Part 17

Of small-arms ammunition (for pistols, rifles, and machine-guns) there were produced between April 6, 1917, and November 11, 1918, 2,879,148,000 rounds, a total equivalent to three cartridges for every minute which has elapsed since the beginning of the Christian era! True, this total fell slightly below that of England (3,486,127,000) and of France (2,983,675,000) for the same period, but it must be remembered that those nations had developed highly efficient manufacturing methods as the result of the experience they had gained during their nearly three years of war prior to our entry into the conflict. Notwithstanding their running start, before the Armistice we attained a speed in the manufacture of small-arms ammunition double that of France and 10 per cent greater than England’s.

During that period that we were at war we produced 181,662 machine-guns, a total slightly greater than that of England (181,404) and slightly less than that of France (229,238), but here again a comparison of total production is hardly a fair statement of relative accomplishment, for in machine-gun manufacture an enormous length of time is required to build factories, to equip them with machine tools, to design the necessary jigs, fixtures, dies, millers, profiles, and the innumerable limit gauges for testing the precision of the various parts. A fairer basis of comparison—the average monthly rate of production during the months immediately preceding the signing of the Armistice—shows that America was producing 27,270 machine-guns and automatic rifles a month—more than twice as many as France and nearly three times as many as England.

As to artillery ammunition, let us take the production of shell for the 75-mm. guns. Of this calibre we had produced 4,250,000 high-explosive shell, more than 500,000 gas-shell, and over 7,250,000 shrapnel when the Armistice was signed. From January 18, 1918, when the first complete American division entered the line, until firing ceased ten months later, our gunners used 6,250,000 rounds of 75-mm. ammunition. Prior to the Armistice we had shipped to France about 8,500,000 shell of this same calibre. Thus it will be seen that though American gunners admittedly made use of French-made ammunition from the Franco-American pool (thereby confirming the worst suspicions of the army’s critics), each round fired was made good prior to the signing of the Armistice with 33⅓ per cent margin.

Of the artillery programme proper, it is difficult to appraise the performance, for the reason that the race was called off before it was half run. It will be forever difficult to establish beyond question whether the American artillery programme at the time of the signing of the Armistice was as sufficiently far advanced as could be reasonably expected under the circumstances. Any attempt to pass on Ordnance’s accomplishment, or lack of accomplishment, in this respect must in justice take into account the best previous performance along these lines. Of all the countries engaged in the war the experience of England affords the closest parallel to that of the United States in respect to the initial stages of industrial and military preparation. In determining a standard of performance in the equipping with artillery of a hastily raised army by a peace-loving nation, permit me to quote a few significant sentences from a statement made by the British Ministry of Munitions:

“It is very difficult to say how long it was before the British Army was thoroughly equipped with artillery and ammunition. The ultimate size of the army aimed at was continually increased during the first three years of the war, so that the ordnance requirements were continually increasing. It is probably true to say that the equipment of the Army as planned in the early summer of 1915 was completed by September, 1916. As a result, however, of the battle of Verdun and the early stages of the battle of the Somme, a great change was made in the standard of equipment per division of the Army, followed by further increases in September, 1916. The Army was not completely equipped on this new scale until spring, 1918.”

Thus it will be seen that it took England nearly four years to completely equip her army with artillery and ammunition. On that basis we had two years and five months to go before incomplete equipment with American-made artillery could have been condemned, with justification, as poor performance. The nineteen months which the war lasted after America’s entry did not give sufficient time for our industrial power to make itself fully felt. Even so, I don’t suppose that any one, save perhaps the profiteers, would wish the war to have lasted long enough for us to prove that we could produce artillery as rapidly as our allies.

It should be kept in mind that proper strategy demanded an ordnance programme designed to insure an _ultimate_ overwhelming and continuous rate of production rather than a lesser rate of production at an earlier date. What I wish to get across to you (pardon the slang) is that the primary object of Ordnance was not to obtain immediate production of enough artillery and ammunition to equip our little First Contingent, but to obtain a _rate of production_ which would provide for the equipment of the army of 5,000,000 men which it had been decided to raise. Now it is perfectly obvious to any one that a housewife could buy a stove and bake a dozen loaves of bread in far less time than would be required to build a bakery and bake enough bread to feed an entire city. But the rate of production from the housewife’s oven would never feed the city. So it was with ordnance. By the sacrifice of far more important considerations, there is no doubt that enough guns could have been produced in a comparatively short time to equip the first few divisions. In order to do this, time was required for building plants capable of such a rate of production. We had to obtain designs and even, in certain cases, to discard existing designs, in order to get manufacturing plants on a basis permitting such a rate of production. It would have been madness to have sacrificed production in 1920 to force a quicker but far smaller production in 1918. The Ordnance Department was not directing its efforts to obtain for American arms an immediate but isolated success, gratifying as such a success would have been to American pride; instead it was building a machine which would make an ultimate and sweeping victory absolutely certain.

