were more basic problems because of the way Marines did business. Air Force units are used to the idea of operating from a "home" base, while Marines are mobile and no place is home. Ron Stout adds, "Marine air is subordinate to, and an extension of, the infantry and as such is expected to be flexible so that they can carry minimum fuel and maximum ordinance in support of the grunts. That being the case, it behooves Marine air to be highly flexible so that they can stay near the bomb line. Marines in Korea, as in WW II operated off carriers, PSP strips, dirt roads, or wherever we could hang our hats."

Basically, the 1st MAW CAS mission had all the advantages over the Fifth Air Force CAS system, but the bottomline was that the Fifth Air Force was in control. The 1st MAW CAS mission was designed for tactical aircraft -- rather than fighter aircraft. Tactical air support was the 1st MAW's primary mission versus the Fifth Air Force where tactical air support would get no higher than a priority three on a mission. The Navy-Marine aircrews were thoroughly trained and familiar with the supported units tactics, problems and techniques versus the Fifth Air Force aircrews who had no real training in CAS. 1st MAW communication was simplified and local, while Fifth Air Force methods were complicated and insufficient and required Field Army-Tactical Air Force detailed control. Despite all these 1st MAW advantages, the Fifth Air Force CAS system prevailed.

This Navy-Marine Corps view of the CAS mission is explained in The Close Air Support Controversy in Korea by Capt. Keith Kopets. Under the section "The Navy and Marine Corps Method" it states, "Amphibious warfare shaped Navy and Marine Corps tactical aviation. Support of ground forces during ship-to-shore movement was the raison d'etre for naval aviation. The Navy-Marine Corps Team practiced the same CAS doctrine in Korea they had perfected in the South Pacific. Although the FEAF theoretically enjoyed "coordination control" over all aircraft in Korea, the Air Force exercised only nominal control over naval aviation during the early stages of the war due to communications difficulties. The 1st Marine Aircraft Wing (1st MAW) and carrier groups of the Seventh Fleet initially provided CAS in support of EUSAK's defense of Pusan. After Pusan, the naval air forces assumed the duties (in practice) as the tactical air force of X Corps. Subsequently, they supported the Inchon and Wonsan landings and covered the X Corps withdrawal from North Korea. After Chosin, the operational control of the 1st MAW passed to Fifth Air Force for the remainder of the war."

"The naval air forces relied upon World War II-vintage to provide CAS. The F4U-4 Corsair and AD-1 Skyraider -- both propeller driven fighter bombers were the primary aircraft used to support the ground troops. The naval capabilities of these aircraft afforded the Navy and the Marine Corps numerous advantages over the Air Force. For instance, the Navy and Marine Corps were able to fly their sorties from just off the cost of Korea during the early stages of the war. They resulted in a quicker response time and allowed the aircraft to loiter "on station" to provide oncall CAS. In contrast, the Air Force could only place their landbased aircraft on "strip alert" in Japan because of fuel requirements."

But the Marine Corps CAS system was not without support from high level Army commanders. In The Close Air Support Controversy in Korea under the heading "The Controversy" it stated, "GEN Douglas MacArthur maintained X Corps as a separate tactical unit from the Eighth Army through the end of 1950. This division of command also held true for the air order of battle; the 1st MAW served as X Corps' Tactical Air Command, while Fifth Air Force fulfilled the same function for Eighth Army. After the U.N. withdrawal from North Korea, however, the Eighth Army absorbed X Corps, and the 1st MAW had to follow the Fifth Air Force system of CAS. This did not sit well with many Army commanders, particularly MG Edward M. Almond, X Corps commander. Almond had become a devout believer in Marine air and heaped criticism on the Air Force's shortcomings. X Corps undertook a study comparing the two systems of CAS at Almond's behest. The report compared the two systems ... and came out in strong favor of the Marines."

"The report made it all the way back to Washington. Army Chief of Staff GEN J. Lawton Collins filed a formal complaint against the Air Force Chief of Staff Gen Hoyt S. Vandenberg, criticizing the Air Force's CAS operations in Korea. This report led to an investigation that concluded that the Air Force system of close air support was doctrinally sound and simply required better execution."

