Chapter 22: Maintenance
In the hot sun of a September day in 1921 the people of Columbia, South Carolina, witnessed the beginning of an interesting experiment in Army mechanization and mobility. The 51st Artillery Regiment (heavy) was setting out on a march from neighboring Camp Jackson to Camp Eustis, Virginia, six hundred miles away, the first long journey overland ever made by a heavy motorized artillery regiment under its own power.
The convoy was an impressive spectacle. Rumbling and clanking through the streets of Columbia were sixteen pieces of heavy ordnance: eight 8-inch howitzers and eight 155-mm. GPF (Grande Puissance Filloux) guns, each towed by a 10-ton tractor. There were twenty-one additional tractors—more than half of them 10-ton types—and 240 trucks carrying tentage, equipment of all kinds, machinery for repair work, and spare parts. Accompanying the artillerists was a detachment of Engineers to repair roads and bridges and an Ordnance company to keep the guns, howitzers, tractors, and trucks in running order. As the great procession ponderously moved north on the long journey, much of it over narrow dirt roads in a cloud of dust, farmers along the way stared and wondered. Some thought another war had broken out. Most of them had never before seen guns of such size or troops of the Regular Army.
At night, when the regiment halted near a small town, country people would gather around the Ordnance shop, attracted by the blaze of light and whir of machinery. In the middle of a cleared field stood an artillery repair truck—itself a complete machine shop—and from its generator electric lights on extension cords ran to each job. Near it were parked some of the thirteen Ordnance trucks in the convoy, containing tentage and baggage for the company, blacksmith’s tools, light tools for truck repair, chain blocks and ropes, and spare parts. For the latter there was also a huge stock-bin trailer drawn by a 10-ton tractor. The spectators—marveling at a machine shop on wheels, a soldier working at an anvil, another skillfully using an acetylene torch—saw tractors with the whole transmission out or with the armor removed and engine totally dismantled. They freely expressed doubt that the regiment would be able to reach Camp Eustis before Christmas.
Exactly one month and ten days after leaving Camp Jackson the convoy rolled into Camp Eustis, on the afternoon of 22 October 1921, with all wheels turning, and all vehicles still in the line of march, not one having been abandoned. The Ordnance Department’s maintenance experts in Washington, who had followed the progress of the march with even more interest than the farmers, were extremely
Convoy of ordnance maintenance trucks on maneuvers shortly after World War I
gratified. The march had been in a sense a test of the ability of Field Service—an organization then less than three years old—to serve the using arms; and its successful conclusion had vindicated maintenance planning that had begun in World War I.1
Mobile repair shops, first improvised on the Mexican border in 1916, had been used by the AEF, but in France only the Field Artillery brigade had rated an Ordnance company. The Infantry depended on the small arms section of that company and, for first aid repairs, on small detachments of three or four men that were often called on to perform duties other than their specialty. In one case Ordnance men washed the trucks of the ammunition train because the train commander ordered them to do so.2
The first thoughtful organization of Ordnance maintenance specialists, trained and supplied by the Ordnance Department, came into being as a result of study by the board of officers appointed by the chief Ordnance officer of the AEF, Brig. Gen. John Rice, in France immediately after World War I.3 In addition to fixed base shops in the rear of the army in the field, the planners envisaged two types of maintenance companies, the light maintenance company to accompany the division, and the heavy maintenance company at corps and army level. These performed to the limit of the capability of their equipment and the amount of time available all field repair that the individual infantryman or truck-driver could not do for
himself.4 The companies were placed directly under the commanding officer of the line organization. Also under the command of the line was the Ordnance officer attached to the staff of the camp, division, corps, and army commander. He exercised technical supervision over the maintenance troops, was the adviser on Ordnance matters to his commander, and in general was responsible for efficient Ordnance operations in the field.5
The maintenance responsibility of the Ordnance Department had two aspects. Maintenance engineering, closely allied with design and production, meant the analysis of new design with an eye to maintenance, the preparation of Modification Work Orders (MWO’s) for the correction of defects, the determination of requirements for parts, tools, and equipment, the preparation of publications, and various kinds of planning. Maintenance operations meant technical help to the shops and troops that were under the command of the using arms, and the operation of arsenals and base shops under the direct orders of the Chief of Ordnance.6
Maintenance at the Arsenals
Following World War I, there had to be a general overhaul of the Ordnance matériel returned from France, about 75 percent of which was in such bad condition that it could not be issued to troops. This work was done at the arsenals. Rock Island Arsenal, for example, performed an enormous amount of work on artillery matériel, tanks, and tractors, with assistance from special shops organized at Camp Meade, Savanna Proving Ground, and Erie Proving Ground.7 In 1924 the Ordnance Department spent $309,655 for maintaining in storage matériel worth about $500 million, exclusive of ammunition, a figure comparable to the $471,355 spent on matériel in the hands of troops. The life in storage of many weapons was almost unlimited.8
A continual arsenal task was modification of equipment. On the march from Camp Jackson to Camp Eustis in 1921 the Ordnance troops kept a detailed list of all classes of repairs made to tractors and other motor vehicles and submitted it to the Ordnance Maintenance Division in Washington. From such a list Ordnance engineers could tell which parts of the mechanism gave trouble, and often were able to correct malfunctions by a change in design. In that case, Field Service prepared Modification Work Orders that applied to all matériel of that particular kind. Experience in the field was also useful in preparing spare parts data. Tables showing parts consumption on a mileage basis were invaluable in estimating the
number of parts that would be needed for a similar operation in the future.9
Ordnance planners were aware that overhaul at arsenals was expensive. Peacetime maintenance could be done more economically and efficiently by civilian mechanics in commercial repair shops. Many commanders preferred to have work done locally to save the cost of transporting the matériel to and from an arsenal and to avoid loss of the weapons for a long period. Yet the advantage of having arsenal maintenance facilities ready to back up corps area and field maintenance facilities in time of war outweighed considerations of economy or convenience.10
An example of the peacetime work of an Ordnance maintenance company stationed at an arsenal is afforded by the 33rd Ordnance Company (Heavy Maintenance), at Rock Island Arsenal, organized II April 1921 from the Ordnance detachment at the Arsenal. Its peacetime strength was 2 officers and about 11 o enlisted men. The only company at the Arsenal, it was comfortably quartered in stone barracks with excellent recreational facilities, including a large ballroom; for its mess it maintained a garden and some fine Holstein cattle. The men of the company’s Automotive, Artillery, and Small Arms Sections were experts in the repair and upkeep of their own types of matériel; those in the Service Section were machinists, welders, blacksmiths, saddlers, painters, carpenters, and electricians.