No branch of the army took up its war-task under such discouraging conditions as the Ordnance Department. It had 97 officers; it needed 10,000. But where were they to come from? It was and is impossible to improvise ordnance experts, like those of pre-war times, who were required to possess a thorough knowledge of all phases of ordnance work from design and development through procurement, production, and inspection to the supply of troops. But upon the outbreak of hostilities thousands of engineers, graduates of the world’s most famous technical institutions and many of them with wide experience in their respective branches of the engineering profession, offered their services to the Ordnance Department, and it is very largely due to their ability, experience, and devotion that the solution of many of Ordnance’s most perplexing problems is due. The industrial field, too, yielded a generous contribution of its best ability. To these men were often given strange tasks. They were called upon to procure materials with which they were unfamiliar in markets where no readily available supply existed. They had to design and erect complete manufacturing plants and to teach manufacturing methods which they themselves often had first to learn. Time after time they were ordered to manufacture articles of which they had never so much as seen a specimen before they entered the army. A huge personnel had to be organized to care for the inspection of this enormous volume of varied material, to prove it by means of firing tests at Aberdeen and elsewhere, and to develop it from the first rough model through all the interminable stages to the point of successful quantity production.

The advice, wishes, and requirements of our allies were given full consideration, often at a sacrifice of natural national pride. On their advice or at their formally expressed desire, we in many cases undertook the manufacture of components instead of complete assembled units: powder for propelling charges and high explosives for bursting charges of ammunition, instead of assembled shell complete in smaller quantity; black or rough-machined forgings for cannon, projectiles or recuperators in place of the corresponding finished articles; motors and structural steel work for standardized tanks for joint use in lieu of a smaller number of complete units for the use of our armies alone. We yielded priority on raw material sorely needed to make our own programme a success, but even more desperately needed by our allies to stave off defeat until we should arrive in force.

Every 15 pounds of finished smokeless powder requires 14 pounds of cotton and 700 pounds of mixed acid for its nitration, so we made the gun-cotton to the extent of more than 500,000,000 pounds on this side of the water, thus saving the excess tonnage that would have been required for the shipment of the raw materials. A similar condition obtained with regard to high explosives. Guided by the same sound principle, we shipped in bulk enough pierced shell blanks to keep the French and British factories going to the limit of their capacity, and so on through the endless list of articles or components required for our common use. For, be it remembered, it was not our war alone.

The quality of our product is attested by the almost pathetic eagerness of the _poilu_ to acquire an American rifle with its beautifully adjusted sights, its admirable breech mechanism, and its rimless, non-jamming ammunition; by the universally acknowledged excellence of the American automatic pistol; by the purchase by the French Government of 550 155-mm. howitzers built in America from French designs; by the cabled request of the French Government for a continuous supply of 3,000 Browning machine-guns _every month_ and 50,000,000 cartridges for them, after witnessing their performance under battle conditions; by the general order from British General Headquarters directing that on account of its greater uniformity, and consequent less danger to the troops advancing under its protection, _only American-made powder_ be used for artillery barrages—all these are tributes to American science, American engineering, and American industry, as exemplified in American ordnance, by qualified judges who were backing their opinions with their lives.