The bottomline was that the Fifth Air Force system was maintained for the remainder of the war. The Air Force doctrine of air interdiction shifted the focus of missions away from CAS. Large scale air interdiction missions were fragged. However, the complaint from many pilots was that they were hitting the same bridges from the same flight path at the same time everyday making them easy targets. The Marine view of having the ground units with a commited air component was lost in the shuffle. More and more the Air Force attention was drawn to the flashier air roles like air superiority.

The traditional relationship between the Marine Air, the Navy and the "Other" folks was changed in Korea. A lot depends on definitions and a lot on the historical relationship with the Navy. The Marine Corps evolved into a hard hitting, heavily armed force with its own air power to come in hard and fast, secure and hold a port area, so the navy could bring in Army forces with extra heavy equipment for the long haul. Later this concept expanded to capturing a nearby air field; a la the Inchon landing and capture of Kimpo. The WWII Pacific island campaigns sort of follow that scenario, too. The attack squadrons are for close air support of the grunt and fighters are to maintain air superiority so the attack guys can do their job. All through peace time the Marines train for and budget hardware buys so that they can accomplish that objective.

InThis Kind of War, The Classic Korean War Historyby T.R. Fehrenbach, it details this type of concept as the Marines Air covered the opening the port of Hamhung and then covered the Marine withdrawal after the Chinese entered the fray. It states (p 247), "Marine air from the 1st Air Wing near Hamhung, carrier pilots fromPhilippine SeaandLeyte, and Air Force supply planes flew constantly over the column. Marine aircraft strafed, bombed, and napalmed as close as fifty yards from the leading elements. Marine air flying so low as to touch the mountains, knocked out roadblock after roadblock, as fast as the Chinese assembled them. Marine pilots volunteered to fly night missions in the dangerous mountains. Hour after hour, the sky above the American troops was black with friendly aircraft, and without them, in spite of their courage, in spite of all else, the ground troops would never have come out."

The "fly in the ointment" comes when there is a Korea or Vietnam where the Marines come in fully loaded to do the job, but stay and are absorbed long term into the battle. The overall air commander wants control and allocation of ALL aviation assets and the Marine grunts are assigned a sector on the MLR. The Marines have budgeted for and expect to have 'their' air support (especially helicopters) and if the other services are short---the Marines feel no pity as they should have spent their money on more whatevers in the years past. To the Marines, it is like the ant and the grasshopper -- the them as the industrious and frugal ants, while the other services are the foolish grasshoppers.

Marine aviation comes under the area commander, whether they like it or not. The assets are assigned by the area commander, every 24 hours, as the frag order is put out. The senior Marine grunt and the senior Marine aviator did not dream up the idea of F3Ds escorting B-29s. It was something that was needed, the area commander had the assets. That traditional AF mission was done by who was capable and available -- the VMF(N)-513 F3Ds.

When one speaks to Marines about their mission in the early days of the Korean War, you see their underlying feeling. "WE did our job, WE prepared, WE came to get the job done, but YOU folks..." One can clearly see their pride in the Corps...but we also see the underpinnings of interservice rivalry. Regardless, there is truth in these statements from the Marines. InThis Kind of War, The Classic Korean War History(p128) it states, "When the Korean War broke, somewhat less than 10 percent of the small United States Marine Corps had seen combat. But fortunately for the Corps, the percentage was highly concentrated within officer and key NCO grades, most of the Marine troop leaders knew what war was like. And the Marines, who had always been largely a volunteer organization, had escaped the damaging reforms instituted within the United States Army at the end of World War II. The public clamor rose against the Army, during the war twenty times the small, parochial Corps' size, and ignored the Marines. In 1950 a Marine Corps officer was still an officer, and a sergeant behaved the way good sergeants had behaved since the time of Caesar, expecting no nonsense, allowing none. And Marine leaders had never lost sight of their primary -- their only -- mission, which was to fight. ... In 1950 the Marines, both active and reserve, were better prepared to die on the field of battle than the Army."

As to the role of close air support (CAS) often Army ground would request Marine CAS. Once absorbed, Marine grunts did not get a better break than their Army cousins reallocation. It came from the AF, actually Joint Operations Command (JOC). Paul Noel noted, "It was located at Osan when I got there and I suspect it had been there quite a while. Of course there was a Marine liaison officer assigned to JOC, a major in Korea; not sure in Vietnam, but like every thing else I am certain it escalated. Senior bird at a minimum." He continues on that the Marines were always good soldiers who followed orders...regardless of what service. Though they would have preferred to be in their element supporting their own, they were a Fifth Air Force asset and knew it.

