Foreword

General employment of toxic munitions in World War I made it necessary

for the United States as a belligerant to protect its soldiers against gas attack,

and to furnish means for conducting gas warfare. The postwar revulsion against

the use of gas in no way guaranteed that it would not be used in another war;

and to maintain readiness for gas warfare, Congress therefore authorized the

retention of the Chemical Warfare Service as a small but important part of the

Army organization.

Between world wars, officers of the Chemical Warfare Service anticipated

that in another conflict the Service would again be principally concerned with

gas warfare, and they concentrated on defense and retaliation against it. The

almost equal preparedness of the United States and other nations for gas warfare

acted during World War II as the principal deterrent to the uses of gas. That it

was not used has obscured the very large and vital effort that preparations for gas

warfare required at home and overseas. This effort involved large numbers of

American scientists and the American chemical industry as well as the Chemical

Warfare Service, and served not only the Army but also the other armed forces

of the United States and those of Allied nations. And in World War II the

Chemical Warfare Service and its civilian collaborators came up with some new

major weapons, notably the 4.2-inch mortar, generators for large-area smoke

screening, flame throwers, and incendiary and flame bombs. The Service acquired

in addition an entirely new mission, that of preparing the nation against the

hazards of biological attack. In fulfilling its responsibilities the Chemical Warfare Service during the war compiled a record of achievement that readers of this

subseries both in and out of the Army, will find instructive.

Washington, D. C.

7 March 1958

R. W. STEPHENS

Maj. Gen., U. S. A.

Chief of Military History

ix
The Authors

Dr. Leo P. Brophy holds an A.B. degree from Franklin and Marshall College

and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in history from Fordham University. After teaching

history and sociology at Fordham and Seton Hall Universities, he joined the

staff of the Chemical Corps Historical Office in 1945. He has specialized in

administrative and logistic history. Since 1953 Dr. Brophy has served as Chief

of the Chemical Corps Historical Office.

Col. George B. Fisher, a graduate of the Industrial College of the Armed

Forces, was commissioned in the National Army during World War I and

received a Regular Army commission in 1920. As a Chemical Warfare Service

officer from 1929 until his retirement in 1947, he held a number of important

training and administrative posts, including tours as Chief of the Training

Division, Office of the Chief, CWS; Assistant Commandant of the Chemical

Warfare School; director of Army civil defense schools in World War II; and

Chemical Officer, Third United States Army in Europe. From 1951 until his

death in 1956 he served as a consultant in the Chemical Corps Historical Office.
Preface

This is the first of three volumes devoted to the activities of the Chemical

Warfare Service in World War II. Part One of the present volume traces the

organization and administration of the Chemical Warfare Service from its

origins in World War I up through World War II. Part Two deals with training

of military personnel for offensive and defensive chemical warfare in the same

period.

Even more than other elements of the Army, the Chemical Warfare Service

(designated Chemical Corps after World War II) felt the effects of the

government's restrictions on personnel and funds in the years between the two

world wars. This was partly the aftermath of international efforts to outlaw gas

warfare and partly the result of antipathy to that type of warfare on the part

of various high government officials. Certain members of the War Department

General Staff, including at times the Chief of Staff himself, were opposed to gas

warfare. Consequently the Chemical Warfare Service was considered as more

or less a necessary nuisance.

The movement toward general national preparedness that got under way in

the late 1930's led to an increase in the stock levels of certain chemical warfare

items. Included in 1938 Educational Order legislation providing for a build-up

of a limited number of Army items was the gas mask. Later legislation and War

Department directives enabled the Chemical Warfare Service to make still

further preparations for gas warfare, offensive and defensive. These activities,

continued throughout the war years, helped to deter the enemy from initiating

gas warfare. During World War II, in addition to discharging its responsibility

for gas warfare, the Chemical Warfare Service carried out a number of other

chemical warfare missions for which it had little or no preparation in the prewar

years. The service was also assigned a biological warfare mission.

Although any of the three volumes on the Chemical Warfare Service can be

read as an entity, the first seven chapters of the present work will serve to

illuminate the remainder of the CWS story. Against the background provided

by Part One, the account of specific functions such as military training (covered

in Part Two of this volume), research, procurement, and supply (covered in the

second volume), and chemical warfare activities in the oversea theaters of operations (covered in the third volume) will emerge in clearer perspective.

A further word of explanation with regard to Part One may be of assistance

to the reader. The aim here is to discuss developments in organization and
administration primarily as they affected the Chief, Chemical Warfare Service,

and his immediate staff and secondarily as they affected the commanders of

Chemical Warfare Service field installations. Since these developments in almost

all instances had their origin at a level higher than that of the Chief of the

Chemical Warfare Service, pertinent background information on policy at the

higher level is included.

Dr. Leo P. Brophy is responsible for Part One. He has been assisted in the

research and writing on Chapters IV and V by Mr. Herbert G. Wing, formerly

of the Historical Staff, Chemical Corps. The late Col. George J. B. Fisher,

USA, was primarily responsible for Part Two. Colonel Fisher was taken ill

before he was able to complete the research and writing of this portion of the

volume. His work was taken up and completed by the staff of the Historical

Office. Dr. Brophy wrote the section in Chapter XIII on the training of chemical

mortar battalions, and the section in Chapter XVI on the training of the Army

in the use of flame, smoke, and incendiaries. Dr. Brooks E. Kleber and Mr. Dale

Birdsell assisted in the research of these and other chapters in Part Two.

The authors of this volume were greatly aided in their research by the competent staff of the Departmental Records Branch, Office of The Adjutant General, particularly Mrs. Caroline Moore; by Mr. R. W. Krauskopf of the staff of

the National Archives; by Mr. Roger W. Squier, Office of the Comptroller of

the Army; and by Mr. Michael D. Wertheimer, Office of the Deputy Chief of

Staff for Personnel, Department of the Army. Mrs. Alice E. Moss supervised

the typing of the manuscript.

The authors are indebted to the many veterans of the Chemical Warfare Service

who through interviews and otherwise aided them in writing the volume. Among

these were several whose assistance was most helpful: Maj. Gen. William N.

Porter, Maj. Gen. Alden H. Waitt, Maj. Gen. Charles E. Loucks, Brig. Gen.

Henry M. Black, Col. Harry A. Kuhn, Lt. Col. Selig J. Levitan, and Col. Raymond L. Abel.

In the Office of the Chief of Military History, Lt. Col. Leo J. Meyer, Deputy

Chief Historian, and his successor, Dr. Stetson Conn, rendered valuable assistance.

Final editing was accomplished by Mr. David Jaffé, senior editor, assisted by

Mrs. Helen Whittington, copy editor. Mrs. Norma Sherris selected the photographs.

Washington, D. C.

2 April 1958

LEO P. BROPHY

xii
Contents

PART ONE

Administrative Development

Chapter Page

I. ORIGINS OF THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE ... . 3

Gas Warfare Organization, American Expeditionary Forces . . 5

Centralizing Chemical Warfare Activities ....... . 8

The Chemical Warfare Service, National Army ..... . 11

II. THE YEARS BETWEEN THE WARS ........ . 18

The Issue of Gas Warfare ............ . 18

The War Department and Gas Warfare ....... . 22

Carrying Out the Peacetime Mission: 1920-39 ..... . 24

Relations With Other Elements of Armed Forces ..... . 34

Industrial Mobilization Gets Under Way ....... . 36

Research and Development: A Change in Outlook .... . 37

Limited Emphasis on Chemical Warfare Service Training ... 38

Organizational Developments: 1940-41 ....... . 39

Development of the Chemical Warfare Service Mission in the

Emergency Period ............. . 4 3

III. CRYSTALLIZING THE WARTIME MISSION ..... . 49

The Study of January 1942 ............ . 49

The Concern of Mr. McCloy ........... . 52

The Porter Proposals ............. . 54

The Gas Mission Defined ............ . 59

IV. THE UNITED STATES CHEMICAL WARFARE COMMITTEE . 63

Mission and Functions of the Committee ....... . 65

Activities and Accomplishments .......... . 70

The Question of Initiating Gas Warfare ....... . 86

Summary .................. . 8 8

V. THE CHIEF'S OFFICE DURING WORLD WAR II ... . 91

Early Wartime Organization ........... . 94

Developments, May 1943-October 1945 ....... . 101

xiii
Chapter Page

VI. FIELD ORGANIZATION OF THE CHEMICAL WARFARE

SERVICE ................. . 11 0

T h e Procurement Districts ............ . 11 0

The Chemical Warfare Center ........... . 117

T h e Arsenals ................ . 12 0

T h e Depots ................ . 12 2

Training Installations and Facilities ......... . 125

Research and Development Facilities ........ . 132

Testing Facilities ............... . 13 4

Biological Warfare Installations .......... . 138

VII. PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .......... . 14 2

Procurement and Assignment of Officers ....... . 142

Procurement and Utilization of Enlisted Personnel .... . 149

Negro Military Personnel ............ . 150

Women's Army Corps Personnel in the Chemical Warfare Service 152

The Expanding Civilian Rolls ........... . 154

Administration From Washington ......... . 159

Installation Management of Civilian Personnel ..... . 162

Training Civilian Workers ............ . 17 3

Utilization o f Employees ............ . 17 7

Guarding the Worker's Life and Health ....... . 182

PART TWO

Military Training

VIII. MILITARY TRAINING RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE .......... . 187

Prewar Training of Chemical Warfare Service Personnel ... 188

Training of Other Branches ........... . 191

Chemical Warfare School ............ . 194

Training Situation in 1939 ............ . 196

IX. PARTIAL MOBILIZATION: 1939-41 ........ . 199

Chemical Troops in the Emergency Period ....... . 199

The Question of Combat Functions ......... . 201

Chemical Service Units ............. . 205

Activation of Ground Service Units ......... . 208

Plans for Air Service Units ........... . 209

Replacement Training at Edgewood Arsenal ...... . 210

Replacement Training Programs .......... . 21 3

Conduct of Replacement Training ......... . 215

xiv
Chapter Page

Gas Defense Training: 1939-1941 ......... . 217

Chemical Warfare Training of Ground Forces ..... . 219

Army Air Forces Training ............ . 222

School Training ............... . 22 4

Instruction of Reserve Officers .......... . 225

X. THE CIVILIAN DEFENSE MISSION ........ . 229

CWS Prewar Interest in Civilian Defense ....... . 229

Preparation of Instructional Material ........ . 232

School Training at Edgewood Arsenal ........ . 236

War Department Civilian Protection Schools ...... . 241

Miscellaneous Activities ............. . 24 5

Supervision of War Department Civilian Protection Schools . . 247

X I. OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS ............ . 25 1

Volume of Wartime Publications .......... . 251

Setting Up the Publications Program ........ . 252

The Pattern of Military Publications ......... . 256

The Preparation of Manuals ........... . 258

Speeding Up the Program ............ . 261

XII. REPLACEMENT TRAINING ........... . 26 5

The Upswing in RTC Requirements ......... . 267

R TC Curriculum ............... . 27 4

Training Procedures .............. . 27 9

Officer Pools ................ . 28 2

Supervisory Control .............. . 28 4

Movement o f Trainees ............. . 28 7

Curtailment of the Program ........... . 289

XIII. TRAINING OF CHEMICAL UNITS ......... . 294

The Building of Military Organizations ....... . 294

CWS Participation in Unit Training ......... . 297

Unit Training at Camp Sibert ........... . 312

Chemical Service Unit Training in Retrospect ...... . 336

XIV. THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SCHOOL ....... . 339

Administration ............... . 33 9

Training of CWS Personnel ........... . 342

Training of Other Arms and Services ........ . 346

Academic Procedures .............. . 35 1

Western Chemical Warfare School ......... . 353

Other Schools ................ . 35 5

Accomplishment of School Training ......... . 357

xv
Chapter Page

XV. OFFICER CANDIDATES ............. . 361

OCS Role in Officer Procurement .......... . 361

Capacity Targets ............... . 36 3

Facilities .................. . 36 6

Selection of Candidates ............. . 367

Staff and Faculty ............... . 369

Training Program .............. . 37 2

The Problem of Failures ............ . 374

XVI. CHEMICAL WARFARE TRAINING OF THE ARMY ... 382

Antigas Training of Air and Ground Units ...... . 382

Changes in War Department Policy ......... . 384

Revival of Antigas Training ........... . 385

Service-Wide Inspection ............. . 38 8

Shortcomings in Antigas Training ......... . 390

Flame, Smoke, and Incendiaries .......... . 393

Appendix Page

A. Total Chemical Warfare Service Military Personnel Strength, 31

December 1941-31 December 1945 ........ . 398

B. Chemical Warfare Service Personnel Strength, Overseas, 30 April

1942-31 December 1945 ............ . 400

C. Chemical Warfare Service Negro Personnel Strength, Worldwide,

30 April 1942-31 December 1945 ......... . 402

D. Office of the Chief, CWS Officer Personnel Strength, August 1939-

December 1945 ............... . 40 4

E. Key Personnel Office of Chief, Chemical Warfare Service . . . 406

F. Chemical Warfare School, Detailed Program, Replacement Center

Officer's Course ............... . 409

G. Hq. Sixth Corps Area, Training Memorandum No. 13, 4 December

1940 ................... . 41 1

H. Chemical Warfare Service, Unit Data, World War II ... . 422

1. Chemical Mortar Battalions

2. Chemical Mortar Companies

3. Chemical Smoke Generator Battalions

4. Chemical Smoke Generator Companies

5. Chemical Companies, Air Operations

6. Chemical Depot Companies (Aviation)

7. Chemical Maintenance Companies (Aviation)

8. Chemical Depot Companies and Chemical Base Depot Companies

9. Chemical Maintenance Companies

xvi
Appendix Page

10. Chemical Decontamination Companies

11. Chemical Processing Companies

12. Chemical Service Battalions

13. Chemical Composite Service and General Service Companies

14. Chemical Composite and Service Platoons and Detachments

15. Chemical Laboratory Companies

16. Chemical Composite Battalions

I. War Department Chemical Warfare Training Directive, 15 June

1942 ................... . 47 2

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE .............. . 47 5

GLOSSARY .................... . 47 9

INDEX ..................... . 48 8

Tables

No. Page

1. Congressional Appropriations for CWS, 1922-46 ...... . 25

2. Military Strength of the CWS, 1918-46 ......... . 26

3. Chemical Warfare Service Civilian Personnel Strength, November

1918-December 1945 .............. . 2 7

4. 1942 Proposed Modification in CWS Troop Basis ...... . 58

5. CWS Troop Basis, as of 13 August 1942 ........ . 59

6. Actual Strength of Civilian Employees (Filled Positions), 31 December

1944 .................... . 15 5

7. Peak Civilian Personnel Figures at Principal CWS Installations During

World Wa r II ................ . 16 3

8. Chemical Warfare School Courses, School Year 1937-38 ... . 195

9. Chemical Warfare Service Units Active During World War II (As

of dates indicated) ............... . 266

10. Shipment of RTC Trainees, Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland ... . 269

11. Wartime Training of CWS Service Units ........ . 312

12. Provisional Organization, CWS UTC, February 1943 ..... . 317

13. Enlisted Specialists in Each Chemical Service Type Company, World

W a r II ................... . 33 1

14. Enlisted Specialist Schooling Utilized in CWS Unit Training . . . 332

15. Graduates of the Chemical Warfare School, Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland .................... . 35 7

16. Hours of Scheduled Instructions, CWS OCS ........ . 375

xvii
Charts

No. Page

1. Organization, Office, Chief of Chemical Warfare Service, Washington,

D.C., as of 6 July 1940 ............. . 40

2. Organization of the Chemical Warfare Service, as of August 1940 . 41

3. Organization, Office, Chief of Chemical Warfare Service, as of 2

September 1941 ................ . 4 4

4. Organization of the Army Service Forces, as of 30 June 1943 . 93

5. Office, Chief of Chemical Warfare Service, as of 26 August 1943 . . 102

6. Chicago Procurement District, Chemical Warfare Service, as of 15

August 1944 ................. . 11 6

7. Chemical Warfare Center, as of 10 May 1942 ...... . 118

8. Schematic Diagram, Chemical Warfare Supply, as of 6 December 1944 124

9. Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland: Eastern Chemical Warfare Depot, as of

