Three different kits were tested.
The first, and that which eventually was adopted, was very much like the TK-1.
Among the armament features installed in the UH-IE as a result of Bell's common
manufacturing process with the Army versions were attaching points to which the
Marines fastened a platform on each side of the aircraft. Two electrically fired
M-60C machine guns were mounted on each platform, unlike the TK-1, which had
guns only on one side. Two bomb racks were bolted on to the bottom of the
platforms. Normally 2.75-inch rocket pods were suspended from the bomb racks,
though other items could be carried.
A simple ring and post type of sight was provided which swung up to the top of
the cockpit when not needed. To provide the forward point of the sight, a small
piece of black tape was placed on the windshield. While the sight seemed crude,
it was effective and simple. "Many more elaborate types of sights
exist," HMX-1 reported, "but all require major modification of the
UH-IE cockpit, introduce added maintenance requirements, or block the pilot's
vision."
The kits, dubbed TK-2, were assembled by the Overhaul and Repair Activity,
Jacksonville, Florida, under the technical direction of HMX-1 and the Marine
Corps Landing Force Development Center (MCLFDC). A total of 15 were made.
Test firing at NAS, Patuxent River
revealed only minor problems. The most serious was that the expended cartridge
links ejected from the left guns could endanger the tail rotor. (The same
problem was one of the reasons the UH-34 had no guns on the left side.) The guns
were slightly repositioned and later deflector plates were added.
This apparently solved the ejected link problem. However, on the last day of
test firing, several additional nicks in the tail rotor were received. It was
decided, in view of the time element, to go ahead with the fabrication of the
other kits and continue efforts to solve the ejection problem after the kits
were completed and delivered to Fleet Marine Force units. The alternative was to
hold up delivery to a deploying squadron."
On 15 January 1965 the completed armament sets were shipped to VMO-6 at Camp
Pendleton. Once in- stalled on the UH-lE’s, they were an immediate success. So
much so that on 31 March, CNO requested BuWeps to provide kits for 33 more
aircraft. Delivery was promised in July.
Simultaneously with the development of this TK-2,
HMX-1 was experimenting with other kits. Two General Electric .50 caliber SM-14
gun pods were evaluated "with excellent results, providing primarily
greater effective range." The added weight made the heavier machine guns
suitable only for specialized missions.
Also tested were two Stoner 63
machine gun pods on temporary loan from the U.S. Air Force. The installation
proved unsatisfactory for the UH-IE.
In addition to the rockets and
machine guns mounted on the sides of the helicopter, tests were con- ducted on a
rotating turret mounted below the nose of the aircraft. The Emerson Electric
TAT-101 turret contained two M-60 machine guns and could be aimed and controlled
by the pilot.'14 Beginning in April 1967, UH-lE's were modified to incorporate
the turret. A total of 94 kits were purchased. By April 1972, other armament
conversions were available which were more suited for the task, and the TAT-101
was removed from those aircraft in which they were installed.
While the TK-1 on the UH-34 was
undergoing final testing at HMX-1 and efforts were under way to have approved a
similar kit for the UH-IE, General Krulak at FMFPac sent CMC his estimate of the
results, which could be expected. "The proposed arming of the UH- 34 will
not provide equivalent protection to replace U.S. Army UH-IB's." The TK-1s,
however, should be provided and "the assignment of Marine UH-IE helicopters
to the 1st Marine Air Wing be expedited for employment in armed escort as required."
As soon as the pilots at
Pendleton finished training, six of the armed UH-lE's were shipped in April to
Futenma. These six aircraft of Lieutenant Colonel George Bauman's VMO-2 arrived
at Da Nang on 3 May 1965. They immediately began to take over the role of
escorting the Marine assault troop helicopters.
The introduction into Vietnam of
Marine armed helicopters did nothing to still the proponents or opponents of the
concept. The situation was not helped by a controversy, which during 1964 was
becoming increasingly public, between the Air Force and the Army over their
respective roles. For airborne fire- power, the Army placed almost total
reliance on its armed helicopters. The Air Force held that only its fixed-wing
aircraft were suitable for close air support and helicopter escort.
The Marine Corps occasionally got
dragged into the controversy between the two other services. General Greene made
a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on 26 March 1964. In it,
he once again stated his position on armed helicopters. Press accounts,
unfortunately, were written stressing that the "Marines Join Air Force in
Opposing Helicopters Ground Support"
He had made no such statement. What
General Greene told the reporters was the same thing he had been telling and
would continue to tell the Marines-
“This service [armed helicopters in South Vietnam has
been carried out under peculiar circumstances which has led many people to
question the Marine Corps' position and has resulted in some misunderstanding of
it. The special situation in South Vietnam has not caused us to
modify our belief . In South Vietnam, Marine Corps tactical fixed wing
aircraft have not been available because of political considerations.”
He summed up. "We consider this
capability (armed helicopters] must be complementary, rather than competitive
with the primary fire support provided by fixed wing aircraft.
Marine attack aircraft, after they were
introduced into Vietnam, were used to protect and escort the assault
helicopters. So were armed helicopters. Each in its way performed a vital
mission. Throughout the conflict in Vietnam, the Marine Corps continued to
maintain a balance of weapons which were capable of performing anywhere in the
world under almost any conceivable circumstance. The armed helicopter and
fixed-wing attack aircraft were just two of them. Much of the credit belongs to
General Greene. He, at least, had not forgotten the lessons of previous wars. ("Marines
and Helicopters 1962-73" Lt Col. William R. Fails USMC")