Flare Drop Mission:

Early in 1951, flare-dropping missions were code-named "Firefly" and given to patrol squadrons. This coordination action of flare and attack aircraft was a distinctly new application of air power in support of ground operations. According to The Sea War in Korea, by CDR Malcolm W. Cagle, USN and CDR Frank A. Manson, USN, 1957, (p381), "In an effort to hamper and harass the enemy's nocturnal movements, Admiral A. W. Radford, while on an inspection trip to Korea, suggested the use of Consolidated Vultee PB4Y-2 "Privateer" aircraft as flare planes. Major General Field Harris, Commanding General of the First Marine Air Wing (then operating a night flying squadron of F4U4N Corsairs and a night-flying squadron of F7F3N Tigercats) formally requested the assignment of appropriate naval aircraft to assist his heckler aircraft by carrying a large number of flares and accompanying them over the roads and rail lines north of the battlefield. Marine All Weather Fighter Squadron 513 had already developed flare tactics using transport-type (R4D) aircraft. however, these planes lacked both self-sealing tanks and armor protection, and the antiaircraft hazard was great." (NOTE: According to The U.S. Air Force in Korea and the 3rd Bomb Wing histories, the flare-drop tactics were developed by the 3rd Bomb Wing using C-47s (similar to the Marine R4D) and code named "Firefly." In the book, the Marines are said to have utilized the USAF "Firefly" flare-drop aircraft and almost as a side note, the PB4Y-2's are mentioned as assisting the VMF(N)-513 on routes out of Pyongyang. However, the Marines refute this as saying that their R4Ds were used for flare drops. Kermit Moffett was among the first group of R.O.'s to serve in Korea riding in the back seat of the Grumman F7F's and he should know. He wrote, "The planes used for flare drops in 50-51 were R4D's from the Group.")

Navy flare dropping aircraft that
visited the VMF(N)-513 from time to time
(Courtesy Jack Kio)
Click on photo to enlarge

It continued (p382), "The flare planes and the Marine intruders did not depart in company from K-1 since the VP plane cruised at a slower speed than the fighters (though not much slower when the bomb and rocket load was as big as the Marines liked to carry). Rendezvous was accomplished in the target area either by the night fighter picking up the flare plane on radar and homing in, or by the flare plane dropping a flare and having the fighter home in on it. A flare mission normally lasted for approximately six hours, one plane having the sunset to midnight session, and a replacement having the midnight to sunrise stint."

"Each plane was scheduled to work with a total of four fighters, which came on the scene individually, spaced approximately one-half hour apart. If a fighter had to abort for some reason, the flare plane frequently was able to work with other planes for illumination purposes for bombing runs or anything else that might be required. The arrangement was obviously quite flexible and quite interesting for the VP boys, who were accustomed to long, monotonous hours of overwater flying. This seemed almost like legalized flat hatting."

"The flare-dropping task called for the patrol aircraft to depart after sunset with a two-ton load of flares and to fly over Korea accompanied by several Marine night-intruder aircraft. (Sometimes as many as seven attack aircraft would utilize the P4Y2's flares for a single flight, although the average was three to four. Such missions required the most careful and complex teamwork on the part of these planes. First of all, the flare-carrying P4Ys (called "Lamp Lighters") had to make a rendezvous with the night-attack aircraft. When this had been done, a search for enemy truck lights was commenced by the intruder and the flare plane. Upon finding a suitable target, a string of four to seven flares would be dropped to illuminate the target area. The attacking pilot might also ask for the flares to be dropped on a certain heading, and for repeated runs."

"Once the area had been illuminated, the attack pilot searched the ground and attempted to locate targets while the VP plane kept the area illuminated. The Marine intruder pilot had to make his search quickly before the enemy trucks had time to conceal themselves beneath trees or other cover."

Jack Kio wrote, "There was a time that we (enlisted men ) were offered rides in the PBY (PB4Y-2) to help drop the flares out. I didn't but I think some of the men did." Joe Rychetnik added, "The Gooks would often frustrate the low level flare dropping and attacks by fixing a steel cable across valleys to snag aircraft. The P4Y2 pilots had more than a handful of work to make it through the night."