2 0 April 1945 ................. . 12 6

10. Distribution of CWS Military Personnel, as of 30 June 1944 ... . 147

11. Chemical Warfare Service Officer Strength and OCS Graduations: May

1940-July 1945 ................. . 36 2

Map

No. Page

1. Chemical Warfare Service Field Installations, World War II . . . 112

Illustrations

Page

Maj. Gen. William N. Porter ............ . Frontispiece

Stokes Trench Mortar ................ . 7

Maj. Gen. William L. Sibert .............. . 12

Chemical Plants, Edgewood Arsenal ............ . 1 3

Chemical Warfare Service Chiefs ............. . 2 9

4.2-Inch Chemical Mortar ............... . 4 6

C W S Equipment .................. . 5 2

1-Ton Chemical Containers ............... . 6 1

HC M1 Smoke Pots in Use .............. . 71

Laying Smoke Screen ................. . 7 6
Page

Brig. Gen. Rollo C. Ditto ............... . 10 3

Brig. Gen. Alden H . Waitt .............. . 10 3

Brig. Gen. Ra y L. Avery ............... . 11 9

Brig. Gen. Haig Shekerjian ............... . 12 8

Brig. Gen. E. F . Bullene ............... . 12 9

Maj. Gen. Dwight F. Davis .............. . 14 5

Women a t Pine Bluff Arsenal .............. . 16 5

Basic Training ................... . 19 2

G a s Training fo r Officers ............... . 19 3

Troops of 3d Chemical Mortar Battalion .......... . 206

White Phosphorus From 4.2-Inch Mortars .......... . 20 7

R T C Classroom Training ............... . 22 1

Mayor Fiorello H. La Guardia .............. . 23 0

Ga s Defense Training for Civilians ............ . 234

Demonstration i n Decontamination Procedures ........ . 23 8

Chemical Warfare Troops Undergoing Training ........ . 27 3

Army Maneuvers, Louisiana, 1942 ............ . 30 1

Flame Thrower Demonstration ............. . 30 9

Unit Training a t Camp Sibert .............. . 322

Women Leaving CWS Gas Chamber ............ . 387

M9 Chemical Detector Kit ............... . 393

Medium Tank Equipped With Flame Thrower ........ . 395

Illustrations are from Department of Defense files.

xix

PART ONE

ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER I

Origins of the Chemical

Warfare Service

The Chemical Warfare Service (CWS) came into being during an era

of unprecedented change in the technology of war.1 The introduction of gas

warfare by Germany in April 1915 presented new problems of military

techniques with which none of the Allied Powers was then prepared to cope.

In the United States the War Department by the fall of 1915 began to show

an interest in providing troops with protection against gas and assigned

responsibility for the design and development of respirators to the Medical

Department. In carrying out his responsibilities, The Surgeon General detailed certain Medical officers to the British and French Armies as observers,

and these officers sent back periodic reports which included information on

gas defense.2 The Army took no steps to supply the troops with masks or

to prepare for offensive gas warfare until the first part of 1917.

It was not the War Department but a civilian branch of the government

that took the first step in preparation for the employment of toxic agents.

Early in 1917 the Secretary of the Interior surveyed his department to determine how it might contribute to the national defense and decided that the

Bureau of Mines, which, since its establishment in 1910, had been investigating poisonous gases in mines, might be utilized in assisting the Army and

Navy in developing a gas war program. On 8 February, Van H. Manning,

the director of the Bureau of Mines wrote to the chairman of the Military

Committee of the National Research Council (NRC) offering the bureau's

1

 The Chemical Warfare Service was designated the Chemical Corps by Public Law 607, 79th

Congress, on 2 August 1946. See the Bibliographical Note at the end of this volume for the

location of sources cited in footnotes. 2

 The Medical Department of the United States Army in the World War: XIV, Medical

Aspects of Gas Warfare (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1926), 27, hereafter cited as

Medical Aspects of Gas Warfare.
4 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

services.3 Formal action on the recommendation was taken on 3 April 1917,

when the Military Committee of NRC appointed a subcommittee on noxious

gases, to "carry on investigations into noxious gases, generation, and antidote

for same, for war purposes."

 4 Under the chairmanship of the director of

the Bureau of Mines, the subcommittee included Ordnance and Medical

officers from both Army and Navy as well as two members of the Chemical

Committee of the National Research Council. The work of this group provided the genesis of the chemical warfare research effort of the United States

in World War I.

The War Department's early lack of serious concern about the new type

of warfare might be attributed to the fact that the effectiveness of a gas

attack with the agents then in use was waning by 1917 because of the

efficiency of antigas protection. It was not until the German Army in July

1917 began the use of dichloroethyl sulfide, the so-called mustard gas, as

a liquid toxic filler for projectiles that the War Department began to give

serious consideration to preparations for gas warfare. Mustard gas was persistent, it proved to be a high casualty producer, and it considerably widened

the scope of chemical warfare.5

As the gas warfare needs of U.S. troops in France became known in

Washington they were referred to the War Department bureau to which

each seemed to relate. The basic requirement was a gas mask; this item,

because of its prophylactic nature, was assigned to the Medical Department

for procurement and distribution. Training of individuals in use of the mask

then became a Medical responsibility.6 The War Department assigned the

responsibility for the manufacture and filling of gas shells to the Ordnance

Department, which erected a new arsenal for this purpose at Edgewood,

Maryland.7 Engineer troops were selected for the projection of chemical

3

 (1) Van H. Manning, War Gas Investigations, Dept. of Interior Bull. 178-A (Washington:

Government Printing Office, 1919). (2) Memo by G. S. Rice, Bureau of Mines, regarding early

history of mask and gas investigations for the Army, 9 Jan 18. RG 7, NA. 4

 Rcd of Mtg. Mil Com NRC, 3 Apr 17. RG 70, NA. 5

 (1) John J. Pershing, My Experiences in the World War (New York: Frederick A. Stokes,

1931), I, 166-67. (2) Amos A. Fries and Clarence J. West, Chemical Warfare (New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1921), p. 151. 6

 In September 1917, a Gas Defense Service, Sanitary Corps, Medical Department, was

activated. This service, in which a group of forty-five chemists was commissioned, was placed in

charge of training. In April 1918 the officers of the Gas Defense Service were transferred to the

Corps of Engineers. See Report of the Director of Chemical Warfare Service, 1919, pp. 43-49.

Hereafter cited as Rpt of CWS, with appropriate year. 7

 For detailed account of the building of Edgewood Arsenal, see Benedict Crowell, America's

Munitions, 1917-1918 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1919), pp. 395-409.
ORIGINS OF THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE 5

agents, and a regiment of gas and flame troops, to be known as the

30th Engineers, was authorized.8 Supplying gas alarms became a function of

Signal Corps.9 An agency for solving technical problems was at hand in the

subcommittee on noxious gases mentioned above. In September 1917 this

committee established a research and experiment station, financed by the

War and Navy Departments and operated by the Bureau of Mines, at

American University on the outskirts of Washington, D.C.10 The Bureau of

Mines also supervised research activities on war gases at many universities

and industrial laboratories throughout the country as well as at laboratories

of other government agencies.

Gas Warfare Organization, American Expeditionary Forces

The problems of gas warfare administration were in the meantime

receiving serious consideration in the theater of operations under the urgency

of an active gas warfare situation. A board of officers was appointed to

plan a gas warfare organization for the American Expeditionary Forces

(AEF) on 18 June 1917, a few days after General John J. Pershing's

arrival in France.11 The board analyzed the gas warfare establishments of

the British, French, and German Armies and considered the recommendations of Dr. George A. Hulett of Princeton University, who had spent some

time in England and France studying the use of gas in war. Following the

board's recommendation, General Pershing decided to centralize the handling of all gas warfare matters under an independent agency. He reported

his scheme of organization to Washington on 4 August 1917, recommending

that a similar consolidation be adopted by the War Department.12

Two weeks later General Pershing assigned Lt. Col. Amos A. Fries, an

Engineer officer who had served under him in the Philippines in 1905, as

8

 (1) WD GO 108, 15 Aug 17. (2) History of 1st Gas Regiment, Pt. I, p. 1. MS, n.d. 9

 Rpt of CWS, 1919, p. 3. 10

 Medical Aspects of Gas Warfare, pp. 35-36. 11

 Memo, Lt Col John McA. Palmer, C Opns Sec, Hq AEF, for CofS AEF, 30 July 17, sub:

Gas and Flame Serv, Offensive and Defensive. Copy of this memo appears as Appendix II in

History of Chemical Warfare Service, American Expeditionary Forces, a seventy-one-page detailed

account of organization and administration, together with sixty-five supporting appendixes, which

is apparently the official history written shortly after World War I. H-12 and H-13. This is

hereafter cited as History of CWS, AEF. 12

 (1) Ltr, CinC AEF to TAG, 4 Aug 17, sub: Cml or Gas Serv. (2) James G. Harbord, The

American Army in France (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1936), p. 128. Maj. Gen. James

G. Harbord states that details of proposed organization were sent to War Department on 28 July.
6 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Engineer in Charge of Gas.13 As such Fries became the chief of the Gas

Service, AEF, when it was officially established on 3 September 1917.14

The following day Fries was raised to the rank of colonel and placed in

command of the 30th Engineers, the gas and flame regiment.15 He at once

set up headquarters at Chaumont, where he would be in close touch with

the General Headquarters (GHQ) of the American Expeditionary Forces.

The AEF order which established the Gas Service specified that the chief

of the service would be "charged with the organization of the personnel, the

supply of material and the conduct of the entire Gas Service, both Offensive

and Defensive, including instruction." The first task confronting Fries was

that of securing suitable officer personnel. Even before the Gas Service

was officially established he had obtained the services of two Medical Department officers, Col. James R. Church, who had been observing the effects

of gas on French troops, and Capt. Walter M. Boothby, who had been given

a similar assignment with the British. Colonel Church headed the Medical

Section of the Gas Service until December 1917 when he was succeeded by

Col. Harry L. Gilchrist.16

 The Medical Section was responsible for training

and instructing Medical officers and other personnel in the treatment of gas

casualties, as well as for the inspection of methods and facilities for the care

of gassed cases.17

From the other branches of the Army, including Engineers, Ordnance,

Cavalry, and Infantry, Fries obtained some two hundred officers who, although they were assigned to the Gas Service, continued to hold commissions

in their respective branches. These officers, as well as the enlisted men

who were transferred to the Gas Service, were given a course of instruction

in gas defense at the I Corps Gas School, which was activated on 15 October

1917.18 The same month an Army Gas School, with courses in both defensive

13

 Cablegram (Pershing) 111-S, Paris, France, 18 Aug 17, Par. 19. WD Cables, P series,

A.E.F. files, NA. 14

 (1) Interv, CmlHO with Maj Gen Amos A. Fries, USA (Ret.), 4 Aug 55. (2) Copy of

AEF GO 31, 3 Sep 17. All AEF general orders cited in this chapter appear in Historical Division,

Department of the Army, UNITED STATES ARMY IN THE WORLD WAR: 1917-1919, XVI,

General Orders, G.H.Q., A.E.F. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1948). 15

 Historical Division, Department of the Army, UNITED STATES ARMY IN THE WORLD

WAR: 1917-1919, XV, Reports of Commander-in-Chief, A.E.F., Staff Sections and Services

(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1948), 291, hereafter cited as Reports of Commanderin-Chief, A.E.F., Staff Sections and Services. 16

 (1) History of CWS, AEF, pp. 7-8. (2) Medical Aspects of Gas Warfare, pp. 39-50. (3)

Fries and West, Chemical Warfare, p. 114. 17

 Medical Aspects of Gas Warfare, pp. 67-73. 18

 (1) AEF GO 45, 8 Oct 17. (2) Schedule, I Corps Gas School AEF. History of CWS, AEF,

App. 13.
ORIGINS OF THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE 7

STOKES TRENCH MORTAR, used by special gas troops of AEF, World War I.

Picture taken in CWS training area, Chaumont, France, 1918.

and offensive gas warfare, was started at Langres.19 Later three other

training schools were established.

The most serious problem which faced Fries when he became chief of

the Gas Service, aside from the task of obtaining personnel, was that of

providing for a supply of gas masks and other protective equipment for

American troops. Just prior to Fries's appointment the British, upon request

of Captain Boothby, had tested twenty thousand gas masks received from

the United States and had found them entirely unsuitable for use on the

battlefield.20 Fries knew that he would have to look for other sources of

supply and took immediate steps to purchase British masks, or box respirators, as they were called, and French M2 masks.21

 Second in importance to

supplying the Army with masks was the task of equipping special gas troops

with such weapons as cylinders, mortars, and projectors for the dispersion

19

 (1) AEF GO 46, 10 Oct 17. (2) Schedule of Instruction, AEF Army Gas School. History

of CWS, AEF, App. 15. 20

 Amos A. Fries, History of Chemical Warfare Service in France, p. 4. MS. 21

 AEF General Order 53, 3 November 1917, made the Gas Service responsible for supplying

all division, corps, and army gas officers with antigas supplies.
8 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

of agents. Fries also made arrangements to purchase these items from the

British, and it was well that he did, for none were received from the United

States until just before the close of the war.22

Colonel Fries was fortunate in securing the services of a very competent

officer, Maj. Robert W. Crawford, whom he put in charge of procurement

and supply activities in the Gas Service early in September 1917. The

Procurement and Supply Division, as Crawford's unit came to be known,

not only handled the purchase of matériel but also drew up plans for and

supervised the construction of three separate gas depots in the First Army

Area and four in the Second Army Area. These depots were placed in

operation in October 1918 under depot officers who were on the staffs of

the respective army gas officers.23 Crawford also drew up plans for construction of phosgene-manufacturing plants, shell-filling plants, and a gas-mask

repair plant. The proposed construction of phosgene and shell-filling plants

in France was given up after Colonel Fries had studied the matter in detail

and made a recommendation to that effect to General Pershing. The chief

reason for abandoning those projects was the inability to obtain sufficient

chlorine in France.24 But the plan for building the mask repair plant was

carried to completion, and in November 1917 four officers and no enlisted

men of the Medical Department arrived from the United States to operate

this plant.25

In addition to personnel, training, and procurement and supply responsibilities, the Gas Service, AEF, had definite technical responsibilities. In

carrying out the latter responsibilities, General Fries' headquarters worked

closely with the War Department.

Centralizing Chemical Warfare Activities

The start of centralizing chemical warfare activities within the War

Department dates from October 1917, when an Office of Gas Service was

set up, with Col. Charles L. Potter, an Engineer officer, as director. This

move was an attempt to satisfy the need for an agency in Washington

which would know everything that was going on with regard to chemical

warfare both at home and abroad. The Gas Service was to be the "co22

 Fries and West, Chemical Warfare, p. 78. 23

 History of CWS, AEF, p. 48. 24

 Fries and West, Chemical Warfare, p. 104. 25

 Medical Aspects of Gas Warfare, p. 30.
ORIGINS OF THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE 9

ordinating agent" between the various bureaus and laboratories engaged in

gas warfare activities, and all communications from abroad dealing with

gas warfare were to be routed to that office. Provision was made for three

assistants to the director of the new service, one from the Ordnance Department, another from the Medical Department, and a third from a newly

created Chemical Service Section of the National Army, established under

the same directive that established the Gas Service.26 The Chemical Service

Section was to consist of forty-seven commissioned and ninety-five enlisted

personnel.

The Chemical Service Section, National Army, was created to fill a

request of General Pershing, repeated five times between 26 September and

9 December 1917, for a chemical laboratory, complete with equipment and

personnel, to investigate gases and powders.27 Professor William H. Walker

of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) was commissioned a

lieutenant colonel and made chief of the Chemical Service Section. Walker

set out to recruit qualified personnel for a laboratory unit for overseas duty.

