1

History of the

Ammunition Industrial Base

Updated

December 2010

Joint Munitions Command

JMC History Office, AMSJM-HI

DSN: 793-0392, COMM: 309-782-0392

E-mail: ROCK-AMSJM-HI@ CONUS.ARMY.MIL
2

Front Page Photo Captions

Starting at Top, Left to Right across

1. Experimental laboratory at Frankford Arsenal in Philadelphia, PA in 1864.

2. .30 caliber tracer round unit workload table at Frankford Arsenal circa World War I. 

3. Old Hickory Powder Plant constructed during WWI to supply powder and explosives to U.S. 

Forces and Allies. 

4. Pictured just below is Nitro Powder Plant in West Virginia which operated during 

World War I. 

5. Picture of Munitions Command (MUCOM) executive event during the 1960s. MUCOM is a 

 predecessor command of the Joint Munitions Command. 

6. Employees produce .50 caliber ammunition at Lake City Army Ammunition Plant during

World War II. 

7. Popular Norman Rockwell poster that expressed supplying Soldiers with enough equipment

 and ammunition on time at the right time during WWII.

8. Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (AAP) employees on a .50 caliber linked production 

 line during the 1960s. 

9. Artillery being shot from howitzer during Vietnam Conflict.

10. McAlester Army Ammunition Plant production line circa 1960s. 

11. Radford Army Ammunition Plant, a propellant and energetics production plant operating

from 1942 to present day.

12. 1990 BRAC deactivation and closing ceremony at Joliet Army Ammunition Plant.

13. Quality Assurance Specialist Ammunition Surveillance (QASAS) ammunition inspection 

during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
3

History of the Ammunition Industrial Base 

From Creation to Present Day

Ammunition is a unique commodity that requires technical production accuracy to exact

specifications and superior quality levels for the safety of its users. To accomplish this mission a 

network of government owned contractor operated (GOCO) and government owned government 

operated (GOGO) ammunition industrial sites has evolved over time to produce superior 

munitions for all U.S. military Services and Allies. The U.S. Army ammunition industrial base 

has experienced great degrees of transformation over the past half century. The base has 

experienced the largest of expansions during World War II (WWII) to the lowest levels of 

reduction during the current Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)1, now referred to as Overseas 

Contingency Operations (OCO). Reasons for the reduction include factors such as 

modernization of production technology and more peaceful periods of history. The following 

history examines the evolution of the industrial base, emphasizing the changes and provides

rationale for the gradual decrease in the size of the ammunition industrial base from WWII to 

2010. This report addresses specific challenges in regards to right-sizing the industrial base, 

which leads to the frequently debated question: what should the ammunition industrial base look 

like for the future?

The ammunition industrial base is a complex system composed of contractors, 

subcontractors, government owned and government operated (GOGO), and government owned 

and contractor operated (GOCO) facilities. The government owns key facilities to manufacture 

propellants and explosives and to load, assemble and pack (LAP) munitions with contractors 

operating most of the facilities and operations. 

The current munitions base evolved from the large base established to meet the demands 

of WWII. The base evolved to meet the Korean Conflict, Vietnam Conflict, Cold War tensions, 

and ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. The base has been reconfigured several times to meet 

projected requirements, to accommodate changing weapons technology, and to incorporate 

improved manufacturing methods. The challenge for managers of the conventional ammunition

base is to create the proper balance between two competing needs - the need to maintain the 

reserve capacity required to replenish the war reserves after a major conflict and the need to 

economically meet peacetime requirements. To fully understand the situation and state of the 

current ammunition industrial base, a closer look at its origins and evolution is necessary.

The Ordnance Department (OD)

The Revolutionary War taught the Nation its first lessons in material mobilization. 

Successful war conduct was linked to the availability of war-fighting supplies and equipment. 

The leaders of the Continental Army realized that efforts were needed to organize, produce, 

manage, and supply the Nation‟s Army if it were going to gain independence and win the War 

against England. In November 1775, Colonel Henry Knox established one of the firs U.S. 

industrial base capabilities. He selected Carlisle, Pennsylvania as the site for the first 

Continental Army Depot Arsenal. Carlisle, along with approximately 27 other depots and 

arsenals, stored and maintained supplies for the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War. 

 

1 GWOT is now referred to as Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and Operation 

New Dawn or Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).
4

Benecia Arsenal, Benecia, CA

Deactivated in 1963

Immediately after the war, the Army faced dramatic cuts in military expenditures, causing major 

cuts in military production. This caused material and equipment shortages and readiness impacts

for the War of 1812. To combat material shortages, an Act of Congress established the 

Ordnance Department in 1812 to conduct the business of providing material of war. The first 

funding made available to the Ordnance Department was in the amount of $20,000 to use for 

implementation with succeeding years authorized at over $870,000. The Ordnance Department 

owned a small collection of manufacturing and storage facilities throughout the period of 

activation. At the brink of War, despite the new organization of the Ordnance Department, the 

military found themselves unprepared to face conflict. In 1812, there were only four installations 

available to the government for the manufacture, repair, storage, and issue of ordnance materiel.2

Over the years leading up to the Civil 

War, the Ordnance Department and 

infrastructure continued to grow. By 1832,

eleven arsenals and two armories existed.3 

In 1832, the Ordnance Department acquired 

three additional installations and added six

more facilities over six years, mainly in the 

south eastern region. By 1851, ordnance 

spanned the continent with the establishment 

of Benicia Arsenal in California. By 1860, 

the country had expanded in size to over 3 

million square miles. The national 

population doubled to over 30 million and 

expanded westward beyond the 

Appalachians Mountains and Mississippi 

River. This expansion had direct logistics 

effects on supply lines. Supply lines were longer and the theater of operations was now larger 

than the U.S. had ever experienced. Ordnance infrastructure and operations grew to keep pace

with national development; however, the build ups were small in comparison to the actual 

requirements that would be required by the expanded force that fought the Civil War, Spanish 

American War, and World War I.

The Arsenal System 

The Civil War brought on enormous wartime expansion and served as a great test for the 

Ordnance Department. The rapid expansion of Union forces to a million man force created an 

unparalleled field service support mission in American history. Almost overnight the Ordnance 

Department faced supply challenges. In 1862 the Ordnance Department presented the “grand 

arsenal” concept. The concept plan envisioned a grand arsenal in the East. The idea

consolidated operations into one large Arsenal complex and would take over missions being 

conducted at Springfield Armory which produced small arms and small caliber ammunition. In 

exchange for “the grand arsenal” several existing arsenals such as Allegheny, Columbus, Detroit, 

Pikesville, Watertown, and Watervliet would be sold. After consideration this plan was not 

implemented, however it is apparent that even in the Civil War period, when military ordnance 

 

2 Ordnance Department. Ordnance Corps History (OCH) Volume I, 46.

3

Ibid, 46.
5

infrastructure was just beginning to be built up, policy and decision makers sought to reduce the 

size, consolidate, and modernize the industrial base.4

Arsenals were built primarily to address peacetime needs. Arsenals were the solution for 

sustaining research and development in the new industrial age and preserving needed personnel 

skill sets during peacetime. The existing ordnance arsenals sufficed to supply the Army with 

training and reserve requirements in peacetime. Arsenal production capacity was never large 

enough to meet wartime needs, but each arsenal provided technical assistance and expertise that 

was invaluable when industrial expansion was required.5Frankford and Picatinny Arsenals were 

responsible for ammunition components and end items; they operated low production levels and 

performed research and development. Blueprints, SOPs, shop layouts, and other important 

technical information were maintained along with a small workforce to provide retention of 

special skill sets. It is from the arsenals that the ammunition industrial base has been rooted and 

built. As technology and weaponry advanced and requirements grew, it became necessary to 

segregate the ammunition mission from the arsenals and create an independent ammunition 

industrial base. 

As arsenals concentrated on maintaining a peacetime level of production, the Ordnance 

Department prepared to contract for additional production capability in the event of a war. 

However, reliance on contractors alone would not satisfy the urgent ammunition requirements 

the U.S. faced in upcoming wars. The story of the Ordnance Department industrial base 

becomes more complex through time, but the focus of this report will now turn to WWI, when 

ammunition commodities were segregated from the rest of the ordnance supply system.6 Prior to 

World War I (WWI) the nation relied on smaller government owned facilities and limited 

commercial industry to support the War Department‟s ammunition requirements. Due to the 

relatively small size of the military, such arrangements were satisfactory. WWI placed extreme 

stress upon the system and required additional commercial support. 

World War I

The U.S. entered WWI with little advance planning for the expansion of ordnance 

industrial bases. Prior to the conflict, the U.S. relied on mostly foreign companies and private 

suppliers to meet ammunition needs. The worldwide scope of war and national mobilization led 

to the establishment of the War Industries Board (WIB) to regulate civilian and government 

military procurement and production. The need for the development of an industrial base from 

which the materiel of war could be obtained had been cited in the annual reports of the Ordnance 

Department for many years before WWI.7Thus, the outbreak of hostilities in Europe further

urged the need to expand plant capacity and capability for the production of munitions. 

In April 1915, a board of officers was assigned to analyze the Army‟s stock of field guns 

and ammunition. The board reported that conditions looked bleak if the Ordnance Department 

did not take action before outbreak of hostilities with a powerful nation. They also discussed the 

weakened condition the U.S. could suffer from if Eastern facilities near the coast were captured

 

4 OCH Vol I, 44-46.

5

 Ordnance Department. Ordnance Corps History (OCH) Volume II, 17.

6 Ammunition was previously managed with other commodities such as weapons. Leaders realized the complex 

 nature and uniqueness of ammunition, and began to manage it separately vs. with other materials and supplies. 

7

 OCH Vol I, 110.
6

by enemy forces. Despite scenario planning, the industrial base still needed modernization and 

at least 18 months would be required before production output could meet the demands of 

modernized warfare.8 Facilities were inadequate to meet wartime requirements in the event of a 

national emergency or wartime crisis. In addition, establishing manufacture of munitions in 

shops unfamiliar with the technical accuracy necessary for ordnance material, was a technical 

challenge that could take months. The Chief of Ordnance commented on additional challenges, 

“the element of money was not alone a limiting factor. Had appropriation of essential funds 

been made - it could not have brought munitions instantly into being...commandeering of 

machine tools was impossible; they were non-existent. No funds were available for the tooling –

and in consequence no contracts could be made...”9 Despite the planning committee‟s analysis

and problem recognition, resulting actions would not be implemented in enough time before U.S.

involvement in WWI. 

When U.S. representatives met with Great Britain and French leaders, the U.S. decided to 

answer the call to commit troops to operations overseas. An international ordnance agreement 

was created. The agreement reflected the need for U.S. to build up all aspects of its munitions 

industry. As U.S. troops were committed to the theater, Great Britain and France agreed upon 

supply of equipment and ammunition. It was still critical for the U.S. to build up its military 

industrial base to sustain requirements and troops. The agreement also indicated that Great 

Britain and France required immediate support in the production of large amounts of propellants 

and explosives. It is interesting to note that plans for mobilization of men were readily available 

at the Army War College, but no plans existed for the equally important task of mobilizing 

industry and production of munitions.10

Supporting the requirements of WWI proved difficult because of the lack of industrial 

mobilization planning. The Ordnance Department carried the explosives and propellants 

production program further toward completion than any other commodity. Manufacture of 

explosives and propellants had already been underway when the need to increase production 

arose. The U.S. had to build up the plant base to meet its own requirements and those of Allies. 

Smokeless powder and high explosives were one means of paying munitions debts to Allies, 

therefore we were already producing in large quantities during WWI. After further U.S./Ally 

agreements were made an additional 53 new plants for explosives, propellants and loading were 

built at a cost of around $360M. During the 19 months of war, the buildup enabled the U.S. to 

produce more powder than Great Britain and France combined. For an idea of how much 

production increased, consider the fact that pre-war production of smokeless powder had been 

about 18 million pounds. During war, the U.S. alone produced over 273 million pounds of 

powder and 375 millions pounds of high explosives.11 The nation‟s prewar production capacity 

of TNT was only 1 million pounds a month and increased to 16 million pounds a month by the 

time of the Armistice. Improved methods and quantity production increased output dramatically 

during the war.12

 

8

 OCH Vol I, 110-115.

9

Ibid, 111. 

10 Benedict Crowell. America’s Munitions 1917-1918: Report of Benedict Crowell: The Assistant Secretary of

 War and Director of Munitions. (Washington, Government Printing Office: 1919), 18.

11 OCH Vol. I, 140

12 Ibid, 141-143.
7

Nitro Powder Plant

Charleston, West Virginia

Old Hickory Powder Plant

Near Nashville, TN

By the end of the war the War Industries Board (WIB) had constructed sixteen plants for 

powder and explosives manufacture. The sixteen government facilities combined with 

commercial producers totaled 92 plants manufacturing powder and high explosives; of which 28 

made ammonium nitrate, 15 picric acid, 13 smokeless powder and 11 TNT. An additional 93 

other plants were loading, assembling, and packing shells, bombs, grenades, boosters, fuzes and 

propellant charges.13 The number of employees needed to operate explosives plants during 

WWI was phenomenal. For example, the four largest explosives plants employed around 35,000 

laborers total. Two of the largest WWI smokeless powder plants were Old Hickory Plant near 

Nashville, Tennessee and the Nitro Plant near Charleston, West Virginia.

 

13 OCH Vol I, 142.
8

At the beginning of WWI, no machine gun or machine rifle had been accepted as a 

permanent standard for the U.S. Army. After various models were tested in training and several 

brands were implemented for use, the Army determined they needed a standard. The 

introduction and acceptance of a standard American Browning machine gun escalated small 

caliber ammunition requirements during WWI. New methods of combat made the development 

of several special types of small caliber ammunition necessary to include: tracer, incendiary, and 

armor piercing ammunition.

14

 The need for more types and greater amounts of small caliber 

ammunition was initially met by Frankford Arsenal, the only U.S. production facility capable of 

mass quantity production. Several commercial plants were producing on smaller scales as 

well.15 As soon as all available capacity was utilized, the Ordnance Department expanded 

existing facilities and lines at Frankford, built new ammunition plants, and trained more 

personnel to meet wartime demand.

At the cessation of hostilities in November 1918, immediate action was taken to decrease

the manufacture of munitions. Most forging work ceased, and no further production of raw or 

semi-finished materiel was allowed. At the end of WWI, commercial industry abandoned any 

munitions support as the U.S. peace movement branded them “merchants of death” and accused 

the industry of reaping great profit.16 The commercial and government owned ammunition base 

was almost completely dismantled. The manufacturing plants erected by the government were 

mostly sold to the previous owners of the land they had been built upon. Machine tools were 

disposed of or sold to consumers. America was eager to live in peace and shed its arms hoping 

that war would not return. 

Planning Between Wars 

WWI lessons provided warnings of long mobilization should the U.S. confront another 

major war. The War Department took limited action and began planning for future industrial 

mobilization. For the first time, an official was assigned to prepare plans for the mobilization of 

productive resources of the Nation behind the military and naval operations of war. First task 

was to plan and address policy on what stocks of munitions and what manufacturing facilities 

were to be maintained for the future. In the summer of 1919, the Chief of Ordnance appointed a 

Munitions Board to assess the future of the industrial base. The board formed recommendations 

and plans for storage and maintenance of ammunition which could have provided a stronger 

peacetime infrastructure. However, the General Staff and the Secretary of War failed to act upon 

many of the board‟s recommendations. Instead, the Ordnance Department (OD) followed War 

Department orders to store and maintain far larger quantities of munitions than the Munitions 

Board believed could reasonably be marked as primary reserve. This reserve affected scheduling 

for the future manufacture of new ammunition.17

The National Defense Act of 1920 made the Assistant Secretary of War responsible for 

industrial mobilization planning and procurement. The legislation recognized the need for 

national defense preparedness. Though the primary thrust of the law dealt with Armed Forces 

personnel strength, it contained important provisions for organization reform and mobilization 

 

14

 OCH Vol I, 146.

15 Crowell, 191-193. See Crowell‟s book for longer explanation of WWI small cal industrial base info. 

16

 Harry C. Thomson and Lida Mayo. United States in World War II: The Technical Services – The Ordnance

 Department: Procurement and Supply. (Center of Military History, Washington D.C.: 1960), 107.

17 OCH Vol II, 13.
9

Old Hickory Powder Plant – DuPont 

bought the plant from the Government in 

1923 

Near Nashville, TN

planning. Responsibility for procurement of military supplies and the mobilization of material 

and industrial organizations were explicitly assigned to the Assistant Secretary of War. The 

Assistant Secretary of War then reorganized his office to include a Planning Branch. This staff 

with the Army and Navy Munitions Board exerted strong influence upon the Ordnance 

Department‟s planning between world wars. The fact that peacetime mobilization planning was 

happening at all was a major accomplishment and step forward for U.S. military readiness. In 

the 1920s several mobilization plans were finished and modified. Thereafter, new mobilization 

plans were generated on average every four years.18

Despite planning efforts, storage and maintenance of ammunition brought great 

challenges between WWI and WWII. More money was earmarked for maintenance of the war 

reserve than for any other purpose. Of the total sum, about 60% of the ammunition budget was 

spent annually for ammunition preservation. To maintain a useable War Reserve, periodic 

surveillance of stocks and careful testing of representative lots to detect incipient deterioration

was necessary. Ammunition lots that were unserviceable had to be renovated or replaced. In 

1926, Public Law 318 authorized exchange of deteriorated ammunition for new, but adequate 

funding for renovation continued to be hard to obtain. Despite the yearly attempts of ordnance 

spokesmen to explain the chemistry of ammunition deterioration, Congressmen found the 

argument unconvincing. By 1928, a special program of surveillance and renovation was started. 

The OD exchanged 4 million pounds of unserviceable powder for 350K pounds of new flashless 

powder and also opened the first special renovation plants. Up to WWII, leaders continuously 

debated whether it was better to renovate old stocks than to buy all new ammunition. In October 

1938, the Ammunition Supply Division of Field Service estimated it would cost $19 million to 

renovate the ammunition items required to meet the war reserve for the Initial Protective Force. 

The OD decided to renovate artillery ammunition stocks, but realized future war requirements 

would require a large build up of the base.19

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s research and 

modernization lagged. The DuPont Company was 

visionary in that they operated the nation‟s sole TNT 

plant at low production levels in order to maintain the 

equipment, process, and expertise.20 As ammunition 

supplies were expended, there was no major resupply 

or modernization effort. At the same time, 

developments in weapons and doctrine, primarily 

abroad, rendered much of the stored ammunition

obsolete. Poor storage conditions led to the 

deterioration of viable modern stocks and 

Congressional budgets for ammunition were at a 

starvation rate. Thus, the ammunition stockpile was

not maintained properly.

 

18 Harry Thomson & Peter Roots, US Army in World War II The Ordnance Department: Planning Munitions for

 War (Center of Military History, Washington D.C.: 1955), 30, 32, 50.

19 OCH, Vol II, 10-18, 22-24.

20 Berkley R. Lewis and C.B. Rosa, Office of the Chief of Ordnance, History of the Ordnance Department in World 

 War II, Monograph 4, Ammunition, 31 December 1945, 5.
10

In 1929 a special survey called attention to several defects in past mobilization plans. 

The survey discussed failures to apply WWI lessons that indicated it took at least a year longer to 

arm men for fighting than to mobilize and train them for actual combat. The survey stated, “...it 

will be noted that in all munitions phases there is a wide gap between the exhaustion of the 

present reserve and the receipt of munitions from new production.” 21

By 1937, more attention was devoted to ammunition industrial base issues. Increasingly 

aware of possible air attacks, a study was conducted to project the best and safest locations for

future ammunition facilities. The study considered strategic locations, proximity to strategic raw 

materials, transportation facilities to probable theaters of war, economy of operation and climate. 

In 1938 Congress passed the Educational Orders Act. This act permitted the OD to place orders

with allocated facilities for small quantities of hard to manufacture items. The act gave selected 

manufacturers experience in producing munitions and to ability to procure essential tools and 

manufacturing aides. By 1940 over eighty educational awards were granted.22 As war 

commenced in 1940, the U.S. converted existing educational orders into production orders. 

Contractors and ordnance officials valued the program and believed in its ability to increase 

industrial preparedness. In April 1941, reports indicated that over half of the companies that 

received educational order contracts received production orders. The educational orders were an 

essential program that spread knowledge of specialized ordnance manufacture capability to 

around 82 companies and acted as a springboard for remobilizing industry at the start of WWII.

23

Though many improvements were made in mobilization planning, analysts are critical of 

the inter-war period and think more could have been done to prepare for future conflicts. R. J. 

Hammond wrote a Profile on Munitions WWI-SEA (Southeast Asia) and was critical of the lack 

of mobilization planning during this peacetime period. He quoted President Franklin Roosevelt 

who stated, “When the chips are down, no amount of priming will do the job if the pipes have 

been allowed to rust away, equipment and buildings have been allowed to deteriorate, or the 

expertise necessary to operate such facilities are lost to other industries or forever.” Hammond 

repeatedly talks about how the Ordnance Department ignored demands/recommendations and the 

base was not maintained during this period.24 In The Ordnance Department: Planning Munitions 

for War the authors indicated that from 1920 to 1940 plans were always shaved down, operations 

were restricted and projects were frequently stopped short of completion, all because of lack of 

money.25 In Peacetime Industrial Preparedness for Wartime Ammunition Production, Harry 

Ennis wrote that the interwar period resembled an “interesting ambivalence” in the presence of 

national security considerations. On one hand, voices were raised in the plea that the Nation 

should never again find itself unprepared for war. On the other, strong political sentiment 

indicated that maintaining large reserves and preserving the industrial base were unfavorable to 

the policy of neutrality.26 No matter what the arguments were, it is clear that the Ordnance 

Department did not receive the funding needed to keep the base sustained and their 

recommendations were not adopted wholeheartedly by the War Department or Congress. 

 

21 OCH Vol I.

22 Thomson and Mayo, 20. 

23 Ibid, 19, 123. 

24 R. J. Hammond. Profile on Munitions: WWI-SEA 1950-1977. (ARRCOM Historical Office, Rock Island, IL),

 passim.

25 Thomson & Mayo, 31.

26 Harry Ennis. Peacetime Industrial Preparedness for Wartime Ammunition Production. (National Defense 

 University, 1980), 30-32.
11

Despite shortfalls, when the threat of WWII surfaced in the summer of 1940, the 

Ordnance Department mobilization planning created a level of readiness never before achieved 

in prior U.S. mobilizations. Their accomplishments included industrial requirement estimates for

a major war. They created the Army Industrial College to train officers in the tasks of military 

procurement and industrial mobilization. They set up procurement districts and zones to 

decentralize and expedite the gathering of procurement information and the planning of 

procurement operations. They arranged a systematic survey of industrial facilities and assigned 

those facilities to the appropriate Technical Services. They studied WWI and learned from 

shortages and problem areas that they focused on to prevent repeated mistakes. They studied 

legislation and administrative problems that the Nation‟s resources might present in the future

and created procedures to deal with them. They also produced an Industrial Mobilization Plan, a 

blueprint for the control of the Nation‟s resources in time of war.27 The initiatives and 

accomplishments provided invaluable administrative gains needed in the preparation for 

involvement in WWII. 

With the limited number of commercial producers, the best solution to meet future 

munitions requirements would be to build new government owned contractor operated (GOCO) 

plants for WWII. Within each passing year, the Ordnance Department (OD) directed more 

attention to developing plans for the speedy conversion of private industry to new munitions 

producers during wartime. By 1940 the American public attitude was changing, and people 

demanded a more adequate national defense. The U.S. had plants operating prior to U.S. entry 

into WWII due to the foresight of the OD and alliance needs. In 1937, the OD established joint 

military-commercial planning officers for explosives and propellants. These offices were 

charged with developing plans for the construction of plants for explosive, propellants, and 

required chemicals. Similar offices were established to focus on artillery, bomb, fuze, and small 

arms component assembly. The offices were assisted by planners from Dupont and Hercules 

Powder as well as other experts from the limited commercial ammunition base. They considered 

all aspects of plant layout to include relationships with suppliers, transportation, safety distance, 

and line flexibility to respond to fluctuating requirements. 

The OD initiated these talks because they understood they‟d have to create relationships 

between the War Department and commercial industry to produce ammunition for a global war. 

While other ordnance items and quartermaster supply requirements like trucks, airplanes, tanks, 

and rifles were more easily made in the commercial plants, there were only a handful of small 

commercial ammunition producers. For products like smokeless powder, TNT, ammonia, 

artillery and small arms ammunition, there were no existing government plants that could be 

readily converted. Because ammunition plants offered none of the usual attractions for private 

industry and capital, the OD recognized they would have to build at government expense. 

Ordnance engineers, the small peacetime explosives industry, Frankford and Picatinny Arsenals 

all cooperated and drew up plans and specifications for plants to be built rapidly in response to 

WWII. 

The OD was committed to building a government owned ammunition base, but realized 

that not all production would have to occur in GOCO plants. Based on analysis and industry 

input, they were able to limit GOCO facilities to propellant and explosive production to include 

required chemical manufacturing processes, while private industry made most metal parts. In 

 

27 OCH Vol. l, 5.
12

addition to planning the number of plants required, OD also developed plans for other use of 

private industry. The OD conducted industry surveys of all major industrial plants. Not only did 

the survey record what the plants made, types of equipment and floor space, the OD also 

investigated finances, resources, types of workers, transportation networks and more. The OD

was interested in companies with good management and engineering. One key planner stated: 

“It was not just the machines and floor space that counted. Of even greater importance were the 

men – skilled workers, the production engineers, the executives who understood the secret of 

high-quality mass production.”28 

When the British could no longer pay cash for arms and munitions in December 1940, 

President Roosevelt suggested leasing or lending war supplies to those fighting the Axis. He 

likened it to lending a garden hose to a neighbor whose house was burning. Once the fire was 

out, said President Roosevelt, “he gives it back to me and thanks me very much,” or, if damaged, 

he replaced it. For three months Americans debated the Lend-Lease bill in Congress. 