The company not only worked on the matériel stored at the Arsenal but furnished maintenance service to the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Corps Areas, at whose various stations thirty-seven men of the 33rd Ordnance Company were on detached duty throughout the year. During the summer training season the company took to the field, leaving only a handful of men at Rock Island. At the training camps of the three Corps Areas they checked matériel in the hands of troops; repaired, replaced, and issued all necessary Ordnance stores and equipment; and at the close of camp prepared the stores and equipment for winter storage. When the company moved into the field, its rolling equipment included thirty-four trucks, of which nine were for artillery repair, two for light repair, two for equipment repair, and six for spare parts; the rest contained baggage, a toolroom, a power saw, an office, and other cargo. There were thirteen trailers, seven carrying various types of maintenance tools and equipment, five carrying parts, and one containing a kitchen.11
Reorganization of Men and Equipment
The Ramsey Board appointed in December 1936 to study Ordnance manufacturing and storage facilities in the United States also reviewed Ordnance maintenance facilities “to determine whether in the main such facilities should be concentrated at a few of the manufacturing arsenals and depots or more widely divided
among field establishments as seems to be the tendency at present.”12 The members of the board decided that existing policies were generally sound and should be continued, but observed that maintenance companies attached to line organizations were prone to use more elaborate machine-tool equipment than was necessary, thus turning their organizations into semi-permanent shops that could not be carried efficiently into the field.
The question came up again in the summer of 1937 following tests in Texas of the new “streamlined” Infantry division. The 3-truck Ordnance shop authorized in 1935, composed of 2½-ton trucks, seemed to the using arms excessively heavy and bulky, and there was some talk of eliminating it. Ordnance officers disagreed. They considered machine-shop and welding equipment essential, for it was impossible to carry an inexhaustible supply of parts, even if they were available. Parts had to be improvised at times; frequently the parts on hand had to be machined or welded to fit them into the mechanism where they were needed. The answer to the problem of mobility was to simplify and reduce the equipment of the machine-shop and welding units. This effort, which continued throughout the thirties, was aided by such commercial developments as the power take-off that permitted the truck engine to power the generator. In addition to shop trucks, Ordnance companies in the prewar years carried two other types of automotive equipment: trucks for spare parts, and roving emergency trucks for repairing matériel in place whenever possible.13
Along with equipment, Ordnance studied the question of the number of men and amount of time required for maintenance in the 1937 tests. It was from these tests that plans grew for the new triangular division. The aim was to create a mobile, hard-hitting division with a minimum of noncombat troops. One means of reducing nontactical overhead was to draw more heavily than before on higher headquarters for logistical support.14 Yet demands for maintenance were sure to increase, because more mobility meant more mechanization, and greater firepower meant wider use of automatic weapons.
If Ordnance personnel with the triangular division were reduced, the Ordnance organization at corps level, upon which the division would draw, would have to be strengthened. One means of making the most of available personnel had been observed in World War I by Col. James K. Crain, who was Ordnance Officer of the Eighth Corps Area from 1934 to 1939 and later became the first wartime Chief of Field Service. In France he had observed that the French Eleventh Corps put all ordnance companies of the corps in one place to serve as a pool to support all division and corps troops; in this way the workload was kept even and there were seldom any idle mechanics. This gave him the idea for an Ordnance battalion.15
The planners shaping the new division moved the Ordnance maintenance companies out of the division and placed them as corps troops to form a battalion under centralized control. Each division retained
only a small Ordnance section composed of one officer and sixteen enlisted men. This new organization promised to promote efficiency as well as economy in manpower. By pooling Ordnance field personnel in as large an organization as was practicable, Ordnance planners believed that the full force of the maintenance organization could be exerted where maintenance was most needed. The load of spare parts of any company became a potential reserve for any other company; the mechanic who specialized in a certain type of maintenance became available to other companies. There would be greater economy in tools, since a single tool of a certain type might serve the entire battalion.16
The new Ordnance battalion, consisting of three medium-maintenance companies and one ammunition company, was attached to the IV Corps, and it was commanded by the Corps Ordnance Officer. Tested in the April—May 1940 exercises of the Third Army, it performed well. Continuing study of this new organization indicated that the battalions should be of several types. By February 1941 five types had been evolved: (1) Maintenance, attached to corps and consisting of three medium - maintenance companies; (2) Maintenance and Supply, attached to armies and consisting of two or more medium-maintenance companies, an Ordnance depot company, and sometimes a heavy-maintenance company; (3) Ammunition, attached to armies and consisting of two or more ammunition companies; (4) Armored, attached to general headquarters of the 1st and 2nd Armored Divisions; and (5) Aviation, located at air bases.17
Ordnance officers who participated in the 1940-41 maneuvers studied several ways of using the battalion to best advantage. Some advocated specializing the companies, that is, having an artillery company, an automotive company, and so on. But this conflicted with the concept of the company as a balanced maintenance team to support a rapidly moving tactical unit. Planners tried the consolidated corps Ordnance shop, in which like sections of the different companies, such as artillery sections, were grouped together under the senior section officer. Friction developed between the different groups, and it was difficult for the men to work under a system that involved dual command, that of the company officer and the shop officer; also, there was confusion in going from shop formation to company formation for the march and back again. For these reasons, in the Carolina maneuvers of 1941 the companies operated their own sections. The consolidated-shop system did have the merit of combining the tools, parts, and manpower resources of the companies; some officers believed that this functional as opposed to tactical organization would be preferable under actual combat conditions.
In the 1941 maneuvers the Ordnance maintenance battalion worked satisfactorily. For Ordnance companies it provided a parent organization, the battalion headquarters, that knew and understood their problems and relieved them of difficult housekeeping problems. It made “a family
Trucks of newly formed ordnance battalion at the April–May 1940 exercises of the Third Army
of a group of orphans.”18 The observers considered command of the battalion by the corps Ordnance officer to be a distinct advantage because it provided a close working arrangement between all Ordnance units and with the corps general staff.