In January 1918 the first members of this unit, consisting of about twentyfive officers and ten men, under the command of Col. Raymond F. Bacon,

arrived in Puteaux, near Paris, where Colonel Fries had set up a laboratory.

Here the scientists in uniform conducted experiments on gases until the

close of the war. To satisfy the need for testing gas shells and fuzes and

conducting other gas warfare experimentation, a test field was set up near

Chaumont. This field was named Hanlon Field in September 1918 in honor

of 2d Lt. Joseph T. Hanlon, the first Chemical Warfare officer to be killed

in action.28

A development in connection with gas research in the theater was the

inter-Allied gas conferences for the exchange of scientific information.

Three such conferences were held during the war—in September 1917,

March 1918, and October 1918. From the point of view of the American

scientists the last was the most satisfactory, because by that time the

Americans felt they had come to know as much about gas as their European

co-workers. At this conference for the first time sat representatives from the

26

 Memo, CofS for TAG, 16 Oct 17, sub: Gas Serv of Army. CWS 322.095/101-140. The

section of this directive dealing with the establishment of the Chemical Service Section, National

Army, also appears in War Department General Order 139, 1 November 1917. 27

 Pershing's five cables are repeated verbatim in Memo, Col Potter, Dir Gas Serv, for CofS

USA, 28 Dec 17. CWS 322.095/141-200. 28

 (1) History of CWS, AEF, pp. 18-19, 56-57. (2) Fries and West, Chemical Warfare, Ch.

IV. (3) Reports of Commander-in-Chief, A.E.F., Staff Sections and Services, pp. 300-302.
10 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

laboratories in the United States, including Professors Elmer P. Kohler and

Warren K. Lewis.29

Inter-Allied co-operation in the theater was not confined to research but

extended to supply as well. At the suggestion of Winston S. Churchill, the

Inter-Allied Commission for Chemical Warfare Supply was set up in May

1918.30 Between May and November this commission, on which sat representatives of Great Britain, France, Italy, and the United States, held six

meetings. By the time of the armistice the commission was said to be

"gradually assuming the position of a board of directors, regulating production and distribution in accordance with existing needs."

 31

While the Chemical Service Section, National Army, was assisting the

theater on the research program, Colonel Walker's headquarters was also

taking steps to co-ordinate gas research activities in the United States. By

January 1918 the number of troops doing research under the guidance of

the Bureau of Mines at the American University Experiment Station and

various other laboratories had risen to over two hundred officers and more

than five hundred enlisted men. These were under the jurisdiction of various

elements of the Army—Ordnance, Engineers, Signal, Sanitary Corps of the

Medical Department, and the Chemical Service Section, National Army.

Efficient administration demanded that these troops be placed under one

Army agency. On 10 January Colonel Potter, chief of the Gas Service,

recommended to the Chief of Staff that they be included in the Chemical

Service Section. This request was favorably considered and on 15 February

the authorized strength of the Chemical Service Section was raised to 227

officers and 525 enlisted men.32

In addition to its research activities, the Chemical Service Section, from

early 1918 until the end of the war, was called on more and more by the

Ordnance Department for recommendations on the manufacture of gases at

Edgewood Arsenal. Thus, while the purpose behind the Chemical Service

Section was to co-ordinate without integrating and without disturbing functions of the statutory bureaus of the War Department, it was becoming

evident that the system was developing serious defects. What was needed was

29

 History of CWS, AEF, p. 52. 30

 (1) Pershing, My Experience in the World War, I, 357. (2) History of CWS, AEF, p. 27. 31

 History of CWS, AEF, p. 28. 32

 Marston T. Bogert and William H. Walker, History of the Chemical Service Section, Apps.

C and D. This seven-page manuscript account, exclusive of appendixes, was written in 1919.

H-131.
ORIGINS OF THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE 11

a greater degree of administrative centralization. Two additional factors

were working toward this end. The large and growing number of scientists

engaged in research in gas warfare was insisting on recognition. And there

was increasing pressure by various officials for a responsible gas warfare

organization within the zone of interior to parallel the one in the theater of

operations.

The Chemical Warfare Service, National Army

In the spring of 1918 separate proposals were made both in the United

States and in France to establish a gas corps. On 17 April Lt. Col. Marston

T. Bogert, who had succeeded Colonel Walker as chief of the Chemical

Service Section, recommended to the Chief of Staff that the section be

replaced by a "chemical corps" which would be on a "basis more nearly like

that occupied by the Engineering and Medical branches of the Army."

 33

In this way, Bogert contended, chemists in the Army would be under the

guidance and control of chemists. This suggestion was not favorably considered.34

 On 1 May Colonel Fries recommended to General Pershing that

a gas corps be established in the AEF. Fries gave as his chief reason the

very compelling fact that for the past year the enemy had been using gas

as an essential part of every offensive and that the Gas Service, AEF, simply

did not have the necessary administrative power to prosecute an effective gas

program.35 Pershing was favorably impressed by Fries's argument and on 3

June he cabled to the Chief of Staff in the United States requesting that a

gas corps be activated.36 This request, like Bogert's was not favorably considered. While it took no action on setting up a separate chemical or gas

corps, the War Department did take definite steps in the spring of 1918 to

establish a more strongly centralized organization for gas warfare. What

was especially needed at that time was a "name" officer of rank and personality who could overcome obstacles and break log jams. This proved to

be Maj. Gen. William L. Sibert, one of the builders of the Panama Canal

33

 Memo, Bogert, Cml Serv Sec NA, for CofS USA, 17 Apr 18, sub: Cml Serv Sec Pers.

Bogert and Walker, History of the Chemical Service Section, App. C 1. 34

 1st Ind, 6 May 18, to memo cited Note 33 above. Bogert and Walker, Hist of the Chemical

Service Section, App. C 3. 35

 Ltr, C Gas Serv AEF to CinC AEF (Through: CG SOS), 1 May 18, sub: Reorganization of Gas Serv. History of CWS, AEF, App. 37. 36

 Cable 1240-S, CG AEF to CofS USA, 3 Jun 18. History of CWS, AEF, App. 38.
12 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM L. SIBERT, first

Chief of the Chemical Warfare Service, June 1918-February 1920.

and lately commander of the 1st

Division in France. Appointment

of Sibert as director of the Gas

Service on 11 May 1918 was quickly

followed by a number of administrative changes in line with the

trend toward integration of chemical warfare functions which had

been evident for some time.37 On

25 June 1918 the President transferred the control experimental

station at American University

from the Bureau of Mines to the

War Department.38 Three days

later the War Department formally

established the Chemical Warfare

Service, National Army, and sweepingly specified the transfer to the

new organization of all facilities

and functions applying to toxic

chemicals.39

In World War I the United States had to rely on its allies, particularly

the British, for chemical munitions. This situation was rapidly being corrected late in 1918. Manufacturing facilities in the Astoria section of New

York City were by then capable of meeting all the requirements for protective equipment, and the production of toxic agents at the Edgewood Arsenal

plants was totaling 675 tons per week.40 Responsibility for the production of

defensive items was put in the Gas Defense Production Division, CWS,

headed by Col. Bradley Dewey, while supervision of toxics was placed in the

Gas Offense Production Division, of which Col. William H. Walker was

chief. Technical activities were divided between two divisions, a Research

Division, headed by Col. George A. Burrell, and a Development Division,

37

 Colonel Potter was succeeded as Chief, Gas Service, on 30 January 1918 by Mr. Arthur

Hudson Marks who served only a few days. Colonel Walker was Acting Chief, Gas Service, from

that time until Sibert's appointment on 11 May. See Rpt of CWS, 1918, p. 5. 38

 Executive Order 2894, 25 Jun 18. 39

 WD GO 62, 28 Jun 18. 40

 Crowell, America's Munitions, pp. 407-09, 426-27.
ORIGINS OF THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE 13

CHEMICAL PLANTS, EDGEWOOD ARSENAL. By 1918, toxic agents totaling 675

tons per week were being manufactured here.

headed by Col. Frank M. Dorsey. To test gas munitions the War Department

established a proving ground at Lakehurst, New Jersey, and adjoining this

proving ground activated a training camp for gas troops, Camp Kendrick,

under the Training Division. All activities connected with the medical aspects

of gas warfare were placed in a Medical Division, headed by Col. William

J. L. Lyster.41

The very day that the CWS was formally established, the War Department cabled Pershing informing him of the creation of the CWS and

requesting him to cable back the names of the officers to be transferred to

the new service as well as the numbers and grades of officers and men required in France.42

 The transfer of troops to the new service in the theater

was made official on 16 July when an authorized strength of 916 officers

and 7,264 enlisted men was approved for the Overseas Division, CWS,

which was to be headed by a brigadier general.43 Colonel Fries was thereupon raised to that rank. Later, the War Department, anticipating an in41

 Rpts of CWS, 1918 and 1919. 42

 Cable 1622-R, McCain to Pershing, 28 Jun 18. History of CWS, AEF, App. 39. 43

 Cable 1724-R, McCain to Pershing, 16 Jul 18. History of CWS, AEF, App. 41.
14 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

crease in the use of gas, authorized two additional gas regiments. This action

raised the authorized strength of the Overseas Division to 1,315 officers and

17,205 enlisted men.44 Because of the sudden collapse of the enemy nothing

approximating that strength was ever attained, and as of 11 November 1918

the actual number of officers and men in the Overseas Division totaled 630

and 2,800 respectively. This compared with actual strength of the entire

CWS on that date of 1,680 officers and 18,838 enlisted men.45

General Fries's headquarters, like the office of General Sibert, was

organized along functional lines. Since the theater naturally placed greater

emphasis on actual employment of gas on the battlefield, two divisions were

set up for that purpose, an Offense Division and a Defense Division. Other

divisions of the CWS, AEF, were: Procurement and Supply, Technical,

Medical, and Intelligence.

With the establishment of the CWS the gas and flame regiment (the

30th Engineers) became the 1st Gas Regiment. The regiment had been

activated in August 1917 under Maj. Earl J. Atkisson at Camp American

University, Washington. In January 1918 the first two companies, A and B,

arrived in France, where, through an arrangement between Fries and Maj.

Gen. C. H. Foulkes of the British Army, they were given intensive training

by the British Special Brigade, a gas brigade. Following this training they

accompanied the British on actual gas operations on the field of battle.

When two other companies arrived in France in March the officers and men

of Companies A and B assisted in training the new arrivals. The facilities

of the five gas schools in France were also utilized in training these and

subsequent gas troops arriving from the United States.46

Troops of the 1st Gas Regiment were employed in operations on the

Western Front during the summer and fall of 1918. Their biggest engagement was in the Meuse-Argonne offensive in which six companies of the

regiment saw action. In this campaign gas troops expended some 489 Stokes

mortar gas shells, 130 Livens projector gas drums, 206 Livens projector

drums filled with high explosives, and over 2,800 smoke and thermite

bombs.47

After the close of hostilities the War Department made a rapid start in

demobilizing CWS troops and facilities. By June 1919 the troop strength of

44

 Cable 2027-R, Harris to Pershing, 7 Oct 18. History of CWS, AEF, App. 60. 45

 Rpt of CWS, 1919, pp. 14-15. 46

 (1) James Thayer Addison, The Story of the First Gas Regiment (Boston and New York:

Houghton Mifflin, 1919), Ch. III. (2) Maj. Gen. C. H. Foulkes, Gas, The Story of the Gas

Brigade (Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1934), p. 298. 47

 History of CWS, AEF, p. 67.
ORIGINS OF THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE 15

the CWS had been reduced to 328 officers and 261 enlisted men, the government gas-mask factory in New York had been demobilized, 670 contracts

had been adjusted, over a million dollars worth of surplus property had

been disposed of, and the plants at Edgewood and Lakehurst were being

put on a peacetime basis.48 The majority of government-owned chemical

plants throughout the country were yet to be sold or transferred to other

government bureaus; that was a task which would run well into the following

year.49

The War Department general order establishing the Chemical Warfare

Service had provided that it would continue until six months after the

termination of hostilities or until the general order itself was amended,

modified, or rescinded. An act of Congress of 11 July 1919 extended the life

of the CWS until 30 June 1920.50 On 28 November 1919 the War Department defined the CWS peacetime mission as follows:

(a) The maintenance of a competent body of chemical warfare specialists with

facilities for continuous research and experimentation.

(b) The maintenance of records.

(c) Provision for keeping in touch with civilian agencies for chemical research

and chemical industries capable of being converted for the production of wartime

material.

(d) The maintenance of such existing Government plants as may be decided

necessary.

(e) The continuous training of the Army in chemical warfare.

(f) The maintenance of a supply of chemical warfare material sufficient to meet

the initial requirements of the Army in time of war.51

Congress meanwhile began to study changes needed in military organization in the light of recent war experiences. Since the establishment of the

Signal Corps in 1860 there had been no additions to the War Department

technical services.52 One of the questions now to be decided was, what

should be done about Chemical Warfare? This matter was examined carefully by the military affairs committees of the Senate and the House of

Representatives.

The recommendations of the officials of the War Department varied.

Some suggested that the wartime CWS be abolished and its work appor48

 Rpt of CWS, 1919, pp. 15, 51. 49

 Rpt of CWS, 1920, p. 15. 50

 (1) General Order No. 62, 28 June 1918. (2) 41 Stat. 104. 51

 Rpt of CWS, 1920, p. 5. 52

 12 Stat. 50.
16 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

tioned among the older established services. Others felt that the CWS should

be retained. Newton D. Baker, the Secretary of War, believed that peacetime activities in this field would be principally in research and development,

duties which the Corps of Engineers could handle.53 The Chief of Staff,

General Peyton C. March, who abhorred gas warfare, also felt that the

Corps of Engineers should be given responsibility for preparations for gas

warfare, which in peacetime should be restricted to its defensive aspects.54

General Pershing, like most older line officers, disliked the idea of using

toxic gas but he was not adamant on the subject; in fact, he was rather

inclined toward retaining the Chemical Warfare Service as a separate

department.55

The first powerful voice raised in support of an independent chemical

service in the Army was that of Benedict Crowell, the Assistant Secretary

of War and the man principally responsible for the success of the munitions

program of 1917-18. Crowell, who had been educated as a chemist and

believed that future warfare would depend largely on the work of men of

science, strongly urged that the wartime CWS organization be made

permanent.56 This view of course was echoed by the two officers most

closely identified with gas warfare in World War I, Sibert and Fries. Fries

was particularly active. Less than two weeks after the close of hostilities he

had obtained General Pershing's approval for his return to the United States

in order to work for a permanent CWS.57 He was a personal friend of both

the chairman of the Senate Committee on Military Affairs, Senator George

E. Chamberlain of Oregon, and the chairman of the House Committee on

Military Affairs, Representative Julius Kahn of California. Fries lost no

opportunity in conveying to those gentlemen his strong conviction of the

need for a permanent chemical bureau in the Army.58

53

 S. Com. on Military Affairs, 66th Cong., 1st Sess., Hearings on S. 2715, A Bill To Reorganize and Increase the Efficiency of the United States Army, and for Other Purposes, 19

Aug. 19. 54

 (1) H. Com. on Military Affairs, 66th Cong., 1st Sess., Hearings on H. Res. 8287, A Bill

To Reorganize and Increase the Efficiency of the United States Army, and for Other Purposes,

5 Sep 19, I, 53-54. (2) Peyton C. Marsh, The Nation at War (Garden City, N.Y.: DoubledayDoran, 1932), pp. 333-36. 55

 H. Com. on Military Affairs, 66th Cong., 1st Sess., Hearings on H. Res. 8287, A Bill To

Reorganize and Increase the Efficiency of the United States Army, and for Other Purposes, 1 Nov

19, I, 1507-08. 56

 H. Com. on Military Affairs, 66th Cong., 1st and 2d Sess., Hearings on H. Res. 8287, A

Bill To Reorganize and Increase the Efficiency of the United States Army, and for Other Purposes,

9 Jan 20, II, 1804-05. 57

 Fries, History of CWS in France. 58

 Fries interv, 4 Aug 55.
ORIGINS OF THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE 17

Establishment of a chemical service as a permanent bureau of the War

Department was also strongly advocated by leading chemical scientists and

industrialists, who had come to regard the existence of such a service as a

recognition of the growing importance of chemistry in the national economy.59

 The desire to assist these groups doubtless helped influence the decision of Congress in 1920 to write into its revision of the National Defense

Act of 1916 a new section starting with the words: "There is hereby created

a Chemical Warfare Service."