Isolationists condemned it as leading America into another European war, as in World War I. 

But many Americans saw the need to aid Allies. Numbering the bill H.R. 1776 gave it a 

patriotic aura, and Lend-Lease act was passed. Signed into law in March 1941, Lend-Lease 

permitted the president to “sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of” 

defense articles to “any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the 

United States.” Congress initially appropriated $7 billion, with a total expenditure of more than 

$50 billion by the end of World War II. The initial expansion of the WWII era industrial base 

production came from orders placed by Britain and France. 29

World War II (WWII)

World War II (WWII) required the largest ammunition base buildup in history. When 

war broke out in 1941, ammunition manufacturing was already moving forward. A network of 

ammunition plants were built across the country between June 1940 and December 1942. 

Representing a capital investment of about $3 billion, a wide range of chemicals, artillery 

ammunition, bombs, grenades, rockets, mines, small caliber ammunition, powder, and explosives 

were produced in the industrial 

complexes. The annual operating 

expenses amounted to over $1 billion. 

Huge tracts of land were bought and 

utilized for explosives, propellants and 

loading plants because of production 

safety requirements. Despite 

mobilization planning, it took until late 

1942 and early 1943 for the industry to 

catch up with Army requirements. 

As a first order of business, 

Congress authorized $3 billion to build 

explosive and propellant plants in 

1939. There were only a half dozen 

 

28

 JMCR 10-1 Regulation. JMC History Appendix. 

29 Thomson & Mayo, 156; “Lend Lease Act 1941” Accessed at: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true

 &doc=71.
13

companies in the U.S. with experienced personnel to produce explosives, and the capacity of 

smokeless powder production had fallen to only 30 tons a day and TNT was lower at 12 tons a 

day.30 Therefore, a large proportion of Ordnance funding obligated during the latter half of 1940 

went to new powder and explosives plants and for plants that loaded, assembled and packed

(LAP) artillery. The OD signed its first contract with Dupont for construction of a smokeless 

powder works (Indiana Ordnance Works). Another contract was approved for the construction 

of Radford Ordnance Works in Virginia with Hercules Powder Company as the operating 

contractor. By December 1940, a full year before Pearl Harbor, 22 new facilities were under 

way for shell loading and production of chemicals and explosives.31

By October 1941 several ammunition complexes were producing ammunition. By the 

end of 1941 there was at least one of every essential type of government owned ammunition

plants incorporated into the industrial base to include TNT, DNT, tetryl, toluene, anhydrous 

ammonia, smokeless powder, bag loading, and shell loading plants.32 After Pearl Harbor, an

additional 25 facilities were authorized almost immediately and construction began between 

January and August 1942. A total of 112 plants were authorized and 84 were constructed in only 

a few years.33 

The need for expansive buildup did not go unquestioned. The Truman Committee of the 

Senate and the Tolan Committee of the House of Representatives expressed criticism in 1941. 

They thought the building of new plants was needless and the Ordnance Department was failing 

to fully utilize existing capability. They viewed Army procurement efforts as “helpless” in 

dealing with large corporations who were refusing to convert to wartime production. This 

perceived helplessness drove demand for new plant construction. They claimed the Army 

wasted building materials, contributed to machine tool shortages, and delayed production.34 The 

committee may have been justified in their arguments; however, they failed to understand that 

the new construction would be for a bulk of ammunition commodities that simply could not be 

met through procurement efforts. In December 1941, the Under Secretary of War, Robert 

Patterson, defended Army proposals and answered the critique by the Senate and the House. 35

The Secretary vigorously defended construction of ordnance facilities and assured the 

Committees that the Army had not proceeded with base expansion of new plants except where 

necessary. These criticisms were quickly forgotten after the outbreak of war. What appeared to 

be over expansion in the fall of 1941, took an appearance of under expansion after Pearl Harbor. 

Wartime requirements escalated rapidly and placed strain on all existing ordnance facilities.36 

By the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, it took an average of 9-11 months between contract and 

first operations when bringing a new capability on line. 

Despite the large numbers of plants, attempts at efficiency were being practiced. In 

several cases plants turned out more than one product. For example Badger Ordnance Works

(BOW) in Wisconsin was constructed to produce three smokeless powder lines but was revised 

 

30

 Hammond, 3.

31

 Thomson & Mayo, 110-111. 

32

 Hammond, 105.

33

 Hammond, 3; Thomson & Mayo, 110-113.

34

 Thomson & Mayo, 33.

35 Records of the Under Secretary of War. Accessed at: http://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/finding-

 aid/military/rg-107-2.html.

36 Thomson & Mayo, 33.
14

to add double base powder. Flexibility was essential because the requirements were constantly 

changing. As requirements rose or fell, plants shifted production from one type of ammunition 

to another, production lines shut down, new lines were added or entire plants were shutdown. 

For example, in the summer of 1942, a bag loading plant in Flora, Mississippi was almost 

completed when the OD suddenly decided it would not be needed. Instead, the plant was

converted into a unit training center until 1945. When heavy artillery ammunition requirements

rose again, plans changed again and the plant was then used as originally intended. 

Almost all government ammunition plants were operated by contractors. It was not 

uncommon for large mass producers such as Coca Cola, Quaker Oats, or Eastman Kodak to 

operate a military industry. Companies like the U.S. Rubber Company operated ammunition

plants with no prior experience. Despite lack of ammunition experience, large conglomerate

companies were seen as capable of transferring mass production experience and managerial 

practices into the munitions business.37 

Decentralization of the Ordnance Department procurement and administration during 

WWII led to the creation of the Field Director of Ammunition Plants (FDAP) headquartered in

St. Louis, MO and the Small Arms Ammunition Sub Office at Philadelphia, PA (attached to 

Frankford Arsenal). This sub office was under control of the Small Arms Division in 

Washington, and it coordinated small arms ammunition production in a similar fashion as to how 

FDAP coordinated production of artillery ammunition. In 1942, all control of the ammunition

plants was transferred from the OD to the newly created FDAP. From the outset, the OD leaders

assumed that FDAP would be an administrative and legal office dealing with technical problems 

that would be passed on to Picatinny Arsenal for resolution. In the beginning FDAP had no 

control over inspection, packaging, renovation, or scheduling but gained these responsibilities 

over time. By 1945, FDAP completely controlled and managed the GOCO plants previously 

under the Ammunition Division of the Ordnance Department.38

Few of the plants under FDAP supervision ever had a chance to achieve full efficiency 

and operating capacity. In most cases, as soon as a plant came into production and completed a 

few months of prove out operations, it received notice to curtail production. By the fall of 1943 

officials throughout the War Department believed ammunition supply was adequate and that the 

OD produced too much ammunition. In January 1944, FDAP was forced to practice short range 

scheduling of plant operations with few schedules running for more than one month ahead. The 

lack of long range requirements forecasting made it impossible to concentrate production in the 

most efficient plants and operate them full time.

39

Despite the challenges of creating an efficient and ideal ammunition base, some of the 

most remarkable technological advances of WWII occurred in the ammunition industry. The 

field was wide open for the development of new processes and machinery because there had 

been virtually no mass production of military ammunition over the previous two decades. 

Knowledge of powder and explosives production methods had been maintained by small scale 

production operations of powder and explosives at Picatinny and at small firms like DuPont. 

Pilot production lines at Frankford Arsenal served similar purposes for metal components. The 

OD experimented and found faster, more reliable production methods. During WWII, advances 

 

37

 Hammond, 3-4. 

38 Thomson & Mayo, 125-129.

39

 Ibid, 125-129.
15

were made in the reverse nitration of TNT, toluene extraction from petroleum, mechanization of 

loading, and the development and use of wood pulp, RDX and rocket powder.40 

During WWII doctrine had also evolved. U.S. Army field commanders paved the way 

for advancing foot soldiers by use of massed artillery fire and aerial bombing instead of 

exercising frontal infantry attacks. For example, in the first days of attacks on Cassino, U.S.

artillery units fired around 11,000 tons of shells which were accompanied by fire storms of 

bombs from the air. Carpet bombing was also practiced across the theater. Therefore, 

expansion of the artillery ammunition base started on a modest scale in 1940. During 1941 

expansion gained momentum as work on 25 new plants began and existing plant capacities were

greatly increased. Thirteen of the new plants were for loading operations. Between January and 

August 1942, construction started on an additional 25 plants.41 The rate of artillery expenditure 

during WWII required the operation of 60 artillery ammunition plants. See Appendix A for a 

listing of ammunition facilities to include small arms, explosive, propellant, and LAP facilities 

operated in WWII to support requirements. 

In 1944, new ordnance directives ordered doubled the monthly production rate of 

artillery in seven months and to triple the amount in 14 months. The OD warned leaders of high 

expenditure rates and the need to produce more artillery and their predictions were accurate. 

Leaders reacted quickly and continued building up the artillery base. Several plants that had 

been shut down were reopened and re-equipped at record paces. During early 1945, heavy 

artillery expenditure rates reached record highs. The total for all types and sizes of artillery 

ammunition reached nearly 1 billion rounds. The value of artillery ammunition produced 

between Pearl Harbor and V-J Day was nearly $7 billion at 1945 prices. In addition, over one 

hundred million grenades and mines were produced along with 33 million bombs.42

In comparison to artillery production small caliber ammunition was simpler and easier to 

produce since it did not involve fuzes and loading of high explosives. Even so, the mass 

production of high quality small arms ammunition required equally exacting measures to meet 

quality specifications. Three major families of small arms ammunition were.30, .45, and .50 

calibers with five main types: ball, armor piercing, armor piercing incendiary, incendiary, and 

tracer produced over the course of WWII. Before WWII, Frankford Arsenal was the only plant 

in the U.S. producing military grade small arms ammunition. Several commercial firms 

(Remington, Western, and Winchester) made sporting ammunition, but the difference between 

sporting and military ammunition was incomparable. In 1936 and 1937, ordnance reps met 

frequently with Remington Arms Company with goals to have Remington expand its capacity in 

the event of wartime emergencies and to also take over operation of proposed new government 

plants. After discussions, President of Remington, Mr. C.K. David, agreed with a formal 

statement of the plan drawn up by Frankford Arsenal. This was the first of many actions to rally 

commercial small caliber ammunition producers to augment government capabilities. The rate 

of small caliber expenditure during WWII required the operation of 16 GOCO plants.43

In the late 1930s, Frankford obtained funding for new machinery and equipment due to 

ordnance actions to modernize arsenals. In 1939, Frankford gained additional funding to expand 

 

40 Ibid, 133-144.

41 Ibid, 107.

42 Ibid, 105.

43 Ibid, Chapter IX. 
16

storage facilities and build a .50 caliber manufacturing line. It also used $800,000 to purchase 

specialized production equipment known as War Reserve Equipment to store for emergency use

by the Remington Arms Company. To prepare commercial industry, Frankford also placed 

twelve orders for small arms ammunition under the Educational Orders Act in 1940-1941. 

Frankford extensively tested ammunition produced by these companies. Although the 

ammunition could not be used to fill wartime requirements, the initiatives greatly increased 

readiness in the commercial industry for conversion into military production. The need for .30 

and .50 caliber ammunition increased dramatically for aircraft machine guns. Thompson 

machine guns increased .45 caliber ammunition requirements while British machine guns 

increased 9 mm needs. The existing commercial base and Frankford Arsenal could not reach 

sufficient capacity. Frankford steadily expanded facilities and increased production, but as 

requirements escalated, they could not satisfy the needed level of production and used the War 

Reserve Equipment it had specifically set aside for commercial industry for emergencies, in its 

own facility to meet demands. Leaders realized that immediate build up of the small caliber

production base was imminent. 

At first, ammunition requirements were unclear and initial production estimates were 

conservative. In fact, in July and August 1940 studies revealed requirements so high that the 

ordnance planners stopped to reconsider the whole subject. To meet the needs of a two million 

man force another three new plants were planned at a cost of $20 million each. The mobilization 

and construction time was estimated at 15 months. After study, small caliber ammunition

industry expansion was planned in groups known as “waves.” Five waves of plant build ups or

alterations were initiated over two years. The first wave added small caliber ammunition plants

commercially operated by Remington and the U.S. Cartridge Company in Lake City, MO, 

Denver, CO, and St. Louis MO. Production commenced by September 1941. The plant‟s 

combined capacities were over 300 million rounds a month; more than six times what Frankford

produced. However, between 1940 and 1941, small caliber ammunition became the most 

critically short supplied item. The War Department, G-4 and Assistant Secretary of War urged 

the OD to open additional new plants as fast as possible. To meet increased demands, a second 

wave of three additional small caliber ammunition plants was approved by the War Department 

in April 1941. This wave of plants was less permanent in nature than the first three built in order 

to decrease construction time and production operations started only seven months from breaking 

ground. 44

After Pearl Harbor in December 1941, requirements for small arms ammunition sky 

rocketed. One proposal called for 144 billion rounds by the close of 1944. Ordnance officials 

like General Charles Harris, Chief of Industrial Services, sensed the Presidential advisers‟ 

nervousness and urged patience and reassurance that the newly built plants could meet needs and 

possibly create an overabundance. Washington officials did not heed his advice and the

Ordnance Department was directed to build 80 more production lines at three new plants. 

Twelve small arms plants were producing ammunition and the peak of wartime expansion had 

been reached. Total capacity was around 20 billion rounds a year.45

By 1943, ammunition production was drastically reduced. General Harris had been 

correct in his statement that “ammunition would be coming out your ears” with the proposed 

 

44 Thomson & Mayo, 195-196.

45 Ibid, 199.
17

expansion set by Washington. He was correct, and by 1943 excess ammunition created storage 

problems. Plants were able to produce over and above initial estimates, and the mobile tank 

warfare in North Africa called for much smaller expenditure in rifle and machine gun 

ammunition than previously anticipated. In an August 1943 procurement review board, on hand 

stock of small arms ammunition in the U.S. was reported at 2.5 billion rounds. This was nearly 

equal to the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) expenditures in WWI. It observed that the 

Day of Supply figures were excessively large, ammunition plants were operating below capacity,

and reserves of ammunition were reaching “astronomical” figures. The Board concluded the 

War Department had to bring small caliber ammunition production back to “realms of reality.”

46

To eliminate excess production Frankford Arsenal returned its focus to laboratory work

in 1943. Commercial operated plants converted to other war time needs and machinery was 

transferred elsewhere for work, stored or scrapped. Production of all types of small caliber

ammunition dropped from 20 billion rounds in 1943 to 6.5 billion in 1944. Four factors were 

cited in the closures: 1) high rates of production attained by plants, 2) virtual elimination of the 

submarine warfare 3) effectiveness of .50 caliber incendiary ammunition in downing enemy 

planes and 4) Japanese evacuation of Kiska without a fight. Though the war was not over, the 

small caliber ammunition crisis had passed. 47

After VJ day, all small caliber production plants except Lake City and Twin Cities were 

closed. Years later, the Korean Conflict would only require operation of six small caliber 

ammunition plants to meet wartime requirements. Five plants were utilized in the Vietnam War

and amazingly today‟s production is able to meet requirements of 1.5 billion rounds per year by

operating one facility, Lake City with Alliant Techsystems (ATK) as the current operating 

contractor. Modernization of production lines and new technologies has provided the abilities to 

meet this mission with a reduced infrastructure. Additional rounds are procured from General 

Dynamics and provided by NATO forces to meet total requirements. 48 

During WWII, requirements were difficult to determine in an era of changing warfare. 

Fluctuating requirements caused leaders to over and under estimate the readiness and quantity of

inventory available for war. It is important to recall the nature of the times, as America 

experienced an attack on its own shores and the war expanded with the addition of a new front in 

Japan. Leaders were alarmed and were willing to pay the costs to ensure Soldiers were equipped

and armed with ammunition to win the war and protect our borders.

Reducing the WWII Ammunition Base

Immediately after the defeat of Germany the Ordnance Department began closing down 

ammunition plants. After the defeat of Japan, the entire system was swiftly shut down. Around

50 plants, known to be excess, were transferred to the operating contractor or sold on the open 

market. Fourteen plants remained in an active status, primarily engaged in demilitarization, 

renovation, and the production of fertilizer. The remaining plants not excessed were placed in 

inactive status, decontaminated, padlocked and left without maintenance money.49 In 1945 the 

 

46 Report of War Department Procurement Review, 31 August 1943. 

47 Thomson & Mayo, 219.

48 PEO Ammunition. PM MAS Briefing, 2004. 

49 An inactive plant is placed in layaway status for future use. An excess facility is determined no longer required in 

 the event of a future war, and are slated to be sold, dismantled or turned over to the Federal government.
18

number of GOCO plants was reduced from 84 to 38 and continued to decrease.

50

 Increased 

tensions between the U.S. and Soviet Union caused by the Soviet aggressive stance in Eastern 

Europe forestalled complete disarmament, but did not drive significant funding to maintain the 

base. 

In 1945, a standby program for government facilities estimated to have an acquisition 

cost of $1.8 billion was approved. The program planned to maintain the facilities to a degree 

that mobilization could be attained in 4-6 months and reach full production capacity in 8-12

months. This level of funding was never realized for several reasons. Appropriations and 

personnel were inadequate. The Corps of Engineers was responsible for conducting maintenance 

and repair of real property, which was also inadequately funded. Therefore, production 

equipment and utilities, buildings, structures, roads, and railroad were allowed to fail and 

deteriorate into states of disrepair at many plants.

 

Several leaders openly disagreed with the low level of funding and attention to the base 

after WWII and thought the base should be maintained. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff, General George S. Brown said, “Nuclear war remains the least likely course of action for 

our potential enemies. The capability of industry is critical to the U.S. successfully developing a 

conventional deterrent...we are experiencing a creeping erosion of the U.S. industrial bases that 

promises to grow progressively more severe in foreseeable future...industrial base must be 

capable of sustaining all mobilized U.S. forces (Active and Reserve) in a long war against either 

the Warsaw Pact or the People‟s Republic of China.”51 Though U.S. politicians lamented war 

with China and it was included in strategic planning but the front soon turned to Korea. The 

below chart illustrates how fast production/procurement was built up over WWII and how 

quickly it was reduced at the end of the war.

52

 

50 Hammond, 6. 

51 Hammond, 138.

52 History of the Ordnance Department in WWII, Table I (between pages 13 and 14).
19

The requirements and inventory reporting processes had been so inefficient that in 

September 1945, the Army was adrift in excess ammunition of all types. In particular, last 

minute surges in artillery ammunition production provided a significant excess of those rounds. 

In addition, due to the sudden shut down from full volume production, significant amount of inprogress materiel was on hand and assumed by the Army. Thus, the Army owned components of 

ammunition rounds in addition to complete rounds. To add to issues, the Army began to 

retrograde ammunition from overseas theaters or destroyed it in place through detonation, burial 

or dumping in open water. While the Army knew it had a large stockpile of ammunition, by the 

time the Korean Conflict started, they were just ending an initial inventory process. This made 

forecast and planning efforts difficult in the beginning of the Korean Conflict mobilization.

Despite not knowing the full extent of the post-WWII stockpile, the Services determined 

sufficient ammunition existed and the next war could be fought using the excess stored in the 

vast depot system. Unfortunately, this plan did not take into account the modernization process 

or the relative technological state of the excess ammunition. Also, the plan did not consider the

potential problems if the next war was long or if there were sustained increases in consumption 

rates. Finally, because of the reduction in funding, maintenance and inspections did not occur. 

Far more of the stocks were unserviceable in June 1950 than had ever been expected. 53

Most ammunition built in WWII supported weapons systems designed in 1940 or 1941. 

There were some improvements items like the upgraded tank gun or rocket propelled charges, 

but even those upgrades were designed to defeat weapons in use in 1941. By the Korean 

 

53 William R. Reeder, “The Korean Ammunition Shortage,” unpublished, 1-5. (See all of Reeder for a strong 

 summary of ammunition planning and production in Korea. Reeder was in DA at the time and prepared the 

 monograph as a case study for the Army Comptrollers Course at Syracuse University.); James A. Huston. The 

 Sinews of War, Army Logistics 1775-1953 (Center for Military History, Washington D.C.: 1966): 630-634. 

Ammunition Other than Heavy Field

Bombs

Heavy Field Artillery

1942 1943 1944 1945
20

Conflict, much of the saved ammunition was obsolete. Aircraft were jet powered while their 

ammunition was designed for propeller speeds; bazooka rounds bounced off German armor and

Soviet tanks.54 Old stocks were unserviceable and the new preferred rounds were in short 

supply. The ammunition that was still current was often of marginal quality due to a lack of 

maintenance and surveillance inspections. WWII temporary technical solutions, such as cotton 

versus silk charge bags and inferior metal in fuzes, had not stood up to the test of long-term 

storage. Ammunition with maintenance problems that should have been demilitarized in the 

states was shipped overseas and then destroyed there. During the years between WWII and

Korea, several lessons learned in the previous intra-war period were not applied in mobilization 

planning, management, and sustainment for the ammunition industrial base. Though restarting 

the base was not as daunting of a task, several of the same challenges and issues were 

experienced.

Korean Conflict

As Cold War tensions increased between the Soviet Union and the U.S., President Harry 

Truman committed troops to the Korean peninsula. The Korean War renewed demand for 

finished ammunition end items. In only five years after WWII, the ammunition base required

major rehabilitation before actual production could begin. Fourteen plants remained in an active 

status, primarily engaged in demilitarization, renovation, and the production of fertilizer. 

Though the base was warmer than in previous mobilizations, the largest Ordnance challenge in 

1950 was to restart the ammunition industrial base they had laid away or used at very low levels 

of production since 1945. Little to no maintenance had been completed at the inactive plants and 

maintenance crews had to clean their way onto the lines before they could even start to inspect 

the machinery. Lines designed for obsolete ammunition had to be reconfigured to new rounds. 

Modernization had to occur; new employees had to be hired and trained; and production lines 

had to be proofed out. As a result the average time estimated to reactivate the warm base was

around nine months. However, the warm base took over 15-18 months and it took 22 months to 

get the inactive base into production. 

The long lead time for initiating production was just one of many problems needing a 

solution. Before the GOCO and contractor bases started up, the OD had to acquire funding, 

compute requirements, break rounds down into component buys, and award contracts. The OD

then had to supervise retooling, inspect pilot runs, and approve volume production. The funding 

issue stymied the start of administrative and production lead-time. Outside of the ammunition 

base, the DoD had been under efficiency measures since the arrival of Secretary of Defense, 

Louis Johnson in April 1949. Combat units had been cut and most divisions had two thirds or 

less of their combat troops and the military faced deeper cuts in logistics. Training was also 

reduced. Defense was based on nuclear weapons and the focus was on the Soviets in Eastern 

Europe. In June 1950 the U.S. was unprepared for conflict in Korea and was shocked at the 

quick advances made in combat theater by the North Koreans. 

Despite the unexpected unfolding of events, Congress and the DoD Bureau of the Budget 

were convinced that Korea would be a short war. In late July 1950, with the U.S. pushed back to 

the 38th parallel on the Korean peninsula, DoD began preparing the first supplemental estimates 

to the FY 1951 budget. In late summer as Secretary of Defense, Louis Johnson, defended the 

 

54 Reeder, 2.
21

first budget supplemental and U.S. Forces were confined within the Pusan Perimeter; he 

indicated that they had only asked for extra funding through December 1950 because the war 

would be over by then. Defense Department planners cut the Ordnance Department‟s request for 

ammunition by $2.4 billion to $374 million. Similar cuts happened with the third supplemental, 

formulated in November - December 1950, when the DoD again expected the war to be over by 

June 1951. Not until mid-1951 did Congress and DoD realize there were problems with 

ammunition production and significantly increased ammunition funding.

55 Due to lead time 

issues, this money did not produce significant quantities of ammunition until 1952.

Part of the problem with obtaining ammunition funding was convincing DoD, and even 

Army leadership, that all types of rounds needed procurement. The OD had a longer view over 

the ammunition situation than the Army and DoD leadership. The OD recognized need for 

increased production across all rounds. To accomplish this, the Chief of Ordnance wanted to 

create a balanced war reserve in addition to meeting the immediate needs for Soldiers in Korea. 

Because of his wider vision, he asked for significantly larger amounts of funding than Army or 

DoD was willing to provide. Army and DoD only saw the amount of WWII excess ammunition. 

They did not grasp the details of inventory balance by family and weapons type. Not until late 

1951 did DoD understand the need for a systemic plan for ammunition production for combat 

and replenishment, and this was only after most stock in Europe had been reduced below safety 

levels and rounds transferred to Korea.56

The Korean War also impacted the commercial ammunition industry. Army GOCO LAP

plants required commercially and government produced components. The problems at the 

GOCO plants had been partially addressed, but problems were more pronounced in the 

commercial base. Unlike in the 1930s, U.S. commercial industry was operating at high capacity 

in 1950. Low levels of ammunition production after WWII had forced producers to convert to 

commercial consumer goods in order to turn a profit. Any ammunition peculiar plant machinery 

had been placed aside, removed, or converted. Personnel had been laid off. Without a 

declaration of war in 1950, or any government call for mobilization, industry was not inclined to 

turn from profitable commercial production to limited profits in a boom or bust ammunition 

industry.