The equipment of an Ordnance battalion was considerable: 3 artillery-repair trucks, 3 automotive-repair trucks, 32 emergency-repair trucks, 2 instrument-repair trucks, 3 major shop trucks, 5 small-arms repair trucks, 20 small-parts trucks, 3 tank-maintenance trucks, 3 tool-and-bench trucks, 5 welding trucks, nine 10-ton wrecking trucks, 2 sedans, 12 motorcycles, 1 water trailer carrying 250 gallons, 6 motor tricycles, 4 half-ton command trucks, one 1½-ton cargo truck, forty nine 2½-ton cargo trucks, and three 600-gallon gas-and-oil trucks. There were also 6 scout cars with armament, including light and heavy machine guns, submachine guns, and automatic pistols.19
In 1942, when the planning for offensive action made it plain that the most economical use would have to be made of all available manpower and every ship-ton, Army Ground Forces concluded that economy could best be achieved by a
further process of streamlining and pooling. This time the streamlining—in the sense of limiting a unit organically to what it needed at all times and not just occasionally—was applied to the corps, which General McNair considered to be a tactical, combat unit; and the pooling, in the sense of massing units under higher headquarters for servicing of lower commands when needed, took place at army level. The idea was that the army was both a combat and an administrative agency, the corps a combat agency only, unless it was operating independently, in which case it would be reinforced to function as a small army. Thus, in the reorganization that took place in the summer of 1943, the maintenance battalions attached to IV, VIII, and X Corps in the United States became a part of, the Third Army troops.20
Overseas a new type of Ordnance organization had already taken shape. In North Africa in the late fall of 1942 Col. Urban Niblo, Ordnance Officer of II Corps, organized provisionally an Ordnance Group consisting of several battalions. It was more flexible than a regiment, for battalions could be added to it or detached from it as the situation demanded. It was so successful that several groups for operations at army level became the accepted practice throughout the war. By April 1944 the Ordnance Group had a Table of Organization and Equipment. Going a step further, Niblo and others advocated an Ordnance brigade to control the groups, but this proposal failed to win approval.21
There was a brief experience with regimental organization. In 1941 General Crain foresaw the need for a new type of unit to operate the large supply bases that would be required overseas. When the General Staff called for recommendations for overseas units in early 1942, he recommended the organization of Ordnance regiments, and his plan was approved.22 During 1942 four regiments, the 301st, 302nd, 303rd, and 304th, were activated, and the 305th was partially activated. Recruited with the aid of commercial organizations such as the National Automobile Dealers Association, they were known as affiliated units. These units were experimental; their recruitment, training, and use in the field presented problems that were never entirely solved.23 ASF maintenance experts believed that more effective service was obtained from smaller and more flexible units. In the spring of 1943 the five Ordnance regiments were reorganized into individual, numerically designated Ordnance Base Armament Maintenance Battalions; the battalions of the original regiments became companies.24
An important part of the reorganization for war that took place in the late 1930s was the effort to obtain better grades and ratings for Ordnance enlisted men. Pay had been so low that skilled mechanics to repair the increasingly complicated matériel could not be recruited. A General Staff survey in 1929 found Ordnance personnel inadequate for work in the field, and as late as FY 1938 approximately 90 percent of the maintenance funds allotted to Ordnance officers of corps areas, departments, and exempted stations went to pay the salaries of civilian mechanics.25 As the Air Corps began to expand, it attracted many of the best Ordnance enlisted men. But in the summer of 1940 General Crain managed to get much more liberal Tables of Organization, and by 1941 Ordnance grades and ratings were second only to those of the Air Corps.26
The Echelon System
The Army assigned responsibility for maintenance in the field according to the skill and tools available at various levels. The individual soldier was responsible for the proper care of his rifle, truck, or other equipment and for such minor repairs as he was able to make; the company mechanic made the slightly more difficult repairs that he could accomplish with his limited tools. The work that the using organization did not have the tools or parts to do was turned over to Ordnance specialists in the field. The Ordnance men could perform a considerable amount of repair, but could not be so loaded down with tools and spare parts that they could not accompany the tactical unit to which they were assigned. Therefore, for everything beyond their capabilities—major overhaul or complete rebuild—the weapon or truck was sent to a base shop, manufacturing arsenal, or Ordnance depot.
Sometime in the 1930s the term echelon came into use to describe these levels of maintenance. The work performed by the line organization was first echelon; that done by the Ordnance maintenance companies was second echelon; and that in the rear was third echelon.27 A study of maintenance problems in 1941 suggested the possibility that more echelons might be needed. The Motor Transport Service, before it was transferred from the Quartermaster Corps to Ordnance in midsummer of 1942, had four echelons: the first performed by the drivers; the second by company, battalion, and regimental mechanics, who made inspections and the necessary mechanical adjustments in time to prevent failures; the third by units trained to make minor repairs, replace engines, and supply parts; and the fourth by semimobile or fixed shops that took care of major repairs, general overhaul, reclamation, and supply.28
Ordnance maintenance planners devised a 5-echelon system. The two types of
simple maintenance performed by the using organization—the individual or the regiment, battalion, company, or detachment—were labeled first and second echelon. That accomplished by Ordnance troops was now divided into two categories, third echelon and fourth echelon. Third echelon, sometimes called medium maintenance, was done in mobile shops, in close support of using troops. Soldier mechanics at this level took care of the overflow from lower echelons, replaced assemblies such as recoil mechanisms, engines, and transmissions, and supplied parts to the lower echelons. Fourth echelon, commonly referred to as heavy maintenance when armament work was meant, was done in fixed and semifixed shops serving a specific geographic area. Its major function was the rebuilding of major items by using serviceable assemblies and subassemblies that were in stock or could be obtained by cannibalization. Fifth echelon maintenance, performed at an arsenal or base shop, was the highest level and consisted of completely reconditioning or rebuilding matériel, and, to a limited extent, manufacturing parts and assemblies. The work in the first and second echelon class was known as organization maintenance; that of the third, fourth, and fifth echelons was service maintenance.29
The echelon system required that the various repair operations be definitely allocated to certain persons in pre-established places; the guiding principle was that repair would be performed in the lowest echelon of maintenance consistent with the availability of suitable tools and necessary parts, the capabilities of personnel, the time available, and the tactical situation. Constant supervision was necessary to be sure that the work was done at the right echelon.