 60

The purpose of the wartime Chemical Warfare Service had been to

handle all matters relating to toxic agents and ammunition together with

gas defense material. Incendiaries and smokes had not been mentioned in

the wartime charter of the Chemical Warfare Service although before the

end of the war it had actually done considerable work on both these items.

This fact is reflected in the wording of the revised National Defense Act,

which accordingly enlarged the CWS field. Thus was completed the shift in

emphasis from the "gas" service of 1917 to the "chemical" service of 1920.

The function of the new branch included the development, procurement,

and supply of "all smoke and incendiary materials, all toxic gases, and all

gas defense appliances." These duties were further extended to include "the

supervision of the training of the Army in chemical warfare, both offensive

and defensive . . . ; the organization, equipment, training, and operation of

special gas troops, and such other duties as the President may from time to

time prescribe."

 61

 The Chemical Warfare Service therefore took on servicewide training functions, together with responsibility for combatant troops,

in addition to technical supply duties. For this work the National Defense

Act authorized a chief of the service with the rank of brigadier general, one

hundred officers, and twelve hundred enlisted men.

The Chemical Warfare Service was a product of the changing technology

of war. Only reluctantly did the War Department provide for its activation.

Many years would elapse before the new organization would be fully

accepted in the military family. In fact, it would require the experience of

a second world war to convince the War Department of the real need for a

separate chemical service.

59

 See statement of Charles H. Herty, editor of the Journal of Industrial and Engineering

Chemistry, in S. Com. on Military Affairs, 66th Cong., 1st Sess., Hearings on S. 2715, A Bill To

Reorganize and Increase the Efficiency of the United States Army, and for Other Purposes, p. 408. 60

 Public Law 242, 66th Cong., Sec. 12a. War Department Bulletin 25, 9 June 1920, reproduces

Section 12a in toto. 61 Ibid.
CHAPTER II

The Years Between the Wars

The Issue of Gas Warfare

Announcement of the creation of the Chemical Warfare Service in 1920

as a branch of the permanent Military Establishment presumably settled an

issue that had been discussed heatedly and at length. Actually, debate over

functions of the CWS was to continue for many years. This perennial controversy had its roots in two spheres. One was the policy of the United

States on gas warfare. The other was the reaction within the War Department itself to gas warfare.

For centuries the use of poisons for military purposes has been generally

disavowed by civilized nations.1 But not until the end of the nineteenth

century, when the science of chemistry had advanced to a point where the

use of toxics in warfare was being seriously considered, was the question

raised as to whether toxics loaded into ammunition should be considered

poisonous. Discussion of this point was listed on the agenda of an international conference, which, upon the initiative of the Russians, met at The

Hague during the summer of 1899.

The proposal offered for consideration at the meeting would have bound

the contracting powers to agree "to abstain from the use of projectiles, the

sole object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases."

 2

In instructions to the American delegates before they left to attend this conference, Secretary of State John Hay had stated, "The expediency of restraining the inventive genius of our people in the direction of devising means

of defense is by no means clear . . . the delegates are therefore enjoined

not to give the weight of their influence to the promotion of projects the

1

 Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis, 1625, trans. Francis W. Kelsey (Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1925), III, 651-52. 2

 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of International Law, Pamphlet 8,

The Hague Declaration (IV, 2) of 1899 Concerning Asphyxiating Gases (Washington: The

Endowment, 1915).
THE YEARS BETWEEN THE WARS 19

realization of which is so uncertain."

 3 The United States therefore did not

subscribe to the antigas agreement, although a number of nations did.4

The refusal of the United States to participate in formal measures to

outlaw the employment of toxic chemicals was not based on lack of sympathy

with the purposes of the proposal. It was the result, rather, of unwillingness

to act in the uncertain light of what was then only a nebulous possibility.

Moreover, since The Hague antigas declaration specifically outlawed only

projectiles, its phrasing could be interpreted as a stimulus to the devising of

other means of dissemination. Because of this loophole the German attack

at Ypres in April 1915, when chlorine gas was released from charged

cylinders, did not violate the letter of The Hague declaration.5

The Hague antigas declaration was a casualty of the Ypres attack even

though it did not specifically apply. Both the Central and Allied Powers

developed and used toxics which were disseminated by a number of means,

including projectiles, throughout the war. The spirit of The Hague declaration lived, however, to become a part of the effective Allied antigas propaganda weapon which in the period between the wars was to stimulate

widespread public indignation against the "barbaric" and "inhuman" employment of toxics by the enemy.6

After the war there was wide reaction against use of gas in future

military conflicts. The peace treaties signed by the Central Powers all contained the clause, "the use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases and all

analogous liquids, materials or devices being prohibited, their manufacture

and importation are strictly forbidden."

 7 This wording presumably applied

only to the defeated states. Subsequent agreements between the Allies and

other powers were needed to insure universal prohibition of gas warfare.

The policy of the United States in the matter of toxic chemicals was

clearly expressed at the Conference on the Limitation of Armament which

met in Washington in 1921. This question was one considered earlier by a

subcommittee on land warfare of which General Pershing was chairman.

3

 Ltr, Secy State to Hon. Andrew D. White et al., 18 Apr 1899, in Special Missions, Department of State, Vol. IV, October 15, 1886-June 20, 1906. NA. 4

 The Hague antigas agreement was signed and ratified by twenty-five powers. 5

 Cyrus Bernstein, "The Law of Chemical Warfare," The George Washington Law Review,

X (June 1942), 889-915. Portions of this article were reproduced in Chemical Warfare Bulletin,

XXVIII (October 1942), 174-86. 6

 For details on antigas propaganda, see: James M. Read, Atrocity Propaganda: 1914-1919

(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941), pp. 6, 95-99; and Horace C. Peterson, Propaganda

for War (Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1939), p. 63. 7

 Green H. Hackworth, Digest of International Law (Washington: Dept. of State, 1943), p.

269.
20 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Pershing's group recommended that "chemical warfare should be abolished

among nations as abhorrent to civilization."

 8 Another report submitted at

this time by the General Board of the Navy stated that it was believed "to

be sound policy to prohibit gas warfare in every form and against every

objective."

 9 Both of these reports were considered by, and no doubt strongly

influenced, the U.S. delegation at the Washington arms conference in

formulating its proposal to prohibit the use of poison gas in war.

The U.S. proposal, incorporated as Article 5 in the Washington arms

conference treaty covering the Use of Submarines and Noxious Gases in

War, first pointed out that the employment of toxic war gases had been

condemned by world opinion and prohibited in numerous existing treaties.

It then announced that the contracting parties, "to the end that this prohibition shall be universally accepted as a part of international law binding

alike the conscience and practice of nations, declare their assent to such

prohibition, agree to be bound thereby as between themselves and invite all

other civilized nations to adhere thereto."

 10

 The treaty was never ratified by

France, one of the principal signatories, and therefore never came into

effect.11 It remains the only antigas convention the ratification of which the

U.S. Senate has ever approved.

The proposition of outlawing gas warfare was revived at a conference

held in 1925 at Geneva to consider regulating the international traffic in

arms. Here the U.S. delegation introduced and obtained general agreement

to what has been called the Geneva Gas Protocol. This instrument, after

reiterating a general condemnation of the use of toxic agents in war,

declared that the contracting parties had agreed to prohibit the use of such

materials in the future and had further agreed "to extend this prohibition

to the use of bacteriological methods of warfare and ... to be bound as

between themselves according to the terms of this declaration."

 12

 Although

the U.S. delegation signed this protocol, the Senate refused to ratify it.

A cross section of opinion in the United States on the military usefulness

of gas warfare and the prospects of preventing its employment by inter8

 Quoted by Sen. William E. Borah (R., Idaho) in Congressional Record, Vol. 68, Pt. I, p.

140.

9

 Ibid., p. 143. 10

 U.S. Department of State, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States,

1922 (Washington: Dept. of State, 1938), I, 276, hereafter cited as Dept. of State, Foreign Relations of the United States. 11

 The other signatories were Great Britain, the United States, Italy, and Japan. France failed

to sign this treaty because of the fact that it also greatly restricted submarine warfare. 12

 Dept. of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1925 (Washington: Dept. of State,

1940), I, 89-90.
THE YEARS BETWEEN THE WARS 21

national agreement was brought out in Senate debates on the ratification

of the Geneva Gas Protocol.13 Some leading military figures were quoted as

expressing agreement with eliminating gas as a weapon of war. Considerable

opposition to ratification came from civilian groups, especially veterans'

organizations. Despite the fact that the Senate did not approve it, the

protocol was supported in principle by the executive departments of the

U.S. Government. By the time World War II began, the Geneva Gas Protocol

was adhered to by forty-two nations and was the most generally accepted

expression of international opinion relating to the use of toxic agents in war.

The influence of national policy and of international agreements in limiting employment of toxic agents in war was of obvious concern to the War

Department. This matter was clarified by Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg

on 7 December 1926 in a letter supporting continued military preparations

in this field:

All governments recognize that it is incumbent upon them to be fully prepared

as regards chemical warfare, and especially as regards defense against it, irrespective

of any partial or general international agreements looking to the prohibition of the

actual use of such warfare. I have never seen any proposal seriously advanced by any

government to provide that national preparation for the use of and for defense

against chemical warfare, if such warfare should be used by an enemy contrary to

treaty agreements, should be abolished or curtailed in the slightest.14

In agreement with this statement was the joint Army-Navy policy on chemical

warfare which in 1934 was framed in these words:

The United States will make all necessary preparations for the use of chemical

warfare from the outbreak of war. The use of chemical warfare, including the use of

toxic agents, from the inception of hostilities, is authorized, subject to such restrictions

or prohibitions as may be contained in any duly ratified international convention or

conventions, which at that time may be binding upon the United States and the

enemy's state or states.15

All Presidents whose administrations spanned the interwar years sought

to eliminate gas as a military weapon. Herbert Hoover and Franklin D.

Roosevelt, who saw eye to eye on this issue, were particularly outspoken.

President Hoover steadily urged elimination before the disarmament deliberations that took place while he was in office. By the time of President

Roosevelt's inauguration the prospect of effective agreement among nations

on the curtailment of armaments appeared to have vanished. In line, possibly,

13

 Congressional Record, Vol. 68, Pt. I, pp. 141-54, 226-29, 363-68. 14

 Ibid., p. 366. 15

 Ltr, Jt Plng Com to JB, 17 Oct 34, sub: Use of Cml Agents. JB 325, Ser 542.
22 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

with this trend, Congress in 1937 passed a bill (S. 1284) to change the

designation of the Chemical Warfare Service to Chemical Corps.16 This the

President promptly vetoed. The reasons given in the Roosevelt veto message

clearly expressed the White House attitude and, ipso facto, that of the U.S.

Government:

It has been and is the policy of this Government to do everything in its power

to outlaw the use of chemicals in warfare. Such use is inhuman and contrary to what

modern civilization should stand for.

I am doing everything in my power to discourage the use of gases and other

chemicals in any war between nations. While, unfortunately, the defensive necessities

of the United States call for study of the use of chemicals in warfare, I do not want

the Government of the United States to do anything to aggrandize or make permanent

any special bureau of the Army or the Navy engaged in these studies. I hope the time

will come when the Chemical Warfare Service can be entirely abolished.

To dignify this Service by calling it the "Chemical Corps" is, in my judgment,

contrary to a sound public policy.17

The War Department and Gas Warfare

Beginning in 1921 and continuing until 1941, the mission of the Chemical

Warfare Service was the subject of almost continuous debate by the War

Department General Staff (WDGS). During these years there was scarcely

a time when the CWS felt that it enjoyed undisputed membership on the

War Department team. Hence a great deal of energy was continually expended by the CWS in defending its statutory position. This fact had considerable bearing on the development of the new service.

The questions most frequently raised by the War Department were:

Could the Chemical Warfare Service be eliminated and its duties distributed

among other services? Could the Chemical Warfare Service be relieved of

combat functions and its activities limited to technical and supply duties and

to defensive training?

In 1924 the WDGS phrased a sentence which, constantly repeated in

later years, came to be generally accepted as a statement of policy and a

guide to the activities of the CWS: "Our peacetime preparations in chemical

warfare will be based on opposing effectively any enemy employing chemical

weapons."

 18

16

 This change, as already indicated, was eventually effected by Public Law 607, 79th Congress,

2 August 1946. 17

 Copy in CWS 011/1-20. 18

 Ltr, TAG to C CWS, 7 Jan 24, sub: CWS's Functions. AG 321.94 (1-2-24) (Misc.) M-C.
THE YEARS BETWEEN THE WARS 23

This statement was based on a War Department policy announcement

which had attempted to clarify preceding general orders and other instructions relating to the establishment of the Chemical Warfare Service, particularly in the light of current developments toward international limitation

of armaments. It had the merit of clearly stating an obviously desirable

objective, yet the means to be followed to this end proved to be subject to

widely varying interpretations. Some of the difficulties being encountered

were brought to the attention of the War Department by the Chief, CWS

(Maj. Gen. Amos A. Fries), in 1926, when some liberalizing of existing

policy as to offensive means was proposed.19 The staff study of CWS functions which followed carefully reviewed all the preceding actions and

pointed to still further investigations that needed to be made but did not

lead to immediate change in standing instructions.20

The War Department by this time had definitely veered away from

planning the type of positional warfare characteristic of the campaigns in

France in 1917 and 1918 and with which large-scale gas operations staged

by chemical troops seemed intimately associated. Consequently, the existence

of special gas troops was increasingly challenged, and the employment of

gas by branches other than the CWS was increasingly favored by the staff.

The CWS view was that gas had important uses in a war of movement as well

as in static operations and that technical considerations necessitated the employment of special gas troops in either situation. These differing attitudes

were never wholly reconciled, although at times the General Staff view appears to have been maintained somewhat less resolutely than that of the

Chemical Warfare Service.

The mission of the Chemical Warfare Service with respect to its principal

preoccupation, gas warfare, was therefore somewhat complex. Primarily the

CWS was expected to provide insurance for American military forces against

the shock of sudden gas attack. Hand in hand with this mission went responsibility for maintaining a state of readiness for quick retaliation. These

two constituted explicit responsibilities. In a broader sense, an implicit function of the CWS was to provide military support for a national policy, that

of dissuading others from resorting to the gas weapon. This was accomplished, as matters turned out, more by the strength of U.S. preparedness

for toxic warfare than by the cogency of political agreements.

19

 (1) Ltr, C CWS to TAG, 9 Jun 26, sub: Functions of CWS. AG 321.94. (2) Public Law

457, signed 24 February 1925, raised the rank of the Chief, CWS, from brigadier general to

major general. 20

 Memo, ACofS G-3 for CofS, 5 Nov 26, sub: CWS Functions. AG 321.94, Sec. 1, Functions

of CWS.
24 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Carrying Out the Peacetime Mission: 1920-39

To supplement the National Defense Act statement of CWS functions

the War Department spelled them out in more detailed fashion via a series

of general orders issued in 1920 and 1921. On 28 August 1920, for example,

it defined the specific duties of the Chemical Warfare Service and the

Ordnance Department with regard to the investigation, development, procurement, and supply of munitions: Ordnance retained the responsibility for

the design, procurement, and supply of chemical shells, grenades, and

bombs; the CWS was to fill them with gas, smoke, or incendiary agents.