57

The machine tool industry, which had vastly expanded in WWII, collapsed because of 

significant over capacity in the late 1940s. After WWII, the OD transferred or sold most of the 

ammunition machinery and tools to commercial entities at well below market value. In the late 

1940s the machine tool industry consolidated or converted to other production. The OD 

collected other machinery to create a National Industrial Plant Reserve. However, as later events 

revealed, most of this machinery was worn out. The arsenals had cannibalized the good 

equipment and most of what remained could not maintain production. In effect, the government 

had dumped supply onto the market and had undercut the very industry most required to restart 

the ammunition base.58

In the 1950s, as the OD began to place orders for machinery or place orders with 

commercial entities that required new machinery, the machine tool industry over-committed. 

 

55 Reeder, III-10 to III-15 and V-10.

56 Ibid, II-8 – II-11 and Section III.

57 Reeder, 7.

58 Ibid, Section III.
22

They promised significantly more output on shorter timelines than they could deliver, and they 

did it on fixed price contracts. When President Truman declared war and froze prices, the 

machine tool industry was in a double bind. The cost of labor had already risen and raw 

materials soon followed. Because the industry is primarily small business, they had an extremely 

difficult time producing the documentation required to adjust their sale prices up. An already 

battered industry began losing money on their Ordnance Department contracts. The difficulties 

experienced by the machine tool industry had significant impacts on the ability of any sector of 

the ammunition industry to ramp up to Korean requirements.59

A myriad of other problems complicated ammunition production during the Korean 

Conflict. Problems included a steel strike, the significant increase in rates of fire over the WWII 

norm, transportation and port difficulties, and the general unpopularity of the effort. In sum, the 

ammunition base began from a cold start, plants weren't maintained, DoD expected a short war 

and refused to request the funds required for a longer effort, the stockpile had not been 

maintained, machine tools were not available, and consumption went up. As a result, it took 

almost two years for the government and commercial base to achieve full capacity. The Army 

remained short on artillery, mortars, and hand grenades throughout the Korean Conflict.

Preserving the Base after Korea

At the end of the Korean War the Ordnance Department was determined to maintain a 

limited active and better maintained inactive plant system. However, once again, budget 

constraints, Congressional and DoD national priorities, and resumption of Congress‟ balancing 

between guns and butter soon led to another period of budgetary decline. In 1953 and 1954, 

DoD began a drive to privatize all departmental industrial capability. In November 1953, the 

Secretary of Defense signed DoD Directive 4100.15, “Commercial and Industrial Type 

Facilities.” At about the same time, the Bureau of the Budget published Bulletin 55 which 

directed DoD not to undertake any commercial activity if items could be purchased from private 

enterprise. The DoD Directive required all Services to survey their plants to determine which 

were eligible for lease or sale.60

In response to the DoD Directive, the Ordnance Department Directive recommended that 

the survey not be required for plants manufacturing lethal munitions. They cited the long history 

of commercial entities producing most military items, but munitions remaining a government 

operation. Prior to 1955, policy had been “to discourage substantial investment of private capital 

in ... the manufacture of military items having no civilian use....” The Ordnance Department 

noted that conversion to private ownership 

“[w]ould require additional expense to recreate the industry with the advent of 

each new production emergency. Business has one principle motive – to make 

profit. In order for business to make a profit, its capital investment must be 

made to produce. This would make it necessary to operate such facilities at a 

capacity which would at least reach the „break even‟ point. In order to do so, 

the facilities would have to be converted to the production of goods which 

 

59 Ibid, 10-11; V-5.

60 Office of the Chief of Ordnance, “Policies, Recommendations, and Data Relative to Ownership and Operations of 

 Army Arsenals, Plants and Works,” 25 January 1955, 3. (Hereafter listed as OCO, Jan 1955) DoD Directive 

 4100.15 is reproduced at p. 12-13.
23

could be sold on the open market. The reconversion of such facilities from a 

peacetime basis to a wartime basis would entail expenses which would be out 

of proportion to the income which the government could get for such facilities 

by lease or sale.”61

Ordnance Department analysis indicated that due to extremely limited commercial 

application for explosives, propellant, and load and assemble (LAP) of ammunition, there was no 

strong motivation for commercial operators to build or own their own ammunition related plants. 

The lack of commercial demand for large-scale explosives production was well known. Of equal 

importance was the feast or famine nature of government ammunition requirements. The above 

quote noted that commercial facilities must maintain a minimum sustainment level of production 

or else ownership must convert to another profit making enterprise. This later point had several 

aspects. First, while there would be a continuing requirement for training ammunition, new 

development, and stock rotation, these requirements were miniscule to those for war. Thus, the 

plants had to have a huge surge capacity. The cost of maintaining that surge capacity would 

detract from profit margins, yet the underutilized capacity could not be converted to other 

commercial uses. In addition, commercial industry would have difficulty maintaining a skilled 

workforce to meet surge requirements, especially in the geographic areas where safety 

requirements dictated the location of explosive plants. This last point is a factor even at low 

level production.

62

Besides the issues of profit motivation, the Chief of Ordnance cited the issue of military 

readiness. He made a direct connection between civilian enterprise in the opening months of the 

Korean War, the role of the GOCO plants, and the shortage of ammunition. He noted that even 

GOCO plants took time to obtain full production, but they were crucial in keeping ammunition 

flowing in the two years it took to ensure commercial industry reached full volume production. 63

The Ordnance Department proposed it was in the best interest of the Army and Nation to 

maintain a primarily government-owned base for ammunition production, but to contract 

operations to private contractors. In addition to GOCO plants, the Ordnance Department 

maintained their pre-Korea procurement policy for metal parts and fuzes from commercial 

sources; but powder, explosive, and loading plants would remain in the organic government 

owned base. The OD clearly supported following DoD policy of private contracting for vehicles, 

weapons systems, and other commodities where commercial facilities can produce for both 

public and private consumption. However, the Department requested a waiver in order to keep 

ammunition production in GOCO facilities. They believed the shortages and problems of 1950-

1952 would be a reminder of the need for a continuing “subsidy” of or investment in the 

ammunition production base. 

Unfortunately, the Korean era ammunition shortages did not remain a priority as we 

entered the following peacetime period. By the time the Chief of Ordnance had made his 

recommendations, and implied that ammunition production required a steady level of funding;

the Army had already entered the Pentomic Era. The New Look was based on deterrence and the 

race for nation supremacy would focus on nuclear weapons. In the shift from conventional 

warfare to nuclear deterrence the Air Force would play a greater role in developing nuclear 

 

61 Ibid, 4, 7-8.

62 Ibid, passim.

63 OCO, Jan 1955, 7, 9.
24

delivery systems and strategic defenses like anti ballistic missiles. The Army eventually 

developed tactical nuclear weapons, such as the Davy Crockett, to ensure a continuing role for 

the Army. With slogans like “Atomic Guns for Front Line Troops,” one could expect the budget 

for conventional ammunition would drop and it did.64

Vietnam

Army budgets improved some in the early 1960s. As the Vietnam War started, spending 

on the ammunition base mirrored events leading up to and through the initial stages of the 

Korean War mobilization. Between 1953 and 1965, the Army ammunition industrial base 

reduced from over 40 to only 26 ammunition plants. Only eight were in operation in January 

1965 at extremely low levels of production. The Army had 240 Industrial Plant Equipment (IPE) 

packages at over 180 commercial firms and only 51 were used in January 1965. The Army 

Munitions Command (MUCOM) controlled the plants, but the fourteen storage depots were 

managed by the Army Supply and Maintenance Command.65

Like Korea, the Army ammunition base was at a cold start when requirements escalated 

in the Vietnam War. When troops entered Vietnam in 1965, consumption increased from 

peacetime rates to full combat rates in an extremely short period. Consumption grew, especially 

in air delivered items. Expenditure quickly outpaced planned rates and reached record 

proportions and ammunition shortages rapidly developed. Generally, the same issues that caused 

shortages in 1950 reappeared in 1965.

In 1965 the Army standard supply rate was based on modifications to the actual 

consumption rates in WWII and Korea. These rates were usually established as the number of 

rounds per day per weapon and were published in a Supply Bulletin. Army Pacific had different 

supply rates than Army Europe. The Air Force had similar standard supply rates based on their 

historical use factors. These rates were used to develop requirements and were forwarded to the 

Army or Navy for procurement. Army buying patterns were based on the number of units 

planned for a particular theater of operations. The Army was also to procure ammunition to fill

the War Reserve to an established level.

The Army War Reserve consisted of six months stock for the eight NATO divisions. The 

remaining divisions were authorized those stocks required to sustain the force from the date of 

deployment until the date production would meet requirements (D-P Stocks). Despite total years 

in WWII and nine months in Korea, it was assumed that D-P would be less than six months, so 

full production was envisioned as meeting theater requirements while rebuilding the War 

Reserve. In January 1965, ammunition plants were producing at only 7% of the maximum rate 

required to match the consumption rates published in the Supply Bulletin. Mobilization plans 

anticipated it would take six months for the active plants to attain full production; 11-14 months 

 

64 See A.J. Bacevich, The Pentomic Era, National Defense University Press, 1986 for a summary of the Army‟s 

 reaction to the “Pentomic Era.” The slogan “Atomic Guns for Front Line Troops” is taken from a 1960 

 photograph in File “Davy Crockett Weapons System, M29,” History Office, US Army Joint Munitions 

 Command.

65 Joint Logistics Review Board, “A Summary Assessment with Major Findings and Recommendations,” Volume 2, 

 “Ammunition,” Washington DC, 1970, 14, 31. Hereafter referred to as “Besson Board.”
25

for the GOCO inactive plants to gain full production; and over two years for producers to meet 

total requirements.

66

In January 1965, the War Reserve was significantly less than what was authorized. The 

figures cited above were authorized in DoD Logistics Guidance for 1966, published in the fall of 

1964. However, due to budget limitations, ammunition procurement would not attain the sixmonth and D-P levels until January 1969. The Army did not buy 100% of the requirement for 

each year. For FY 1966 the Army purchased only 54% of the Army Pacific requirements. The 

FY1966 buys were budgeted prior to the outbreak of hostilities when action in Vietnam was not 

anticipated.67

Based on 1964 guidance from the Secretary of Defense, service stockpile levels appeared 

to be in good shape for 1965; however, this was a false appearance.68 Hostilities soon revealed 

significant readiness issues. The first issue was that a large percentage of the stockpile was left 

over WWII and Korean War stocks. Many of these items were obsolete, unserviceable, or 

substitute items. For the decade prior to 1965 very little funding had been expended on 

maintenance of stockpile items. Despite a lack of funding, the Army assumed that all 

serviceable stocks could be returned to serviceable status. While a funded system may have been 

able to repair a significant quantity of unserviceable stocks, this would take time; and these were 

the same stocks stored to maintain the fighting force until the production base could gain full 

volume.

In addition to serviceability issues, there were challenges associated with technology 

advancement. Many of the Air Force ammunition items had been produced for WWII and 

Korean era vintage aircraft. These rounds were unsuitable for high speed jet aircraft, yet they 

were still listed as authorized substitute items for preferred munitions. However, the asset 

reporting system masked the technology and serviceability issues. The stockpile was reported to 

DoD in terms of tonnage, not readiness. Therefore, if the preferred or substitute items were in 

the stockpile, the tons were reported as on hand and ready for use. Details did not show the 

percentage of new to old munitions or serviceability by line item.69 The shortcomings became 

apparent immediately after the start of large scale hostilities.

Despite the rapid escalation of the conflict in Vietnam and glaring issues of consumption 

versus production, policy impeded the reactivation of plants and civilian manufacture. 

Department of Defense policy required Service Secretary and then Defense Secretary approval of 

funds to reactivate plants. The Major Command Commander could approve renovations and 

modernization up to $500,000. The Secretary of the Army approved spending for costs between 

$.5 and $1 million. Projects in excess of $1 million required Secretary of Defense approval. 

Each request took an average of five weeks for approval.70 In many cases, contractors would not 

sign production contracts until the renovation requests were approved. This added more delays 

resulting in increased production lead times.

 

66 Besson Board, 28, 31.

67 LTG Joseph Heiser, Jr., Vietnam Studies, Logistics Support (Center of Military History, DA: 1974), 119.

68 Besson Board. See p. 30 for a table of fill rates against objectives for key ammunition items.

69 Besson Board, 28 and 67-68.

70 Ibid, 102-3.
26

An even more critical impact on procurement was the decision not to loosen competition 

rules. In fact, DoD tended to tighten rules on competition until 1968 by continuing to require 

formal advertisement and bids rather than negotiated contracts. Concerned with the increased 

costs of ammunition contracts, the Secretary of Defense signed a policy shifting competitive to 

negotiated contracts in July 1965. He required high level visibility before the approval of 

noncompetitive contracts over $1 million. Service Secretaries were to approve all contracts 

between $1 and $10 million, while the Secretary of Defense had to approve contracts in excess 

of $10 million. This process also took several weeks and further delayed the buildup to full 

production.71

A final obstruction to rapid contracting and activation of the commercial base seemed the 

most significant. In 1965 the Johnson Administration decided not to declare a full mobilization 

for the Vietnam effort, which meant that mobilization producers were not obligated to convert 

their plants to wartime ammunition use. Their contract only required their conversion after a 

state of emergency and mobilization was declared. Industry did not voluntarily reconvert; they 

simply were not interested. Their profit motive drove them to continue manufacturing 

commercial goods, and the government had no recourse without the mobilization order. This 

failure in mobilization significantly affected metal parts and fuze production.72

The inability to attract previously designated mobilization producers coupled with DoD 

emphasis on competitive contracts created a wave of equipment problems. In 1965 the Army 

had 240 Industrial Production Equipment (IPE) packages in commercial plants. The producers 

holding the IPE were generally the expected mobilization producers of certain ammunition 

components and the Army expected to use noncompetitive contracts with these companies. They 

expected a slightly higher cost, but a small lead time and equipment investment savings due to 

pre-siting of the equipment. However, the combination of no mobilization orders and tightening 

of competitive rules meant that many mobilization producers who did bid, did not win. 

Contracts were let to unplanned sources. Many of these winners were from the least successful 

and least profitable firms. If they had been successful, they would not have had the unutilized 

capacity to convert to ammunition work. In 1968 DoD had 224 private munitions producers. Of 

this number, only 24 were the same as pre-1965, and only 26 were reactivated producers who 

had been holding IPE. The remaining 147 were new and often required IPE. The government 

either bought new plant equipment or paid to have IPE shipped from disinterested mobilization 

producers. DoD controlled the IPE and this increased lead time as the Services worked to obtain 

DoD approval to issue the equipment.73

The final Vietnam ammunition base issues relate to policy decision on requirements, 

consumption, and length of the war effort. Each tended to damper the enthusiasm of private 

producers. After the initial sharp rise of consumption in Vietnam, expenditure rates began to 

stabilize. However, the Army and DoD changed stockpile and production requirements 

throughout the war. DoD‟s key concern was to not build an excess stockpile at the end of the 

conflict. They finally decided to produce to meet actual expenditure levels. They determined 

that at the end of the conflict they could use the industrial base to rebuild and balance the war 

reserve. For producers this translated into a constant change of production requirements and 

schedules and many periods of slumps. This also meant that the pipeline was often short if there 

 

71 Ibid, 94-95.

72 Ibid, 94, 96; Heiser, 119.

73 Besson, 102.
27

was a spike in expenditures after a period of combat lull. This constant shifting of requirements 

disconcerted producers.74

 In addition to requirements fluctuations, DoD continued to assume that Vietnam would 

be a short war. It took 18-24 months for DoD to realize that the short war had gone long. The 

stockpile and the procurement plan was not designed for this possibility. The Secretary of 

Defense and Bureau of the Budget continued to plan for a six month war. Not until mid-1967 

did they acknowledge that the war might be longer term. Until then each contract, budget and 

supplemental request was based on the requirements for another six months of combat. 

Commercial producers, even those patriotic and committed to supporting the Armed Forces, 

were not willing to convert from profitable commercial work to barely profitable work that 

would last only six months.75

To help alleviate future problems, the Besson Board made a number of recommendations 

for future management of the ammunition base. While they advocated a mix of private and 

government plants, they warned: 

“Munitions production is a high-risk venture for private industry owing to the 

lack of demand for munitions production in peacetime and the uncertainties 

associated with the length of the war...The facilities and tooling peculiar to 

munitions manufacturing, coupled with the quantity of equipment required to 

produce at the desired rates, do not lend themselves in total to alternative 

commercials use...Profit motivations of private industry does not argue for 

retention of this equipment in peacetime; hence, the production base tends to 

evaporate with the cessation of demand.”

They also warned that despite their recommendations, military budgets would be 

reduced after the War. Lack of a strategic DoD level plan, dwindling resources, inter 

and intra Service disagreements hindered maintaining the ammunition base.76

The Besson Board concluded that the ammunition base should be an exception to the 

privatization policy. They determined that maintaining a warm base and a small stockpile was 

less expensive and provided more readiness than a large stockpile and a less ready base. The 

Board suggested the government should own and maintain laid away equipment as it was not 

within the private, profit motivated culture to do so. The government also had to retain GOCO 

plants in order to assume safety and space requirements. These plans required a continuing 

peacetime level of funding for the ammunition base. Their bottom line was: “The Vietnam 

experience emphasizes the importance of maintaining an adequate production base.”77

After Vietnam a similar pattern of neglect of the ammunition base continued until the 

early 1980s when modernization programs were implemented. The government attempted to 

reduce ammunition expenditures and create efficiencies in a number of ways. The most 

significant impact between Vietnam and the Gulf War was the creation of the Single Manager 

for Conventional Ammunition (SMCA) in 1977. The Army was charged with central 

 

74 Heiser, 109-10, 119-120; Besson Board, 62, 67, 94, 89, 100-01.

75 Heiser, 120; Besson Board, 69, 107.

76 Besson Board, 105-106.

77 Ibid, 105-07, 147.
28

management of conventional ammunition for all Services and three Navy ammunition 

installations were transferred to the Army.

Analysis of Ammunition Requirements Versus Industrial Capacity Across Wars

WWI

U.S. forces were ready for combat within a year after the declaration of WWI, however, 

they were mostly equipped with munitions obtained from Allies. Because Great Britain could 

not sustain explosive requirements, the U.S. industry built its explosives, propellants and loading 

industry up extensively. Prior to U.S. entry into WWI in 1917, only a few privately owned 

establishments in the U.S. could undertake ammunition production because requirements had 

been historically fulfilled by Great Britain and France.78 Ordnance arsenals were operated at 

maximum capacity and U.S. industry mobilized to establish munition facilities to produce 

wartime needs. During WWI, 53 powder, explosive and loading plants operated to meet U.S. 

and Allies requirements.79 However, for many ammunition items, the full capacity and operation 

of the plants was never reached before the signing of the Armistice in 1918. 

The American explosives industry expanded to meet the Interallied Ordnance Agreement 

to augment explosive and propellant production already being produced in England and France. 

Prior to entry into the war, the U.S had depended on ammonium picrate or explosive “D” as their 

primary bursting charge for high explosive shells. America quickly expanded its production 

complex to manufacture amatol and TNT. In 19 months the U.S. produced 632 million pounds 

of propellant and 375 million pounds of high explosives. Smokeless powder production 

capacity rose from 1.5 million pounds a month to a projected capacity of over 1 billion pounds 

per year, bringing the rate of production seven times above peacetime production rates. 

Explosives manufacturing increased from 660K pounds a month to over 16 million pound 

capacity by the end of the war.80

France and Great Britain accomplished most artillery shell production. When the U.S. 

entered WWI, stocks on hand accounted for less than a single month‟s supply based on 

expenditure rates. Capability to produce a complete round were almost non-existent in the U.S. 

The U.S. had to develop resources to create metallic parts; shells, fuses, boosters, adapters, as 

well as design and build new plants for artillery shell loading. The artillery industry and loading 

plants produced more than 17 million rounds of various filled artillery rounds and 38 million

unfilled rounds by 1918.

The U.S. small caliber ammunition industry‟s ability to meet requirements starting from 

minimal production rates has been repeated across time. The following chart shows how small 

caliber ammunition production of machine gun, rifle, pistol, and revolver rounds increased 

during WWI to almost 4B total rounds of ammunition.81

 

78 Ordnance Corp History Vol I, 109.

79 Crowell, 105. 

80 Crowell, 105-110.

81 Ibid, 199.
29

Date Rounds

30 Nov 1917 156M

31 Jan 1918 574M

30 Apr 1918 1.3B

31 July 1918 2.3B

30 Sept 1918 2.9B

31 Oct 1918 3.2B

31 Dec 1918 3.94B

Grenade production during WWI prompted one of the greatest challenges for the 

industry. Initial requirements were set at 68 million live rounds and 3 million training rounds. 

After initial production and fielding, U.S. Soldiers refused to use defensive grenades because the 

firing mechanisms were too complicated to use rapidly and Soldiers forgot to release the safety 

device which then gave the Germans an opportunity to launch the rounds back at them. 

Production was stopped and all items were reworked to new design specifications. Requirements 

were adjusted to 44 million rounds to be produced by eight industrial firms. Producers reached 

21 million rounds when the Armistice was signed. 82

After 1918 most of the WWI statistical data and technical knowledge of requirements 

gained during the war were lost through disuse and failure to study the records before 

destruction. This, combined with a lack of technical requirement specialists in the workforce, 

caused the Ordnance Department to miss the opportunity to build and shape requirement 

calculations during peacetime before WWII mobilization. It wasn‟t until 1938, that the 

“Partridge Report” by LTC Clarence E. Partridge and a board of Ordnance officers reported that 

after analysis of what little data was left over from WWI, “no current battle experience was 

available,” to base WWII requirements.83 Historian, James Huston, noted the U.S. "had revealed 

the greatest war-making capacity that the world had ever seen,”84 during WWI. At the war's end 

the United States had an Army of over 3.5 million and huge ordnance surpluses. 

WWII

The U.S entered World War II (WWII) with virtually a non-existent munitions 

production base. WWI producers had returned to commercial production and the Army had to 

build a government owned base from scratch. Ordnance leaders describe the time period as 

“extremely” difficult as they determined production base capacity while WWII ordnance 

requirements were in constant fluctuation.85 Since ordnance requirements were established from 

troop basis figures which rose and fell every few months as the strategic situation changed, 

planning and implementing the industrial base size and capacity was a complex task throughout 

WWII. As soon as one computation of requirements was established it was necessary to 

incorporate changes and to recalculate computations. A war production board official wrote, “It 

 

82 Ibid, 205-206.

83 Thomson & Mayo, 49.

84 “Center of Military History. Mobilization. Accessed at http://www.history.army.mil/documents/mobpam.htm, 

 Section 4.

85 Major N.A. Hamilton, Army Service Force, Office Chief of Ordnance, History of the Powder and Explosives 

 Section (Washington, D.C., October 1945) Appendix II, 5. 
30

is literally true, that half the production battle is won when we have decided what we want to 

produce and when we want it.”86

Throughout WWII, hindsight has shown that the ammunition industrial base had an 

abundance of capability due to the conditions of war and fluctuations in requirements. With 112 

ammunition plants planned and 86 built, several never operated to full capacity and numerous 

others were shut down promptly after V-J day, having only operated briefly. In many cases as 

soon as a plant came into production and completed a few months of initial operation, plant 

operators were instructed to reduce or curtail production.

Before the outbreak of war in Europe, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of War 

requested the Chief of Ordnance to provide a detailed outline of ordnance actions in case of war 

as part of the Protective Mobilization Plan (PMP). The PMP sought to mesh production 

schedules and the early needs of the Army to bring together the rates of troop and materiel 

mobilization. In addition, the PMP provided for a small and well-equipped emergency force, 

called the initial protective force, to provide security during mobilization. 

Overall, the 1939 PMP was sound enough to become the permanent basis for 

mobilization. It established a point of departure, a system for mobilization of the men and 

equipment already available. Like the industrial plan of the same year, the protective plan 

stepped back from the M-day assumption and began to see mobilization as a process that should 

begin well before the U.S. became involved in a war. The plan neglected the important area of 

construction of adequate troop housing and other facilities, but otherwise it was described as a 

proposal based on realistic assumptions. The ordnance sections of the PMP estimated a 

munitions procurement program at a cost of over $6 billion and declared that its computations 

were up to date for all items under the PMP. Over the next two years the plan was revised, but 

eventually served as the basis for projecting the needs of war.87

During WWII, accurately established requirements were never achieved. The Ordnance 

Requirements Division faced the challenge of setting requirements based on changing 

requirements. Each change demanded a revision of total requirement figures and this meant a 

revision of production schedules. The Ordnance Department felt confident in their 

computations, however, the ammunition ordnance personnel managing and operating the plants 

often felt that the planners did not understand the far reaching effects of even minor changes and 

resulting orders in the overall requirement figures.88

To calculate all ordnance requirements Ordnance officials multiplied the quantity of each 

item of equipment authorized for each type of unit by the number of units in the troop basis. The 

next step projected those calculations into the future and then further out for additional 

equipment for replacing losses, filling pipelines, equipping some of the Navy and Marine Corps 

items, and for supplying Allies with foreign aid. To arrive at net requirements, the quantity of 

each item already in the stockpile, in storage, transit or possession of the troops was subtracted

form the total gross requirement.89

 

86 Thomson & Mayo, 45.

87 Thomson & Mayo, Chapter IV.

88 Ibid, 45.

89 Ibid, 47.
31

The computation of ammunition requirements was different from other classes of 

supplies. It ranked high in importance and was sometimes compared to supplying food to the 

troops. Ammunition was more complex because the rate of consumption was irregular. 