Every energetic shop commander of whatever echelon wanted to undertake all work employing existing skills of his men. This meant demands for tools, parts, and supplies beyond their tables of equipment and the capability of Field Service to supply. Sometimes a third echelon company, well dug-in at a permanent post, forgot that it would some day have to take the field and, consequently, accumulated more heavy items than it could transport.30 Deviations from the echelon levels were permitted, but only in emergencies. A third echelon Ordnance company, for example, might perform first and second echelon work for exhausted combat troops or might provide fourth echelon maintenance for a new division whose station shop facilities were not ready for operation.31
ASF maintenance experts considered Ordnance too inflexible in its adherence to the echelon system. They felt that the field organization at the top would have been more effective if it had made more allowance for circumstances in which a heavy maintenance company, for example, might have to take on some of the work of a medium maintenance company. They also disliked the too-rigid compartmentation of fourth and fifth echelon work, arguing
that a good mechanic could do either; they maintained that, if a fourth echelon shop could do fifth echelon work efficiently, it ought to be permitted to do so.32 There were also differences of opinion on the subject within Ordnance. General MacMorland believed that the lessons of the war had indicated that only three echelons were necessary—organizational, field, and base.33 General Niblo believed that the five-echelon system was excellent and declared that, “No effort should be made to change this to such terms as organizational, field and base.”34
Problems of Automotive Maintenance
The transfer to Ordnance of the Quartermaster Motor Transport Service brought a staggering maintenance task. In the peak war years 1944-45, the repair and overhaul of automotive equipment accounted for more than 75 percent of the total man-hours spent on the maintenance of Ordnance matériel.35 More than a million transport vehicles were transferred to Ordnance in 1942. The magnitude of the maintenance problem is suggested by the fact that there were thirty-seven different makes of cars and trucks; and over three hundred different models.36
The automotive maintenance problem was of long standing. Shortly before Pearl Harbor, Secretary of War Stimson, in forwarding a report on motor transportation to the Chief of Staff, observed, “Our motor transport maintenance system ought to be the best in the world because our people are the best natural mechanicians”; but the report revealed that both the vehicles and the maintenance facilities were in bad condition.37 In the eighteen months before Pearl Harbor, Army vehicles had increased from a few thousand of the simple, 2-wheel-drive type to more than two hundred thousand highly complicated 4-wheel- and 6-wheel-drive types. Because of the rapid expansion of the Army, these vehicles had been entrusted to young, often irresponsible drivers, commanded by inexperienced officers who sometimes did not even require that their drivers have operators’ licenses. Few officers had adequate mechanical training or background in automotive shop work and parts supply, and this disadvantage, aggravated by lack of centralized control, accounted in large part for the poor condition of maintenance facilities.38
Ordnance planners looked at the new motor vehicle problems not only from the standpoint of maintenance operations, but also that of maintenance engineering. In the weeks following the acquisition of motor transport, poor coordination between the various branches of the Ordnance Department delayed the issuance of Modification Work Orders, the dissemination of technical publications, and the receipt of information on the development of new items. Often by the time maintenance information on new projects was received, it was too late to apply it, as the vehicle was already in production. The remedy was found in decentralization. In late September 1942 the Chief of Ordnance transferred the Technical Unit of the
Maintenance Branch, along with the rest of the Automotive Section, to the new Tank-Automotive Center in Detroit; and within a short time this decentralization made it possible to expedite MWO’s and other actions requiring coordination.39
One of the earliest maintenance engineering tasks was that of preparing for combat landings. This entailed modification of existing vehicles so that they could ford deep water, and improvement of the design of new vehicles such as the amphibian truck (Dukw). The issuance of new or modified vehicles required a program for acquainting the users with their characteristics by sending teams of specialists into the field and publishing new Standard Nomenclature Lists.40
For repair work on automotive matériel in the field, the Ordnance Light Maintenance Company was made organic in the division. Most automotive repairs had to be made by the troops, for no Ordnance company, General McNair realized, could “even make a dent in the trucks of a division.”41 But the light maintenance company could often take care of the broken down vehicles that would otherwise have had to be sent rearward to army shops. This was a great advantage in combat, as it meant that the division kept control of its equipment. And it illustrated the tendency to push as many repairs as possible forward to line units.42
General McNair intended the maintenance company in an armored, motorized, cavalry, mountain, or airborne division to make the division self-sufficient for a short period of time, that of the infantry division to provide only a part of the necessary third echelon maintenance. The infantry division generally, and other divisions occasionally, would have to be reinforced by the services of non-divisional medium maintenance units under arniv (or corps) control. In combat, beginning in North Africa, it was usual for line divisions to be backed up by additional third echelon companies.43
The Preventive Maintenance Program
In the fall of 1941 a spot check of about one-third of the motor vehicles of five divisions, made by a group of mechanics under the control of The Inspector General, showed that 47 percent of the vehicles were improperly lubricated, 50 percent had distributors loose or dirty and points badly burned, 49 percent had loose steering gear housings, 53 percent had underinflated tires, 23 percent had improper wheel alignment, 36 percent had dry batteries, and 37 percent had tires that were badly worn, cupped, and improperly mounted. There was no reason to believe that this discovery did not represent average conditions throughout the Army; and it was plain that the conditions were mainly the fault of careless drivers.44 The Quartermaster General was inclined to
blame the unit commanders for not enforcing stricter maintenance discipline, and concluded: “When unit commanders realize that a motor vehicle is a fighting weapon, the greater part of motor transport problems will be solved.”45
The Quartermaster Corps was sending to the troops preventive maintenance material, including a monthly publication called Army Motors, and on the recommendation of the Hertz Committee, appointed by the Undersecretary of War to study motor maintenance, had tested with some success a program for using civilian automotive experts as instructors in the field. But no standard procedures for preventive maintenance had been evolved by the War Department, and the civilian adviser program was scarcely out of the embryo stage.46
Preventive maintenance had long been a subject of concern to Ordnance Field Service47 and it received concentrated attention after the assignment of motor vehicle responsibility. In August 1942 Field Service organized a Preventive Maintenance Section and placed under it a unit to handle the Civilian Automotive Advisor Program; a maintenance engineering unit was charged with the preparation of standard preventive maintenance procedures and with the publication of Army Motors and technical manuals.