Ground-level Friction between the Services:

It appears that there was a great deal of friction between the USAF hosts and Marine tenants at K-8. The Marines viewed K-8 as a temporary stop, but the units of the 3rd Bomb Wing viewed it as "home." Numerous flightline incidents by Marines from K-8 added to the friction. Finally, it appears the friction became personal. The Marine officers and staff NCOs were barred from the USAF officers and NCO clubs. There was also an incident dealing with a Marine who had been jumped by some airmen and beaten up. In a rage, the Marine went back to his barracks retrieved his weapon and discharged it in the USAF barracks area. He was never seen again in the unit.

Within the lower ranks of the Marines, there was the lack of understanding about how other services functioned. The enlisted ranks had a different way of viewing their roles in the organization in wartime. A Marine functioned first as a Marine in the broadest sense of the word...then as a flyer or specialist. A Marine's loyalty lay with his fellow Marines. Even though the VMF(N)-513 was under the command of the FEAF and 3rd Bomb Wing, it continued to operate as a Marine aviation unit which was always ready to move with the shifting MLR. The Air Force operated only as a flyer or specialist as a part of his unit. Their loyalty lay with the "team" effort. In essence, the airmen viewed themselves as cogs in a greater machine. As such, the Air Force mentality was one of being "home-based." Because of these differences, the typical Marine could not conceptualize the way the Air Force did business...and vice-versa.

Another difference was that the Air Force did not view itself as a GROUND fighting force. After the Chinese took Seoul in 1951, there was a fear that the Chinese would overrun all of Korea. A plan was formulated that all Air Force units would be evacuated to Japan with the Army and Marine units fighting a delaying action and falling back to Taegu and Pusan. This FEAF highly distasteful "bugout" policy was luckily never tested. However, it does show how the Air Force viewed its role in ground fighting. It did NOT consider itself a participant. A Marine regardless of specialty is a marine and fights. Ron adds, "At K-45, as I mentioned, off-duty crews manned the perimeter with rifles to fend off Chinese attackers while the Corsairs and F7F's were able to take-off, deliver ordinance, and return to base without ever having to raise their landing gear. The presence of Marine air and its effectiveness definitely made the Chinese change their tactics when opposing Marines. They usually confined their "human wave" attacks to night time or early morning." (Note: This Airfield is officially known as K-25, but it appears in the early days of the war it was arbitrarily called "K-45" and "K-75" as a means for Joint Operations Center (JOC) to direct aircraft back to its base. Go to Airfield Location and Designator Map.)

Ron also talked about the difference in looking at R.O.s...the Radar Operator. He said, "The Marine R.O. had different nomenclatures between the Navy (who awarded our wings) and the Marine Corps.To the Navy we were Naval Aviation Observers (Radar) and to the Corps we were Airborne Intercept Operators (A.I.O.) and the Air Force just called us R.O.'s." However, the term R.O. or "Observer" in the Air Force during the Korean War indicated an officer which caused some confusion with those not used to Marine terminology. After the war, the other services did lobby to have the classifications standardized and all R.O. became officers.

First night jet air-to-air kill by the VMF(N)-513 (1952)
(Courtesy Paul Noel)
Click on photo to enlarge

The life of a Marine outfit on an Air Force base isn't always smooth. Ron Stout remembers an accident where the Base Commander got all excited after some 20mm HEI rounds passed through his house. "We landed from the sea toward land and the house sat just inside the tide line on the inland end of the runway. Where we turned off to unload our guns was on marsden matting pointed toward the sea with the house sometimes in the line of fire as it were." One day while unloading the guns, a few rounds of 20mm HEI were pumped into a house and the Base Commander became excited over this event. Ron went on to explain, "We took the position he was a wedge ass for getting all excited just because we dumped a few rounds of 20mm H.E.I. ammo through the civilian house he had commandeered for his use at the turn off end of the runway where we cleared our cannon after landing in the F3D-2's."

(NOTE 1: Ron Stout, former VMF-513 RO, stated that "marsden matting" was heavier than PSP and used for the turnoffs at K-8. We have observed this same heavy gauge PSP in the 1950s as abandoned scrap around Pearl Harbor. However, we have not seen it at Kunsan. Though the concrete pads and taxiways for the VMF-513 were destroyed in 1965 by the 6175th CES, some PSP remained buried. In 2000 for the Foal Eagle Exercises, the 8th CES excavated the former VMF-513 area for use as a tent city. A lot of PSP was removed at that time. The PSP material removed resembled the PSP used during the Vietnam era -- not the heavier guage material that Ron Stout mentioned.)