Later it defined the relationship of the CWS to the corps areas and, still

later, outlined the storage and issue responsibilities and specified that the

chemical warfare training of the Army be along both offensive and defensive

lines.21

The signing by the U.S. delegation at the Washington arms conference

of the proposal to outlaw gas warfare led the War Department in mid-1922

to modify its policy on the functions of the CWS.22 The General Staff

rescinded provisions of several general orders and promulgated two new

general orders which suspended all work on toxic agents and restricted

CWS activities in gas warfare to purely defensive measures.23 Although the

War Department eventually modified these directives, the change in policy

which they represented was to exert a retarding influence on the CWS for

many years.

For a decade and a half after the close of World War I appropriations

for national defense were decidedly limited.24 This was the era when the

government and a good many citizens held high hopes for the early elimination of armed conflicts. It was the U.S. Government that initiated the call

for the Washington conference of 1921-22, and it was an American Secretary of State who was coauthor of the Pact of Paris of 27 August 1928,

aimed at outlawing war as an instrument of national policy (the so-called

Kellogg-Briand agreement). During the 1920's the President and the

Congress were insisting on economy in all branches of the national govern21

 WD GO 75, 23 Dec 20; WD GO 76, 28 Dec 20; WD GO 2, 14 Jan 21; WD GO 21, 21

May 21; WD GO 42, 17 Aug 21; WD GO 54, 28 Aug 1920. 22

 As indicated above, although the U.S. delegation signed this treaty and the U.S. Senate

approved its ratification, the treaty never became operative. 23

 WD GO 24, 10 Jun 22, and WD GO 26, 17 Jun 22. 24

 Mark Skinner Watson, Chief of Staff: Prewar Plans and Preparations, UNITED STATES

ARMY IN WORLD WAR II (Washington: 1950) (hereafter cited as Prewar Plans), Ch II.
THE YEARS BETWEEN THE WARS 25

TABLE 1—CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR CWS, 1922-46

a

 1922 was the first year for which funds were appropriated directly for the CWS. From 1918 to 1922 funds for the CWS

were transferred from, or included in, other appropriations. b

 This low figure is due to the fact that sufficient funds were appropriated in the previous fiscal year to take care of CWS

needs in 1945. c

 Surplus Appropriation Rescission Acts (P.L. 301, 8 Feb 46 and P.L. 391, 27 May 46) rescinded $1,024,351,000 of unexpended CWS appropriations for the years 1942-1946. d

 This appropriation was made only two and one-half months before V-J Day (2 Sep 1945) and none of these funds were

ever expended.

Source: Budget of the United States, transmitted to Congress by the President.

ment. Following the stock-market crash of 1929 and the resultant depression,

economy in the use of government funds became more of a watchword than

ever.

If the Military Establishment as a whole felt the effects of the trend

toward economy, the Chemical Warfare Service felt it in even greater degree.

Since the necessity for a separate organization to supervise chemical warfare

functions was seriously questioned by some of the highest ranking officers

in the General Staff, the War Department was not prone to be oversolicitous

for the welfare of the new service. The meager resources of the CWS until

mid-1940 in terms of appropriations and personnel strength are indicated in

Tables 1, 2, and 3. A glance at Table 2 will disclose that the quota of 101

officers and 1,200 enlisted men provided for in the National Defense Act

of 1920 was not filled until after the close of fiscal year 1940.

Peacetime Organization

Within the confines of limited appropriations and personnel, the

Chemical Warfare Service carried out its restricted peacetime mission. Ad-
26 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

TABLE 2—MILITARY STRENGTH OF THE CWS, 1918-46a

a

 For detailed figures on CWS military personnel strength in World War II see Appendixes A and B. b

 Figures represent total strength reported as CWS by all commands and theaters. Officers of other branches or without

branch assignments may have been serving with the CWS, but the number is judged not to be of significant size. Includes

Regular Army, Reserve, Army of the U.S., and National Guard officers on active duty (except trainees) under the jurisdiction of the Chief, CWS. c

 Includes enlisted men reported as CWS. d

 Figures as of 11 November 1918. e

 Figures as of 30 June from 1919 to 1946.

Source: Figures from 1918 to 1921 were taken from the annual report of the Chief, CWS, to the Secretary of War. Figures

1922-1941 from Tables, Actual Strength of the Military Personnel of the Army, Annual Reports of the Secretary of War to

the President, 1922-41. Figures 1942-46 from draft table, Total Male Strength of the Army by Arm or Service, prepared

by Statistics Br, Program Review and Analysis Div, Off, Comptroller of the Army.

ministratively, the CWS was a supply service of the Army, responsible to

the War Department General Staff and to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of War for procurement and procurement planning activities. The

Chief, CWS, was of course responsible for the organization and administration of his own service. In 1920 he set up an organization consisting of five

divisions: Procurement and Supply, Technical, Medical, Industrial Relations

(later called Procurement Planning), and Plans, Training, and Operations.25

Except for the elimination of the Medical Division in 1932, this organization

remained substantially unchanged throughout the peacetime period. From

25

 Rpt of CWS, 1921.
THE YEARS BETWEEN THE WARS 27

TABLE 3—CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL STRENGTH,

NOVEMBER 1918-DECEMBER 1945

a

 For breakdown in this period see Table 6 where totals vary slightly, probably reflecting a later adjustment.

Source: Figures 1918-1931 compiled from reports, "Civ Pers Strength," prepared by the Office of the Assistant and Chief

Clerk to the SW. Figures 1939-1945 compiled from Office of the Comptroller, Dept of the Army, Statistics Br (Squier/Pentagon 2B673) from: (1) "Monthly Rpt of Pers Activities," WDAGO; (2) "Monthly Rpt of Authorizations and Strength for

Pers Operating the Z of I Establishment," WDGS Contl Symbol SM-P2-39; (3) "Monthly Rpt of Pers Authorizations and

Strengths for Establishments in Area of District of Columbia and Arlington County, Va.," WDMB Form 114, WDGS

SM-P2-40; (4) draft reports of War Dept Monthly Strength in Statistics Br, Program Review and Analysis Div, Office of

the Comptroller of the Army.

1920 until 1938 a dozen officers and a score of civilians constituted the entire

personnel of the Chief's office.26

Each of the Chiefs made his own special contribution to the development of the Chemical Warfare Service. General Sibert devoted his mature

judgment to the task of organizing the new service in World War I, and

he had much to do with marshaling the sentiment which finally prevailed

in 1920, when the decision was taken to make the emergency CWS organization a permanent element of the Army. General Fries, during his long

26

 The Chief's office was located in the Munitions Building in Washington, D.C.
28 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

tenure as Chief (1920-29), continuously displayed the aggressive capability

that had made him conspicuously successful as head of the AEF Gas Service.

He withstood all opposition from without while he molded the CWS into

its ultimate peacetime form. During the next four years Maj. Gen. Harry

L. Gilchrist brought to the Office of the Chief (OC) the prestige of an

internationally known authority on gas casualties. A medical officer, he continued to emphasize, as had his predecessors, the scientific aspects of chemical

warfare. Gilchrist's successor, Maj. Gen. Claude E. Brigham, an artilleryman, had executive and command experience which gave him a thorough

insight into the strength and weakness of the Chemical Warfare Service as

it existed in the middle 1930's. It was during Brigham's tour that the prospect of another major war began to take shape, and it became his responsibility to initiate a more vigorous preparedness program. To Maj. Gen.

Walter C. Baker, who served from May 1937 to April 1941, fell the task of

carrying out and extending this preparedness program into the emergency

period.

Assisting the Chief, CWS, were an Advisory Committee of fifteen civilian

authorities in chemistry and chemical engineering, a CWS Technical Committee, and a Chemical Warfare Board. The Advisory Committee, which was

unofficial in capacity, was set up in the American Chemical Society in 1920.

The members of the committee met periodically with CWS scientists and

administrators to discuss policies and problems of research and development.

The CWS Technical Committee, also set up in 1920, came into existence as

the result of a need for co-ordination among interested branches of the

armed forces in the development and standardization of chemical warfare

items.27 On the Technical Committee sat representatives of CWS and of the

following: Field Artillery, Coast Artillery, Infantry, Air Corps, Cavalry,

General Staff, National Guard Bureau, and the Assistant Secretaries of the

War and Navy Departments. The Chemical Warfare Board was established

at Edgewood Arsenal in 1923 to study and co-ordinate technical developments with tactical doctrine and methods.28

Research, development, training, manufacturing, and storage functions

were centered at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland. There in 1920 a functional

type of organization was set up consisting of the following units: the

27

 OC CWS SO 74, 31 Mar 20. 28

 OC CWS SO 19, 21 May 23. For details on the Chemical Warfare Board, see Leo P. Brophy,

Wyndham D. Miles, and Rexmond C. Cochrane, The Chemical Warfare Service: From Laboratory

to Field, a volume in preparation for the series UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR II.
CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE CHIEFS, February 1920-April 1941. Top left,

Maj. Gen. Amos A. Fries, 1920-29; right, Maj. Gen. Walter C. Baker,

1937-41; bottom left, Maj. Gen. Harry L. Gilchrist, 1929-33; right, Maj.

Gen. Claude E. Brigham, 1933-37.
30 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Chemical Division and the Mechanical Division, each of which was engaged

in research and development activities; the Plants Division, which was

responsible for manufacturing; the Property Division, to which supply

responsibilities were delegated; the Chemical Warfare School; and CWS

troops.29 Later a Safety and Inspection Division and a Medical Research

Division were activated.

From a managerial standpoint the 1920's were a period of trial and

error at Edgewood, when certain administrative procedures were inaugurated which later had to be modified. For example, before 1924 it was the

practice to allocate funds to each division chief, who would disburse such

funds and keep the necessary records pertaining to them. Each division,

moreover, maintained its own storehouses, and it was not uncommon for

one division to be short of certain items while another division had a surplus

of these items. To rectify the condition a Planning Division (later called

Administration Division) was set up in 1924. Another outstanding instance

of how Edgewood profited through experience was in the field of research

and development. Here each of three divisions (Chemical, Mechanical, and

Medical Research) did all its own research and all its own engineering,

which resulted in duplication of effort. A reorganization in 1928 largely

remedied the situation by eliminating the Chemical and Mechanical Divisions and activating the following divisions: Research, Munitions Development, Information, Protective Development, and Engineering. After this

reorganization, research was confined to the Research and Medical Research

Divisions, and all engineering activities were concentrated in the Engineering Division. This was substantially the organization of Edgewood

Arsenal at the start of the emergency period. At that time approximately

nine hundred civilians were employed at Edgewood.30

Research and Development

Research and development was affected less than other functions by

the action of the General Staff in 1922 which restricted CWS activities to

the defensive. This was natural, and indeed inevitable, for it was not

possible in doing research on a chemical agent or munition to make a nice

distinction as to whether the item would be used by an enemy or by the

29

 Rpt of CWS, 1921. 30

 (1) Memo, TIG for C CWS, 1 Jun 27, sub: Survey WD Branches, Bureaus, and 1st Ind.

CWS 333/2. (2) Edgewood Arsenal Organization Charts, 1921, 1922, 1929. (3) Memo, C Mfg

and Supply Div for C CWS, 10 Jun 37. CWS 300.4/4.
THE YEARS BETWEEN THE WARS 31

U.S. Army. In February 1923 the War Department modified its former

ruling to permit investigation of "various types of offensive gases and

appliances against which defensive measures might be necessary."

 31

 During

the peacetime period, therefore, the CWS conducted research and development on chemical agents, on the dispersion of those agents from airplanes,

on smoke-producing materials, on the Livens projector, and on the 4.2-inch

chemical mortar. Results of this research included the decrease in weight

and increase in range of the 4.2-inch mortar, the development and standardization of sulphur trioxide in chlorosulfonic acid (FS), a smoke-producing

material, and the design and installation of a filling plant for loading

chemical munitions in Hawaii.

Some notable accomplishments in the defensive field were development

of Impregnite for gasproofing of clothing, improvement of the gas-mask

canister to provide against irritant smoke, and development of a fully

molded facepiece for the gas mask.32

The Chemical Warfare Service, in addition to conducting research and

development on various aspects of chemical warfare, co-operated with other

branches of the Army, with the U.S. Public Health Service, and with the

Navy on projects of a quasi-public-health nature. In 1920 the service was

directed to co-operate with the Medical Department and the Quartermaster

Corps on the extermination of rodents and vermin.33 Later the CWS worked

on methods of exterminating the boll weevil and on improved methods

for fumigating ships.34

Procurement and Supply

The peacetime restrictive policy of the War Department had a marked

effect on CWS procurement and supply activities. Manufacture of all toxics

was completely discontinued and the plants at Edgewood Arsenal fell into

a state of disrepair. The only toxics in existence in the U.S. Army from

1922 to 1937 were some leftovers from World War I that were held in

31

 Memo, TAG for CGs All Corps Areas et al., 5 Feb 23, sub: Confidential Instructions as to

the Interpretation of GO 24 and GO 26. AG 353 (2-2-23) Misc.-M-C. 32

 (1) Rpts of CWS, 1921-27. (2) Lists of CWS R&D Proj Programs by fiscal years 1921-29.

(3) Ltr, C CWS to CofS, 16 May 37, sub: Final Rpt on Status of Cml Warfare Readiness by

Retiring C CWS. G-4/29895-1. (4) For a detailed discussion of research and development, see

Brophy, Miles, and Cochrane, From Laboratory to Field. 33

 WD GO 67, 11 Nov 20. 34

 Rpts of CWS, 1926-27.
32 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

storage in the lone CWS storage depot at Edgewood and a small quantity

that had been shipped from the Edgewood depot to Hawaii in 1921. Manufacture at Edgewood Arsenal was restricted to defensive items, chiefly

gas masks.

While procurement was kept at a minimum there were no restrictions

on procurement planning. The Procurement Planning Division of the

Chief's office was responsible for drawing up and submitting its portion of

industrial mobilization plans to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of War.

Early in 1924 procurement district offices were activated in New York,

Boston, Pittsburgh, Chicago, and San Francisco.35

The War Department general order No. 26, 1922, which restricted

CWS research, procurement, and supply of poison gases to the defensive

aspects of chemical warfare was not rescinded during the peacetime years

or, as a matter of fact, at any later date. As mentioned above, it was

modified in February 1923 but only with regard to research. Certain developments from the mid-thirties on, however, had the effect of nullifying

the general order. This fact was brought out very well in a written discussion within the General Staff in the spring of 1936. Certain members of

the staff were then contending that under General Orders No. 26 the Chemical Warfare Service had no authority to manufacture and supply toxic

chemicals. In rebuttal, the chief of the War Plans Division (WPD), Brig.

Gen. Stanley D. Embick, marshaled the following list of developments

to prove that General Orders No. 26 was null and void:

a. Approval by the Secretary of War, 7 November 1934, of the Joint

Board recommendation, to make all necessary preparations for the use of

chemical warfare from the outbreak of war.

b. Approval by the Secretary of War, 21 August 1935, of the Joint Board

recommendation, in regard to chemical warfare, that "adequate facilities

must be available to meet the peace and wartime needs of both services

[Army and Navy]."

c. Recommendations of the Secretary of War during the past two years

for funds for the partial rehabilitation of the mustard gas plant at Edgewood

Arsenal, for the manufacture of fifty tons of mustard gas, and for the threeyear rearmament program for 4.2-inch chemical mortars.

d. Appropriations by the Congress of funds to cover c, above.

35

 War Department Bulletin 14, 1923, authorized the activation of these procurement district

offices.
THE YEARS BETWEEN THE WARS 33

e. Army Appropriation Acts 1935 and 1936, containing the following

language: "For . . . manufacture of chemical warfare gases or other toxic

substances—or other offensive and defensive materials or appliances required

for gas warfare purposes."

 36

The presentation of this list seems to have clinched the argument.