The men directing the Civilian Automotive Advisor Program devoted their first efforts to recruiting better qualified advisers and then to giving them more thorough indoctrination in Army procedures than had before been possible. The unit also prepared a booklet to guide them and provided better supervision in the field. By July 1943 these civilians, whose numbers had increased from six hundred to about sixteen hundred, were working constantly with the troops on preventive maintenance and were instructing officers as well as enlisted men.48
The civilian advisers were recruited with the assistance of several hundred transportation and maintenance executives throughout the country, who located, interviewed, classified, and recommended applicants. Qualifications were rigid: the men had to have wide experience either as fleet superintendents, maintenance managers, shop foremen, service managers, or mechanics. There were several advantages to retaining them as civilians rather than commissioning them as officers. Under Civil Service their appointments could be effective immediately; age or slight physical disability was no barrier; and as civilians they did not have to accompany their assigned units into combat areas, but could be reassigned to train newly activated units.49
Automotive advisers were not at first authorized to accompany units leaving the United States, but the theater commanders began to request them in 1943, after the landings in North Africa. In March 1944 the War Department made
them available for overseas duty upon request of the theater commanders, but proportionately few went overseas. As of 11 September 1945 there were 61 in the ETO, 34 in the Pacific Ocean Area, 2 in the African Middle East Theater, and 1 in India-Burma.50 Ordnance officers connected with the program felt that the central authority to coordinate and supervise it, which was given to the Chief of Ordnance in October 1943, might better have been issued at the beginning.51 The program was delayed because of inability to obtain qualified men, but Maintenance Division experts felt that it was of “immeasurable value” in the earlier stages of the war. After Ordnance had had time to train its own people in automotive problems, the need for civilian advisers lessened.52
Ordnance took other steps to promote preventive maintenance. In November 1942 maintenance planners requested AAF and AGF officers to join them in forming a Preventive Maintenance Board to act as a clearing house for procedure and techniques, to coordinate training, and to standardize forms. At the same time General Campbell requested the aid of the Society of Automotive Engineers, which had within its organization a group of experts conducting research on maintenance problems. This group, together with representatives from Ordnance, formed the Ordnance Vehicle Maintenance Committee to study and do research on specific problems of military maintenance.53 But reports by ASF observers during maneuvers in the fall of 1942 and spring of 1943 indicated that an intensive training program at troop level was essential.54
In the fall of 1943 shortage of manpower, demands of the Navy and AAF, and limitations on the supply of critical materials and components created serious over-all maintenance problems and special problems of meeting the need for components such as ball and roller bearings, plain bearings, and electrical equipment and instruments. General Campbell recommended to General Somervell that even stronger emphasis be placed on preventive maintenance along with the reclamation of critical automotive components when unserviceable, and strict control of the supply of critical items. ASF accordingly began, in close liaison with Ordnance, a special program of education to alert users and repairers of vehicles to the importance of conservation. This involved the use of posters, cartoons, magazine articles, and other kinds of publications.55
Ordnance’s Preventive Maintenance Branch improved the format of Army Motors and stepped tip the circulation. A peak of 211,000 was reached in August 1945. The percentage that went to the using arms is indicated by the figures for October 1945: 19,885 to Ordnance personnel and installations, and 174,392 to all other services, including the Marine Corps, Navy, Seabees. and Coast Guard.56
In addition to the magazine, the Branch disseminated thousands of posters to the troops, a new design every two weeks. Most effective were those featuring “Joe Dope” who did everything wrong. Cartoonist Will Eisner, a private at Aberdeen Proving Ground, drew the amusing pictures. The text consisted of catchy rhymes such as:
At maneuvers Joe Dope took a tank
Hell bent o’er a 30-foot bank.
Uncle Sam, you can guess,
Now can boast one tank less—
As for Joe, he’s a permanent blank!57
These educational efforts were helpful, but early reports from overseas indicated that nothing could take the place of maintenance discipline. A General Staff officer in NATO-USA in April 1943 observed that “Driver maintenance was universally bad. Service units reported that almost without exception vehicles presented for repair (excluding those in accidents) were the result of driver neglect.58 A survey group from the Inspector General’s office reported from North Africa that Ordnance officers were unanimous in declaring that basically the American soldier was extremely wasteful and undisciplined where maintenance was concerned. He seemed inherently extravagant and irresponsible. If an American driver had trouble with his carburetor he immediately demanded a new one, even though the only trouble was the malfunction of one small part. Vehicles left along
the roadside unguarded were cannibalized by almost every passer-by.59 Failure of the users to grease the clutch-release bearing in the half-tracks of an armored division caused loss of the vehicles at critical times; failure of tank crews to lock the 75-mm. guns on medium tanks during a march damaged the turret rotating mechanisms and deadlined thirty-five to forty badly needed tanks. In the latter case the Commanding General fined those responsible $50 each—and the failures fell to zero.60
This was an extreme case, but it did show that at least one officer understood maintenance discipline as well as combat discipline. Some officers did not themselves appreciate the importance of proper preventive maintenance. In one theater a supply train carrying ammunition, rations, fuel, and lubricants to a regiment about to launch an offensive literally fell apart, with more than 50 percent of the trucks on deadline, not only because of disregard of maintenance by the drivers but also because the corps permitted the trucks to run twenty-four hours a day for weeks without any time out for upkeep. Better indoctrination of field and staff officers was indicated. One way of doing it was developed by the 26th Infantry Division. Each staff and field officer was given a two weeks’ refresher course, one hour a night; and a different staff officer was assigned each day as motor officer of the day to keep a close check on all equipment. In seven months this program brought deadlined vehicles down to one-tenth of one percent. Frequent and formal command inspection by high-ranking officers, in the course of which they checked the preventive maintenance procedures of unit commanders, and other techniques of control. were developed by Ordnance and ASF experts.61 There was ample recognition of the fact that maintenance would continue as a Field Service problem in direct ratio to the degree to which preventive maintenance was accepted as a responsibility of the command to which Ordnance equipment was assigned.62
A year after the transfer of trucks to Ordnance, The Inspector General’s deadline report showed a progressive decrease in deadline percentages. In the opinion of General Campbell, this result was achieved by emphasis on preventive maintenance, and by the increasing cooperation of field commanders in the enforcement of maintenance discipline.63 It was a sign that the Army had passed through the first hectic stage of mobilization and training and was settling down to smoother, more efficient operation.