Ammunition requirements were based on day of supply estimates, which was the average 

number of rounds that would be expended by each type of weapon per day in the course of 

planned operations. There were no tables showing the number of rounds to be issued to any 

tactical unit. The rate for each weapon included a breakdown showing the estimate for each type 

of shell, high explosive, armor piercing, incendiary, etc; and for each type of fuzes when more 

than one type could be used on a shell. For training ammunition, specific quantities per man 

were authorized.90

As planners struggled with the best way to predict field requirements, they experimented 

by linking equipment production schedules to projected ammunition requirements. For example, 

bombs and ammunition for aircraft called for production of a five-month supply for each 

bomber, based on aircraft production schedules, estimated number of sorties a month for each 

plane and the number of bombs dropped and rounds fired per sortie. The computations soon 

resulted in over production of bombs because all planes did not go immediately from factory to 

overseas theater or they didn‟t engage in bombing runs. This resulted in production cuts for 

bombs in 1943. Then, as air attacks escalated in 1944, many of the cuts had to be restored and 

production was reinstated.91

Adding to the fluctuation included the frequency of equipment changes that occurred 

1940-1945. For example, the number of men in just one infantry regiment decreased over the 

course of the war and its requirements for pistols, trucks and rifles all decreased before 1942 and 

increased by 1945. The cumulative effect of these changes was enormous and nothing was 

static. 

At the beginning of WWII and two years into it, replacement factors for ammunition 

were the result of guesswork. No one conclusively knew how long Army equipment would 

withstand under combat conditions, nor did anyone have accurate notions of how much 

ammunition an infantry regiment or field artillery battalion would need. Some historians have 

declared that the day of supply figures used in 1940 and 1941 were defective. The calculations 

were too high and didn‟t allow for differences among theaters.92

The Ordnance Department came into WWII relying on Frankford Arsenal for small arms 

ammunition, artillery projectiles, cartridge cases, optical and fire control instruments, gages and 

pyrotechnics. Picatinny Arsenal focused on artillery ammo, explosions and propellants. While 

the production capacity was never enough to meet the needs of wartime demand, each 

manufactured specialized ordnance when expansion was needed. Between 1938 and 1941 

Frankford‟s small caliber yearly capacity increased from 400 million rounds to 630 million

rounds by increasing shifts and expanding lines.93 

The small arms ammunition base is described to be built in waves throughout WWII. 

Total capacity increased to over 41 billion rounds produced at 12 ammunition plants by 1945. 

 

90 Ibid, 53.

91 Ibid, 51-52.

92 Thomson & Mayo, 47-50,

93 Ibid, 188.
32

Though there was uncertainty at how many small caliber rounds would be needed, the high 

requirement levels established by the G-4 were questioned by ordnance leaders. The G4 

requirements were determined to be correct and in five waves of construction the industry was 

built up to 12 production plants. By 1941, this seemed to be the correct course of action when 

small caliber shortages emerged. By 1942, Great Britain‟s projections encouraged the G-4 to 

continue plant expansion. By the fourth wave of expansion 80 production lines at three plants 

were added to bring operating capacity to 20 billion rounds and maximum capacity of 30 billion

rounds a year. Small caliber requirements were sharply reduced in the summer of 1942 and 43 

production lines were cut during the fourth wave of expansion.94 Requirements dropped from 59 

billion to 23 billion rounds in 1944. In 1945 requirements were dropped to 12.4 billion and 

continued to reduce throughout the year and then all manufacturing operations at all plants but 

Frankford Arsenal were shut down. 95 

In 1940 capacity for propellants and explosives in the U.S. was insignificant for 

supporting the nation‟s wartime requirements. Production of smokeless powder would have 

been insufficient to supply more than 1/3 of the requirement and TNT production would have 

been sufficient for only 13%of requirements for the Army. Requirements began increasing in 

1942 and by 1944 the industrial base buildup was significant enough in capacity to meet the 

maximum requirements.96 Even as they were building up capacity efficiencies were being 

discovered and operating plants were capable of producing more than anticipated. At any given 

point during the war, requirements were adjusted causing plants to be over or under planned 

utilization. 

TNT production tripled after the U.S. discovered reverse nitration methods in practice at 

a Canadian facility. The U.S. industrial base experimented and adopted the techniques which 

increased production from 33K pounds a day to 100K pounds. Powder or propellant 

requirements steadily increased throughout the war and installations were added and expanded to 

meet the need. In 1943 the plants were operating at maximum capacity before they were ordered 

to cut back. Then by January 1945 total requirements peaked at 18 million pounds per month. 

The industrial base produced over 1 billion rounds of various types of artillery projectiles

during WWII which was accomplished at over 60 facilities. As leaders attempted to balance 

production major exceptions included planning for artillery ammunition, which should have been 

pushed ahead, versus pulled back. 

Adding to the complexity were the requirements calculated rates established by Allies 

like Great Britain. Many times the Allies overestimated rates of supply and leaders accused 

them of pulling figures out of the air. These leaders argued that the War Department failed to 

provide sufficient guidance by determining well in advance how large the Army was eventually 

to be and what equipment it was to have. 

In January 1944 the Ordnance Department was forced to practice short scheduling, with 

few of these schedules running for more than a month. Changes in types of ammunition required 

also had effects. Changes were often made suddenly, without advance preparation for 

 

94 Ibid, 63.

95 Ibid, Chapter IX.

96 Field Director of Ammunition Plants. History of the Powder and Explosive Section. (Vol I, October 1945) 

 Section 4,10-20.
33

management. Because of the lack of firm, long range forecasts of requirements, it was not 

possible to concentrate production in the most efficient plants and operate them full time. In late 

1943, production load was spread out among many plants to keep them in operation as reserve 

against unexpected demands. By winter of 1943-1944 many plants were closed. WWII plant 

capacity grew to support a 10 million man army and by 1945 it was felt that production capacity 

could be reduced by 40% to support a proposed reserve 4.5 million man army. 

The Korean Conflict

When the Korean War broke out, the majority of ammunition production plants were shut 

down. The Field Service Ammunition Division of Raritan Arsenal in New Jersey was organized 

to accomplish the peacetime mission of directing supply of ammunition to troops for training and 

the overall operational supervision of maintenance and preservation of over 7 million tons of 

ammunition in storage.97 The Army‟s munitions production base had declined to 56 ammunition 

plants, 40 of which were activated to support requirements. The United States had produced 

surplus stocks of ammunition during World War II, and over 7 million tons of ammunition stock 

remained in military stockpiles in 1950.98 There were large stocks of most types of ammunition 

in the depots and for the first two years of fighting troops were issued WWII ammunition stocks. 

DoD leaders saw a plentiful stock of ammunition, however, various ordnance district officers 

saw the need for immediate industrial expansion when the war started. Their primary objective 

was to reestablish the production base and to reactivate ammunition plants. 

Optimism about munitions reserves soon faded, and within a few months leaders were 

concerned that units in Korea might face shortages. The turning point came in November 1950, 

when Communist China entered the war. This widened the scope and intensity of the conflict, 

leading to a surge in demand for most ammunition types. Consumption of ammunition over the 

next two years far exceeded the rate planners had expected, as outnumbered U.S. and South 

Korean forces relied heavily on firepower to compensate for their numerical inferiority. For 

instance, during the Battle of Soyang in mid-May 1951, 21 artillery battalions supporting the X 

Corps fired 309,958 rounds in seven days, well over a thousand tons of ammunition per day. In 

late August and early September of the same year, fighting near Inje resulted in the use of more 

than a million rounds of 105mm and 155mm ammunition in only 15 days.99

The supply of ammunition during the Korean Conflict resulted in many ordnance 

challenges. The Ordnance Department faced a unique wartime situation where concepts of 

limited war and police action were new to U.S. wartime policy. Preparedness plans had 

historically been based on premises of total war experience. According to Dr. C.H. Owens, 

author of Industrial Mobilization Planning in the Ordnance Department 1946-1950, the 

industrial mobilization plan in effect for the Korean Conflict was inadequate.100 

 

97 Raymond Snodgrass. History of Ordnance Activities Relating to the Korean Conflict: June 1950-September 

 1951. (June 1952) , 43.

98

 Ibid, 43-44.

99 Mark S. Watson, “Ammunition Expenditure in Korea,” Ordnance (September-October 1952): 254. Also reported 

 in article by CPT David A. Martin, “Artillery Ammunition in the Korean War” accessed at 

 www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/SepOct98/MS297.htm.

100 Dr. C. H. Owens. Industrial Mobilization Planning in the Ordnance Department: 1946-1950. (March 1956): 47. 

 Copy located in JMC Archives. 
34

Mobilization planning requirements established in years prior to the war by the Chief of 

Ordnance were forwarded to the Ordnance Ammunition Command (OAC) in March 1948. They 

were used to determine production facility capacities and equipment requirements necessary to 

provide items of issue at the rate prescribed to meet issue demands. It became obvious in 1951 

that the requirements did not provide a comprehensive picture of all items that were required for 

mass production and the quantities previously established needed adjustments. In addition, many 

new items were developed and would need to be integrated into the inventory. Additional 

requirements were received in January 1952 for all items of ammunition except small arms 

ammunition and Air Force items. These revised requirements were more realistic and helped 

establish sound production schedules and provided baselines for determining future rehabilitation 

activities, planned utilization of surplus plants, and the assignment of workload to meet the 

existing emergency. 

Korean Conflict day of supply rates were defined as the daily average use of the round 

per gun by a large population of guns operating over a considered time period. The Korean day 

of supply figures were calculated based on European and Pacific theater usage and experience. 

Army Field Forces pointed out that these were inaccurate depictions of what was to come during 

Korea due to the fact that ammunition was rationed throughout WWII and many times when they 

should have been firing they weren‟t. The official day of supply was eventually adopted at a 

much higher rate than WWII figures.

101 Total ammunition authorized amounted to only 45 days 

of supply in the depots and a basic load and training ammunition in the hands of the units. Until 

1952, authorized supply levels stayed basically the same. Then in mid 1952, DA granted an 

increase of 15 days of supply in ammunition authorizations.102 As the Far East Command began 

manning divisions, which were below proper manning levels, the ammunition demand again

increased. Budgets for ammunition were constantly reduced from projections as the Army 

strived to plan for the right amount of production. The Secretary of the Army said, “we are not 

stockpiling mountains of munitions which might well become obsolete before they are needed, 

rather we are trying to limit procurement to the quantities of various items which, as far as we 

can forsee, will actually be needed to sustain our operations in Korea and properly equip our 

forces with the most modern effective weapons and meet our commitments under the Mutual 

Defense Assistance Program.”103

By 1953 the Ordnance Ammunition Command (OAC) had 302 existing production lines; 

141 operating and 161 on standby. Twenty plants and Redstone and Ogden Arsenals were 

producing ammunition Major equipment mechanization advances had been made to increase 

productivity. Productivity increased by 30% in the first six months of 1952, and OAC planned to 

gain another 20% of proficiency by 1953. From 1951 to 1953 production increased by 180%. 

The improved productivity was attributed to modernized equipment and performance 

improvement that also helped realize full capacity output by using existing operating lines. In 

 

101 Reeder, II-10. 

102 James Houston. Guns and Butter, Powder and Rice – U.S. Army Logistics in the Korean War. (Associated 

 University Press, London: 1989),122. 

103 Committee on Armed Services. Investigation of the Ammunition Shortages in the Armed Services – Interim 

 Report of the Preparedness Subcommittee No.2 of the Committee on Armed Services United States Senate. 

 (1953).
35

1951 the plants produced 50K tons of ammunition and by 1953 production had increased to 

165K tons. 104 

The production lines represented the capacity to reproduce a balanced variety of ammunition 

items equivalent to 55% of the peak capacity during WWII. Rehabilitation of standby lines 

began at many plants in 1951. In 1951 over 150 end items were in production but producers

utilized many of the metal parts and components that were produced during WWII.

105

 

During Korea the small arms base had been reduced from 12 WWII operating 

installations down to Twin Cities and Lake City, which could be augmented by potential 

contractor facilities of Winchester, Remington, and Western Cartridge commercial plants if 

required. In the course of planning for emergency production of small arms ammunition would 

require additional capability and the Ordnance Corps planned to later reactivate the St. Louis 

Ordnance Plant to supplement production. Changes in ammunition day of supply figures for 

small arms increased from 3 to 5 rounds for .30 caliber rifles and from 90 to 100 rounds for .30 

caliber machine guns between August 1950 and November 1952 106

Minor caliber requirements established during mobilization planning never materialized 

and the available facilities were planned for utilization to accomplish other production functions 

such as renovation and demilitarization, assembling gas shells and grenades, and loading tracers 

and fuses. Most of the minor caliber lines had been built and equipped for interchangeable 

loading. Requirements as of July 1951 indicated that the use for which they were intended 

would be limited to the production of 20mm ammunition, as no requirements existed for 40mm 

ammunition and the sole requirement for 27mm ammunition could be fulfilled by extensive 

rehabilitation, including the washout and reload of shells currently in stock.107

The total 20mm ammunition requirement assigned to the Ordnance Ammunition Center 

by the Ordnance Small Arms Ammunition Center was scheduled for the Kingsbury Ordnance 

Plant. Around 10% of the capacity was utilized but requirements forecasted 75% capacity would 

be required. Ogden Arsenal was assigned the responsibility for reloading and assembling 37mm 

rounds and began production in December 1950. There were two primary factors which affected 

the existing surplus capacity in minor caliber ammunition lines. The first was that the lines were 

originally designed for hand labor and relatively simple production. Automatic loading and 

assembly equipment efficiency increased 100% since WWII. The second reason was that small 

caliber requirements anticipated in mobilization planning for which potential production capacity 

 

104 Office of the Comptroller, Ordnance Ammunition Command. “A Review of the Ordnance Ammunition Center 

 Current Mission, Functions and Responsibilities.” 1952.

105

 Ordnance Ammunition Command (OAC) Annual Command History 1951, 9-10. Reeder, 3.

106 Snodgrass, 57-62.

107 OAC Annual Command History, 1951, 50-55.

31 Dec 1951 30 Nov 1952 30 June 1953

OAC Production 

Lines

301 302 302

Lines Operated 94 118 141

Standby Lines 207 184 161

Tons of Ammo 

Produced

50,000 90,000 165,000
36

was retained in standby status did not materialize to any great extent. Due to the limited 

requirement for items originally intended for production, the available facilities were planned for 

utilization to accomplish other production functions like renovation and demilitarization.108

Medium caliber ammunition requirements increased significantly during the Korean 

Conflict. In 1952 approximately 41% of the industry workload was for medium caliber 

ammunition. Major caliber shell loading lines were not utilized extensively because of the 

nature of warfare. The lines were fully utilized for items later classified as critical shortages: 

3.5” and 4.5” rockets, and 57mm, 75mm, and 105mm recoilless ammunition. 

Requirements and capacity plans indicated that there would be a direct correlation 

between WWII requirements and Korean requirements for the load, assemble and packing of 

artillery. Because component requirements such as fuzes, boosters, bursters, primers, percussion 

elements and detonators were greater for medium caliber ammunition, component production 

lines increased proportionally. 

Hoosier Ordnance Plant, part of Indiana Arsenal was the only bag loading facility 

reactivated to meet requirements to load propelling charges. Coosa River and New River 

Ordnance Plants were retained for standby emergency purposes. Chemical loading lines at the 

Ordnance Assembly Plant and Redstone Arsenal remained in standby to match chemical 

ammunition capacity utilized during WWII. OAC also established four additional lines at Pine 

Bluff Arsenal.

109

For propellant and explosives, arrangements were made for the reevaluation of a large 

supply of propellant stored since 1945 to fill requirements. New production of Navy rocket 

propellants were initiated at two plants. A production of a new type of explosive was began at 

Wabash River Ordnance Works. TNT lines at seven active, standby and industrial reserve works 

had a total capacity of 210 million pounds per month on 70 production lines. The Ordnance 

Ammunition Center (OAC) utilized 15 million pounds of this capability with plans to rehabilitate 

and additional 51M pound per month capacity by the time the war had ended. 

The national attention to ammunition shortages during the Korean War caused 

investigation into reported shortages in theater from the House of Armed Services Committee

(HASC) in 1953. Critical ammunition item shortages included the 3.5” rocket ammunition, steel 

case cartridges, illumination rounds and flares, and all sizes of illuminating shells with double 

the candlepower. Over the course of the war the 4.2” mortar, 60mm mortar, 81mm mortar, 

105mm and 155mm artillery, and hand grenades remained in short supply. After study of the 

situation the committee reported there was only a small variance between requirements and the 

ammunition on hand in for each variety. At no time were there critical shortages in theater, and 

the pipelines were never completely empty. During late 1952 and 1953 the 155mm gun and 8-

inch howitzer shells did fall below the day of supply rate but the shortages were kept to the rear 

depots.

Available supply rates were reported as high as 55 rounds per 105mm howitzer in 

1952.110 At the end of 1952, theater stocks of ammunition remained below maximum authorized 

 

108 Ibid, 52-55

109 Ibid, 53-55.
37

theater levels but the overall ammunition position was more serious. Expenditures in Korea had 

exhausted left over WWII stocks. The nature of the phase when reserves were becoming 

exhausted faster than new production could fill, applied more to ammunition than any other class 

of supply. 

Many contend that Ordnance planners could not plan properly for Korea because of the 

assumption that the war was expected to be over quickly. Budget and requirements were set for

the amount of ammunition used plus the replacement of reserve stocks with no advance planning 

for a war lasting over 6 months. Continuous expansion of the ammunition program added to the 

difficulty of stabilizing requirements. Production schedules were subject to constant 

modification with metal parts availability acting as the principal controlling factor. At no time 

were installations incapable of meeting schedules but slippages resulted directly from shortages 

of components. Estimates of productive capability of producers of metal parts, based on 

contracted rates, and the review of stated production potential by Ordnance districts in numerous 

cases failed to properly evaluate the impact of factors, which could impact production.111 

Vietnam

The Vietnam War presented a new dimension to the production and supply of 

ammunition. As explained during WWII the Army had Allies fighting while we had essentially 

a window of time to build up the munitions base. In Korea, we relied on leftover WWII stocks 

to springboard us into the war and reestablish the production base. For Vietnam, reserve stocks 

were inadequate to provide the time necessary to build up to the point where production equaled 

consumption (D-P) stocks and the production base wasn‟t initially responsive to the requirements 

that developed. When war broke out in Vietnam specific requirements existed for the strategic 

deployment of Army combat forces to Europe and Pacific theaters. Although forces deployed 

and the operations they engaged in were small in January 1965, the situation intensified quickly, 

and the production base had to again reestablish capabilities to meet requirements.

In comparison to the Korean Conflict, the ammunition base operated far fewer production 

lines to meet requirements. The following chart compares active production lines during Korea 

in 1954 and Vietnam in 1970.112

Production Lines Operating

Korea SEA

Small Arms 24 10

LAP 138 86

Propellants 35 31

Explosives 151 75

Metal Parts 20 21

Total Lines 368 223

 

110 Committee on Armed Services. Investigation of the Ammunition Shortages in the Armed Services – Interim 

 Report of the Preparedness Subcommittee No.2 of the Committee on Armed Services United States Senate. 

 (1953), 15, 3.

111 Reeder, passim.

112 Hammond, Table 7.
38

In January 1965, the U.S. planned to attain industrial capabilities to fight a conventional war to 

last for 6 months. At the start of Vietnam, 11 GOCO ammunition plants were already activated 

for the production of peacetime requirements for training and integrating newly developed or 

improved items into the stockpile. CONUS stocks had few newer munitions, and were mostly 

surplus items left from the Korean conflict and WWII. Quantatively, inventory appeared to be in 

a favorable position in 1965. Qualitatively, obsolete ammunition filled the depots.113 Stockage 

objectives for Southeast Asia (SEA) forces were predicted to a large extent on availability of 

assets in CONUS storage.

During initial reactivation of the ammunition industrial base, the changing criteria 

stemming from force deployments and stock status studies resulted in recurring revision to initial 

production quantities. The slightest change in requirements further compounded production 

scheduling.114 Private industry consisted of 240 base production units assigned to around 180 

contractors. The active ammunition base consisted of 12 LAP, 9 explosive and propellant, and 5 

metal parts plants. Any single plant may have held diversified missions. 

Army requirements determination and stock objective computation was based on 

authorized ammunition levels for each major command, in days of supply. Day of supply was 

expressed in rounds per weapon required for one day of operation. Items like grenades and 

mines were authorized in quantities per unit per day. Specific numbers of rounds authorized per 

day are contained in Supply Bulletin 38-26. Gross requirements per day were established by 

multiplying the day of supply for each item by the number of weapons in the hands of troops. 

The figure multiplied by the number of days support authorized, plus the quantity authorized for 

training, provided the stockage objective. The figure did not take into account that not all Army 

units mobilized on D-day and not all mobilized units would constantly be in combat. Several 

other factors had to be considered to arrive at net requirements. 

Ammunition requirement determination and levels are discussed in the Besson Board 

report. In FY1965 logistics guidance specified D-P ammunition support for all active duty 

divisions, and only initial allowances for high priority reserve divisions. The Army based their 

inventory objective on six months of NATO oriented divisions and D-P support for the 

remaining divisions. The inventory objected for the NATO oriented force was computed at the 

full European theater rate for the period from D to D + 90 for those units in place and those 

deployed in the first three months of war. Stockage and consumption computation for these 

forces was reduced to 67% of the supply bulletin rates for the period D + 91 to D + 180. 

Computations for divisions in the Pacific were made at Pacific theater rates for the first 75 days 

of war and 67% rate from the 76th to the P day. In conclusion, continual adjustments were made 

in rates and rate determination techniques, with the ultimate adoption of a dual rate system. This 

was designed to provide adequate stocks for periods of intense combat but still preclude situation 

of theater storage facilities when combat was low.115

The projected ammunition consumption in Vietnam was also a problem. The Secretary 

of Defense increased the Army‟s original calculation of projected consumption, based on Pacific 

Theater Supply Bulletin Rates, by 50% in formulating the FY66 supplemental budget. Before 

the start of the conflict, Army assets were critically inadequate. The munitions production base 

 

113 Besson Board, 27-28.

114 Ibid, 70-74.

115 Besson Board, 108, 73-74.
39

(8 active and 16 inactive plants) was producing at a rate of 7% percent of the maximum rate 

required to match the envisioned consumption rate of basic Army forces. At the onset of 

Vietnam, the Army‟s in-house munitions production base consisted of 26 GOCO production 

facilities managed by the U.S. Army Munitions Command (MUCOM), 24 of which produced 

conventional munitions. According to RJ Hammond the industrial base operated near capacity 

throughout the Vietnam Conflict.116 MUCOM annual histories from this time also illustrated 

plant capacity and surge. The following chart shows capacity ready for immediate activation for 

surge requirements, and the percent of standby plants that would require lead time before 

production could be reinstated.117

Load, Assemble and Pack (LAP) and metal parts plants were 100% active and utilized at 

around 96% capacity. Metal parts production required large investment in production equipment 

and substantial production lead time. The explosives capacity was activated at 85% with 89% of 

that capacity used in production. The remaining 15% was Alabama Army Ammunition Plant, 

that had partial TNT lines available that could be reconstructed in the event of an emergency. 

Alabama AAP remained in standby status throughout the conflict although it had been scheduled 

for excess.118 The propellants plants used 70% of the 92% available, active capacity. Volunteer 

and Joliet AAPs were operating a maximum capacity of 1 million lbs or more per day and 

Radford reached its capacity of 330K lbs per day in 1969. The small arms ammunition plant 

capacity consisted of two plants which operated at 100% capacity. The chart indicates there was 

little flexibility for surge requirements in the active plants. 

Production schedules for small arms ammunition reflected the buildup of Korea during 

the Vietnam period. Lake City and Twin Cities made up the entire capability for small arms 

ammunition production. The plants had the added responsibility of making additional items such 

 

116 Hammond, 9.

117 U.S. Army Munitions Command, Annual Historical Summaries 1964-1969. Hammond, Table 10.

118 Hammond, 9.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ammunition Inudstrial Base Capacity

Standby Plants

Surge Capacity 

Available/Active 

Plants

Capacity Utilized
40

as the 7.62 mm NATO round and the 5.56 for M16 systems. Lake City was active for a period 

before Vietnam and mobilized quickly, however, Twin Cities sat idle until its 1966 reactivation 

making it difficult to recruit a skilled workforce. During Vietnam, Lake City production rose 

significantly from 600 million to 2.2 billion rounds per year by the end of the war.119

As depicted, the ammunition industrial base was reaching peak capacity for production 

and concern arose about the problem of insufficient manufacturing capacity and also the 

credibility of the WWII era base infrastructure we were protecting in support of our mobilization 

planning. Leaders questioned if the Army could keep bringing older, heavily used standby 

installations into working production capacity in allotted timeframes. When the Vietnam 

conflict ended and troops were withdrawn, industrial base leaders stressed the need for 

modernization. In the ammunition sector, programs and projects were planned, however many 

of the goals were never realized due to funding restraints. 

With the exception of intensively high dollar value-high consumption controlled items 

and air munitions, the matching of production to requirements was not achieved.120 SEA 

consumption fluctuated and the goal to match production to requirements was not accomplished. 