Training of Troops

The CWS training mission included staff supervision of the training of

the Army in chemical warfare and the training of CWS military personnel,

both Regular and Reserve. Training of the Army was conducted under the

direction of "chemical" officers, who were CWS technical specialists assigned

by the War Department to the staffs of division and Air Corps commanders

as well as to corps area and department headquarters. "Gas" officers assisted

in the training at lower echelons. The center of training of CWS personnel,

as well as selected officers of the Navy and Marine Corps, was the Chemical

Warfare School at Edgewood Arsenal. Reserve officers were trained through

Army extension courses and through fourteen-day-on-duty training periods

with the Army. Reserve Officers' Training Corps courses for prospective

CWS officers were conducted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

and at the Texas Agricultural and Mechanical College.

In 1923 the War Department modified the CWS training mission. Training of the noncombatant branches of the Army "other than the Chemical

Warfare Service" was ordered confined to defensive aspects.37 Training of

the combatant arms was to include the "use of smoke, incendiary materials

and nontoxic gases." Training of CWS personnel was to be conducted in

accordance with the provisions of the National Defense Act, that is, it was

to cover both the offensive and defensive aspects.38

36

 (1) The Joint Army and Navy Board, usually called the Joint Board, was established in

1903 by agreement between the Secretaries of War and the Navy. It was composed of three Army

members (Chief of Staff, Deputy Chief of Staff, and Chief, War Plans Division) and three Navy

members (Chief of Naval Operations, his deputy, and director of Navy's War Plans Division).

See Watson, Prewar Plans, pp. 79-81, for more details. (2) Also see Vernon E. Davis, History of

Joint Chiefs of Staff in World War II, Vol. I, Ch. II. MS, OCMH. (3) Memo, WPD (Embick)

for G-4, 31 Mar 36, sub: Manufacture and Supply of Essential Cml Agents. G-4, 29895. 37

 (1) Memo, TAG for CGs All Corps Areas et al., 5 Feb 23, sub: Confidential Instructions as

to the Interpretation of GO 24 and GO 26. AG 353 (2-2-23) Misc.-M-C. (2) The question of

whether the CWS had combatant or noncombatant duties remained unsettled in the War Department until the fall of 1941. See below, Chapter IX. 38

 See Note 37(1), above.
34 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Relations With Other Elements of Armed Forces

To carry out its assigned mission, the Chemical Warfare Service had to

maintain contact with other elements of the Army, such as the Quartermaster,

Ordnance, Air Corps, and Medical Department, and with the Navy and the

Marine Corps. Several media of liaison have already been mentioned, such

as the CWS Technical Committee and the chemical and gas officers who

served at headquarters and with troop units. In the Army, the CWS had

particularly close relations in the peacetime years with the Medical Department which, as already indicated, had an interest in gas warfare dating back

to World War I.39 After the war, medical research on chemical warfare

lapsed, but in 1922 a new Medical Research Division was set up at Edgewood Arsenal. This division was headed by Lt. Col. Edward B. Vedder,

Medical Corps, a noted toxicologist. Vedder was directly responsible to the

chief of the Medical Division, OC CWS, Colonel Gilchrist, who in 1929 was

to be named Chief, CWS. It was largely through Gilchrist's influence that

close relations between the CWS and the Medical Department were established. At the medical research laboratory at Edgewood trained research

workers (about a dozen in number) of both organizations worked side by

side.

CWS relations with the Navy dated back to World War I, when there

was considerable apprehension that ships might be attacked with poison gas.

At that time, the Chemical Warfare Service undertook research projects for

the Navy, and naval personnel were furnished gas masks and trained in

offensive and defensive gas warfare. After the war, as the result of the recommendations of a board of Navy officers headed by Rear Adm. William S.

Sims, provision was made in the Navy for assigning various chemical warfare functions to specific bureaus. From 1921 on, these Navy bureaus maintained close liaison with the CWS.40

In February 1922 the Navy set up at Edgewood Arsenal a unit whose

39

 See above, Chapter I. 40

 (1) Service Chemicals United States Navy, 1939 (Washington: Government Printing Office,

1939), pp. 14-16. (2) Ltr, SecNav to the President, 7 Jul 17, 28801, Mat-1-ML 7/6, NA. (3)

Memo, CNO for Div of Material, et al., 30 Dec 20 sub: Board to Consider Possibilities of Gas

Warfare and Methods of Defense Against Gas Attack. OP-22 in SecNav File 28801-16 to 80,

NA. (4) Ltr, SecNav to Rear Adm William S. Sims, 8 Jan 21, sub: Board to Study Methods of

Defense of Naval Vessels Against Gas Attack and Possibilities of the Offensive Use of Noxious

Gases in Naval Warfare. OP-22, (431-2) in Sec Nav File 28801-16 to 80, NA. (5) Ltr, SecNav

to SecWar, 29 Apr 21, sub: Gas Warfare. SecNav File 28801-33. (6) Ltr, SecWar to SecNav,

14 May 20, sub: Correspondence Relative to Gas Warfare. OCS 17230 in SecNav 28801-16 to

80, NA.
THE YEARS BETWEEN THE WARS 35

duties included maintaining liaison between the Army and the Navy on all

matters pertaining to chemical warfare, co-ordinating research work in

progress at Edgewood for various bureaus of the Navy, inspecting chemical

warfare matériel manufactured at Edgewood Arsenal for the Navy, and

planning certain courses of instruction for naval officers at the Chemical

Warfare School. In May 1922 the Secretaries of the War and Navy Departments reached an agreement stipulating that the Navy would provide

definite financial assistance to the Army for research in the means of defense

against war gases. The following year the two Secretaries agreed that the

CWS would be responsible for development and procurement activities

relating to chemical warfare matériel for both the Army and the Navy.41

This arrangement had been in force a dozen years when the Navy began

to develop doubts as to the ability of the CWS to make chemical warfare

preparations for both services. In March 1935 the Chief of Naval Operations,

in a letter to the Joint Board, stated that the chief of the Navy's Bureau of

Construction and Repair felt that the CWS did not have the capacity to meet

the requirements of the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps and that

consequently he had recommended a reconsideration of the existing agreement between the Army and the Navy.42

The letter prompted the Joint Board to consult the other services and

bureaus of the War and Navy Departments, and, on the basis of the replies

received, the board decided on 21 August 1935 to renew the agreement of

1923.43 Although the Navy as well as the Army approved this decision, less

than two years later the Secretary of the Navy again raised the question of

the Navy's dissatisfaction with the arrangement. Thereupon the Joint Board

again took the matter under consideration and on 12 May 1937 reversed the

decision of 21 August 1935.44 The 1937 ruling of the Joint Board, which

remained in effect throughout World War II, stated that while the Navy's

41

 (1) Memo, Capt Allen B. Reed, USN, Chmn Ex Com ANMB, for JB, 1 Apr 37, sub:

Change in Agreement Between the Army and Navy Relative to Development and Proc of Cml

Warfare Material. JB 325, Ser 605. (2) Ltr, SecNav to SecWar, 1 May 22, sub: Allotment of

Funds to War Dept by Bur of Navy Dept for Gas Warfare Defense and Research Work. OP-22

(431-25) in SecNav File 28801-61, NA. (3) Ltr, SecWar to SecNav, 19 May 22. G-4/6031 in

SecNav File 28801-16 to 80, NA. (4) Ltr, Actg SecNav to SecWar 23 May 22, sub: Allotment

of Funds to War Dept by Bur of Navy Dept for Gas Warfare Defense and Research Work.

OP-22 (431-25) in SecNav File 28801-61, NA. 42

 Ltr, CNO (William H. Standley) to JB, 11 Mar 35, sub: Cml Warfare. AGO 29901-1. 43

 Ltr, Douglas MacArthur, USA, Senior Member Present JB, to SW, 21 Aug 35, sub: Cml

Warfare. AGO 29901-1. 44

 Ltr, Malin Craig, USA, Senior Member Present JB, to SW, 12 May 37, sub: Change in

Agreement between the Army and Navy Relative to Development and Proc of Cml Warfare

Material. JB 325, Ser 605. This action was approved by the Secretary of War on 14 May 1937.
36 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

requirements in chemical warfare matériel in peace and war would generally

be filled through the facilities of the CWS, the Navy might, if it deemed

advisable, assign development or production of its chemical warfare requirements to sources other than the CWS. The ruling also listed certain procedures which both departments would have to observe. These included the

mutual disclosure of their chemical warfare requirements and the mutual

exchange of technical information obtained from outside sources.45

Industrial Mobilization Gets Under Way

On 8 September 1939, one week after the outbreak of war in Europe,

President Roosevelt issued a proclamation of "limited national emergency."

 46

 This led to a greater emphasis on preparedness throughout the

armed forces.47 While all CWS activities felt the impact of this declaration,

procurement was affected more than other functions. The main current of

CWS developments in the emergency period was the industrial mobilization

program.

The CWS took steps, under the guidance of the Office of the Assistant

Secretary of War, to implement the educational order legislation enacted by

Congress in June 1938.48 This legislation had as its objective the training of

selected industrial concerns in the manufacture of a half-dozen Army items,

one of which was the gas mask. The first educational order contract was

written by the Chemical Warfare Service in late 1939 and several more were

awarded in 1940 and 1941.49 The educational order program was the first

real step, as far as the CWS was concerned, in the direction of industrial

mobilization in the emergency period.

Other strides toward industrial mobilization were taken under the

Munitions Program of 30 June 1940. The formulation of this program by

the President, the National Defense Advisory Commission, and the War

Department was the first important move to supply an expanding army with

the implements of war.50 In June 1940 Congress passed the first of five

45

 Ibid. 46

 Proclamation 2352. 47

 See R. Elberton Smith, The Army and Economic Mobilization, UNITED STATES ARMY

IN WORLD WAR II (Washington: 1958). 48

 Public Law 18, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., 52 Stat. 707, 16 Jun 38. 49

 For more details on the educational order program in the CWS, see Brophy, Miles, and

Cochrane, From Laboratory to Field. 50

 (1) See Watson, Prewar Plans, pp. 161-82, 318-21, for details on Munitions Program. (2)

For details on this program in the CWS, see Brophy, Miles, and Cochrane, From Laboratory to

Field.
THE YEARS BETWEEN THE WARS 37

supplemental appropriation acts for the fiscal year 1941 to finance this

program. Included in those appropriations was over $57,000,00 for the

Chemical Warfare Service, of which over $53,000,000 was for procurement

and supply.51

The appropriation of funds in such unprecedented sums enabled the CWS

to undertake a number of programs, some of which had been in the planning

stages for a number of years. Among the important programs were the following: rehabilitation of old and construction of new facilities at Edgewood

Arsenal, construction of new CWS arsenals at Huntsville, Alabama, and

Pine Bluff, Arkansas, erection of new government-owned chemical plants in

various parts of the country, acceleration of production activities at Edgewood Arsenal, and awarding of contracts through the procurement districts

for such items as the gas mask and 4.2-inch mortar shells. Construction of

the new arsenal at Huntsville began in July 1941 and at Pine Bluff in

December 1941.

Passage of the Lend-Lease Act of 11 March 1941 gave further impetus

to the CWS procurement and supply program.52 Lend-lease appropriations

enabled the CWS to undertake procurement activities on a larger scale.

Between April and December 1941, the Chemical Warfare Service procured

raw chemicals, gas masks, and other items for supply to Great Britain. Many

of the items were manufactured at Edgewood, but a number were also

secured through special contracts in the procurement districts.

Research and Development: A Change in Outlook

In late 1936 the General Staff had decided to cut research and development funds throughout the Army. The reason was a desire to get the Army

equipped as soon as possible with the best matériel then available and to concentrate on that objective rather than on research and development of new

matériel.53 Consequently, the Army began to place more emphasis on work

pertaining to plant design, specifications for items, and manufacturing directives than on pure research and development projects. From 1937 to 1939

much effort and money (for that period) went into the design, construction,

and operation of a pilot mustard-gas shell-filling plant at Edgewood Arsenal.

In November 1939 research and development was even more sharply subordinated to procurement under a policy of the Assistant Secretary of War

51

 CWS 314.7 Appropriations File. 52

 Public Law 11, 77th Cong. 53

 Watson, Prewar Plans, p. 42.
38 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

to abandon all basic research projects and all long-range development and

to concentrate on completing development of the most promising items for

which there was a definite military requirement.54

Research and development was not to be long hidden under a bushel.

In June 1940 the National Defense Research Committee (NDRC) was set

up by Presidential approval.55 Division B (later expanded to Divisions 8, 9,

10, and 11) of NDRC, headed by Dr. James Bryant Conant, was set up to

handle studies on bombs, fuels, gases, and chemical problems. Present at the

first meeting of this division on 11 July 1940 were General Baker, Chief,

CWS, and Lt. Col. Maurice E. Barker, chief of the Technical Division, OC

CWS. Shortly thereafter the CWS proposed six projects for study by Division

B, and by July 1941 this number had increased to sixteen. On 28 June 1941

NDRC and the Committee on Medical Research were included, by Executive

order, under the jurisdiction of a newly created Office of Scientific Research

and Development. Three months later the CWS recommended its initial

medical project to the Committee on Medical Research, the first of seventeen

such projects that would be undertaken before the close of World War II.

Included in the construction program which got under way at Edgewood

Arsenal in the fall of 1940 was a new research center. Prior to that time

research had been carried on in old, scattered buildings of World War I

vintage, ill suited for the purpose and costly to maintain. The new research

center was completed by the time war was declared. It consisted of a modern,

two-story, laboratory building, animal and storage buildings, machine shops,

powder and smoke laboratories, pilot plants, a power plant, and other necessary structures.56

 By that time also the CWS had acquired a new laboratory

on the campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.57

Limited Emphasis on Chemical Warfare Service Training

Of all the principal functions of the Chemical Warfare Service, training

received least emphasis in the emergency period.58 There were several

reasons. First of all, war plans did not call for the use of gas offensively in

the period of mobilization and therefore the War Department did not put

a high priority on the training of chemical troops. More important was the

54

 Ltr, C CWS (Gen Baker) to CofS, 30 Apr 41 sub: Final Rpt. CWS 319.1/2183-2249. 55

 (1) James Phinney Baxter, 3rd, Scientists Against Time (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1947), pp. 17-19 and Chs XVIII and XIX. (2) Brophy, Miles, and Cochrane, From

Laboratory to Field. 56

 Rexmond C. Cochrane, CWS Research and Development, pp. 50-51. MS. 57

 For more details on this laboratory, see below, Chapter VI. 58

 For more details on training in the emergency period, see below, Chapter IX.
THE YEARS BETWEEN THE WARS 39

uncertainty over the function of chemical combat troops in theaters of

operation. Should CWS troops be employed to disperse toxic chemicals or

should this be done by artillery or infantry using conventional-type weapons?

Answers to this and several other basic questions on the CWS mission were

not forthcoming until the fall of 1941. Until these answers were given CWS

training activities continued to be limited.

During the emergency period the CWS continued to supervise the training of the Army in defensive gas warfare. In 1940 and 1941 the service faced

the task of training fillers for existing CWS units which were being built

up to full strength and training cadres and fillers for units being activated

in the ground forces and air forces.59 During this period also the Training

Division of the Chief's office drew up Tables of Organization and Equipment for field units to carry out tasks resulting from recent technical developments, such as impregnating clothing to protect the wearer against gas

vapors.60 A Service Units Board, set up by the Chief, CWS, in May 1940,

reviewed the mission and organization of CWS laboratory, depot, and

maintenance units in the light of the operations in the European war and

redefined their functions.61 In the spring of 1941 the CWS organized a

Replacement Center (later called Replacement Training Center) at Edgewood Arsenal. Between the date of its activation and the end of 1941 the

center trained over seventeen hundred men, but this was less than one half of

the number of troops coming into chemical units in that period.

Organizational Developments: 1940-41

The increase of CWS activities and the consequent expansion of personnel rolls made it necessary to set up more elaborate administrative machinery

in the Chief's office and in the field. (Charts 1 and 2. See also Tables 2 and 3.)