Maintenance Shops
One of the first problems faced by, Ordnance after taking over motor transport
vehicles was that of combining the various repair shops for automotive and armament matériel. For both types of matériel, third echelon maintenance was accomplished in the United States at posts, camps, and stations. For automotive matériel, fourth echelon maintenance was done in Ordnance Service Command Shops that served districts covering a radius of from one hundred to one hundred fifty miles containing eight thousand to ten thousand vehicles. These Ordnance Service Command Shops performed heavy maintenance, supplied parts to lower echelons, handled tire inspection and reclamation, and evacuated major units to base shops for overhaul. Sometimes located at posts, but often in cities, they usually consisted of seven buildings—two for shop operations, two for storing parts, two for inspection, reclamation, and salvage operations, and one for administration. They employed from 240 to 275 persons.64 Fifth echelon maintenance for automotive matériel was done at base shops formerly under the Quartermaster but transferred to Ordnance; for armament, the work was done at Ordnance arsenals and depots.
There were advantages to combining the automotive and armament shops. A shop that repaired tanks and guns as well as trucks could, for example, use one paint shop, one reclamation section, one tire section, and one safety and security officer instead of the two or three that would he required if the facilities were operated separately; spare parts could be concentrated instead of scattered; and labor could be shifted from one shop to another to meet peak loads of work. Faulty distribution of the maintenance load, caused by rapid expansion in all echelons and tardy activation of the higher echelon establishments, was a serious problem. But although some progress was made toward consolidation, it was not sufficient to provide the answer to these problems. Most Service Commanders considered consolidation impractical, mainly because the physical facilities were separated.65
The Chief of Ordnance could only offer advice and guidance in the formulation of any plan, for the Service Commander had responsibility. In July 1942 third and fourth echelon maintenance had passed from the old Corps Areas to the newly formed Service Commands; the geographical boundaries were about the same, but the Service Commands, as field agencies of ASF, had tighter control. Reporting on maintenance conditions in the fall of 1942, The Inspector General was inclined to believe that the Service Commander had too much control over heavy maintenance for vehicles, and that one of the basic causes for the unsatisfactory condition of vehicle repair was separation of the two functions of maintenance and supply. The Ordnance Service Command Shops, serving the motor districts, obtained supplies from motor bases controlled by the Chief of Ordnance. While a parts representative of the base generally operated in each
district to control stock levels, his efficiency was affected by the fact that he was there only on sufferance of the commanding general of the Service Command.
Because of the close correlation of parts and maintenance, The Inspector General concluded that the districts ought to operate as sub-bases under the control of the base commanders. To the objection that this system would concentrate too much control in the Office, Chief of Ordnance, the answer was that vehicle supply ought not to be different from supply of other matériel, which was requisitioned by the post from the area depot; and that fourth echelon maintenance pertained more to supply than to maintenance, because Army Regulation 850-15 prescribed that when vehicles required fourth echelon maintenance they should be turned in and other vehicles issued in their place.66
General Somervell, constantly opposing the “separatist” tradition of field administration in the technical services,67 did not favor turning over control of the Ordnance Service Command Shops to the Ordnance Department; on the contrary, he wished to strengthen the Service Commands as much as possible and to give them even greater control of ASF field problems. Yet better integration of automotive maintenance had become necessary. The quality of the work performed in the fifth echelon shops was excellent, and the shops were of great assistance to the Ordnance training program for mechanics; but as of midsummer 1943 the shops were starved for work, operating at about one fourth of their capacity. There were two main reasons for this situation: (1) much of the Army’s matériel was new and had not reached the stage of major overhaul; and (2) there was a natural desire on the part of fourth echelon shop commanders to do as much of their own overhaul work as possible.68
As one solution to the problem, the Chief of Ordnance considered contract operation of the shops, but he finally concluded that they ought to be a Government operation.69 At a conference, ASF and Ordnance representatives agreed to continue the shops under Government operation but to transfer them from Ordnance to the Service Commands, with the understanding that the Chief of Ordnance retained technical direction through publications and letters of instruction.70 The details of the transfer, including decisions on a definition of technical control, were worked out during August 1943. The AST and Ordnance representatives finally agreed that technical control of the shops would consist of instructions covering the utilization of equipment, tools, shop methods, shop layouts, and procedures to insure uniform quality.71
Effective 1 November 1943 three of the six Ordnance Base Shops for automotive work were turned over to Service Commands:- Whittemore to the First Service Command, Atlanta to the Fourth Service Command, and Mount Rainier to the Ninth Service Command. Stockton was closed and Normoyle was consolidated with Red River Ordnance Base Shop, which Ordnance retained as a reserve plant for rebuilding unit assemblies, and for doing such overflow work as might have to be evacuated from the Service Commands.72 Service Commands had full responsibility for maintenance through the fifth echelon but had the privilege of referring to the Ordnance Department all fifth echelon rebuilding of engines beyond the capacities of their shops. For assemblies other than engines, they could contract overflow, work to local commercial shops. Any work not handled by those two methods was referred to Ordnance for transfer between Service Commands, for commercial contracts, or for overhaul at Red River.73
For armament the Ordnance Department had full responsibility for all fifth echelon work. For tanks and combat vehicles it had responsibility for such fourth echelon maintenance as could not be handled in Service Command shops or by maintenance companies of Army Ground Forces. For small arms, artillery, fire control instruments, and all tools, third and fourth echelon responsibility rested with post, camp, and station shops (Service Commands) and maintenance troop units (AGF, ASF, AAF).74
The cooperation of the Service Commands with Ordnance was “a source of gratification” to General MacMorland. After the war, recalling a series of meetings at which ASF, Service Command G-4’s, and Service Command Ordnance Officers collaborated in the sc ition of technical problems, supply inteLhanges, and the equalization of work loads, he recorded that all the Service Commands “were imbued with the idea of winning the war and appreciated the real efforts we were making to provide guidance in maintenance problems.”75
Combined Shops
Consolidation of Post Ordnance Shops with the Ordnance Service Command Shops that were located on posts was early recommended by Ordnance maintenance experts as being economical in tools, equipment, parts, and personnel.76 By the spring of 1943 the using services were convinced that the dual channels and dual procedures involved in having at the same post one Ordnance shop commanded by the Post Commander and another commanded by the Commanding General of the Service Command were confusing and wasteful. The Commanding General of ASF agreed; but he was already considering a much more inclusive type of consolidation.77 This was a combined shop for repairing matériel of all types, whether Quartermaster, Ordnance, Engineer, or
other technical service. It was like the system used by the British, who turned over all shop operations to their Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME). It would include an automotive shop, an armament and instrument shop, a clothing and equipment shop, an electrical equipment shop, a machine shop, and a paint shop.