Items like the MK82 500 pound bomb received “total environmental control” meaning all 

aspects of production, supply to the pipeline and expenditures were controlled. Analysis of 

production of these items shows that in 1966 month by month production of the items matched 

expenditure. This was possible because air munitions usage was constrained. Total control was 

not advocated, but demonstrated that if local commanders on the ground are given flexibility, 

other constraints outside of consumption must be utilized to maintain essential requirements for a 

pipeline to the theater and for maintaining reserve requirements to meet worldwide 

commitments.121

In September of 1966 eight items essential to combat operations were close to reaching 

zero balances. In addition, 21 items would approach zero availability in upcoming months.

122 A 

Ground Munitions Office was created, however it did not achieve the total control that the Air 

Munitions Office had achieved with air munitions. The shortage of ground munitions centered 

on critical items of 5.56mm ball, 60mm HE, 60mm illuminating, 81mm HE, 81mm illuminating, 

105 HE, and 4.2” HE cartridges.123 The impact of the shortages were localized geographically 

but caused greater use of indirect fire missions, primarily air delivered, and ground commanders 

were required to modify concept of tactical operations. Ground and air interdiction was reduced 

and considerable limitations were imposed on the use of night illumination.124

In order to fix the critical items shortages, several solutions were applied. Ordnance 

managers tightened control of transportation and reduced the pipeline in transit time from 120 to 

90 days. Beyond the initial planned 6-month period or manufacturing, production was expedited 

and increased. They also adjusted requirements through establishment of appropriate rates of 

supply to avoid situations of acute surplus or deficiencies in worldwide stock remedied the 

shortages. No major operations were curtailed because of the shortages, but expenditures were 

 

119 Ibid, 24-28.

120 Besson, 99.

121 Ibid, 81-83.

122 Ibid , 55-56.

123 HE = High Explosive

124 Ibid, 81-83
41

subject to special control. Numerous factors affected the shortages to include: marginal 

worldwide stocks, initial readiness of the production base, expenditure rates due to the nature of 

warfare and insufficient allowance for requirements for surges and escalation of conflict.125

Vietnam showed that major fluctuations in combat caused the provisions for a reasonable 

safety level of stocks above estimated consumption quantities is needed to keep continuous 

pressure on the pipeline during periods of unforeseen escalation. R.J Hammond claims that the 

establishment modernization and expansion of a production base in the country must be 

segregated from the use of requirements that drive and justify its retention. He believed the core 

base should be kept independent of requirements to realign focus on modernization and retention 

of the facilities that remained.126 

The pattern of setting production capability based on requirements from WWII through 

Vietnam shows that fluctuations, consumption, Army manpower, warfare, policy, budgets and 

many other factors compound the ability to determine the right size for the ammunition industrial 

base. By Vietnam almost all available capacity and installations were needed to meet modern 

requirements. After Vietnam the Single Manager concept was established to centralize the 

management of all Services conventional ammunition. 

A Single Manager For Conventional Ammunition (SMCA) 127

The Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition (SMCA) was formed in 1977 to 

consolidate management of ammunition across DoD. The DoD assigned the single manager 

duties to the Department of the Army, who delegated the execution of the mission to the Army 

Materiel Command (AMC). AMC further delegated the day to day operations to the Army 

Armament Command (ARMCOM). ARMCOM completed implementation plans, but the 

SMCA mission actually went to ARMCOM‟s successor, Army Armament Materiel Readiness 

Command (ARRCOM) when that command was activated in FY77. While changes in the 

delegation of SMCA responsibilities have occurred over the years, the SMCA primary field 

operating activity has remained at Rock Island as an element of the ammunition management 

mission of the successor commands to ARRCOM: Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical 

Command (AMCCOM, FY 83-94); Army Industrial Operations Command (IOC, FY 95-99); 

Army Operations Support Command (OSC, FY00 to FY02), and Army Field Support 

Command/Joint Munitions Command (Provisional)(AFSC and JMC, FY02 to FY06) to the Joint 

Munitions Command in FY06 in conjunction with the newly formed Joint Munitions & Lethality 

Life Cycle Management Command (JM&L LCMC) in FY07. 

The early intent of the Single Manager concept was to eliminate overlap and duplication 

of production efforts among the Services. In early assignments the Single Manager was given 

total control over a certain set of homogenous Federal Stock Classes with no deviations or 

exceptions. Early thought had been to give R&D to the Single Manager, but the Services 

overruled that idea. At the wholesale level the Single Manager was concerned with net 

 

125 Ibid, 146.

126 Hammond, 138.

127 SMCA section is extracted from a paper George Eaton wrote on the evolution of SMCA. See: George Eaton. 

 Matching Organization to Expectation: A History of the Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition: 1950 to

 2004 (AFSC/JMC History Office, Rock Island: 2005), passim. 
42

requirements, procurement, production, storage, distribution, disposal, transportation, cataloging, 

inspection, maintenance, and standardization. Mobilization planning was not a Single Manager 

mission as the Services were still responsible for computing individual requirements.

To help delineate SMCA responsibilities to DoD Directive 5160.65, Subject: Single 

Manager for Conventional Ammunition, dated April 14, 2004, „conventional ammunition‟ is 

defined as: “A device charged with explosives, propellants, pyrotechnics, or initiating 

composition for use in connection with defense or offense, including demolitions. Certain 

ammunition can be used for training, ceremonial, or non-operational purposes.” The DoD 

Directive goes on to specify that conventional ammunition includes small arms, mortar, 

automatic cannon, artillery and ship gun ammunition; bombs, to include cluster, fuel air 

explosive, general purpose and incendiary; unguided rockets, projectiles and submunitions; 

chemical ammunition with various fillers (incendiary, riot control, smoke, toxic agents, burster 

igniters, peptizers, and thickeners for flame fuel); land mines of any delivery method; demolition 

materiel; grenades; flares and pyrotechnics; all above items in bulk, combination or separately 

packaged items; and related containers and packaging materials. 

DoDD 5160.65 specifically excludes guided projectiles, rockets, missiles and 

submunitions; naval mines, torpedoes and depth charges; nuclear ammunition; cartridge and 

propellant actuated devices; chaff and chaff dispensers; guidance kits; swimmer weapons; 

explosives ordnance disposal (EOD) tools and equipment; and the containers and packaging for 

the above items from assignment to SMCA. Some of these excluded items are conventional 

ammunition.128

The current DoD Instruction 5160.68 states that the SMCA is responsible for managing 

wholesale stocks only, which is defined as: “Conventional ammunition stocks in storage or in 

transit between the point of production and point of receipt at first retail CONUS activity (such 

as tidewater port, post, camp or station).” Retail is defined as: “Conventional ammunition stocks 

in storage or in transit between the point of receipt at first retail (consumer level) CONUS 

activity and point of consumption.”129

After WWII the Navy and the Army took different steps as they dismantled the base. 

While the Army retained a substantial number of GOCOs, the Navy tended to retain Government 

Owned-Government Operated (GOGO) plants. Both Services had contractual agreements with 

commercial entities to convert to ammunition production if required. In another difference, 

while the Army tended to leave equipment in the plants and with contractors, the Navy stored 

excess equipment at a central location.130 

The two Services also had different methods of segmenting the forms of production. The 

Navy tended to have multiple functions at each plant. For example RD&E, production, 

inspection, storage, and rework were all accomplished at Navy installations. The Army, on the 

other hand, tended to have production plants and storage depots, which executed different 

 

128 DoDD 5160.65, Subject: Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition (SMCA), dated April 14, 2004, 

 Enclosure 1, Definitions, 6-7. This definition is essentially unchanged since 1974.

129 DODI 5160.68, Subject: Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition (SMCA): Responsibilities of the SMCA 

 and the Military Services, dated March 3, 1995, Enclosure 1, Definitions, 4.

130

 Buford Rowland and William Boyd, U.S. Navy Bureau of Ordnance in World War II (Bureau of Ordnance, 

 Department of the Navy, U.S. GPO, 1953), 505-09.
43

functions. Within the production base, the Army maintained ownership of propellant and 

explosives production while contracting with commercial sources for metal parts and fuzes. The 

Army then brought all components to Load, Assemble, and Pack GOCO plants for final 

assembly.131 

Because of shortages and the need to utilize the best aspects of the active industrial base 

and plants that were coming on line, the Army and Navy cooperated in the management of 

conventional ammunition items. This cooperation worked smoothly since the Army Chief of 

Ordnance and Navy Ordnance Bureau had cooperated in World War II. In the 1930s, primarily 

via the Army-Navy Munitions Board‟s procurement planning, the Services had verbally agreed 

which Service would procure items in an emergency. By 1941 most of these agreements were in 

writing. For example, Frankford Arsenal made 5-inch projectiles, and Navy funding kept the 

Arsenal in existence. The Navy considered interservice munitions cooperation as close as 

working within the Department. The relationship was especially close in the aviation arena. 

While the Army Air Corps (AAC) went its own way and invested significant funds in developing 

air-launched torpedoes which the Navy already produced (and which the AAC never used), in 

most other areas the Services worked together to standardize armaments.132 Coordination among 

Services became increasingly more formal. Initially loose management concepts between the 

Army and Navy buys became tighter as DoD imposed control. 

With the publication of DoDD 5160.65 the SMCA became institutionalized. On 14 

August 1981, prior to publication of DoDD 5160.65, the Secretary of the Army had issued a 

SMCA Charter that delegated SMCA responsibilities to the Commanding General, Department 

of Army Materiel Development & Readiness Command-DARCOM (today DARCOM is the 

Army Material Command). While many issues drove the issuance of a Charter, the most 

pressing was continued Congressional questions on who was the one person responsible for the 

SMCA. The question of a single decision maker vice the committee approach of the Joint 

Conventional Ammunition Program (JCAP)/CG had been the major determinant in deciding to 

create the SMCA in 1975. In response to other pressures, the SMCA Charter directed 

DARCOM to establish a jointly staffed Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition 

(EDCA) with offices in the Washington DC area. The CG, DARCOM appointed the Deputy 

Commanding General for Readiness as the EDCA.133 

In addition, to implementing the EDCA, CG, DARCOM issued a mission order that 

assigned execution of the SMCA mission of the Secretary of the Army to CG, ARRCOM.134 

The Secretary of the Army decided to place the execution of the SMCA missions at ARRCOM 

level was made by the Secretary of the Army because it caused the least turbulence and least cost 

in manpower.135 While ARRCOM was low in the Army hierarchy, the Secretary of the Army 

must have assumed that creation of the EDCA would eliminate Government Accounting Office 

(GAO) concerns about organizational placement. The GAO recommended the SMCA report 

 

131 Logistics Management Institute, Condition and Operation of DoD Ammunition Production Facilities, Phase II, 

 Volume I, July, 1970, 9-10. This Army arrangement is also described in other documents.

132 For the discussion on Army-Navy Cooperation in WWII see Rowland & Boyd, 496-504.

133 Statement from BG Burbules, Deputy Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition, U.S. Army Materiel 

 Development and Readiness Command, during Defense Department Authorization and Oversight Hearings on 

 Department of Defense Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1984.

134 DARCOM Regulation 10-71

135 Statement from General Wagner during hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations 

 House of Representatives in the First Session of the Ninety-Sixth Congress.
44

directly to the Secretary of the Army, so the members of Congress were looking for a SMCA at a 

high level. BG Burbules, the Deputy EDCA in 1981, explained that CG, ARRCOM “(who was 

responsible for day to day operations of the SMCA) reports to the EDCA (who was responsible 

for oversight of the SMCA) who reports to CG, DARCOM who reports to the Secretary of the 

Army; however, the EDCA did have direct access to the Secretary of the Army if he chose to do 

so.”136

Funding was possibly the most significant shortcoming of the SMCA organization as 

implemented in Phase II and executed in the following years. Implementation plans had called 

for SMCA funding to be allocated at the DoD level before budgets were broken out to the 

Services. In addition, DoDI5160.65 directed DoD to “provide for separate identification in the 

Army budget for the SMCA production base and operations and maintenance requirements.”137

 Another problem was the slow development of an ammunition automation system to 

assist the SMCA in tracking the DoD wholesale stockpile. SMCA began developing an 

automation system almost immediately after implementation of the single manager concept in 

1977. The SMCA realized they needed faster and more pervasive systems if they were to 

execute the function of receipt, storage, and issue as well as making recommendations for crossleveling of excess Service stocks. The Army had expected an ammunition automation system 

would at least give some visibility of wholesale and retail stocks. Visibility of the retail side was 

seen as critical to managing procurement. If SMCA could only see wholesale, they would not be 

able to take retail into consideration while planning buys.

 The Defense Standard Ammunition Computer System was slowly brought on line, but 

later planners attempted to incorporate the functions into the Standard Depot Supply System. 

This did not work well, and in the early 1990‟s DoD directed the Joint Ordnance Commander‟s 

Group (JOCG) to develop the Ammunition Management Standard System centered on the Navy 

Conventional Ammunition Integrated Management System.138 While technology did advance 

over the years, the failure to completely develop and field a joint ammunition automation system 

hindered effective SMCA management of the stockpile.139

Despite the requirement DoD never properly funded SMCA operations. Each year from 

1980 through 1994 concerns arose that the SMCA had to compete for funds within the Army 

Table of Allowances (TOA) rather than at DoD level between the Services. While the Services 

remained funded for procurement and major maintenance, the Army was the funding stream for 

the overhead of SMCA management; storage, surveillance and inventory; development of the 

automation systems; minor maintenance; and salaries. After 1990 and the end of the Cold War, 

budgets decreased rapidly while the ammunition stockpile grew. The wholesale stockpile 

managed by SMCA actually grew due to the return of retail stocks to wholesale inventory and 

the retrograde of wholesale stocks from Europe and, later, Desert Storm. When the overcrowding 

 

136 Statement from BG Burbules, Deputy Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition, U.S. Army Materiel 

 Development and Readiness Command, during a hearing before a Subcommittee of the Committee on 

 Appropriations House of Representatives, 1982.

137 DoDD 5160.65, 17 November 1981, 2.

138 AMCCOM FY1994 Annual History, 36.

139 Anecdotally, Mr. John Masengarb, indicated that the final problem with DSACS was that in the early 1990s the 

 project and item managers at AMCCOM refused to cooperate with each other and standardize their management 

 systems. Without common data, the DSACS was unusable and JCAP finally decided to model on the Navy 

 ammunition management system.
45

of the Army depot system became acute the Services became concerned about reducing the 

stockpile, because it became more difficult to have their preferred stock issued rapidly.140 The 

bottom line was that as Army budgets decreased, the ammunition portion of the budget also grew 

smaller and the SMCA was unable to maintain the budget levels to adequately maintain the 

stockpile. 

On several occasions, Congress became involved in trying to correct the funding issues. 

At one point they issued a report on the growing demilitarization requirements and directed 

minimum annual expenditures to reduce the stockpile. In another instance, Congress directed 

GAO investigations on the management of excess stocks. One GAO conclusion was that the 

Services had no interest in directing or funding the disposal of excess as they were not paying the 

costs of storage. It was, perhaps, the lack of funds that led to reductions in force in the 

ammunition community in the late 1980s and early 1990s. These reductions led to slower 

processing times that were noted by Service leaders, but never fixed.

141

Despite problems and concerns, the SMCA experienced increased effectiveness and 

efficiency in many areas. Management of all wholesale stocks by one entity improved 

effectiveness and saved money. The ability to see stocks and suggest that excess be transferred 

to another Service instead of buying new rounds saved hundreds of millions of dollars. The

centralization of buys under Conventional Ammunition Working Capital Fund (CAWCF) 

reduced competition between the Services and created magnitudes of scale efficiencies. The 

Integrated Conventional Ammunition Procurement Plan (ICAPP), created in 1981, fostered 

cooperation between the Services while forging more effective use of the government and 

commercial production base. The Integrated Conventional Ammunition Maintenance Plan

(ICAMP), created in 1983, provided line-by-line analysis of maintenance requirements across 

the Services and allowed for better forecasting and smoothing of maintenance requirements at 

the depots. The main intent of creating the SMCA, increased effectiveness and efficiency in the 

management of conventional ammunition was accomplished.

142

Throughout the 1980s, the government owned base was revitalized and modernized, but 

this was due more to a general influx of funding during the Reagan Administration buildups than 

a DoD or DA level systemic attempt to improve management of the base. The general increase 

in funding and activity masked the problems of managing the base, stockpile balance, unsteady 

requirements, and fluctuating production schedules. As soon as the Cold War ended, budgets 

began to drop and the same issues returned to the forefront.

In the mid 1990s, the GAO published several new reports on DoD‟s management of 

ammunition. Reports on small arms ammunition management (1995), artillery shell production 

(1996), and the ability of the industrial base to meet requirements (1996) were generally 

favorable. However, each report mentions GAO concerns on management of excess inventory in 

the wake of post-Cold War drawdowns. In June 1996, after a two year investigation, the GAO 

published a report on DoD‟s management of excess ammunition. GAO report GAO/NSIAD-96-

129, “Defense Ammunition: Significant Problems Left Unattended Will Get Worse” was critical 

 

140 EDCA and AMCCOM Annual Reports, 1981-1994.

141 Ibid. See also GAO Report GAO/NSIAD-96-129, “Defense Ammunition: Significant Problems Left Unattended

 Will get Worse,” June, 1996.

142 The annual reports of SMCA activities, prepared by the EDCA, contain figures on cost avoidance. See the 

 annual reports for specific numbers on cost avoidance and savings.
46

of DoD‟s management of excess stocks and re-introduced GAO‟s continuing concerns about the 

roles and responsibilities of the SMCA. 

The new GAO report noted that each service had significant excess in over 50% of their 

ammunition items. They also concluded that the Services had no incentive to report items as 

excess. If the Services allowed SMCA to transfer stock from one Service to another, the losing 

Service received compensation. However, if stocks were declared excess, SMCA could direct 

transfer at no cost. In addition, because funding issues had never been resolved, the SMCA 

carried the entire cost burden of storing wholesale inventory. In effect, the Services had no 

incentive to declare items as excess because no one penalized them for holding unneeded stocks. 

Finally, the SMCA still did not have visibility of retail stocks. The services were required to 

report retail and wholesale assets against requirements but none of the Services, including the 

Army, were doing so.143 

In addition to problems with reporting and visibility, budget cuts further reduced 

SMCA‟s ability to manage the growing stockpile. Return of stocks from Desert Storm and the 

post-Cold War Europe drawdown had flooded the depot system that had been reduced in size. 

Returned stocks had been fragmented in retail operations and required more record keeping and 

storage space. Funding cuts significantly reduced resources for inventory and surveillance. 

These concerns naturally resulted from reduced requirements and post-Operation Desert Storm

adjustments. But the GAO also noted the Service conflict had muddied the clarity of condition 

status and readiness reporting. As funds for inventory and surveillance dropped off, more and 

more items exceeded their required inspection dates. SMCA and Army established procedures 

had changed the condition code to a non-issueable status, and added a defect code that noted that 

the items were out of inspection cycle. In 1990, the Services objected to the condition code 

being changed to a non-issueable condition. The SMCA responded by agreeing to not change 

the condition code, but left in the defect code. However, most management reports seen by the 

Services and DoD failed to list deficit codes. It appeared to higher level staff that much of the 

ammunition was ready for immediate use.

144

The GAO recommended that that DoD develop incentives to encourage the Services to 

categorize and report ammunition as excess to requirements, update the list annually, and 

transfer control of excess to SMCA. GAO also suggested imposing fees on the Services for 

storage of excess stocks, forcing the use of excess in training, and requiring the Services to 

include excess disposal costs in their annual budgets. Finally, and consistent with every report 

the GAO produced on management of conventional ammunition, they recommended ownership 

transfer of wholesale stocks to the SMCA and full visibility of retail assets.145

The PEO Ammunition was first established in July 1987. After 13 months of operation 

the PEO was disestablished for several reasons. The primary reason was that all the Army‟s 

PEOs were for systems while ammunition was a commodity, and no one could define it as a 

system. In October 2001, the Army opted to reestablish PEO Ammunition along the lines of the 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) recommendation, but altered from the super 

PEO/MSC concept developed by the ammunition working team. PEO Ammunition was created 

 

143 GAO Report GAO/NSIAD-96-129, “Defense Ammunition: Significant Problems Left Unattended Will get 

 Worse,” June, 1996, passim.

144 GAO Report GAO/NSIAD-96-129, 47-48.

145 Ibid., 67-68.
47

as an organization separate from PEO Ground Combat Support Systems (GCSS) and all 

ammunition PMs moved under PEO Ammunition. In order to address Joint issues, the structure 

included a PM for Joint Services to integrate requirements from the Services and coordinate with 

the SMCA. Soon after creating PEO Ammunition, DoD directed a study to reassess the 

effectiveness of the SMCA and the Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition (EDCA). 

While ammunition acquisition had been consolidated, the relationship of PEO Ammunition with 

the rest of DoD remained unclear, especially in light of August 2000 disagreements over 

transitioning.

In November 2001, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics) directed the Joint Ordnance Commanders Group (JOCG) to conduct 

a special study of the SMCA to update policy and documents. In early 2002, a SMCA Study 

Group began the process that included a rewrite of DoDD 5160.65 and DoDI 5160.68. It took 

until January 2004 for both rewrites to be published. Meanwhile, the Army remained focused on 

life cycle management, the mission of U.S. Army Operations Support Command (OSC) as the 

primary field operating agency, and the question of whether PEO Ammunition was actually a 

total consolidation of Army ammunition management.146 The latter question was easily 

answered: no. Other Army PMs with munitions interest remained separate from PEO 

Ammunition. These included PMs Soldier, Smart Munitions, Air Missile Defense, and others. 

The question on the role of OSC revealed misunderstandings of the SMCA system. Many, 

inside and outside OSC, seemed to believe OSC was the SMCA, not just the field operating 

agent. Finally, AMC continued to argue for reintegration of the PM system into AMC for better 

coordination of acquisition and sustainment.

Many different ideas and concepts were proposed. OSC argued for retention of the 

SMCA where it was (AMC and EDCA) and creation of an Ammunition Command to ensure 

consolidation. Others argued that SMCA should move to ASA(ALT) and the PEO Ammunition. 

In many of these concepts, the EDCA was disestablished and used to man PM Joint Services. 

Finally, in October 2002, the CG AMC and the ASA(ALT) received a briefing on solutions for 

Army ammunition management. On 1 November 2002 the ASA(ALT) sent a memo stating his 

intent to recommend to the Secretary of the Army that the delegation for the SMCA be shifted 

from the CG AMC to the ASA(ALT) and then redelegated to PEO Ammunition. In January 

2003 the Secretary of the Army delegated SMCA responsibility to the ASA(ALT). In April 

2003 the ASA(ALT) further delegated that responsibility to PEO Ammunition.

147

Charter and DoD Regulation Changes

The decision to shift the SMCA to PEO Ammunition was not the end of the story of 

SMCA transition in the new century. In December 2002, PEO Ammunition requested 

establishment of a team to update the SMCA Charter. This request came at the same time the 

JOCG SMCA Study Group was conducting its study. However, the Charter rewrite had to wait 

for the completion of the DoDD and DoDI. The JOCG members influenced the SMCA Study 

Group who remained strongly interested in ammunition sustainment and the issue of transition. 

At the same time, AMC continued to push for reintegration of acquisition and sustainment. 

AMC presented its ideas in the form of Life Cycle Management Commands (LCMC) that placed

 

146 Operations Support Command was the successor to the IOC. 

147 The discussion on contending options is derived from a wide variety of notes, emails, and briefings on file at the

 JMC History Office as are the 28 Jan 2003 and 16 April 2003 delegation memos.
48

PMs and sustainers under one commander but kept a reporting chain from the PMs to the Army 

Acquisition Executive. This was expected to resolve transition and sustainment plans and 

funding under one decision maker.

The new DoDD 5160.65 was issued in April 2004 and, like its 1995 predecessor, states 

the general delegations of authority and responsibility for ammunition single management within 

DoD. It is interesting to note that the Army‟s Industrial Base Policy 98-1 language is 

paraphrased when noting the responsibility to stabilize the production base while transferring the 

government owned base to commercial entities, if feasible while preserving explosives safety. 

The DoDD also requires the Army to retain the joint EDCA with an Army flag officer or civilian 

equivalent in command, senior in rank to the SMCA Executor.148 

In August 2004, DoD approved a new SMCA Charter reflecting the many changes in the 

ammunition structure. The major change in responsibilities, other than ASA(ALT) and PEO 

Ammunition designations as SMCA, was in the role of the EDCA. The new Charter seems to 

increase EDCA responsibility by giving it the new mission of “oversight and assessment of the 

SMCA Executor in the execution of the mission responsibilities.” As before, the EDCA assists 

in resolving joint issues that can not be resolved by the SMCA, acts as a Service advocate, 

participates in the JOCG, etc; however, PM Joint Services is specifically designated the initial 

focal point to resolve Service differences. The Charter also re-established the requirement for an 

annual report that had been dropped in 1995. In order to maintain linkage to the Army‟s logistics 

command, the AMC Deputy Commanding General was again appointed as the EDCA. The US 

Army Joint Munitions Command (JMC), the successor to the Operations Support Command, was 

designated the primary field operating agency responsible for ammunition logistics, sustainment, 

and readiness. The SMCA was required to work through the JMC to execute the SMCA‟s 

sustainment mission.149

The publication of the DoDD 5160.65, DoDI 5160.68, and the SMCA Charter firmly 

reaffirmed DoD‟s intent to manage conventional ammunition via the SMCA system. 