* * * * *

American artillery may be roughly divided into four classes: light, medium, heavy, and railway. The light artillery consists of two types: the little, hard-hitting 37-mm. infantry-accompanying cannon, operated by two men, primarily designed for knocking out “pill-boxes” and machine-gun nests and, with a shortened barrel, for use in tanks, and the 75-mm. field-gun, an American adaptation of the famous French _soixante-quinze_, which, according to the admission of the French themselves, it in several respects excelled. Three types of weapons are included in the medium-calibre class: the 4.7-inch field-gun, which we had adopted and had manufactured in small quantities prior to our entrance into the war; the 155-mm. G. P. F. (_Grand Puissance Filloux_), really a big brother of the “seventy-five,” with correspondingly increased power and range, designed for interdicting crossroads and harassing the enemy’s middle areas, and the 155-mm. howitzer, which with its plunging fire is admirably adapted for trench and dugout demolition. In mobile heavy artillery we have the 8-inch and 9.2-inch howitzers, likewise designed primarily for demolition purposes. And, finally, the great 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 inch pieces—guns, howitzers, and mortars—mounted on and fired from specially designed railway-trucks suited to the French road-beds—for incessant pounding of the depots, dumps, headquarters, and railways far behind the enemy’s lines. In addition to the above there are, of course, the various types of antiaircraft artillery, mainly of 75-mm. calibre, and the trench-mortars, ranging in size from the 3-inch Stokes, light enough to go over the top with the first wave of an attack and simple enough to be fired when supported only by the knees of a squatting soldier, up to the 240-mm. trench-mortar of position, whose great shell can blow the stoutest concrete fortification to smithereens. We also had in use at various times small numbers of miscellaneous calibres and types, but, as the result of the policy of reducing the number of types in order to simplify the problem of ammunition supply, our artillery had become fairly well standardized by the closing months of the war.

Years ago—though not nearly so long ago as it seems—when artillery was still hauled into position by sweating gun-teams, a veteran ordnance officer, addressing a scientific society, told his hearers that the weight of artillery was governed by the limited power of the horse. As a horse has a sustained pulling power of only 650 pounds, he explained, it was obvious that a 6-horse gun-team could not pull a gun and limber weighing more than 3,900 pounds. “If Divine Providence had given the horse the speed of the deer and the power of an elephant,” he added, “we might have had a far wider and more effective range for our mobile artillery.” Could that officer have looked a few years into the future he would have been astonished to see that, thanks largely to the genius of a Californian named Holt, there would be substituted for the horse a curious contrivance known as the caterpillar tractor, which possesses many times the power of an elephant. Though the tractor cannot be claimed, by any stretch of the imagination, to have the speed of a deer, it nevertheless has sufficient speed to keep pace with the infantry, or, indeed, should it become necessary, with cavalry. Few people appear to realize how enormous were the savings in men, animals, feed, railway facilities, and ocean tonnage effected by the motorization of our artillery. The motorization of one 155-mm. howitzer regiment saved 1,440 horses. One tractor for this howitzer is the equivalent of sixteen heavy draft-horses and three riding-horses, yet it is so compact that it occupies in packing a space of but 360 cubic feet, and can be operated by two men. Tractors are not only easier to conceal from enemy observation than horses, but a shell-burst which would kill every horse in a battery, would leave an armored tractor uninjured. Not long ago, at the Aberdeen Proving-Ground, one of these tractors, on which was mounted an 8-inch howitzer, sent through a dense wood, ran squarely into a live locust-tree which was seventeen inches thick at the base. Before the onslaught of the tractor the tree went down as though it were made of cardboard, whereupon the amazing machine crawled over the fallen trunk, slid into and clambered out of a ravine, emerged from the wood and took up its firing position—all in scarcely more time than it takes to tell of it. Before the war ended virtually every piece of American medium and heavy artillery was either tractor-mounted or tractor-drawn, and we were on the road toward motorizing the field-artillery—the “seventy-fives”—as well.