A survey by the ASF Maintenance Division had convinced ASF planners that the whole shop system in the Zone of the Interior was haphazard and wasteful. Of the 656 shops in operation as of 2 June 1943, 526 were under the supervision of the service commands, 89 were under the technical services, 27 under the port commands, and 14 under the defense commands. All had been established to meet the immediate requirements of each command or technical service, without coordination or any over-all policy, and there was inevitably duplication of effort and inefficient use of men and tools. ASF planners felt that shop facilities represented one of the most important fields of maintenance activity in which improvement could be effected. Accordingly, in May 1943, they drew up a plan to provide for the receipt, inspection, and repair of all Army matériel of all technical services by a shop, or group of shops, coordinated under the supervision of a maintenance shop officer for operation.78
Technical supervision of each shop in the group was to be assigned to the technical service having major interest. At Fort Knox, where the plan was tested in July 1943, the armament and instrument shop, the automotive shop, the machine shop, and the paint shop were under the Ordnance Department, the clothing and equipment shop under the Quartermaster Corps, and the electrical equipment shop under the Signal Corps. During the experiment representatives of the Service Commands and technical services visited Fort Knox, at General Somervell’s direction, and submitted comments and recommendations, General MacMorland, who attended for the Chief of Ordnance, thought the combined shop operations as exemplified at Fort Knox would give satisfactory results at large posts, camps, and stations; that the consolidation seemed to have resulted in a reduction of personnel; and that the overhead would not be excessive. He recommended that the plan be tested at one large post in each service command before being adopted.79 Tested throughout the service commands in model shops and redrafted in accordance with suggestions by service command and technical service officers, the combined shop plan was placed in effect 7 September 1943 at all posts, camps, and stations (except Class IV) in the United States.80
The integration was accomplished, but without enthusiasm on the part of either the service commands or the technical services; in fact, “resentment and
objection,” it seemed to the ASF historian, persisted throughout the life of the combined shop system. The technical services maintained that, since they were responsible for the development, procurement, and provision of spare parts for equipment, they ought also to have responsibility for maintenance. They feared that, in combined shops, operating standards would be lowered and that men belonging to one technical service would neglect the equipment of another.81 The Ordnance position was that the same authority that controlled the supply of parts, tools, and supplies ought also to control shop operations, as was the case with their own Field Service; they had observed that the fault in the British system was that REME did not control supply. And General MacMorland “never had much patience” with the idea that Ordnance would favor its own operations to the detriment of the other technical services. In North Africa he had visited an Ordnance medium maintenance company which was busy making repairs to all types of equipment, mainly Medical Department items.82
Service Commanders pointed out some of the practical difficulties in operating combined shops. One could see little need for additional organization with the inevitable increase in personnel. The commanding general of the Eighth Service Command pointed out the great disparity between the amount of Ordnance maintenance and that of any other technical service. At the Camp Hood shops, for example, there were 417 Ordnance shop employees as compared with 68 for Quartermaster and 13 for Signal. At Fort Knox, four out of the six shops were under Ordnance supervision, and Ordnance had 75 percent of the personnel and 90 percent of the shop equipment. The real mainte- nance problem, he believed, was an Ordnance problem; the solution was to concentrate on economies in Ordnance maintenance.83
Some idea of the size of the Ordnance operation as compared with that of the other services is indicated by a breakdown of the 8g shops operated by the technical services before the combined shop plan wcnt into effect: 51 were Ordnance, 12 were Engineers, 11 were Signal, 8 were Transportation, 5 were Quartermaster, and I each was operated by the Chemical Warfare Service and the Medical Department. Of the 526 shops operated by the service commands, 288 were Ordnance, 163 were Quartermaster, 37 were Signal, 28 were Engineers, and to were Transportation. Of the 14 shops operated by the defense commands, 13 were Ordnance and
I was Signal; of the 27 operated by the port commands, 21 were Ordnance and 6 were Signal.84 Ordnance was unsympathetic to combined shops, and opposition to them in other quarters, extending to The Inspector General’s representatives, could not be overcome, in spite of the belief at:\ SF headquarters that the combined shops were a satisfactory and economical operation.85 In July 1945 the War
Department approved a new plan by which combined shops could be discontinued at the option of the commanding generals of the service commands and the shops could revert back to the technical services. They were retained in only two service commands out of nine, the Second and Third.86
The Reclamation Program of 1944
Because of confusion about the meaning of the word reclamation, the Army Service Forces in a circular dated 6 December 1943 defined it as “the process of restoring to usefulness condemned, discarded, abandoned, or damaged property, or parts, or components thereof, by repair, refabrication or renovation.” By December 1943 the subject had become important enough to warrant a definition, a circular, and a program. Troops departing for the invasion of Europe left mountains of damaged weapons and vehicles at posts, camps, and stations; at the same time a trickle of unserviceable but repairable matériel was coming back from overseas.