(NOTE 2: We have been corrected by Tim Taylor that term "Marsden matting" is incorrect. He stated that "Marston matting" is named for the legendary B/Gen Marvin "Muktuk" Marston who first came up with it prior to WWII. In June 1942, Major Marston, empowered by the Governor of Alaska, built a native army of 3,500 men. Marston, an Arctic veteran who had earned his nickname by consuming enormous quantities of muktuk, or whale blubber. However, Kodiak Tour stated, "According to a note on page 90 of the book The Forgotten War Volume Four by Stan Cohen, Marston matting is named for the town in North Carolina in which the product was manufactured. According to Alaska Geographic Vol 22, No 4, p12, it was first tried out near Marston NC in November 1941. Each section weighed a bit more than 66 pounds and was 10 feet by 15 inches." These are just interesting sidenotes as this material spanned WWII through the Vietnam era as the universal building material. We make this note as a lot of folks from the Korean War era continue to mistakenly refer to this material as "Marsden matting" -- though it appears that the term was PSP (pierced steel planking) was popular by the Korean War.)

(NOTE 3: There were two types of PSP landing mats: M8 landing mat (PSP - 15"x11'10") and T11 landing mat (channel - 26"x12'). VSTOL AND POWER PROJECTION states, "During World War II, American combat aviation used temporary runways constructed of "Marston mat." One section of steel mat was 10 feet by 15 inches and weighed 66.2 pounds. Holes punched into each of the three channels reduced weight by 17.5 percent, controlled dust, and allowed drainage. In Southeast Asia, the mat was known as pierced steel planking. Richard K. Smith, "Marston Mat," Air Force Magazine, April 1989, 84-88. Recent advances in high strength composite materials could conceivably reduce weight even more. Reversible mat with a woodland camouflage paint scheme on one side an a desert scheme on the other could be interchangeably mixed and matched to provide excellent concealment for any location.")

VMF(N)-513's flightline at K-8, summer of 1952. Aircraft from left to right: F7F-3N Tigercat, F4U-5N Corsair, F3D-2 Skyknight. Notice the steel matting taxiway and the oil dumped on the ground. Environmental protection was never an issue in the Korean War days. (From B.H. Kristy's History Thesis, 1995)

Ron Stout later said, "...the tension with the base C.O. was a well known and oft mentioned reason for our leaving before the base at K-6 was fully finished and equipped for our use." There is a grain of truth in Ron's statements -- though there are compelling real-world reasons for their swift movement to K6. The Marines stayed by themselves and in fact, seemed to be intentionally segregated from the rest of the USAF units on the base. Whether by chance or planning, it is hard to say. The area the Marines located at Kunsan was near the boggy end of the airstrip. This location is at the end of the runway, away from the USAF units (F-84 and B-26s).) (NOTE: Though the concrete pads were broken up by the 6175th CES in 1965 with the PSP hauled off happily by the locals as scrap, there appears to have been a lot of PSP left behind. The area the Marines formerly located was cleared by the Kunsan Air Base Civil Engineers in 2000 and they dug up PSP sheeting scattered throughout the area.)

The Marines tended to think of the Air Force fighter units as "fair weather" flyers -- though they did acknowledge the B-26s and F-84 fighter-bombers as flying in most weather conditions. Ron Stout stated, "...we were called upon to launch our strip alerts to replace AF planes grounded by weather. Normally those replacements were for F-86 and F-94 CAP's." However, the primary reason the Marine night fighters like the VMF(N)-513 and B-26s were called upon to fly in fog-enshrouded daylight interdiction was their aircraft was equipped with radar and SHORAN. These aircraft could "see" in the dark -- or fog. (NOTE: In August 1952, the 3rd Bomb Wing was commended for never standing down except for three days -- and that was because there were no targets. The 3rd Bomb Wing flew in rain, sleet or fog when other aircraft on the peninsula were grounded. The 474th Fighter Bomber Wing also flew more than other fighter-bomber wings because K-8's location in the South (with a protective mountain barrier) gave it milder weather conditions than bases such as Kimpo or Suwon...and even Pusan.)