In July 1940 General Baker provided for an expanded organization in his

office. Fiscal, Supply, Procurement, and Information Branches were raised

to division status and thus placed on an administrative par with the Technical, Personnel, and Training Divisions. Since the Army was placing greater

emphasis on procurement than on any of its other functions, the new Procurement Division was most imposing in its make-up. It included two subdivisions, designated Arsenal Procurement and Industrial Procurement. Each

subdivision contained several sections and some of the sections had several

59

 For names and locations of CWS units, see below, Chapter IX. 60 In July 1940 the Operations, War Plans, and Training Division became the Training

Division. See Chart 1. 61

 OC CWS SO 25, 6 May 40.
CHART 1—ORGANIZATION, OFFICE, CHIEF OF CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE,

WASHINGTON, D. C., As OF 6 JULY 1940
CHART 2—ORGANIZATION OF THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE,

As OF AUGUST 1940
42 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

branches.62 Later this nomenclature was reversed, and sections became

standard subdivisions of branches in all Army organizations.63

The initiation of procurement activities in the districts in mid-1940 led

to an increase in the number of employees and to the development of district

organizations to supervise expanding activities. Before 1939 each procurement district office was staffed by one officer and a stenographer or two, but

in fiscal year 1940 several of the districts added a civilian engineer and a

draftsman to the rolls. The increased appropriations in fiscal year 1941 enabled the districts to hire many more employees, so that by December 1940

the Boston district had 108 civilian employees, New York 82, Pittsburgh

373, and San Francisco 73. The vast majority of these were inspectors. By

the end of 1940 the number of officers in the various districts ranged from

five and twenty.64 During 1941 the roster continued to grow. The following

tabulation shows the comparative number of military and civilians in the

five districts at dates indicated in 1941:

 65

Although the organizational structures which were set up in the procurement districts in 1940 were essentially similar, there were enough variations

to cause confusion. For example, each district but one had a separate fiscal

unit; the one exception had a fiscal, property, and transportation unit. Almost

all districts had separate inspection units. While the Office of the Chief

reviewed the organizational charts of the districts, it did not insist on uniformity, and Inspector General reports on the procurement districts noted

without comment the varying organizational patterns of the districts. In

addition to lack of complete uniformity of organization there was lack of

uniformity in administrative procedures in the districts. For instance, the

district offices differed in the types of forms and records which they kept.

This absence of standardization was to engage the attention of the Chief's

office after the war got under way.

62

 OC CWS Off O 6, 6 Jul 40. 63

 For key personnel, OC CWS, 1940-45, see below, Appendix E. 64

 Figures based on various manuscript histories of chemical warfare procurement districts. 65

 IGD rpts of CWS proc districts for fiscal year 1941. CWS 335/10-15.
THE YEARS BETWEEN THE WARS 43

Between the summer of 1940 and the declaration of war, two changes

were effected at CWS installations. In August 1940 Fort Hoyle, a Field

Artillery installation adjacent to Edgewood Arsenal, was vacated and the

land and buildings turned over to the CWS. This space was sorely needed

in the period of expansion. In December 1940 an arsenal operations department was set up at Edgewood to supervise strictly arsenal functions such as

production, service, and inspection.

General Baker retired as Chief, CWS, on 30 April 1941 and was succeeded on 31 May by Maj. Gen. William N. Porter.66

 The activities of the

service continued to expand, and General Porter immediately began to take

steps to crystallize the CWS mission, steps which would shortly result in still

greater expansion of activities. Porter, like many other military men of the

time, was convinced that American entry into the war was all but inevitable

and that the CWS had to be prepared for nothing short of full-scale operations. Therefore in the summer of 1941 he reorganized his office.67

One feature of this organization of the Office of the Chief, CWS, was

use of terminology then in general use throughout other technical services

of the Army. Thus, the term "services" was used to designate the echelons

having jurisdiction over the principal operating functions of CWS, namely,

industrial, technical, and field (troops and training). General Porter selected

Col. Paul X. English to head the Industrial Service, Col. Edward Montgomery, the Field Service, and Lt. Col. Maurice E. Barker, the Technical

Service.

Development of the Chemical Warfare Service Mission

in the Emergency Period

General Porter inherited several problems for which his predecessors

in office had been unable, for a variety of reasons, to find satisfactory solutions. One was the impasse, already referred to, on the role of chemical

troops in combat. Another was the division of responsibility for incendiary

bombs between CWS and Ordnance, which was impeding production of

these important munitions. A potential problem was the absence of specific

official responsibility in the Chemical Warfare Service for an activity in

which the CWS had an interest, namely, biological warfare (BW).

66

 For a biographical sketch of Porter, see below, Chapter V. 67

 (1) Interv, CmlHO with Maj Gen William N. Porter, USA (Ret.), 16 July 49. (2) OC

CWS, Off O 12, 14 Jul 41, outlined the basic features of the new organization, leaving the details

to be worked out later. The new organization was officially approved on 2 September 1941, as

indicated in Chart 3.
CHART 3—ORGANIZATION, OFFICE, CHIEF OF CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE,

As OF 2 SEPTEMBER 1941
THE YEARS BETWEEN THE WARS 45

After Porter became Chief he made solution of these problems the first

order of business. There were two concomitant circumstances in his favor:

(1) the sense of urgency which marked U.S. military preparations in mid1941; and (2) the receptive attitude of the Chief of Staff to proposals that

promised to strengthen the nation's defenses. Porter was quick to take

advantage of both.

In July 1941 the Chief, CWS, took action to get the question of weapons

for chemical units settled. This he did by formally recommending to the

Chief of Staff that the two active chemical weapons companies in the zone of

interior be expanded to battalions and equipped with the 4.2-inch mortar.68

The Chief, CWS, encountered some difficulty with this suggestion in the

General Staff, but General George C. Marshall decided the issue by directing

that General Porter's proposal be carried out.69

The division of responsibility for the incendiary bomb between Ordnance

and Chemical Warfare Service dated back to 1920, when the War Department charged the CWS with the development of incendiary agents and the

filling of incendiary munitions and Ordnance with responsibility for the

procurement, storage, and issue of those munitions.70 Neither Ordnance nor

the CWS showed any marked enthusiasm for incendiaries in the peacetime

years, although certain individuals, at least in the CWS, did. The CWS officer

who perhaps more than anyone else was responsible for "selling" the Air

Corps on the incendiary bomb was General Porter, who had been liaison

officer at the Air Corps Tactical School at Maxwell Field (1933-37) and

later (1937-41) liaison officer at GHQ Air Force headquarters at Langley

Field. From Langley Field Porter went to Washington as Chief, CWS,

thoroughly convinced that incendiaries were an absolutely indispensable

munition for the winning of any future war.71

Two months after he assumed office, General Porter arranged for the

recall to active duty of a colonel in the Reserves who had been intensely

interested in incendiaries since World War I, Professor J. Enrique Zanetti of

Columbia University. Porter sent Zanetti to London to obtain firsthand

information on the bomb situation and upon his return put him in charge

of the incendiary bomb program in the CWS.72

68

 Memo, C CWS for CofS, 26 Jul 41, sub: Cml Troops. CWS 320.2/266. 69

 See memo for rcd placed on returned copy of Memo, G-3 for TAG, 5 Sep 41, sub: Cml

Troops. G-3/46556. 70

 WD GO 54, 28 Aug 20. 71

 (1) Memo, C CWS for G-3, 29 Nov 26, sub: Functions of the CWS. In OC CWS "black

book on policy." (2) Memo, C Incendiaries Br OC CWS for C CWS, 2 Dec 41, sub: Development of Incendiary Bomb Program. CWS 471.6/1122. (3) Porter interv, 16 Jul 49. 72

 Porter interv, 16 Jul 49.
46 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

4.2-INCH CHEMICAL MORTAR, used

by Chemical units, World War II.

Soldier is adjusting elevation of his

weapon.

The issue of divided responsibility for the incendiary bomb program came up for consideration at

a midnight conference on 15 July

1941 called by the Deputy Chief of

Staff, Maj. Gen. Richard C. Moore.

Represented at this conference were

the Ordnance Department, Army

Air Forces, and the Chemical Warfare Service. General Porter, representing the CWS, was emphatic in

asserting that divided responsibility

for the bomb program would not

work, and to this proposition Brig.

Gen. Carl A. Spaatz, Chief of Staff,

Army Air Forces, lent his emphatic

indorsement. The War Department

announced its official decision on

the matter on 3 September 1941

when it turned over responsibility

for all phases of the incendiary

bomb program to CWS.73

The subject of biological warfare attracted but passing interest in the

Chemical Warfare Service in the years between the two wars.74 The chief

of Medical Division, OC CWS, Maj. Leon A. Fox, lectured on the topic

in the early 1930's at the Chemical Warfare School. His lectures reflected

the general attitude of both the scientists and military men of the period,

which was to minimize the potentialities of biological warfare.75

The later 1930's witnessed a marked change in thinking on biological

warfare, a result of the simultaneous development of the science of bacteriology and airpower. By the 'forties the threat of this type of warfare

73

 (1) Notes of Conf in off of Gen Moore by Lt Col John T. Lewis, ASGS, 15 July 41, sub:

Incendiary Bombs. CWS 471.6/241-280. (2) Ltr, TAG to CWS, 3 Sep 41, sub: Incendiary

Bombs. CWS 471.6/29. (3) WD GO 10, 10 Sep 41. (4) Proceedings of the Proc Assignment

Bd, OUSW, 17 Nov 41, with approval by Robert P. Patterson, USW, 18 Nov 41. CWS File

471.6/241-248. (5) WD GO 13, 24 Nov 41. (6) Porter interv, 16 Jul 49. 74

 See Brophy, Miles, and Cochrane, From Laboratory to Field, for a fuller treatment of

biological warfare. 75

 Major Fox summarized his ideas in an article, "Use of Biologic Agents in Warfare," The

Military Surgeon, LXXII (1933), 189-207.
THE YEARS BETWEEN THE WARS 47

was causing concern not only to the armed forces, but also to certain

nonmilitary governmental agencies and to scientific associations. The reason

for this is quite obvious: if a biological warfare attack were made on the

civilian population, the attack would possibly be conducted on such a scale

that every known resource would have to be employed to combat it. In the

fall of 1940 Dr. Vannevar Bush, chairman of the National Defense

Research Committee, suggested to Dr. Lewis H. Weed of the Health and

Medical Committee of the Council of National Defense that consideration

be given to the offensive and defensive aspects of biological warfare.76 A

few months later the National Institute of Health took the threat of

biological warfare under advisement. The attitude of these scientific groups

was not one of alarm. They believed that the relatively advanced state of

public health in the United States put the population in a favorable position

in the event of a biological attack, but at the same time they felt that the

situation should be carefully watched.77

The Surgeon General and the Chief of the Chemical Warfare Service

welcomed the assistance of nonmilitary agencies and groups. In the summer

of 1941 The Surgeon General suggested to the National Defense Research

Committee that a committee of scientists be set up to survey all phases

of biological warfare, and about the same time the Chief, CWS, suggested

to Mr. Harvey H. Bundy, special assistant to the Secretary of War, that a

letter be prepared for the president of the National Academy of Science

recommending the activation of a similar committee.78 Secretary Henry L.

Stimson that fall addressed such a letter to Dr. Frank B. Jewett, president

of the National Academy of Science.79 As a result of this letter a committee

known as the WBC was set up, headed by Dean Edwin Broun Fred of the

University of Wisconsin.80 This group, which counted among its members

outstanding authorities on human, animal, and plant pathology and bacteriology, was making a survey of the potentialities of biological warfare

when the United States became involved in the war.

The Army had meanwhile been giving serious consideration to preparations against biological attack. Shortly after General Porter became Chief,

76

 Ltr, Bush to Weed, 28 Sep 40. WPD 4204-1. 77

 Capt Frank M. Schertz, History of Biological Warfare in the Chemical Warfare Service

(1943), p. 16. MS. 78

 These letters are summarized in Memo for Rcd on Biological and Bacteriological Warfare,

1 Oct 1941, by Lt Col Richard C. Jacobs, Jr. WPD 4205-5. 79

 Ltr, SW to Jewett, 1 Oct 41 WPD 4204 BW. 80

 "WBC" is a reversal of the initials for committee on biological warfare.
48 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

CWS, he advised General Marshall that more consideration should be given

to biological warfare, and he suggested that the responsibility go to the

Chemical Warfare Service.81 In August 1941 Brig. Gen. Harry L. Twaddle,

Assistant Chief of Staff, G-3, informed General Marshall that in his judgment the Chemical Warfare Service was best equipped to handle this

assignment.82

 Two months later Twaddle called on the Chief, CWS, to

convey an oral directive from the Chief of Staff for the CWS to carry on

research on biological warfare.83 To supervise the function a new Biological

Division was activated in the Office of the Chief.84

The emergency period saw not only the beginnings of industrial mobilization in the CWS but also the expansion of the CWS mission. Faced

with the threat of war, the General Staff was less prone to deliberate on

what activities the Chemical Warfare Service could carry on under War

Department regulations and more inclined to assign definite responsibilities

to the service. When the members of the General Staff could not agree,

General Marshall personally intervened to decide the issue. Yet despite the

progress made, the exact role of the CWS was not definitely decided until

the war was well under way.

81

 Porter interv, 16 Jul 49. 82

 Memo, Twaddle for Marshall, 27 Aug 41, sub: Invisible Mil Offensive Attack, summarized

in Schertz, History of Biological Warfare, p. 53. 83

 (1) Porter interv, 16 Jul 49. (2) Schertz, History of Biological Warfare, p. 148. 84

 OC CWS Organization Chart, 1 May 42.
CHAPTER III

Crystallizing the Wartime Mission

When the Japanese struck at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 the

Chemical Warfare Service, in spite of signs of improvement in its position,

was still suffering from uncertainty as to its wartime mission. The fact that

the course of international policy and events after World War I had seriously hindered CWS preparations for the possibility of gas warfare, together

with the Presidential pronouncements against using toxic agents, and even

against the permanent retention of a chemical warfare service in the Army,

tended to lessen the vigor with which a gas warfare preparedness program

could be pushed. Once the nation actually became involved in a fighting

war in which toxics might be used against U.S. troops, this attitude of the

executive department and particularly the War Department became much

more realistic. The first year of the war was to witness a marked change in

interpretation of the mission of the CWS.

A natural reaction to the events of 7 December was a War Department

decision to authorize a sizable increase in CWS personnel. How these men

would be utilized, into what units they would be formed, for what purposes

the units would be used: these questions were as yet unanswered.

The Study of January 1942

The Secretary of State was among the first to raise a question as to the

U.S. attitude toward gas warfare in World War II. In January 1942, Secretary of State Cordell Hull queried Secretary of War Stimson on the advisability of a unilateral declaration by the United States of its intention to

observe the terms of the 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol prohibiting the use

in war of poisonous gases.1

1

 Ltr, Secy State to SW, 12 Jan 42. Referred to in Memo, ACofS WPD for CoS, 4 Feb 42,

sub: Prohibition of Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological

Methods of Warfare. WPD 165-21. The British had attempted in December 1941 to obtain a

statement of this nature from the Japanese but without much success. See reference to this attempt

in Ltr, Secy State to SW, 17 Dec 42, with proposed communique by British Government. OPD

385 CWP, sec IIA.
50 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

As the basis for a reply to the Secretary of State, Mr. Stimson had access

to a January 1942 study on toxic gases prepared by the War Plans Division

of the General Staff. WPD had undertaken this study to determine existing

capabilities of the United States in the event of gas warfare. In the course

of preparing Mr. Stimson's reply, WPD had also consulted the Chief, CWS,

and his views were subsequently expressed by the War Department.2

Mr. Stimson advised the Department of State against making any public

statement which might indicate willingness by the United States to observe

on a reciprocal basis the terms of the Geneva protocol. The Secretary pointed

out that such a statement might, through the introduction of domestic controversy over the political and moral issues involved, impede preparation,

reduce potential combat effectiveness, and be considered by the enemy an

indication of national weakness. Regardless of treaty obligations, the War

Department considered the only effective deterrent to gas warfare to be

enemy fear of American retaliation, the capability for which should be

maintained through active preparation and constant readiness. On the original correspondence Mr. Stimson succinctly penned: "I strongly believe that

our most effective weapon on this subject at the present time is to keep

our mouths tight shut."