But, though the General Staff of the A. E. F. demanded mobility for the artillery, it also demanded increased weight and range. To meet this requirement there were devised various types of railway-artillery, ranging in size from 7 to 16 inch, thereby making available for use on the battle-front numerous guns from our seacoast fortifications which could not have been used otherwise. Early in the war the Army borrowed from the Navy a number of 7-inch naval rifles on pedestal mounts, for which the Ordnance Department provided specially designed gun-cars, thus affording a powerful and yet mobile form of defense for our coasts in the event of submarine attack. The next performance worthy of note was the mounting on railway-cars of ninety-six 8-inch guns taken from various seacoast fortifications. Both of the above types of gun, as well as the 12-inch mortars, were mounted on the so-called Barbette carriage, which permits of all-round fire at any desired elevation. The 10-inch seacoast rifle and all sizes above it were mounted on the Batignolles type of carriage, which depends primarily on the track arrangement for its direction of fire. Both the Barbette and Batignolles mounts had, after the initial setting, all the characteristics of fixed emplacements, but with the added advantage of being able to advance or retire with a minimum loss of time. A third type of railway-mount, which was used very successfully by the French and which was being adapted for certain of our 10, 12, and 14 inch guns when the war ended, was the Schneider, or sliding type of mount. Though this mount also depends upon the track arrangement for its direction of fire, it has none of the features of a fixed emplacement, the force of the recoil being taken up by permitting the entire mount to slide back on the track during the recoil of the gun. The “Chilean project,” as it was known, consisted in mounting six 12-inch guns, which had been manufactured in the United States for Chile and were on the point of delivery when they were commandeered by our government, on special sliding mounts designed by the Ordnance Department. Still another venture was the mounting for railway use of a number of 14-inch guns loaned by the Navy to the War Department. But the most ambitious project undertaken by Ordnance in connection with railway-artillery was the production of the huge 16-inch howitzer, to manufacture sixty-two of which an entirely new shop had to be erected by the Midvale Steel Company. This, the heaviest railway-mount of American design, weighs, with its gun, nearly a million pounds. The design and production of a device which would absorb its recoil of _seven million pounds_ was in itself no inconsiderable engineering problem. Each of these monster railway-cannon has its own train, consisting of standard and narrow-gauge ammunition-cars, as well as cars for tools, for spare parts, for repair work, and for the crews. Huge as they are, rivalling in range and power anything which the Germans had at Metz or the British at Gibraltar, they are extremely mobile, any one of them being able to drop its load of high explosive far behind the enemy’s lines, “pull stakes,” and be miles away before the enemy could get its range.

Speaking of the range of artillery, some truly amazing results in this field were achieved by Major Forest Ray Moulton, one of America’s foremost mathematicians, who was professor of astronomy in the University of Chicago before he was given a commission in the Engineering Division of Ordnance and turned his knowledge of ballistics to military account. One usually thinks of a professor of astronomy as a highly impractical person whose mind is absorbed in comets, meteors, and stars, yet no individual in the armies of the United States did as much as Doctor Moulton toward perfecting devices for killing Germans at long range. Here is a sample of his achievements. As the result of a series of abstruse calculations he made a change in the shape of the copper driving-band on the 6-inch shell, whereby, _without adding to the powder charge and with no modification whatever in the gun, he increased its range two and a half miles_. What is even more remarkable and important, he so reduced the variation between successive shots that a given number of shell will fall into one-eighth the area formerly covered by their dispersion. Had the war continued a year or so longer, there is no saying where Doctor Moulton’s ballistic discoveries would have led. It was evidently of one of the shell designed by him that the negro soldier remarked:

“Ah could staht runnin’ at brekfus’-time an’ that theah shell ’ud git me jes’ when Ah got home foah suppah.”

Whereupon his companion exclaimed scornfully:

“All one of dem shells wants is jes’ yo’ address, niggah—jes’ yo’ address.”

* * * * *

No phase of the Ordnance Department’s work during the war came in for such severe criticism as the adoption and production of machine-guns. Now it so happens that I am thoroughly familiar with the details of the long and bitter controversy which began with the original rejection by the Ordnance Department of the Lewis gun and which ended with the eventual adoption of the Browning. Many of the attacks made on the War Department by the supporters of Colonel Lewis, as well as in the editorial columns of the newspapers, were not justified by the facts and showed an incomplete knowledge of the circumstances, yet, as an impartial observer with some inside knowledge of the situation, I freely admit that for certain of the criticisms there was ample justification. Let me remind you, moreover, that the Lewis being considerably heavier than the Browning machine-rifle and much lighter than the Browning machine-gun, could not satisfactorily have taken the place of either. With which passing comment we will let the machine-gun controversy rest.

Machine-guns of the so-called heavy type had been developed to a serviceable stage at the time of the Spanish-American War, but neither then nor in subsequent conflicts did they receive anything like the attention which they attracted immediately after the outbreak of the war in Europe. The Germans had apparently realized better than any one else the value of machine-guns in the kind of fighting which they expected to be engaged in, having had, it is reported, 50,000 machine-guns when hostilities opened. American appreciation of the rôle destined to be played in warfare by machine-guns is best evidenced by the fact that, when we entered the war, our tables of organization gave to each regiment four machine-guns!