Ron Harbison wrote, "From the time that I got there until I went to K-6 on June 1, 1953, there was only one night that the Flying Nightmares did not fly and that was because of icing. We kept sending a plane up all night long to see if conditions had improved. The Air Force seemed to only fly if they had good weather. The sad part about the lack of rescue equipment is that they flew out over the same water as we did."

Jack Kio only remembers an F-86 outfit that came in TDY in April 1953 as the only ones near them. He also remembers the friction between the Marines and the base. He said, "Other than them I don't remember any outfit being close to us. We and the Air Force didn't get along very good. A short time after we got there with the F3Ds our officers were asked to stay out of the officers club, the staff nco were told to stay out of the staff club and the enlisted club didn't want us. Looking back on it I think it was more our fault then the Air Force, we were not good guests. Also your mess hall didn't stay open all the time and our C.O. wanted a place were the crews coming back from mission could get something eat and the ones working on the planes. So we opened our own mess hall and we all ate together the officers and staff nco on one side the enlisted men on the other. The one thing the Marine Corps always tries to do is feed us the best they can, there thoughts are if they feed us good and pay us on time they can get us to do almost anything. They may be right."

Officer Club Addition. The Marine O-Club was located in the Officer Billeting area on the north end of base.
When kicked out of the USAF O-Club, they built their club within their billet area.
(Courtesy Jim Curzon)

Life was a little strained for the Marines at Kunsan as they were ostracized by the Air Force community there as some sort of pariahs. However, it really wasn't a good idea to mix these two elements whose philosophies of battlefield operations were so different. Jim Curzon wrote about the times and trials at Kunsan and the USAF not really liking them on the base. He wrote, "I wasn't too fond of the Air Force either. They considered us their poor relatives. And the way we lived, I was beginning to believe it. But we had the best of it because we had us. They kicked us out of their Officer`s Club so we built our own. We would have parties and they wouldn't be invited. One morning after one of our parties, I was walking to the Mess Hall when an AF Lt. Col. stopped me and said he almost came over last night and took those drum sticks away from the drummer and rammed them down his throat. I chuckled and told him I would have liked to have seen that because, he was a Lt. Col. too. I would have given anything to have seen him even have tried to take the sticks away from Jack Winters."

He later wrote to complete the story, "I should have told you the rest of the story about the drummer. When I got down to the flight line that morning, they told me, the Skipper wanted to see me. When I got in the office, Col. Hutchinson looked kind of peeved and I wondered what I had done now. He said an AF Lt. Col. called and said that one of the officers of 513 had been very insubordinate to him and he had his name. He took it from the name on his jacket. It was me. I chuckled a little when Col. Hutchinson raised his voice and said that this was not a laughing matter. He said it was hard enough to keep peace with them without stirring up something. Well I told him just what happened and what was said. He laughed and told me to get out of his office. As I started out the door, he was still laughing and said he too would have liked to have been there when he tried to take the drumsticks away from Jack. ...I thought you ought to know the whole story and know that it is not just the troops that didn`t have a great deal of love for the AF on that base at that time."

He wrote, "I guess we did feel like poor relatives the way we lived, and they rubbed it in. Letting us know they were taking a nice shower in a bathroom with heat as we walked on the old boardwalk to the old tin building we called our showers. They let us know that the old tin huts we called home was all we deserved. But I said we had each other and our loyalty to one another. We enjoyed life even as rough as it got to be. We even got together and wrote our own squadron song. Our Intelligence Officer, I think his name was Griffin, we called him Griff, came up with a catchy folk tune from Norway or Sweden. We all gathered around and started putting words together until we were soon U Pie Deeing all over the place. So when we would get together and sing like we used to all the time we would sing our song. The Flying Nightmares chant this tone U Pie Dee, U Pie DO when up at night and all alone U Pie Dee I O etc. It was great fellowship."