Strengthening the commitment to transition and joint cooperation reassured the Services that the 

SMCA would meet their ammunition requirements. The new role of the EDCA, who is still an 

AMC general officer, assured AMC that sustainment would be considered as fully as acquisition 

interests. The appointment of the JMC as the logistics provider to SMCA ensured continuity 

with the established logistics infrastructure. PEO Ammunition‟s responsibilities for the health of 

the industrial base paved the way for coordinated acquisition strategy ensuring an efficient base 

system and most efficient integration of commercial and government sectors of the base. While 

not mentioned in the DoD publications or the Charter, the establishment of the Joint Munitions &

Lethality Life Cycle Management Command (JM&L LCMC) in November 2006 further 

solidified the cooperation of R&D and logistics to create a corporate Army organization 

interested in both the best cost for procuring ammunition and the best interests of the 

ammunition industrial base. The newest rendition of the structure is established. 

 

148 DoDD 5160.65, Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition, 14 April 2004, 3, 4.

149 Charter, Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition, dated 16 August 2004, passim.
49

Studying the Industrial Base through the 1990s

Numerous studies were conducted throughout the 1990s in attempts to justify increased 

ammunition funding and understanding of the shrinking base. During this time period the 

industrial base experienced reductions in size. The Soviet threat had diminished and the Army 

began transforming to meet new demands for shorter regional contingencies. The strategic 

concept began shifting towards providing power projection in a more unpredictable world. 

Deterrence, crisis response, forward presence and reconstitution became strategic forerunners. 

At the same the Army was working under stricter funding constraints with a smaller force. 

GAO continued its interest in the ammunition base and in the mid-90s they completed 

two reports. The first assessed the effectiveness of the Single Manager for Conventional 

Ammunition. The second assessed DoDs ability to meet peacetime ammunition requirements 

and replenish the ammunition stockpile following two major regional conflicts.150 Both reports 

expressed concern with management of the ammunition base. The GAO noted the decrease in 

requirements and subsequent decrease in base capabilities. While noting some shortages, GAO 

determined that the stockpile and production could meet peacetime requirements and 

replenishment based on current requirements. However, GAO also indicated that if response 

times were shortened or requirements increased, the base would not be able to replenish and 

meet peacetime requirements. GAO reported that independent studies had concluded the base 

was inadequate to meet requirements after two Major Regional Contingencies (MRCs).

151

In a second report, the GAO questioned DoD‟s ability to adequately assess their 

capability to support a war effort and replenish the stocks. They noted the lack of a modern and 

updated ammunition information management system. The failure to update and share data 

created several management inefficiencies. Ammunition was shown as available and serviceable 

despite overdue inspection and maintenance checks. The inability (or reluctance) to share data 

between the Services resulted in some services consigning ammunition to demilitarization while 

other Services were short the same items.152

Between 1989 and 1998, the war reserve requirements dropped from 2,500 K short tons 

to 540K short tons to support two Major Theater Wars (MTWs) for a total of a 79% reduction. 

Training requirements dropped 43% from 135K short tons to 77K short tons. The use of excess 

war reserve stocks was nearing an end, and the Army needed to pay the full training bill. It is 

important to clarify that the war reserves were in short supply at this time, as they had been after 

previous wars. At this time, although the base was seeing major decreases in requirements, costs 

were rising. Modernization was a major cost driver in the munitions budget. The bottom line 

was the munitions bill was rising faster than savings from decreases in requirements.153

Other recent studies, including the RAND study, studies completed by National Defense 

University (NDU) in 1996 and 1998, a 1998 GAO report, and a study by the National Academy 

 

150 GAO, “Ammunition Industrial base: Information on DoD‟s Assessment of Requirements,” GAO/NSIAD-96-133, 

 May 1996 and GAO, “Defense Ammunition: Significant Problems if Left Unattended Will Get Worse,” 

 GAO/NSIAD-96-129, June 1996. Both reports were made pursuant to specific requests from Congress.

151 GAO/NSIAD-96-133, Executive Summary, 1-4. The GAO was probably referring to a Committee for the 

 Common Defense study and a Heritage Foundation study completed in 1994-95. 

152 GAO/NSIAD-96-129, Executive Summary,. 2-8.

153 “Assessment of the Army‟s Munitions Strategy.” Briefing – DA level. 1998. 
50

of Sciences came to similar conclusions on the state of the munitions base. The base was 

obsolete, lacked efficiency, and was rapidly shrinking. Each report had different conclusions on 

how to fix the problems, but their descriptions are similar and low funding levels are a primary

focus. A review of these reports is included in the proceeding paragraphs.

The National Defense University (NDU) studies the ammunition base on an annual basis. 

Their 1996 Munitions Industry Study Report assessed the state of the U. S. munitions industry

and future challenges. This study looked at both precision guided munitions (PGMs) and old 

technology production of bombs, explosives, and propellants. The report documented the 

current state of the industry noting that the munitions industrial base continues to shrink as 

production requirements are reduced. Munitions producers would continue to use consolidation, 

cooperative arrangements, and global partnerships as an industrial survival strategy. They also 

found that the stockpile did not contain the amount of preferred munitions required for two major 

regional contingencies (MRCs). They suggested the base could not produce the number of 

preferred munitions required. NDU suggested that if the U.S. ammunition base continued to 

shrink, the U.S. might eventually be unable to replenish stock and would be forced to rely on 

foreign sources for replenishment, an option that several have objected to citing national security 

as a relevant concern. While remaining the technological world leader, they concluded that low 

levels of procurement and increased foreign competition had diminished the nation‟s ability to 

rapidly produce high-tech weapons. The study group recommended that the munitions program 

receive multi-year funding to provide stability; service PGM requirements be fully funded; and 

the government and commercial industries increase collaborative partnerships. Despite their 

concerns, the report concluded by declaring, “In the final analysis, the munitions industry is 

troubled but not desperate. There is reason for concern, but no major government intervention is 

currently required.”154

In 1998 NDU studied the Munitions Industrial Base (MIB). Focusing on the MIB

conventional munitions, precision guided munitions (PGMs), weapons of mass destruction 

(WMD), and munitions of the future were examined. Each presented unique industrial 

challenges to the ability to supply the munitions needed to support the National Military 

Strategy. The issue for conventional munitions was the U.S. ability to replenish our stockpile in 

time for a second conflict. The study group believed that the conventional MIB is able to provide 

adequately for the Nation's needs although specific areas require attention. For PGMs, NDU 

suggested the government monitor the consolidation of the industry to ensure continued 

American technological superiority and fair competition. For the nuclear component of Weapons 

of Mass Destruction (WMD), the NDU stressed concerns on whether the Department of Energy 

would be able to assure the reliability of the warhead stockpile. The study indicated munitions in 

developmental stages must be pursued to provide Warfighters the best munitions possible. And 

finally, foreign sales of U.S. munitions and potential offshore purchases of munitions or 

components must be a key aspect of industrial policy. 

In June 1997, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) published a report 

recommending complete commercialization of the ammunition base.155 The AMC, Deputy 

Chief of Staff for Ammunition commissioned this study as an independent review of the 

ammunition base. PNNL recommended creating a Program Executive Office (PEO) for 

 

154 NDU, 1996 abstract.

155 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) “Recommended Strategy for Configuring and Managing the U.S. 

 Munitions Industrial Base,” June 1997, 1.
51

Ammunition and to use multi-year money for contracting annual production and replenishment. 

They noted the boom-bust cycle of ammunition procurement made the marketplace too unstable 

for ammunition producers. PNNL found ammunition companies/producers were either 

consolidating or leaving to find new markets with higher profit margins. Without profits 

commercial producers were foregoing capital investment in modernization, maintenance, and 

R&D. The government had also failed to invest in the base. The ammunition budget was held in 

low regard and was usually the bill-payer for other programs. PNNL also noted that the Army 

had more sole source producers and less competition than at any time since before WWII. 

Despite the poor state of the ammunition base, PNNL believed the Army was capable of 

producing peacetime and replenishment requirements. However, this was only because 

requirements were so low, the replenishment time-line was long, and the government base had so 

much excess capacity. They noted that the industrial base was in near-crisis state and changes to 

any of a number of variables could render the base incapable of meeting production 

requirements.156

From 1999-2002, the RAND Corporation conducted an extensive review of the 

ammunition and industrial base. The main focus was on how to best privatize the munitions base 

(this included ammunition production as well as the manufacturing arsenals). RAND noted that 

statutory and regulatory policy required the privatization of government owned industry unless 

the activity is inherently governmental, the private sector will not invest, national security 

requires government control of employees, or the government can produce the same items at 

lower cost. Based on their subsequent analysis, RAND concluded that none of the preceding 

considerations were valid when it came to ammunition production.157 RAND criticized the Army 

historical imperative to own the ammunition base and the Army‟s “attachment” to legacy 

munitions. At the same time, they noted that DoD buying strategy and the failure to modernize 

were key elements in driving up the cost of munitions.

158

RAND provided five different options for dealing with the ammunition plants. They 

rejected the status quo for a variety of reasons and then analyzed privatization; creation of a 

Federal Government Corporation; consolidation of equipment and mission onto fewer plants; 

and recapitalization--the movement of the entire organic base onto one multifunctional 

installation.159 Their analysis supported privatization as the best option (although they refrain 

from making a recommendation). RAND cautioned that privatization could reduce capacity and 

capability.160 The results presented by RAND were considered but not accepted by the 

ammunition community and this has not been the accepted solution to sizing the ammunition

industrial base.

In 2002 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published “Munitions Manufacturing: 

A Call for Modernization.” Formerly a subordinate to the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and 

Armaments Command‟s (TACOM), Armaments Research, Development, and Engineering 

Center (ARDEC) at Picatinny, New Jersey commissioned this study. The purpose of the study 

 

156 PNNL, see Summary,. 1-46.

157 RAND Corporation, Briefing “PBD 407 Study and the Industrial Base Program Review,” 18 Dec 2001, passim.

158 Ibid, Slide 6.

159 RAND Corporation, “Freedom‟s Arsenal: A Strategy for Managing the Army‟s Arsenals and Ammunition Plants 

 (Draft),” March 2002, xix-xxii.

160 RAND, “PBD 407 Study,” slide 7.
52

was to “evaluate the progress of the Totally Integrated Munitions Enterprise (TIME) and make 

recommendations for future direction.”161

Independent and outside studies were not alone in assessing the base, nor were they the 

first. The Army‟s ammunition management community came to similar findings. All the reports 

and studies cited were published in the1990s. However, before that, in the late 1980s and early 

1990s, managers of the ammunition base realized that the end of the Cold War would 

significantly reduce ammunition requirements and that annual Operations and Maintenance, 

Army (OMA) funding also would decrease. They realized they would have to intensely manage 

the base to ensure that as funding and requirements shrank, they retained a responsive base able 

to meet the demands of another large-scale war. 

In February 2002, the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) published 

Landpower Essay No. 02-1, “Ammunition Readiness: Current Problems and Future Implications 

for Army Transformation.” In this paper, author Steven Mullen notes that the Army has been 

chronically short of ammunition funding for many years. Even when funded at less than the 

required level, ammunition accounts were raided during the year or served as a bill-payer for 

other areas. As a result the study concluded that the Army was short of state-of-the-art 

munitions; training ammunition was under funded in the out years; funding was inadequate for 

maintenance and modernization efforts; precision munitions were not being procured in 

sufficient quantities; and most importantly, the ammunition production base was suffering with 

no surge capacity.162

In a briefing titled “Ammunition Support Issues and Challenges,” MG Wade H. 

McManus, Jr., Commander of U.S. Army Operations Support Command, reported problems with 

the ammunition industrial base in 2002. Stockpile assessments showed critical shortages and a 

deteriorating stockpile. The stockpile inventory showed 24% of the stockpile as unserviceable 

and a 25% shortfall of go-to-war munitions. Asset distribution did not support peacetime or

Warfighter needs and the demilitarization stockpile totaled 467K tons and was growing. The 

ability to fill requirements with modern or preferred munitions was limited. The production base 

capacity was reported to have decreased by 68% over the last 10 years. Single sources for 71 of 

302 critical components made a surge capability virtually non-existent. There were no 

U.S./Canada sources for certain critical components. In addition to these issues, affordability 

shaped policy and limited modernization and almost no RDT&E was being conducted for legacy 

systems munitions. 

The organic ammunition industrial base in 2001-2002 maintained 26 critical processes 

for which either no commercial capability existed or was sufficient. The POM bought only 76 of 

171 critical items. Peacetime training buys could not sustain the base. Inconsistent procurement 

and quantity fluctuations resulted in production breaks, lost critical skills, and increased start up 

 

161National Academy of Sciences, “Munitions Manufacturing: A Call for Modernization,” National Academy Press, 

 Washington, DC, viii. The report is interesting in its call for internet and remote control of production lines as 

 well as the use of modern internet technology to transmit tech data packages, requirements, and quality test results 

 automatically from the plants to a higher headquarters. However, it is apparent that the board did not fully 

 understand the munitions base at the factory level. They never visited any plants and do not cite having received 

 any briefings from the plant operators. All information appears to have come from ARDEC and engineering 

 channels, although they may have received briefings from some civilian defense contractors.

162 Steven Mullen. “Ammunition Readiness: Current Problems and Future Implications for Army Transformation.” 

 AUSA Land Warfare Publication No 02-1, February 2002, p. 1.
53

costs. There was minimal incentive for capital investment in new technology and the base was

underutilized at 26%. After September 11th, 2001, it was expected that homeland defense, 

Continental Operations (CONOPS), and training surge would place greater demands on the 

base.163

Some of the issues faced were problems with critical end items or components. In 2001,

there was only one ammunition links manufacturer for small and med caliber items. There was 

no source for the M67 grenade body. It was projected that TNT facilities would take $28 million 

and 18 months to reactivate. Several critical commodities were without domestic sources. 

Examples include nitroguanidine - essential to the Modular Artillery Charge System (MACS); 

lead azide used in 85% of munitions; baled cotton linters used in Hydra, 120mm tank rounds, 

and MACS; red and white phosphorous in smoke munitions; and M234 self destruct fuzes used 

in artillery, navy gun ammunition and missile programs. As it stood, the base could only affect 

10% of go to war shortfalls. The base had marginal capability for preferred and precision 

munitions but pushes to divest the organic base further increased its fragility. 

The reasons why the base was in this particular state have been discussed. Inadequate 

funding, fluctuations in buys, and lack of long term commitment had not sustained the base or 

fostered investment. Affordability versus Warfighter needs drove policies. Focus on price 

versus price combined with readiness had decreased capabilities. While these various studies 

come to some different conclusions and recommendations, they are consistent in mentioning 

several key and continuing factors that have negatively impacted the ammunition base since the 

end of the Cold War and throughout its history. All mention the steep reduction in requirements 

and even steeper drops in annual funding. They mention the relatively low priority of 

ammunition in the DoD budget and the repeated use of ammunition dollars as a bill payer for 

other priorities. The reports discuss the loss of commercial firms in the munitions business, the 

rising number of sole source suppliers, and the loss of a skilled workforce. 

Operation Desert Storm

At the onset of Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield (ODS) in 1991, only ten 

ammunition items were considered in short supply. All other ammunition items were at 100 

percent of the requirement, on hand or in transit to Southwest Asia (SWA). A strong inventory 

acquired and maintained over a significant period of years, made ammunition a success story in 

ODS. No inactive production facilities were brought into operation during the relatively brief

conflict. Of the fourteen active ammunition plants thirteen participated in the supplying of 

munitions during ODS. 

In total AMCCOM was responsible for around 181 varieties of conventional ammunition 

needed in SWA.164 Planning for maximum rate production during ODS revealed the U.S.

production base for mortar fuzes restricted production capability for most mortar ammunition

rounds. Prior to initiation of the war in February 1991, a complete sustainability analysis had 

been conducted laying out the problems facing AMCCOM in terms of sufficiently supplying the 

forces. According to the study, 106 of 152 items could sustain the fight for at least a year after 

commencement of actual hostilities and would be supplemented by further production. 

 

163 MG Wade H. McManus, Jr. “Ammunition Support: Issues and Challenges” (OSC Briefing: ca 2002), Slide 12.

164 AMCCOM is predecessor command of the Joint Munitions Command (JMC).
54

AMCCOM found another seven items would reach full rate sustainability within one to three 

months and an additional 12 items could reach the sustainment level in four to six months. 

Forty-three items would not be fully sustainable for a whole year. In several instances, items 

falling into the one year category represented ammunition which had been previously dropped 

from production due to budget cuts.165

AMCCOM created an ammunition base priority listing for recommended strategic 

facility actions in order to bring more items into full rate sustainability. The highest priority was 

for increasing domestic base capability of 25mm tungsten penetrators by purchasing special 

tooling and equipment. Commercial producer, Aerojet was reactivated for the production of 

30mm-GAU-8 ammunition and Line 8 at Holston AAP reactivated production of Mine Clearing 

Line Charges (MICLIC) components. Production of TNT was accelerated at Radford Army 

Ammunition Plant (RFAAP) as well. 

Other ammunition production plants accelerated schedules to meet sustainable rates but

this method of meeting the requirements had drawbacks. If an AAP‟s schedule was compressed 

so that the production of a twelve month supply was met in a matter of six months, the plant was 

entirely ahead of production at the end of six months and then needed another six months to a 

year to handle the long lead time needed to start production again. Only one additional 

production line had to be opened for the sustainment of ODS which was mentioned above - the 

25mm line. 

Many of the problems associated with ammunition during Operation Desert Storm were 

logistical in nature due to the large quantities of ammunition shipped to support ODS. Large 

movements in transit turned out to be of limited value when President George Bush declared the 

war over shortly after it had started. It was estimated that soldiers in the field had ammunition 

available to them at a rate of 180 to 250 percent beyond their actual needs.166

Reduction of the Base – Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)

BASE Realignment and Closure (BRAC) is the process used by the United States 

Department of Defense (DoD) and Congress to close excess military installations and realign the 

total asset inventory in order to save money on operations and maintenance. More than 350 

installations have been closed in four BRAC rounds: 1989, 1991, 1993 and 1995. The most 

recent round of BRAC completed in the fall of 2005 and with the commission's 

recommendations became law in November of 2005.

In 1988 the Secretary of Defense chartered the Commission on Base Realignment and 

Closure (BRAC) to review military installations within the U.S. for realignment and closure. 

One way to uncover and release funding was to realign, move, and close Army bases and 

installations. For the Armament Munitions and Chemical Command (AMCCOM) this meant the 

closure of idle facilities and plants that had not operated since Vietnam. Reevaluation of the 

military strategy and decrease in the size of forces drove the decision to reduce Defense 

infrastructure.

 

165 Porter & Lepore, 168-170.

166 Porter & Lepore, 170.
55

At the end of the Cold War, the munitions industry was burdened by excess capacity it 

was unfunded to maintain or modernize. The U.S. Army went through an internal study of the 

ammunition base and concluded that it was in critical condition and getting worse in 1992. The 

study questioned whether the base could meet the requirement to sustain U.S. forces in two 

major regional contingencies. The Army subsequently decreased the number of end-items it was 

managing from 590 to 246, a 58% reduction designed to concentrate production efforts on those 

ammunition types truly relevant to future war requirements. A total of 198 production lines were 

declared excess, and 32,000 pieces of government-owned equipment were removed from the 

production base. 167 

Subsequent BRAC rounds of 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995 have contributed to the decrease 

of the base size and defense expenditure shrank. In these rounds of closure, several production 

lines and capabilities were transferred to other operating facilities and many plants were taken 

out of inactive or excessed status and closed down. In 1988 Alabama and Indiana Army 

Ammunition Plants were closed. From 1991-1993 several of the depots to include Sacramento, 

Savannah, and Seneca Army Depot were closed and determined to be excess storage. Several 

realignments also occurred at installations like Letterkenny, Sierra, Tooele and Red River Army 

Depots. By 2001 the government owned facilities had been reduced to 13 down from 28 in 

1991. Contractor facilities were reduced from 163 to 69 in just ten years.168

BRAC 2005 presented a unique challenge for the industrial base. It is the first time that 

operating plants were mandated to close while ongoing manufacturing operations were being 

conducted. The functions and capabilities located at closing plants are still required to fulfill the 

wartime requirements. The production equipment will be transferred to existing ammunition 

plants with excess capacity and the Rock Island Arsenal where production will continue. 

Capacity and capability for artillery, mortars, missiles, and pyro/demo exists at numerous 

munitions sites. To reduce redundancy and remove excess from the industrial base, the closure 

was planned to create centers of excellence, avoid single point failures, and generate efficiencies. 

In compliance with BRAC statutes the Joint Munitions Command (JMC) has relocated 

the Kansas Army Ammunition Plant (AAP) Sensor Fuzed Weapon/Cluster Bomb functions and 

missile warhead production to McAlester AAP; 155mm ICM artillery and 60mm, 81mm, and 

120mm mortar functions to Milan AAP; 105mm HE, 155mm HE, and missile warhead functions 

to Iowa AAP; and detonators /relays/delays to Crane Army Ammunition Activity. Riverbank 

AAP relocated artillery cartridge case metal parts lines to Rock Island Arsenal where the lines 

and facilities will become active in 2012. Lone Star AAP relocated its storage and 

demilitarization functions to McAlester AAP; relocated the 105mm and 155mm ICM artillery, 

MLRS artillery, hand grenades, 60mm and 81mm mortars functions to Milan AAP; and 

relocated mines and detonators/relays/delays functions to Iowa AAP. Mississippi AAP 

transferred 155mm ICM artillery metal parts capabilities to Rock Island Arsenal. The Red River 

Munitions Center is in the process of transferring all storage and demilitarization functions to 

McAlester AAP and relocated the munitions maintenance functions to McAlester AAP and Blue 

Grass Army Depot. The Joint Munitions Command executed the transfer and realignments 

carefully to ensure all requirements were filled and any stops in production did not affect 

wartime requirements or missions. Having completed the successful closure and transfer 

 

167 MG Wade McManus, Jr. Ammunition Support Issues and Challenges. 2002, Briefing. 

168 MG Wade McManus, Jr. Ammunition Support Issues and Challenges. 2002, Briefing. 
56

missions, the organic ammunition industrial base decreased to eight production plants, two 

munitions centers, and three depots.169

Sustaining the Industrial Base in the 21st Century

The Army has made strides in transforming into a lighter, more lethal land force. It is no 

surprise that the current industrial base is the smallest it has been because of underutilization,

low funding, better stockpile management and smaller requirements. At the working level of 

ammunition management, several efforts have been initiated and put in place to better assess 

readiness, manage stockpiles, and improve plant utilitization; all of which contribute to the 

health of the industrial base despite its smaller size. At JMC several of the following initiatives 

have enabled the ammunition community to meet and solve ammunition shortages, readiness, 

and supply ongoing contingency operations. 

The Munitions Readiness Report (MRR)

The Munitions Readiness Report (MRR) system, designed subsequent to the September

2001 terrorist attack, provides major elements of the Army with a common methodology for 

assessing munitions readiness. The Munitions Readiness Report (MRR) measures ammunition 

stockpile readiness by assessing the inventory and condition code of ammunition. However, the 

Army has not always assessed the size of the stockpile in terms of readiness. Two days after the 

September 11th, 2001 attacks, Commander of the Operations Support Command (OSC), Major 

General Wade H. McManus, Jr. flew to Washington DC to brief the Chief of Staff of the Army 

on the readiness of the ammunition stockpile. His news was not good and revealed longstanding 

issues in the funding and reporting of the stockpile. In the past DA tracked the stockpile based 

primarily on the number of tons available and location. However, funding gaps since 1990 had 

reduced the amount of surveillance and maintenance required to keep stocks fully ready for 

issue. This metric did not accurately reflect the quantity of ammunition that was not in an 

issueable condition. In 2001, much of the ammunition stockpile was either in poor or unknown 

condition because funding shortfalls had precluded surveillance inspections and maintenance. 

Reporting systems assumed that if items were in the stockpile, and not coded for 

demilitarization, they could be issued. While on hand, many stocks required maintenance and 

the reporting systems did not reflect that status either. 

OSC and its predecessor commands had been warning about the condition of the 

stockpile for many years, but tightening budgets made it impossible to keep up with slowly 

deteriorating ammunition. The ammunition base needed time and funding to keep shipping 

ammunition to the joint forces, and the lack of both presented an immediate problem.170

Problems stemmed back to the 1980s and then became significantly larger with the return 

of stocks from SWA after Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Most of the stocks 

returned from SWA did not receive final inspections. Temporary Desert Storm condition 

codes, which were slated to be changed to standard codes after the ammunition had been 

inspected, were still in the database in 2001. 

 

169 There are excellent online resources regarding prior BRAC round closures and realignments. See 

 http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/priorbracs.html; http://www.hqda.army.mil/acsim/brac/braco.htm; for present 

 and prior information on BRAC.

170 AFSC/JMC History Office. End of Career Oral History Interview, Colonel C. Redding Hobby. (November 

 2002), 14-15.
57

After September 2001, DA decision makers had to contend with potential ammunition 

shortages. The true impact of Condition Codes E, F, K, and N was that ammunition the DA 

leadership thought was available could not be used for combat without inspection and 

maintenance.171 Resources in the POM could buy about 45% of the shortfall items. Due to the 

atrophying of the ammunition base in the 1980s and 1990s, surge operations could affect only 

10% of the go-to-war shortfalls. To activate laid-away plants would take between seven and 

thirteen months.172 Army decision makers made difficult decisions, but they needed to never 

again be in the position of being unaware of the true status of the ammunition stockpile.