The need for a definite reclamation program was centered in the spare parts problem. Early in 1944 inability to produce enough new trucks to meet the enormous demands of the European theater made it necessary to repair or rebuild used trucks for shipment overseas.87 Repair and rebuild were responsibilities of the Service Commands, but Ordnance had technical supervision of the work. This involved close liaison with Service Commanders to determine the locations and quantities of unserviceable vehicles and to distribute the work among Service Command shops. Ordnance inspectors discovered that many of the vehicles designated as “ready for issue” by Service Command shops required further repair.88
Ordnance was also responsible for the supply of spare parts, engines, assemblies, tools, and other equipment required for the task of overhaul. To augment this supply, returned matériel centers were set up at Twin Cities Ordnance Plant in Minneapolis, at the Salt Lake Branch of Ogden Ordnance Depot, and at the Cressona Ordnance Plant in Pennsylvania. There were eventually five such plants, and by August 1945 more than 200,000 tons of equipment were being processed each month. In the reclamation of tires, production rose from 69,000 per month in 1944 to 202,000 in the month of January 1945.89
In spite of critical spare parts shortages and a manpower shortage caused by the shipment overseas of base shop personnel, Service Command shops and Ordnance shops were maintaining by early 1944 an excellent production rate on the overhaul of general purpose vehicles. This was
achieved by recruiting civilians on a large scale and working overtime—often on a two-shift and even three-shift basis. Beginning in January 1944, the preparation of transport vehicles for shipment overseas was the No. 1 priority job for Service Command shops.90
Late in 1943 Ordnance maintenance experts had to turn their attention to tanks, motor carriages, armored cars, and tracked vehicles. The need to supply overseas theaters could not be met from new production, for there had been a cutback. It could be met only by overhauling combat vehicles that had been used in training. But these were generally in poor condition, for the troops had neither the skill, the tools, nor the time to keep their equipment in good repair. Though the Chief of Ordnance recommended factory overhaul, ASF preferred Service Command Shops. The program originally provided that preference be given first to Service Command Shops, second to Ordnance Department Shops if a major overhaul was necessary, and third to commercial shops for an operation that amounted to re-manufacture.91
But by midsummer of 1944 it became evident that thousands of combat vehicles would have to be overhauled to meet overseas requirements, and that the work could not be done by Ordnance arsenals or by Service Command shops already burdened with the tremendous job of overhauling transport vehicles.92 Before the year was out Ordnance came to rely more and more upon contracts with commercial facilities.93 During 1944 and 1945, out of a total of 1,248,557 transport vehicles repaired or overhauled, 74,268 were repaired at commercial shops. For the same period, out of a total of 79,653 combat vehicles repaired or overhauled, 12,476 were overhauled at commercial establishments.94 The shift to dependence on commercial facilities for combat vehicle repair in 1945 is revealed by the fact that private organizations accounted for only 7 percent of the light tanks rebuilt in 1944, and handled 65 percent of those rebuilt in the first five months of 1945.95
Trends in Maintenance Engineering
The experience of World War II led many Field Service officers to believe that some maintenance problems could have been solved by closer coordination within Ordnance and with the using arms. Too frequently, some experts felt, designers did not give enough consideration to maintenance problems, so that when the matériel reached the field extensive modifications were necessary. These observers were convinced that if designers gave more attention to easy removal of parts for repair and replacement the problems of field maintenance would be greatly simplified. Closer coordination in the preparation of Essential Extra Parts Lists (EEPL’s) was also needed, as well as better and faster methods of getting maintenance publications out to the field and obtaining better information from the battlefields.96 Late in 1943 ASF experts stressed the importance of using field experience data to determine maintenance factors, estimating that approximately 80 percent of production for 1944 and too percent for 1945 would he determined in that way.97
Improvements in maintenance were noted after 1943 when the Chief of Ordnance established maintenance suboffices at Rock Island Arsenal, Frankford Arsenal, and the Detroit Tank Arsenal. At these centers of technical information, maintenance experts studied drawings or, if drawings were not available, went to manufacturing plants and looked over the shoulders of draftsmen.98 In addition to analyzing the designs of new matériel with an eve to improved maintainability, the suboffices also studied methods and procedures for preventive maintenance, anal) zed performance of matériel in the field, issued Modification Work Orders to correct safety and functional faults, and prepared Products Correction Reports.99 To secure firsthand information from the field, the suboffices sent out maintenance teams, first to troops in training in the United States, and later to theaters all over the world. These specialists gave instruction on the maintenance of new equipment and brought back data on previously unreported malfunctions of various types of Ordnance matériel.100
Among the most important engineering contributions to the preventive maintenance program were the preparation of lubrication guides for use in the field and the standardization of fuels and lubricants. Because each agency responsible for the development of weapons and vehicles in the rearmament program of 1939-40 issued its own instructions governing the use of fuels and lubricants, there were, by late 1940, more than 250 types required for Ordnance equipment. At that time the Ordnance Department began a program to reduce the number of types, and by March 1943 had succeeded in cutting down the number to 37. Another effort toward standardization was directed at lubrication fittings and grease guns.101
A continuing task of maintenance engineers was the analysis of reports on malfunction and failure of all types of
Ordnance matériel; the conducting of tests to correct faults; and the issuance of Modification Work Orders (MWO’s) to the field so that equipment could be made safer or more efficient on the spot. Men who worked closely on the very important MWO program felt that the greatest danger was the tendency to publish too many work orders. MWO’s took up the time of the using troops, and it was extremely difficult if not impossible to control the parts involved and to have a central control on the modification performed.
An example of the parts difficulty is revealed in a letter General Campbell wrote to General Hughes, Deputy Theater Commander of NATOUSA, about the M6 heavy tractor for towing heavy guns: “It is a new design and, like all designs, when it reaches production and use in the field the bugs will begin to appear. Then we will make a series of changes to correct the bugs and in the meantime our spare parts will not be applicable to the latest tractor and then our troubles, as usual, will start.”102 In the last year of the war, OCO-D’s Maintenance Division made a study of all work orders issued and in process, and those not considered absolutely essential to the safety of the user or the functioning of the matériel were canceled.103
A searching examination into all phases of maintenance after the war convinced many Ordnance specialists that tighter control and more emphasis on standardizing good maintenance practices were heeded. On hardly any other aspect of Ordnance operations had there been more diverse views. There was need for careful evaluation of various theories on such matters, for example, as to whether it was cheaper in many cases to replace a dam aged major item rather than to attempt to repair it, and whether it was not better to cannibalize for parts that were rarely needed, rather than attempt to supply spare parts to make any and all repairs. Acquainting maintenance engineers more thoroughly with design and production aspects of Ordnance seemed to be indicated. One tank expert at Detroit believed that obtaining men sufficiently informed in all phases of development, engineering, production, and maintenance of new matériel was one of the major problems of the war. There was a general feeling that the Ordnance Department ought to consider establishing in peacetime a more definite maintenance policy.104
Yet flexibility was essential, as was an open mind toward new techniques such as the spare parts ships suggested by General Campbell, the floating depots proposed in the Central Pacific area, and the plan for a maintenance-and-manufacturing center for a theater of operations worked out by Field Service’s Maintenance Division.105 Above all, good maintenance engineering depended greatly on the freest possible flow of technical information, in both directions, between the technician in the office and the soldier in the field.