Jim later continued about the friction between the services. "I guess we brought a lot of it on ourselves. When we built our own Officer`s Club, it was our own. Not the Marine Corps, not the Squadron`s but ours. We each kicked in 20 dollars apiece to get started. I made the first bootleg run. I flew over to Itami, Japan and stocked the bar. I used the AF's PX for the beer and cokes. I was the first Club Officer and to make things simple, we did not use money. Just signed chits. One drink , and sign your name. It didn`t make any difference whether it was a coke, a beer or a rum and coke, it was still the same price. I don't recall how much it was but I`m thinking it was 25 cents. Then at the end of the month I'd just count the number of drinks. Pretty simple huh. We made money and we couldn't do that so we would throw a party and invite all our friends. We would invite our MAGIS boys over. We owed them for all the times they brought us in GCA. I think this is what started all the friction between us and the AF.They would hear a party going on and come over and we would turn them away. After that it was remarks like, "How is life in the Boonies anyway." "Hey, don`t track your muddy feet on our sidewalks." And just small and snide remarks like that. I suppose we should have invited them over, since all the material that we used to build the club came from them.They didn`t know it, at the time. When we built the Club, we found out the Padre was a pretty good stone mason. He built the fireplace."

As a note to this club, this was pretty standard faire for the war. Most flying units -- regardless of service -- operated a separate bar for its pilots to improve morale. In Officers in Flight Suits, The Story of American Air Force Fighter Pilots in the Korean War (pp125-126) to relate how "booze became the primary recreational activity. Whereas beer was bought locally, liquor was imported to bases from the rear-echelon base at Tsuiki to Kimpo. Pilots ferrying planes back to Tsuiki for maintenance would also bring back as many fifths of liquor as their flight suits would carry. The 80th Squadron went so far as to cut doors in a spare set of wingtip fuel tanks to carry booze from its rear base at Itazuke to its forward base at Suwon." These o-clubs would pay for liquor and other supplies by collecting dues from users and also by charging small dues for drinks. At most bases, all drinks were twenty-five cents. These were the "wild ass days" when pilots were given a long leash as long as the impressive numbers continued. The officers could do as they pleased during off-hours. In an environment where pilots were shot down every day, drinking provided an important escape from the danger and boredom of war.

Jim added another note about the Korean help at their Marine O-Club. He said, "We had a young Korean by the name of Ha, who was our bartender at the club. He was about 20 or 21 years old and likeable. He spoke pretty good English and had a good sense of humor. When I first opened the club we needed another house boy and they sent Ha over. He took care of the club and acted as bartender. He learned quickly and turned out to be a good bartender. He always mingled and made sure everyone was happy. I came in one day and there was a different Korean behind the bar. I asked him who he was? I don't remember his name, but he said they sent him over to take Ha's place. He didn't know why Ha didn`t show up or anything. All he knew was that he was to come to the club and someone would show him what to do. He asked me it I was the one who was to tell him what to do. I told him, Yes. As we were going over things, like drinks, tickets, stock etc , One of the officers came in. I don't recall who it was but he said that it didn't take them long to get a replacement for Ha. I asked him, if he knew anything about Ha. He said that he was a North Korean Agent and that ROK Intelligence had come and picked him up. It was later verified as true. That was something to talk about for awhile, wondering whether you had said anything that he could have used against us. Everyone after that watched what they said and who was around when they said it." This continued to be a problem even years later. In John Moench's book Taking Command he relates a tale of a North Korean spy being employed by the Kunsan O-club in 1959.

Joseph S. Rychetniksaid it best, "You must understand that the Air Farce and the Marines never got along in Korea . It's the nature of things since 1917." He later wrote, "Once the Air Force had jets, they referred to Marine Air as "Stone Age." There has been a running war between the Air Force, spelled and pronounced Farce, and Marine Air. The battle still goes on."

It is always a bad idea to put cats and dogs in the same cage, but this was Kunsan in 1952.



RETURN TO MAIN TABLE OF CONTENTS

Return to Top


For comments or inputs, contact Kalani O'Sullivan

NOTICE/DISCLAIMER: The content of this page is unofficial and the views and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of anyone associated with this page or any of those linked from this site. All opinions are those of the writer and are intended for entertainment purposes only. Links to other web pages are provided for convenience and do not, in any way, constitute an endorsement of the linked pages or any commercial or private issues or products presented there. None of this site has been endorsed by the DOD, the Air Force, the 8th Fighter Wing or Mickey Mouse. All Air Force links are publicly accessible through the world-wide web. When eye-witness accounts conflict with OFFICIAL DOD materials, this website opts to lend credence to the people who were there.



Return to Top

updated

19 June 2001


Links Purged: June 5, 2000
HTML Toolbox


hit counter