MG McManus returned from that meeting with the idea of creating a munitions reporting 

system focused on readiness and the Warfighter, not the POM and budget. He wanted a system 

to show decision makers their options and choices framed in a familiar looking system. OSC 

immediately began the development of the Munitions Readiness Report (MRR) as part of the 

Strategic Readiness System (SRS). The MRR calculates ammunition readiness, production, 

quality, and serviceability for each ammunition item and family and projects readiness for 24 

months into the future. Readiness ratings are assigned based on the worst readiness rating 

among these four areas after using standardized computations. In addition, the system highlights 

which ammunition items are used by the joint forces. The data in the MRR includes both 

missiles and conventional ammunition. It measures Army worldwide capability in specific

munitions categories, such as small arms, mortars, tank main gun, or cannon artillery. In every

category each specific ammunition item is tracked. For example, in the small arms category, the 

MRR tracks 5.56mm, 7.52mm, .50 caliber, etc. in every configuration. Newer items of 

munitions, not yet transitioned to National Inventory Control Point (NICP) management, are 

included as well. The data included is the result of a collaboration involving input from many 

agencies. 

From 2002 to 2004, JMC updated this data quarterly, with interim flasher reports 

whenever significant events impacted readiness. In 2005 the readiness team began a monthly 

update to the database. The MRR ratings now projected out to predict the ratings in six, twelve, 

eighteen, and twenty-four month projections using statistical production models based on usage. 

The online database also provided the ability to “drill down” to individual munitions categories 

to explore the key issues, components, or pieces driving readiness.173 

In 2006 JMC‟s Readiness Directorate refined the depiction of the ammunition status. 

Reporting of the MRR provided a single ammunition common operating picture (COP) or one 

voice to decision makers. The MRR was shown differently within the Balcony Brief, a briefing 

to the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army at HQDA. The view referred to as the Single 

Ammunition Common Operating Picture (COP) provided a monthly worldwide munitions status 

and have a predictive capability forecast out to 24 months for the Balcony Brief. The data 

 

171 Condition Codes represent the availability of stock for issue, not just on hand. CC A, B, and C can be issued. 

 However, CCs E and F need light or extensive maintenance; CC J is suspended either due to a known problem or 

 simply because two or more scheduled inspections have been missed; CC K means that items have been returned 

 but never inspected to determine serviceability (many Desert Storm returns remain in this category); and CC N 

 means items can be issued for emergency combat use only. See FM 4-30.13 Ammunition Handbook: 

 Techniques, Tactics and Procedures for Munitions Handlers. 

172 Op cit, slides 4 and 16.

173 OSC History Office, Annual Command History, FY2002: 4, 262. See also Jamieson, Edward, OSC briefing, 

 “Army Munitions Readiness,” 9 August 2002.
58

provided is quantifiable and validated by repeatable methodologies. The MRR Ammunition

COP allows DA G3/5/7 override capability to make qualitative judgments outside the system. 

Once qualitative judgments are made, JM&L-LCMC is notified and the information is passed 

onto Program Managers and Commodity Teams. The MRR is then reconstructed as the Balcony 

Brief by the Readiness Directorate where acquisition, technical, production and logistic solutions 

are applied to items that are not in a green or issueable stated.174

Finally, working with the Joint Ordnance Commanders Group (JOCG), progress was

made towards creation of a joint munitions reporting capability. The Navy linked their Ordnance 

Information System (OIS) Naval Forces Readiness Operations Assessment (NFORA) system to 

the National Level Ammunition Capability (NLAC) system. NLAC is a joint munitions asset 

reporting platform. NFORA is a web-based system utilizing color-coded readiness ratings 

similar to the Army MRR. The Marine Corps linked their Ammunition Readiness System (ARS) 

to NLAC, and is having JMC track their readiness in the MRR. The ARS was designed using 

the Army MRR as a model and has a very similar look and feel. In addition to these new links, 

NLAC has duplicated the Army MRR function without a link and that capability was being beta 

tested. The MRR continues to transform and merge with all Services in 2007.

During OEF/OIF the system highlighted and prioritized funding for specific ammunition 

pacing items and other shortages. The ability to project ratings into the future assisted JMC in 

funding maintenance programs to upgrade on-hand stocks into issuable condition codes. In 

addition, visibility from the MRR allowed more timely decisions on shifting of stock from one 

theater to another. 

In 2009, MRR improvements changed the way JMC „stacked‟ assets against 

requirements. Working closely with DA, a way to better reflect real allocation priorities was 

established. Prior to this method change, war reserve requirements were considered first, and in 

total, held priority over training requirements. With the change, a critical level of war reserve 

requirements are considered first, then training requirements are considered, and finally, the 

balance of war reserve requirements are applied. Critical war reserve levels are determined by 

DA. 

How does the MRR impact the industrial base? Being able to accurately report inventory 

and calculate what we have on hand or in production, to provide ammunition for war, training, or 

emergencies; helps regulate requirements. The look at each component and end item shows 

where focus needs to be directed within the commercial or government base. As we have 

learned from previous wars, forecasting requirements and determining what needs to be 

produced is a challenge that has directly impacted the size of the base. Over and underestimation 

have caused large build ups and reductions in the base. Though situations may arise outside of 

requirements/readiness control, it is reasonable to assume that the tool will continue to be useful 

at all levels of Army and Joint Services to assist in industrial base decisions.

Industrial Base Assessment Tool (IBAT)

In addition to assessing the readiness of the stockpile, the JMC worked with the 

Ammunition Enterprise partners and contractor, Decision Sciences Inc. to develop the Industrial 

 

174 Joint Munitions Command, “MRR and Balcony Brief” Briefing. 28 March 2006: Slide 1-4.
59

Base Assessment Tool (IBAT). The SMCA Industrial Base Assessment Team (IBAT) is an 

initiative to automate the Ammunition Production Base Plan to facilitate industrial base 

preparedness planning in acquisitions. The SMCA IBAT is a web-based data system that 

documents the production capabilities, capacities, production schedules, deficiencies, and 

industrial base metrics of the SMCA ammunition supply chain to assist in optimizing acquisition 

decision making that affects the preparedness of the National Technical Industrial Base (NTIB). 

The data system also provides “what-if” scenario generation and ammunition maps to identify 

potential supply chain choke points. The data system contains over 500 end items and over 700 

components and will be a viable asset to assessing the industrial base.

The IBAT is used to help the command perform industrial preparedness planning for 

critical ammunition end items. The IBAT assists the ammunition enterprise in planning 

production schedules for peacetime and emergency surge demands. Instead of focusing on 

replenishment, leaders will be able to focus on capabilities-based planning and support current 

operations. The IBAT contains real time data on capacities, workforce skills, technologies, 

stockpile levels, deliveries versus schedules, customer satisfaction, environmental data, financial 

viability of producers, POM item costs, and more. It also contains analytical tools that predict 

base responsiveness against any set of requirements. While still in developmental phases the 

tool has already proved to be useful in providing real time data. The IBAT has gone from a once 

every two year assessment to providing real time data to the entire ammunition community. It 

also contains simulation tools to calculate pacing operations and has the ability to respond to 

various conflict scenarios.175

Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support (ARMS)

One issue that continuously hampers the sustainment of industrial installations is the 

inability to maintain a profit during peacetime. Historically, facilities were emptied and 

completely inactivated and therefore not maintained. The Armament Retooling and 

Manufacturing Support (ARMS) Program lowered the cost of ownership of Army government 

owned-contractor operated (GOCO) ammunition plants while creating jobs and retaining critical 

skills and machinery in the industrial base. The ARMS program provides opportunity to use 

underutilized portions of ammunition plants. The ARMS Program is designed to encourage 

commercial use of the Army`s inactive ammunition plants through many incentives for 

businesses willing to locate to a government ammunition production facility. The ARMS 

Program was established by an Act of Congress in FY93 as P.L. 102-484, dated 23 October 

1992, now codified as 10 USC 4551-4555, dated 30 October 2000. In FY01, Congress extended 

the concept to the manufacturing arsenals by creating the Arsenal Program Support Initiative 

(ASPI). ARMS meets the intent of Congress with verified lower cost of production, retention of 

critical technical skills, significant contractor-funded modernization, and the reduction or 

elimination of the annual cost of facilities maintenance. The program is successful and 

maintenance costs of three ARMS facilities have been reduced to zero due to the benefits 

obtained by tenant use. 

In October 2003, the ARMS Program won the 2003 CoreNet Global Innovators Award 

recognizing new entrants in the corporate real estate industry that develop and apply innovative 

 

175 Al Beuster, “The Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition Industrial base Assessment Tool,” Army AL&T

 (July-August 2004), 64; PEO Ammunition. Ammunition Industrial Base Management Briefing. 
60

ideas and practices and make good use of leading-edge technologies and practices. JMC‟s 

ARMS Team was one of five recipients of the 2003 Global Innovator's Award. This award was 

given by CoreNet Global who recognizes excellence in the strategic management of corporate 

real estate. CoreNet Global described the ARMS Program as "an innovative program designed 

to treat its ammunition production facilities and surrounding real estate as assets, while letting 

the commercial marketplace help reduce the cost of Army operations and production." The other 

four recipients were Ford, Toyota, Sprint, and the Greater Fort Bend Economic Development 

Council. 

In FY09, ARMS reported that total savings to the Government ($407 million) exceeded 

ARMS investments and incentives ($274M). Economic impact reached $6.9 billion in output 

since the program's inception. Currently ARMS programs are at the following JMC installations. 

ARMS continues to bring new life to industrial sites to enhance the readiness of the base, 

generate revenue to maintain infrastructure, make capital improvements, lower the unit cost of 

production, continue environmental remediation and sustain local economies. By reducing the 

government‟s cost of ownership of these installations, we are improving their future vitality.

An Ammunition Enterprise

The Program Executive Office for Ammunition (PEO Ammunition) was reformed in 

October 2001. The PEO was designated the Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition 

(SMCA) and has life-cycle responsibility for the acquisition of conventional ammunition. With 

PEO Ammunition designated the SMCA Executor, it has primary responsibility for the 

acquisition of all Services‟ transitioned conventional ammunition. Together with the Joint 

Munitions Command (JMC) as the SMCA Field Operating Agency (FOA) executing the 

logistics and sustainment roles, PEO Ammunition retains and executes life cycle responsibility 

for conventional ammunition for all Services.

Through the establishment of the PEO, ammunition management was unified and 

integrated under one single chain of command. PEO Ammunition developed unified munitions 
61

acquisition strategies across families and is working towards integrating requirements across 

training, war reserve, and modernization. The PEO is bringing a disciplined acquisition 

management approach to managing ammunition as a family, by family. The organization 

manages the family of ammunition as a major acquisition program making smart acquisition 

decisions for ammunition as a whole and not only as an individual program. PEO Ammunition

optimizes key business processes through the application of Lean/Six Sigma tools and 

methodology. 

On 2 August 2004, the AMC Commander and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Acquisition, Logistics and Technology established a Life Cycle Management (LCM) initiative 

through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The objective of the LCM initiative is to get 

products to the soldier faster, make good products even better, minimize life cycle cost and 

enhance the synergy and effectiveness of the Army Acquisition, Logistics and Technology 

communities. From this, the Joint Munitions & Lethality Life Cycle Management Command 

(JM&L LCMC) was formed; aligning the JMC with PEO Ammunition and ARDEC. 

Implementation plans for the LCMC relationships, processes and reporting chains were further 

carried out between FY2005 and FY2007.

PEO Ammunition, JMC and the Armament Research, Development and Engineering 

Center (ARDEC) form the Joint Munitions & Lethality Life Cycle Management Command 

(JM&L-LCMC) to integrate supply chain management of the ammunition, to include the 

production base. The collective mission is to execute integrated life cycle management while 

creating battle space dominance for the warfighter with superior munitions. This mission will be 

achieved through development and procurement of conventional and leap ahead munitions which 

increase combat power to Warfighters. These organizations share the goals to put precision 

guided munitions and smart weapons into the hands of the warfighter, and to improve and sustain 

conventional munitions. 

Supply of Ammunition to the Global War On Terrorism (GWOT)

At the end of the FY09, the JM&L LCMC reported supporting OEF/OIF with 

approximately 279,000 short tons of ammunition equaling ~ 25,400 containers. The readiness 

status had improved from 30 of 42 ammunition families being in a red/black (unacceptable) 

status in 2001 to 44 of 44 families now rated as green or amber in 2009. As an enterprise, 

several success stores have unfolded in support of supplying Warfighters with ammunition. The 

enterprise responded to the increase in small arms training requirements and operational 

requirements by awarding urgent procurements, accelerating production, establishing a second 

producer and modernized the industrial base to be more efficient and effective. The command 

responded to increased demand for countermeasure flares by accelerating production, increasing 

capacity, monitoring transportation, and maintaining daily communications with the field. The 

LCMC established a theater reclamation facility in Kuwait to inspect, repack, and reissue 

ammunition within theater. The operation supported Army Reset, including Special Forces and 

Marines and allowed more ammunition to reenter the stockpile at a faster rate for issue. The 

following paragraphs show a variety of the initiatives taken to ensure ammunition requirements 

were met during this War.
62

Small Caliber Ammunition

The JM&L LCMC increased production in areas needed despite reduced infrastructure 

of the base and reports several success stories. In 2001, Lake City AAP (LCAAP) was the sole

government-owned contractor-operated small caliber ammunition production capability in the 

industrial base. The operating contractor, Alliant Techsystems, ATK met the challenges of 

completing stringent requirements in response to urgent wartime demands. After September 

11th, 2001, requirements surged to support training and OEF. As troops began their deployment 

to Southwest Asia (SWA) and other areas around the world, the requirement for additional, 

immediate use small caliber ammunition increased tremendously. Lake City was awarded $19.2 

million in Defense Emergency Relief Funds (DERF) to increase Total Plant Volume (TPV) 

capacity from 800 million to 1.2 billion rounds a year for contract life; and to accelerate delivery, 

provide additional plant capacity for links, and other quality improvements. LCAAP shipped 

over 58 million cartridges in direct support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) in the early weeks 

and months of the conflict. 

In FY03 LCAAP continued its ramp-up of small caliber ammunition for all the military 

services and produced over 600 million rounds. Because JMC still encountered stockpile 

shortages for items critical to combat operations, several second source or urgent buys were 

completed in FY04. In addition to procuring 1.2 billion rounds from LCAAP valued at $354 

million, JMC also conducted ten urgency procurements to buy 312 million small caliber 

ammunition rounds from suppliers around the globe. In order to address the shortfall, JMC also 

invested $28.8 million into LCAAP modernization to further improve and increase its 

capabilities. 

By FY05, JMC managed the production and delivery schedule for 1.34 billion rounds of 

ammunition produced by LCAAP, valued at over $487 million. JMC also awarded contracts

were awarded for production of 300 million rounds of small caliber ammunition to General 

Dynamics Ordnance Tactical Systems (GDOTS) as its second source supplier. Urgent buy 

contracts were awarded to Israeli Military Industries for 70 million rounds of 5.56mm M855 ball 

and 31.4 million rounds of 7.62mm blank; and to Olin Winchester for 70 million rounds of 

5.56mm M855 Ball. Further actions to mitigate the urgency, included the procurement of 79 

million rounds of 5.56mm and 41 million rounds of 7.62mm from the United Kingdom. In total, 

215 million rounds were procured as urgent buys in FY05. Other methods of increasing the 

small caliber ammunition stockpile included the execution of maintenance programs for .50 

caliber to recapture 10 million rounds of A576 (4API/1API Tracer w/M9 Link) from March 2005 

through Jan 2007 at Blue Grass Army Depot. Rounds were acquired from the USAF via crossleveling and from the Army demilitarization account. This resulted in the successful recovery of 

2.8 million rounds by the end of September 2005. Aggressive acquisition strategies kept pace 

with urgent requirements. In FY08 small caliber production rose to 1.4 billion rounds and 

capacity was being increased to 1.6 billion through modernization projects.

TNT

In FY03 significant demand for TNT, used primarily in support of USAF general purpose 

(GP) bombs, depleted existing inventories of TNT at an unanticipated rate. This required the 

development of an acquisition strategy for this critical item. History showed that Radford and 

Holston Army Ammunition Plants had been filling TNT requirements from the SMCA stockpile 
63

for a number of years. After producing more than 595 million pounds of TNT between 1968 and 

1974 and 1983 and 1986, facilities were placed in standby status. TNT production was halted at 

Radford in 1986 because of the amount of TNT held in storage and because the process was 

producing red-water.176 As the TNT stockpile depleted, the user community became 

increasingly concerned about the ability to meet future requirements, especially after September 

2001 when demand significantly increased. 

Extensive market research conducted in FY02 identified the lack of a viable and costeffective domestic production capability for the material. Working with representatives from 

Office of Secretary of Defense, PEO Ammunition, PM Arms, Executive Director for 

Conventional Ammunition, AMC, the Air Force, Ogden Air Logistics Center, Tank-Automotive 

Command-Armament Research Development and Engineering Center, PM Demil, and Defense 

Ammunition Center, a three-tiered acquisition approach was structured to facilitate the supply of 

TNT. Subsequent to release of a draft solicitation, a best value request for proposal (RFP), 

incorporating formal source selection criteria and evaluation of multi-year versus multiple year 

pricing, was issued in February 2003. The RFP‟s evaluation criteria mirrored what the 

Government had previously identified as being the primary focus of this effort: the establishment 

and operation of a flexible bulk explosive manufacturing capability within the National 

Technical and Industrial Base (NTIB) to become the Government‟s exclusive source of supply 

for TNT within 36 months after contract award.177

ATK was awarded a multi-year contract to produce TNT in 2003. The contract included 

buying OCONUS TNT and reclaimed TNT for the first two years. In 2005, ATK began

producing TNT at Radford, requiring thorough process proofing and QA system analysis. 

During the interim period after award, TNT derived from reclamation activities originating from 

excess inventory/material would be desired, with supply from OCONUS sources being the final 

and least attractive alternative. During the first two years of the contract, Alliant Ammunition 

and Powder Company (AAPC) (ATK) reclaimed TNT from 750 lb bombs and purchased TNT 

from Poland. However, relying on offshore producers is problematic for a number of reasons, 

plant officials say. „Theoretically, you and whoever you are fighting with could be buying 

material from the same place,‟ said Ron Rossi, a government civilian executive assistant at the 

plant.178

Countermeasure Flares

The enterprise also supplied OEF/OIF with critical aircraft countermeasure flares for 

aircrew and aircraft survival. The M211, M212, M206 and XM216 Air Countermeasure Flares 

are part of a family of advanced Infrared (IR) decoy flares designed for use by Army helicopters 

and fixed wing aircraft to meet advanced threats. Three of the flares (M206, M211 and M212) 

are used in conjunction with one another to form the Advanced Infrared Countermeasure 

Munitions Flares (AIRCMM) solution. The SMCA„s countermeasure (CM) flare team placed 

significant management efforts into the production and delivery of M206, M211, M212, MJU-7, 

 

176 Angela Manese-Lee. “Explosive industry: By the end of the year, the Radford Army Ammunition Plant will 

 become the only site in the United States that produces TNT.” Roanoke Times, 28 May 2006. 

177 AFSC/JMC History Office. FY2003 AFSC/JMC Annual History (March 2004): 12.

178 Angela Manese-Lee. “Explosive industry: By the end of the year, the Radford Army Ammunition Plant will 

 become the only site in the United States that produces TNT.” Roanoke Times, 28 May 2006. 
64

and MJU-10 countermeasure flares when the items were in short supply. The CM Flare team 

established procedures and processes that allowed contractors to meet vital product delivery 

schedules to the Air Force and Army in support of urgent requirements. Through aggressive 

management, sufficient stocks were built allowing assets to be placed in depot rather than being 

shipped directly from the contractor to theater via air transportation. This turnaround took place 

in October 2007 and has continued to the present. 

Grenades

In support of OEF/OIF, the LCMC adjusted acquisition strategies for grenades. The 

grenades program includes lethal grenades such as the M67 Fragmentation Hand Grenade and 

the AN-M14 Incendiary Grenade as well as multiple color smoke grenades (M18), screening 

smoke grenades (M83), and vehicle launched smoke grenades (M90, M76, and M82). The M67 

systems contract established an additional CONUS source for the C70 detonator where only a 

single overseas (OCONUS) source had existed before. At the request of the Army, PM CCS 

expedited the incorporation of the confidence clip into new production as well as the existing 

inventory of lethal hand grenades to make the grenade safer for Soldiers to use. 

Vehicle Protection Systems

The JM&L LCMC also provided logistical and sustainment support for the various 

CLASS V vehicle protection systems to include Bradley I/II, Stryker I/II, Abrams I/II, and 

Assault Breacher Vehicle. The team supported production management planning for the 

Bradley, Abrams, and Stryker tiles which were in development or had ongoing contract 

deliveries. Key areas of emphasis included coordinating NSN/DODIC assignment and 

deployment planning for BRAT II tiles as well as preproduction planning, materiel release 

documentation, and storage site assignment for Stryker II. 

Today’s Industrial Base 

Many of the Army‟s ammunition production facilities are still owned by the government 

and operated by contractors, with the exception of two that are government-owned and operated: 

Crane Army Ammunition Activity and McAlester Army Ammunition Plant. Due to 2005 BRAC 

actions Kansas AAP, Lone Star AAP, Mississippi AAP, Riverbank AAP, Red River Munitions 

Center (complete in 2011), the current list of active JMC production and storage sites that make 

up the U.S. Army ammunition industrial base is as follows: 

Anniston Munitions Center, Anniston, Alabama

Blue Grass Army Depot, Richmond, Kentucky

Crane Army Ammunition Activity, Crane, Indiana

Hawthorne Army Depot, Hawthorne, Nevada

Holston Army Ammunition Plant, Kingsport, Tennessee

Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, Middletown, Iowa.

Lake City Army Ammunition Plant, Independence, Missouri

Letterkenny Munitions Center, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania

Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, Texarkana, Texas

McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, McAlester, Oklahoma

Milan Army Ammunition Plant, Milan, Tennessee

Radford Army Ammunition Plant, Radford, Virginia

Scranton Army Ammunition Plant, Scranton, Pennsylvania
65

Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah

Red River Munitions Center, Texarkana, Texas – Scheduled to close in 2011

Quad City Cartridge Case Facility, Rock Island Arsenal, IL – Scheduled to open in 2012

Defense Ammunition Center, McAlester, OK – Ammunition Knowledge and Logistics Support mission

An economically configured ammunition production base capable of supporting war 

reserve, training, and emergency requirements is essential. The Army is committed to improving 

the utilization and efficiency of the Defense Industrial Base. The FY07 PB funding supported 

production base modernization improvements at Radford, Holston, and Lake City Army 

Ammunition Plants (AAPs). Further, funding supports Government Owned, Contractor 

Operated (GOCO) AAPs and critical machine tooling for the private sector. Investments at the 

three Army Working Capital Fund (AWCF) ammunition installations are included in the price of 

ammunition. Supplemental funding is required to support critical industrial base improvements 

required to support increased GWOT, training, and modularity ammunition production 

requirements. 

179

A 2007 SMCA/PEO Ammunition Integrated Process Team (IPT) identified over 100 core 

ammunition process capabilities. Fifty-one of the core processes were judged to be unique Single 

Point Processes with capabilities not found at other facilities within the National Industrial 

Technology Base (NTIB). Many core processes were found to be in need of critical 

modernization and right sizing efforts. Processes included Milan AAP‟s 40mm ammunition and 

the fuze capabilities, Crane AAA‟s demolition block line, many of the Pine Bluff ammunition 

capabilities including illuminating mortar and artillery lines, the infrared (IR) mortar lines and 

the smoke grenade lines. The Iowa AAP‟s tank training ammunition production capability and 

many of the McAlester AAP‟s bomb lines are core processes. Holston AAP propellants and 

explosives capabilities for RDX and HMX are core processes with Single Point Process 

capabilities not found at other facilities within the NTIB. 

The IPT also studied “actual” plant capability and capacity utilization rates for the period 

of FY01 to FY03, and "projected" plant capability and capacity utilization rates for the period 

FY04 through FY06. A significant number of the plant utilization rates were found to be less 

than 50%, some were found to be as low as 10% at Lone Star and Kansas AAP facilities. Two of 

the core processes found at Radford and Lake City AAPs were found to have utilization rates 

above 60%, one had a utilization rate of 95%. Many of the core processes were also found to be 

in need of critical modernizations. They included the Radford AAP nitrocellulose and 

nitroglycerin processes, Lake City AAP small caliber ammunition lines and many of the facility 

infrastructure assets and steam plants.180

In FY09, JMC and PM Joint Services submitted over $200 million in infrastructure 

efforts to DA in support of a potential stimulus package requested by President Barrack Obama. 

Projects identified were extracted from the FY 10-15 Production Base Support Industrial 

Facilities program. Additionally, the Installation Management‟s Command‟s (IMCOM) list of 

Military Construction Army (MCA) projects totaling $2.2 billion which includes projects from 

JMC installations was also submitted for consideration. The JMC‟s MLRC directorate 

 

179 AFSC/JMC History Office. “FY05 Program Executive Office for Ammunition AHS,” AFSC/JMC FY05 Annual 

 Command History. 

180 Ibid.
66

developed and supported the briefing package to the Chief of Staff, Army for an industrial base 

modernization plan on 13 December 2008. The CSA supported the plan and committed a 

funding stream to execute the plan. The plan provides for safe, environmentally-improved, 

properly sized and efficient facilities.

Summary

The history of the ammunition industrial base has provided lessons and generated many 

studies into how to obtain a right-sized base. Long lead times at the outbreak of war have shown 

that it is essential to maintain necessary funding for a warm base. This paper has traced the 

evolution of the industrial base from creation to present day to provide a comprehensive look at

many of the challenges and initiatives made to correct deficiencies for ammunition. A 

discussion on the emergence and operation of the SMCA provided a brief background on Army‟s 

management of conventional ammunition. Important information on the depot system designed 

to store conventional ammunition is not included. As ordnance leaders and studies indicated, the 

ammunition base lacked necessary maintenance and modernization funding during peacetime in 

order to maintain a properly sustained warm base.

As technology and modernization have created more advanced production capabilities 

and threats of world wars have diminished, the Army has become adept with a smaller base and 

improved acquisition strategies to integrate commercial producers in times of urgent need. As 

requirements decreased and budgets were cut at the end of the Cold War, the Army and 

ammunition community evolved to meet the changing dynamics of modern needs. The industrial 

base must remain flexible, adaptable, and responsive. The transition to precision guided 

munitions (PGM) and accuracy on the battlefield lead the future, but still requires core processes 

in the industrial base. Conventional ammunition is a commodity that will remain an essential 

part of ammunition supply and must be properly funded to rapidly meet requirements. A great 

deal of responsibility has been placed upon the new life cycle management structures to maintain 

and improve an industrial base that is strong enough to meet any requirements. Management of

the ammunition life cycle will continue to streamline production, acquisition, and logistics in the 

ammunition industrial base. 

The ammunition community continues to think critically about excess production 

capacity and idle facilities at the remaining government ammunition plants. The latest BRAC 

2005 round has closed an additional five sites, reducing the total number of Army ammunition 

production facilities to twelve, three depots, and 2 munitions centers in 2011. As discussed, The 

JM&L LCMC, JMC, PEO AMMO, and ARDEC are implementing new acquisition strategies 

and utilizing new management/measurement tools to ensure that requirements and surge 

capabilities can be met. The possibility of further ammunition base funding cutbacks will be 

imminent in the future if assumptions are based on historical patterns. Ammunition funding 

must remain constant in the minds of decision makers and leaders to avoid ammunition shortages 

in the event of future contingencies. 
67

APPENDIX A - WWII AMMUNITION PLANTS 181

DATE APPROVED NAME & LOCATION PRODUCT OPERATING 

CONTRACTOR

10 April 1942 Allegany Ord. Plant -

Cumberland, MD

.30 cal Armor Piercing 

Ammunition

Kelly Springfield 

Engineering Company

23 Jan 1941 Alabama Ord. Works #1 -

Sylacauga, AL

Smokeless Powder, DPA, 

DNA

E.I. Dupont de Memours 

& Co. Military Explosives 

Division

30 June 1941 Alabama Ord. Works #2

Sylacauga, AL

Bellite, DNT, Tetryl, 

Oleum, TNT

E.I. Dupont de Memours 

& Co. Military Explosives 

Division

19 July 1941 Arkansas Ordnance Plant

– Jacksonville, Arkansas

Fuze, Prime., Per., Elate. 

Det., Delay

Ford , Bacon & Davis, Inc.

1 Feb 1942 Badger Ordnance Works –

Badger, WI

Smokeless Powder, 

Oleum, E.C. Pwder

Hercules Powder Co.

23 Oct 1943 Baytown Ord. Works –

Baytown, TX

Tolunul Humble Oil Ref. Co.

11 Feb 1942 Bluebonnet Ord. Plant –

McGregor, TX

Shells, Bomb Cluster, 

Demolition Blocks, 

Bombs

National Gypsum Co.

13 Dec. 1941 Buckeye Ord. Works –

South Point, OH

Anhydrous Ammonia Atmospheric Nitrogen 

Corp.

14 Sep. 1953 Cactus Ord. Works –

Dumas, TX

C-3 Shell Union Oil Corp.

10 July 1942 Cherokee Ord. Works –

Danville, PA

Formaldehyde & 

Hexamine

Heyden Chemical Co.

26 Jan 1942 Chickasaw Ord. Works –

Millington, TN

TNT, DNT, Smokeless 

Powder

E.I. Dupont de Memours 

& Co. Military Explosives 

Division

20 Feb. 1941 Coosa River Ord. Works –

Talladega, AL

Bag & Igniter Loading, 

Rockets

The Brecon Loading Co.

3 Mar. 1942 Cornhusker Ord. Plant –

Grand Island, NE

Bomb & Shell Loading Quaker Oats Ord. Corp.

12 Aug. 1942 Dixie Ord. Works –

Sterlinton, LA

Anhydrous Ammonia Commercial Solvents 

Corp.

18 July 1941 Des Moines Ord. Plant –

Des Moines, IA

Small Arms Ammo, .30 & 

.50 cal

U.S. Robber Co.

10 Dec. 1940 Denver Ordnance Plant - 

Denver, CO

.30 cal ammo Remington Arms Co. 

16 Oct 1942 Detroit Cup Plant –

Detroit, MI

.30 cal steel cartridge case 

cups

Parker-Wolverine Co.-

Ordnance Division

6 Oct 1941 East Tennessee Ord. 

Works – Copperhill, TN

Oleum Tennessee Copper Co.

21 Sept. 1940 Eau Claire Ord. Works - 

Eau Claire, WI

.30 cal incendiary and ball U.S. Rubber Co.

21 Sept 1942 Elwood Ord. Plant –

Joliet, IL

Shell & Bomb Loading, 

primers, detonators, fuzes 

& boosters, amatol & 

ammonium nitrate

Sanderson & Porter

13 March 1942 Evansville Ord. Plant –

Evansville, IN

.30 cal carbine & .45 cal Chrysler Corporation & 

Sunbeam Electic Mf. Co.

1 Oct 1940 Gadsden Ord. Plant – Shell Forging and Lansdowne Steel & iron 

 

181 This list is representative of the majority of ammunition plants that operated during the WWII. Data obtained 

from a 1944 Field Director of Ammunition Plants (FDAP) Data of Ammunition Plants List & Office of the Chief of 

Ordnance, Ammunition Plant Directory (DA, Office of the Chief of Ordnance: 1946) passim. 
68

Gadsden, AL Machining for 105mm 

shells

Co.

1 May 1942 Gopher Ord. Works –

Rosemont, MN

Smokeless Pwdr, Oleum E.I. Dupont de Memours 

& Co. Military Explosives 

Division

4 Feb 1942 Green River Ord. Plant –

Dixon, IL

Shells, Grenades, bombs, 

Rockets, and fuze loading

Stewart Warner Corp.

16 April 1942 Gulf Ord. Plant –

Aberdeen, MS

20mm, 40mm, and 57mm 

Ammo, 4.5 inch H.E., 

rockets, tracers and fuzes

Proctor and Gamble

12 June 1942 Holston Ord. Works –

Kingsport, TN

RDX, Comp. B Tennessee Eastman 

Corporation

3 Jan 1941 Hooser Ord. Plant –

Charlestown, IN

Bag & Igniter Loading Goodyear Engineering 

Corporation

21 Aug 1941 Illinois Ord. Plant –

Carbondale, IL

Shells & Bombs Sherwin-Williams Defense 

Corp.

19 July 1940 Indiana Ord. Works –

Charlestown, IN

Smokeless Powder, DMA, 

DPA

E.I. Dupont de Memours 

& Co. Military Explosives 

Division

6 Nov. 1940 Iowa Ord. Plant –

Burlington, IA

Shells, Mines, Bombs, 

Fuzes, Det. Boosters, 

Primers, TNT

Day & Zimmerman, Inc.

18 Sept. 1941 Jayhawk Ord. Plant –

Baxter Springs, KS

Anhydrous Ammonia, 

Ammonia Nitrate

Military Chemical Works

13 Sept. 1940 Kankakee Ord. Works –

Joliet, IL

TNT, DNT & Tetryl, Lead 

Azide, Oleum, TNT 

Blocks

E.I. Dupont de Memours 

& Co. Military Explosives 

Division

9 Aug. 1941 Kansas Ord. Plant – 

Parsons, KS

Shell Loading, Boosters, 

Propellant charges

J.M. Service Corporation

3 March 1942 Kentucky Ord. Works –

Paducah, KY

TNT, Oleum Atlas Powder Co.

8 Dec. 1941 Keystone Ord. Works –

Geneva, PA

TNT, Oleum Fracer Bruce Engineering 

Co. Inc.

8 Nov. 1940 Kingsbury Ord. Plant – Le 

Porte, In

Shells, Mines, Fuzes, 

Canister, Bomb Cluster, 

Armor Piercing Ammo, 

Grenades, Anti-Personnel 

Mines, 20mm, 37mm, 

40mm, 60mm, 75mm, 3 

Inch and 105mm ammo

Todd & Brown Inc.

5 Jan. 1942 Kings Mills Ord. Plant –

Warren County, OH

.30 cal carbine ammo Remington Arms Co. 

20 Nov 1940 Lake City Ord. Plant –

Independence, MO

.30 ball, AP, Tracer & .50 

cal AP, Tracers, and 

incendiary, .30 cal carbine, 

.30 carbine grenade

Remington Arms Co.

29 Dec 1941 Lake Ontario Ord Works –

Youngstown, NY

TNT Chemical Construction 

Corporation

22 Dec 1941 Longhorn Ord. Works –

Marshall TX

TNT Monsanto Chemical Corp

20 July 1941 Lone Star Ord Plant –

Texarkana TX

Loading Plant – Artillery 

shells, bombs, fuzes, 

boosters and tracers

Lone Star Defense Corp.

(BF Good Rich Corp)

10 July 1941 Louisiana Ord. Plant –

Shreveport, LA

Ammo AP, Shells, 1000 lb 

pounds, grenades, rifle 

grenades, ammonium 

nitrate, boosters, fuzes, 

Silas Mason Co.
69

15 July 1941 Maumelle Ord. Works –

Little Rock, AK

Ammonium Picrate Cities Service Defense 

Corp. 

27 March 1942 Lowell Ord Plant – Lowell 

MA

.50 AP Ammo, brass case, 

.50 cal AP Steel case, & 

.50 ball

Remington Arms Co.

17 Aug 1942 Milwaukee Ord Plant –

Milwaukee, WI

.50 cal U.S. Rubber Co. 

4 Aug 1941 Mississippi Ord. Plant –

Flora, MS

Planned to make 

propellant bags for 

artillery - Placed on 

standby

General Tire Engineering 

Co.

19 Aug 1941 Missouri Ord. Works –

Louisiana, MO

Anhydrous Ammonia Hercules Powder Co.

29 Nov 1940 Morgantown Ord. Works Anhydrous Ammonia, 

Hexamine, Formaldehyde 

and Methanol 

E.I. Dupont de Memours 

& Co. Military Explosives 

Division

12 Dec. 1941 Nebraska Ord. Plant –

Fremont, NE

Bombs, boosters, & 

Ammonium nitrate

Nebraska Defense Corp.

21 Dec 1941 New River Ord. Plant –

Pulaski, VA

Powder Bag Loading, & 

Special Propellant Charge 

Loading Plant

Hercules Powder Co.

23 March 1942 New York Ord. Works –

Baldwinsville, NY

Standby National Aniline Defense 

Corp.

15 Feb. 1941 Ohio River Ord. Works –

Henderson, KY

Anhydrous Ammonia Atmospheric Nitrogen 

Corp.

13 Sept. 1941 Oklahoma Ord. Works - 

Pryor, OK

Smokeless Powder, ACP, 

NAC, SAC, DPA, TNT, 

Tetryl, TNT Demo blocks

E.I. Dupont de Memours 

& Co. Military Explosives 

Division

25 Nov. 1941 Ozark Ord. Works - El 

Dorado, Arkansas

Anhydrous Ammonia & 

Ammonium Nitrate

Lion Chemical Corp.

10 March 1942 Pantex Ordnance Plant –

Amarillo, TX

250 LB Bombs, 500 lb. 

G.P. bombs, 23 lb. 

Fragmentation bomb, 

105mm howitzer shells, 

ammonium nitrate 

boosters

Certain-Teed Products 

Corp.

31 Dec. 1942 Plub Brook Ord. Works, -

Sandusky, OH

TNT, NDT, Pentolite Trojan Powder Co.

7 Jan 1942 Pennsylvania Ord. Works 

– Williamsport, PA

TNT U.S. Rubber Co.

10 April 1942 Pilgrim Ord. Works –

West Hanover, MA

Magnesium Metal Powder National Fireworks Inc.

16 Aug 1940 Radford Ord. Works –

Radford VA

Nitrocellulose Powder, 

pentolite, TNT

Hercules Powder Co.

Aug 1940 Ravenna Ord. Plant –

Apco, OH

Shells, Boosters, Primers, 

Loading bombs, 

ammonium nitrate, 

renovating ammo from 

outside sources

Atlas Powder Co.

Redstone Arsenal - 

Huntsville, AL

Load and assembly of 75, 

81, 105 and 155 mm gas 

and smoke shells, demo 

blocks, 

Ordnance Dept.

20 Feb 1942 Sangamon Ord. PlantSpringfield ILShells, Fuzes, Boosters Remington Rand Corp.

5 Dec 1940 St. Louis Ord. Plant - St. 

Louis, MO

.30 and .50 cal ammo U.S. Cartridge Co. 
70

14 May 1942 Sunflower Ord. Works –

DeSoto, KS

Smokeless Powder, Rolled 

Strip & Extruded Double 

Base Powder, Certain 

Stick Powders, Oleum

Hercules Powder Co.

18 Nov 1943 Scioto Ord. Plant –

Marion, OH

Fuzes, Boosters –

Converted to .50 cal ammo

U.S. Rubber Co.

14 July 1941 Twin Cities Ord. Plant –

New Brighton, MS

.30 cal. ball, .50 cal. Federal Cartridge Co. 

30 July 1942 Utah Ord. Plant – Salt 

Lake City, UT

.30 & .50 cal. ammo Remington Arms Co.

7 March 1942 Vigo Ord Plant – Terre 

Haute, IN

LAP Concan Ord. Co. Inc

Not Provided Virginia Ord. Works –

Glen Wilton, VA

TNT Not Provided

19 August 1941 Volunteer Ord. Works –

Chattanooga, TN

TNT, Nitric Acid, Oleum, 

Sellite

Hercules Powder Co.

12 Dec 1941 Wabash River Ord. Works RDX & explosives E.I. Dupont de Memours 

& Co. Military Explosives 

Division

25 Oct 41 Weldon Springs Ord. 

Works - Weldon Springs, 

MO

TNT, DNT Atlas Powder Co.

29 Jan 1942 West Virginia Ord. 

Works- Point Pleasant, 

WV

TNT, Comp B, C-2, C-3 General Chemical Defense 

Co.

31 Dec 40 Wolf Creek Ord. Plant –

Milan, TN

Shells, Bombs, Bomb 

Clusters, Tracer, Rocket, 

Fuzes, Tetryl Pellet

Proctor & Gamble Corp.

AMMO CONTAINER FACILITIES

22 Oct 1941 Ammo Container Corp. –

Chicago, IL

Ammo Containers American Can Co.

18 Oct 1941 Feltex Corp. – Fiber 

Container Corp. – Rock 

Island, IL

Ammo Containers Feltex Corp.

18 Oct 1941 Sefton Fiber Can Co. –

Memphis, TN

Ammo containers Reynolds Metals Co.

DEPOTS

6 Sep 1943 Anniston Ord. Depot –

Anniston AL

Receipt, Storage & Issue 

of Ord. Materiel

Anniston Whae. Corp

23 Sept 43 Blue Grass Ord. Depot –

Richmond, KY

Receipt, Storage & Issue 

of Ord. Materiel

Blue Grass Ord. Depot Inc

11 Aug 1943 Lordstown Ord. Depot –

Warren, OH

Receipt, Storage & Issue 

of Ord. Materiel

Lordstown Depot Mgt. 

Inc.

31 Dec 40 Milan Ord. Depot – Milan, 

TN

Receipt, Storage & Issue 

of Ord. Materiel

Proctor & Gamble

28 Aug 40 Portage Ord. Depot –

Wayland, OH

Receipt, Storage & Issue 

of Ord. Materiel

Atlas Powder Co.

12 Aug 1943 Rossford Ord. Depot –

Toledo, OH

Receipt, Storage & Issue 

of Ord. Materiel

Harvester War Depot, Inc.
71

APPENDIX B 

WWII ERA GOVERNMENT OWNED AMMUNITION INDUSTRIAL BASE 182

 

182 Hammond, 5. This diagram reflects WWII era LAP, propellant, explosive and chemical facilities owned by the 

War Department. The chart was created to show what facilities were operating or could be utilized for supplying 

1-7 million man Army forces. The 12 small arms plants operating during WWII are not included in this chart but 

were also War Department assets.
72

APPENDIX C

1977 GOVERNMENT OWNED AMMUNITION INDUSTRIAL BASE

This table represents the same technique for displaying core facilities. The diagram illustrates 

which other plants had capacity for reactivation to support a surge or full-scale mobilization. 

Core facilities were determined by degrees of: versatility, product capability, modernization, 

competitiveness, and essentiality. The core plant complexes were and are considered essential to 

retain to provide the minimum level warm base capabilities needed to produce ammunition 

components and end items. In 2007, all the plants that were not identified as core processes in 

this chart have been closed. In addition, Frankford Arsenal, Indiana Army Ammunition Plant, 

and Louisiana AAP were removed from the core critical process ranking and are no longer part 

of the base. 183

 

183 Hammond, Table 22 – After p. 123.
73

2007 GOVERNMENT OWNED AMMUNITION INDUSTRIAL BASE

This diagram reflects the ammunition industrial base in 2007. JMC closed four plants by 

FY2011 and transferred land management functions to BRAC-D to work on the transfer of land 

to local or gaining authorities. 
74

2010 GOVERNMENT OWNED AMMUNITION INDUSTRIAL BASE 

This diagram reflects the ammunition industrial base in 2010. JMC closed four installations: 

Riverbank AAP, Mississippi AAP, Lone Star AAP, and Kansas AAP between FY09-10. Pine 

Bluff Arsenal transferred from the Chemical Materials Agency to JMC in 2008. Red River 

Munitions Center will be closed by the end of FY11. The total core/key ammunition production 

and storage facilities managed by JMC in 2010 totaled 16. No production is completed by 

Defense Ammunition Center (which would total 17). 
75

Bibliography

Bacevich, A.J. The Pentomic Era. National Defense University Press, 1986. 

Beuster, Alan. “The Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition Industrial Base Assessment 

Tool,” Army AL&T (July-August 2004): 64. 

Center of Military History. Mobilization. Accessed at: http://www.history.army.mil/

documents/mobpam.htm.

Committee on Armed Services. Investigation of the Ammunition Shortages in the Armed 

Services – Interim Report of the Preparedness Subcommittee No.2 of the Committee on 

Armed Services United States Senate. 1953.

Crowell, Benedict. America’s Munitions 1917-1918: Report of Benedict Crowell: The 

Assistant Secretary of War and Director of Munitions. Washington D.C.: Government 

Printing Office, 1919.

DARCOM Regulation 10-71. JMC History Archives.

Department of Army. “Army‟s Munitions Strategy.” Briefing – DA level. 1998. 

Department of Defense. DoDD 5160.65, Subject: Single Manager for Conventional 

Ammunition (SMCA). 1981.

Department of Defense. DoDD 5160.65, Subject: Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition

(SMCA). 2004. 

Department of Defense. DODI 5160.68, Subject: Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition 

(SMCA): Responsibilities of the SMCA, 2004.

Eaton, George. Matching Organization to Expectation: A History of the Single Manager for 

Conventional Ammunition: 1950 to 2004. Rock Island, Ill.: AFSC/JMC History Office, 

2005.

Ennis, Harry. Peacetime Industrial Preparedness for Wartime Ammunition Production. 

National Defense University, 1980.

Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition. 1981-1994 EDCA Annual Reports.

1981-1994. 

Field Director of Ammunition Plants. History of the Powder and Explosive Section Volume I. 

FDAP, 1945.

Government Accountability Office. GAO/NSIAD-96-129. “Defense Ammunition: Significant 

Problems Left Unattended Will Get Worse.” 1996.
76

Government Accountability Office. GAO/NSIAD-96-133. “DoD‟s Assessment of 

Requirements.” 1996.

Hamilton, Major N.A. Army Service Force, Office Chief of Ordnance, History of the Powder 

and Explosives Section. Washington, D.C., 1945.

Hammond, R. J. Profile on Munitions: WWI-SEA 1950-1977. Rock Island, Ill.: ARRCOM 

Historical Office, 1977.

Heiser, LTG Joseph, Jr., Vietnam Studies, Logistics Support. Washington D.C.: Center of

Military History, 1974.

Houston, James. Guns and Butter, Powder and Rice – U.S. Army Logistics in the Korean War.

London: Associated University Press, 1989.

Huston, James A. The Sinews of War, Army Logistics 1775-1953. Washington D.C.: Center for 

Military History, 1966. 

Joint Logistics Review Board. “A Summary Assessment with Major Findings and 

Recommendations on Ammunition.” Washington D.C.: 1970. Also referred to as: 

“Besson Board Report.”

“Lend Lease Act 1941.” Accessed at: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true

&doc=71.

Logistics Management Institute. Condition and Operation of DoD Ammunition Production 

Facilities, Phase II - Volume I. 1970.

Manese-Lee, Angela. “Explosive industry: By the end of the year, the Radford Army 

Ammunition Plant will become the only site in the United States that produces TNT.” 

Roanoke Times, 28 May 2006.

Martin, CPT David A. “Artillery Ammunition in the Korean War.” Accessed at: 

www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/SepOct98/MS297.htm.

McManus, MG Wade H., Jr. “Ammunition Support Issues and Challenges.” Briefing. 2002. 

Mullen, Steven. “Ammunition Readiness: Current Problems and Future Implications for Army 

Transformation.” No 02-1 AUSA Land Warfare Publication (February 2002).

National Academy of Sciences. “Munitions Manufacturing: A Call for Modernization.” 

Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. 

Office of the Chief of Ordnance. “Policies, Recommendations and Data Relative to Ownership 

and Operations of Army Arsenals, Plants and Works.” 1955.
77

Office of the Comptroller, Ordnance Ammunition Command. “A Review of the Ordnance 

Ammunition Center Current Mission, Functions and Responsibilities.” 1952.

Ordnance Ammunition Command. OAC Annual Command History 1951. 1951

Ordnance Department. Ordnance Corps History (OCH) Volume II. Located in JMC Archives.

Owens, Dr. C. H. Industrial Mobilization Planning in the Ordnance Department: 1946-1950.

March 1956. Copy located in JMC Archives. 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). Study/Briefing. “Recommended Strategy for 

Configuring and Managing the U.S. Munitions Industrial Base.” 1997.

Program Executive Office for Ammunition. “Ammunition Industrial Base Management.”

Briefing. 

Program Executive Office for Ammunition. “PM MAS.” Briefing. 2004.

Photograph. “Davy Crockett Weapons System, M29,” Joint Munitions Command History 

Archives. 1960s.

RAND Corporation. Briefing. “PBD 407 Study and the Industrial Base Program Review.” 2001.

RAND Corporation. “Freedom‟s Arsenal: A Strategy for Managing the Army‟s Arsenals and 

Ammunition Plants (Draft).” 2002.

Records of the Under Secretary of War. Accessed at: http://www.archives.gov/research

/holocaust/findingaid/military/rg-107-2.html.

Reeder, William R. “The Korean Ammunition Shortage,” unpublished.

Report of War Department Procurement Review, 31 August 1943. 

Rowland, Buford and William Boyd. U.S. Navy Bureau of Ordnance in World War II. U.S.: 

Bureau of Ordnance, Department of the Navy, GPO, 1953.

Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition Charter. August 2004.

Snodgrass, Raymond. History of Ordnance Activities Relating to the Korean Conflict: June 

1950-September 1951. 1952.

Statement from BG Burbules, Deputy Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition, U.S. 

Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command, during Defense Department 

Authorization and Oversight Hearings on Department of Defense Authorization of 

Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1984.
78

Statement from General Wagner during hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on 

Appropriations House of Representatives in the First Session of the Ninety-Sixth 

Congress.

Thomson, Harry C. and Peter Roots. US Army in World War II The Ordnance Department: 

Planning Munitions for War. Washington D.C.: Center of Military History, 1955.

Thomson, Harry C.and Lida Mayo. United States in World War II: The Technical Services –

The Ordnance Department: Procurement and Supply. Washington D.C.: Center of 

Military History, 1960.

U.S. Army Armament Munitions and Chemical Command (AMCCOM). FY1981 thru 

FY1994 AMCCOM Annual Command Histories. Rock Island, Ill.: AMCCOM, 

 1981 thru 1994.

U.S. Army Field Support Command/Joint Munitions Command. FY2003 AFSC/JMC Annual 

History. 2004

U.S. Army Field Support Command/Joint Munitions Command. “FY05 Program Executive 

Office for Ammunition Annual Historical Summary,” AFSC/JMC FY05 Annual 

Command History. 2006.

U.S. Army Field Support Command/Joint Munitions Command. End of Career Oral History 

Interview - Colonel C. Redding Hobby. 2002.

U.S. Army Joint Munitions Command. JMC 10-1 Regulation - JMC History Appendix. Rock 

Island, Ill.: JMC, 2007.

U.S. Army Joint Munitions Command. “MRR and Balcony Brief.” Briefing. 2006.

U.S. Army Munitions Command. MUCOM Annual Historical Summaries 1964-1969. 

1964-1969.

U.S. Army Operations Support Command. “Army Munitions Readiness.” Briefing. 2002.

U.S. Army Operations Support Command. OSC Annual Command History FY2002. 2003. 

Watson, Mark S. “Ammunition Expenditure in Korea,” Ordnance (September-October 1952): 

254.