 3

The WPD analysis of the state of gas warfare preparations sought to

determine whether actual capabilities were reasonably adequate. The study

brought to light some serious shortcomings and thereby paved the way for

important corrective action. Immediate questions raised by the study involved the mission, mobilization, training, and disposition of chemical troops

—all matters which, in prewar planning, had unfortunately been left for

future decision. The study recommended that a decision be made on whether

the Chemical Warfare Service was an arm or a service. It pointed out that

the Munitions Program called for 18 regiments of CWS troops whereas

the troop basis permitted but 2 combat battalions for an army of 56 divisions. The WPD study therefore proposed that six full-strength chemical

battalions be activated at once and one battalion each be provided for the

important U.S. bastions of Hawaii and Panama. Since tactical considerations

plus availability of equipment indicated that the Air Corps would be the

2

 (1) See Memo, C CWS for ACofS WPD, 25 Jan 42, sub: Prohibition of Use in War of

Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. (2) Memo,

ACofS WPD for CofS, 4 Feb 42, sub: Prohibition of Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or

Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. Both in WPD 165-21. 3

 Ltr, SW to Secy State, 18 Feb 42. WPD 165-21. Interestingly, in spite of the title, none of

this correspondence made any direct reference to bacteriological warfare. All discussion was on

gas warfare.
CRYSTALLIZING THE WARTIME MISSION 51

first arm to use gas, the study asserted that first priority on chemical troops

should be accorded to the Army Air Forces, and that Air Force A of the

Munitions Program, comprising 147 officers and 5,777 enlisted men, should

be activated and trained immediately. Other proposals included the provision of defensive chemical units (impregnating and decontaminating) for

key U.S. outposts and for Australia, Iceland, and Northern Ireland; stockage

of chemical munitions in every overseas theater, possession, and base with

priority to areas proximate to the Japanese; activation of six regiments of

chemical troops as soon as equipment was available; and training for all

branches in smoke and gas operations.4

On 13 February 1942 General Marshall personally directed WPD to

insure the activation of 4 chemical combat battalions and directed the

Budget and Legislative Planning Branch of the War Department to procure

funds for the equipment of 18 chemical regiments (later reduced to 24

battalions).5 General Marshall ordered Lt. Gen. Lesley J. McNair to activate

the four battalions along with nineteen chemical service companies before

1 July 1942. Following the 9 March 1942 reorganization of the Army into

the Headquarters, Army Air Forces (AAF), Army Ground Forces (AGF),

and Army Service Forces (ASF),6 the AGF, heir to many GHQ functions,

informed the Operations Division (OPD), War Department General Staff,

that a directive was in preparation which would set up a program for training troops to operate under conditions of gas and smoke. By 23 March

1942 the Commanding General, Army Air Forces, had activated nearly

three fourths of the authorized air chemical troops. About this time The

Quartermaster General was instructed to ship impregnated clothing and

decontamination matériel to the Pacific bases and the Western Defense

Command.7

These operational decisions provided answers that the CWS had anxiously sought and supplied objectives toward which administrative and logis4

 Memo, Lt Col Charles C. Herrick, WPD, for C Opns GP WPD, 10 Feb 42, sub: Use of

Toxic Gases. WPD 165-23. 5

 (1) Memo, Col William T. Sexton, OCofS, for CofS, 8 Feb 42. (2) DF, WPD to G-3 and

G-4, 13 Feb 42, sub: Augmentation of Equipment for CWS. Both in WPD 166-5. 6

 (1) WD Cir 59, 9 Mar 42. (2) Army Service Forces was known as the Services of Supply

from March 1942 until 12 March 1943. Since it is best known by the earlier designation the term

Army Service Forces will be used in the narrative of events from 9 March 1942 onward. Administratively, the CWS was under Army Service Forces and reported through ASF to the

General Staff. See below, Chapter V. 7

 (1) Memo, Col Herrick, OPD, for Col St. Clair Streett, C Opns Gp OPD, 23 Mar 42, sub:

Use of Toxic Gases. (2) Memo, Col James R. Townsend, C Resources & Reqmts Sec WPD, for

Brig Gen Dwight D. Eisenhower, Feb 42, sub: Use of Toxic Gases. Both in WPD 165-23.
52 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

CWS EQUIPMENT Army Exhibit, San Antonio, Texas, March 1942. The

masks, from left to right, are: diaphragm, service, optical diaphragm (for use

with field glasses), and civilian.

tical action could be directed. By March 1942 the Chemical Warfare Service

was thus embarked on a definite if modest mobilization project that was

intended to assure the U.S. Army of at least a limited degree of readiness

for gas warfare. In sum, this was an earnest of the active preparations and

constant readiness to which the War Department had alluded in its reply

to the Department of State.

The Concern of Mr. McCloy

While the WPD study was still in progress, Assistant Secretary of War

John J. McCloy brought up another aspect of chemical warfare preparedness

which, up to that time, had not been especially considered except by the

CWS. McCloy asked the Chief of Staff whether the United States was prepared to assist the United Nations in the employment of toxic gases.8

General Marshall referred the McCloy memorandum to the Chief, Chemical

8

 (1) Memo, ASW for CofS, 25 Jan 42. CWS 470.6/2711-2754. (2) Interv, CmlHO with

Maj Gen William N. Porter, USA (Ret.), 15 Sep 51.
CRYSTALLIZING THE WARTIME MISSION 53

Warfare Service, for comment and recommendation. Porter's reply concurred in the views and apprehensions expressed by Mr. McCloy and

summarized certain specific steps considered necessary by way of preparation

for gas warfare by the United Nations. Some of these measures were already

under study by WPD. Porter now advanced a proposal that the chemical

warfare needs of all the United Nations be surveyed to determine what

assistance the United States should and could provide. "In most of our military preparations," he said, "we shall, for some time to come, be forced

to follow a pacemaker. With the vast chemical industry of the United States

and the highly trained scientific and technical men connected with it,

we should be able to be ready for all-out gas warfare, if required, in a

relatively short time, and in this particular do the pacemaking ourselves."

 9

As a result of the McCloy memorandum and General Porter's recommendations, the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-4, and the Assistant Chief of

Staff, WPD, were directed to determine the requirements in chemical weapons and ammunition adequate to meet the needs of the United Nations in

the event of gas warfare.10 In addition, the Under Secretary of War, Mr.

Robert P. Patterson, was requested to investigate current British and American production plans to learn what increase should be provided to meet

the possible needs of the United Nations.11

This militant attitude reflected the increasing concern on the part of

the War Department over the gas warfare situation in the late winter and

early spring of 1942. The General Staff was at last beginning to regard

realistically the several dimensions of the gas warfare problem: the capability of the United States to produce and use toxic agents; the ability of the

United States and the rest of the United Nations to defend themselves

against gas attack; the preparation—offensive and defensive—for gas warfare as a means of dissuading the enemy from using gas; and, behind all

these considerations, the question whether the United States could indefinitely afford to surrender the initiative to the Axis in this important area.

Thus the early months of 1942, a time of utmost difficulty for military

planners generally, was also a period of serious concern over gas warfare.

Would the enemy beat the United States to the punch and introduce gas

before its nascent preparations materialized? Could the United States fulfill

9

 Memo, C CWS for CofS, 2 Feb 42, sub: Use of Gas. CWS 470.6/2711-2754. 10

 Memo, DCofS for ACofS G-4, 11 Feb 42, sub: Gas Warfare. WPD 165-24. 11

 (1) Memo, DCofS for USW, 11 Feb 42, sub: Gas Warfare. (2) Memo, SGS for Mr.

McCloy, 14 Feb 42. Both in WPD 165-24.
54 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

its role in a coalition war of global proportions that was further complicated

by the employment of toxic agents? Such questions the General Staff was

now obliged to face.

During the prewar years, particularly 1940 and 1941, the Chemical

Warfare Service had not always concealed its impatience with what appeared to be a lack of realism in the War Department's approach to the

subject of gas warfare. By 1942 wishful thinking had ceased. It became the

official view that the enemy might sooner or later resort to gas and that,

if he did, the United States should beat him at his own game.12

The Porter Proposals

In addition to news of the steady succession of defeats suffered by the

United Nations in the winter of 1941 and early spring of 1942, intelligence

reports and rumors reaching the War Department hinted ever more strongly

at the possibility of gas warfare. With the fall of Bataan the whole situation

seemed to demand still closer study. The Assistant Chief of Staff, Operations Division, Maj. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, called for the views of

the Chemical Warfare Service in a memorandum that began with the

ominous statement: "Present intelligence reports indicate the possibility of

the outbreak of chemical warfare in the near future."

 13

 General Eisenhower

specifically requested an estimate of the capability and probability of the

Axis' waging gas warfare, an estimate of the power of the United States

to retaliate, a report (co-ordinated with The Quartermaster General) on

the distribution of protective equipment, another report (co-ordinated with

the Army Air Forces) of the means for retaliation presently available overseas, and finally—for the CWS the most important—a report of such

recommendations as the Chief, CWS, deemed advisable.14 It was a red-letter

day for the Chemical Warfare Service.

General Porter and his staff warmly welcomed the opportunity to present

their case, and the CWS reply furnished the blueprint for the wartime

12

 (1) Memo, Col Herrick for C Opns Gp WPD, 10 Feb 42, sub: Use of Toxic Gases. WPD

166-5. (2) Memo for Rcd, Col Jay W. MacKelvie, WPD, 11 Feb 42. Both in WPD 165-23.

(3) Ltr, SW to Secy State, 18 Feb 42. WPD 165-21. 13

 (1) Memo, ACofS OPD for CG SOS (Attn: C CWS), 27 Apr 42, sub: Cml Warfare. OPD

441.5. (2) Two days earlier, General Marshall had cabled all theater commanders, warning them

not to use gas without the prior approval of the War Department. See CM-OUT 5049, 25

Apr 42. 14

 Memo, ACofS OPD for CG SOS (Attn: C CWS), 27 Apr 42, sub: Cml Warfare. OPD

441.5.
CRYSTALLIZING THE WARTIME MISSION 55

mission and program of the Chemical Warfare Service. The CWS stated

that the probability of gas warfare was stronger than at any time since

the beginning of the war and that the Axis had greater capabilities for

waging gas warfare than did the United Nations. Whereas Great Britain

could retaliate immediately in Europe, the long-established policy by which

the United States left the initiative in gas warfare to the enemy had so

hampered American preparations that retaliation, at the best, would be

on a limited scale. The offensive and defensive training of the Army in

chemical warfare was deficient. In the few hours of training allotted to

chemical warfare the American soldier had learned little more than how

to adjust his gas mask. Nor did inspection reports reveal a much better

condition of training on the part of company grade officers. The CWS

regarded the distribution and supply of protective clothing and equipment

as entirely inadequate. Only a limited amount of chemical warfare offensive

matériel was overseas for the use of the Army Air Forces, although it would

initially be in the best position to retaliate.

General Porter therefore made a number of important recommendations aimed at placing the United States in the proper posture for offensive

and defensive gas warfare. The very first of these was that definite objectives should be set up for the entire chemical warfare supply program.

These would include filling the requirements of the United States and

other United Nations for full-scale chemical warfare. Since preparations

on such a scale naturally called for additional arsenal facilities, the Chief,

CWS, pointed out that the present and projected chemical warfare production capacity of the United States was based solely upon the current

Army Supply Program, which did not visualize the extent to which chemical

warfare might develop. He therefore recommended that American production capacity for toxic agents be increased well beyond probable enemy

capacities. On the defensive side the Chief, CWS, proposed that full

protection be provided for all military and naval personnel stationed outside the continental United States, and he earnestly suggested that adequate

gas and smoke training be injected into normal training routine and

maneuvers.

The Chief, CWS, felt that chemical mortar battalions would provide

the most effective means for large-scale retaliation on the ground and that

such battalions should be activated on the general basis of one per division.

Although the Army Supply Program had provided for a total of 28 battalions by 1944, by May 1942 only 4 chemical battalions and 3 separate

chemical mortar companies—one each in Panama, Hawaii, and the United
56 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

States—had been activated, a fourth company having been lost in the

Philippines. The CWS considered the 4.2-inch chemical mortar to be an

ideal weapon for delivering gas, smoke, or high explosive shell in high

concentrations in support of ground operations.

General Porter proposed the following basis for troop units for service

support in the field:

Type

Maintenance Company

Decontaminating Company

Impregnating Company

Depot Company

Field Laboratory Company

Basis

One per army

One per army corps

One per army corps

One per army

One per theater of

operations

He also believed that priority should be given to the chemical warfare

requirements of the Army Air Forces and accordingly proposed the activation of the following troop units:

Type

Maintenance Company

Impregnating Company

Field Laboratory Company

Basis

One per air force

One per air force

One per air force

These service elements would be assigned to each air force in addition

to the CWS units already authorized.15

For the Air Forces, General Porter further proposed that an over-all

distribution scheme be prepared covering incendiary bombs, airplane spray

tanks, and chemical bombs, based on the present location and anticipated

future allocation of planes capable of employing those weapons in various

theaters of operations.

General Porter not only recommended that the GHQ Umpire Manual

be revised to include chemical warfare training for all parts of the Army

but he also made other proposals to increase the efficiency and capability

of CWS training. He requested that the Chemical Warfare Service receive

control of the entire area of Gunpowder Neck, on which Edgewood Arsenal

was situated, instead of having to share it with the Ordnance Department.

This need arose out of the ever-increasing demand for additional space

15

 (1) These were the following: chemical company (air bomb), chemical company (air operations), chemical company (depot aviation), chemical platoon (airdrome), chemical platoon (air

force supply base), chemical platoon (air force service center), and chemical company (service

aviation). (2) See Table 4 for final recommendations on air chemical units.
CRYSTALLIZING THE WARTIME MISSION 57

and range facilities in connection with both research and training which

were carried on simultaneously at Edgewood. From this same problem

arose General Porter's recommendation that, in any case, the Chemical

Warfare Replacement Training Center (RTC) be relocated from Edgewood to a 35,000-acre tract outside the town of Gadsden, Alabama. The

Chief, CWS, proposed that the student capacity of the Chemical Warfare

School be increased from 200 student officers and 50 student enlisted men

to at least 400 student officers and 150 student enlisted men. General Porter

also recommended that the capacity of the CWS Officer Candidate School

(OCS) be increased from 160 to at least 700 officer candidates. Finally,

he suggested that a school for senior officers be provided at Edgewood

Arsenal with an initial attendance by general officers of the Army.16

A few months earlier such proposals would have received scant attention at the General Staff level; now they were seriously studied and action

on them was begun immediately. Within a week OPD sought their approval

by the General Staff, with the exception of the ratio proposed by General

Porter of one mortar battalion per armored or infantry division.17 OPD

recommended instead that twenty-eight chemical battalions be activated

by 1944 with a maximum of fourteen by the end of 1942 and the General

Staff concurred in the recommendations.18

All through the summer of 1942 the War Department was engaged

in the implementation of General Porter's proposals. The War Department

issued directives to insure adequate chemical warfare training and to provide

for the immediate supply of impregnated clothing and other essential

equipment to overseas forces. A priority list for the distribution of chemical

warfare matériel was established with first priority given to the Far East.

G-3 and ASF took measures to establish OCS and RTC facilities of sufficient size and to provide equipment for the program. By August the General

Staff was ready to recommend the following additional steps to General

Marshall: (1) that G-3 establish ratios for the constitution and activation

of chemical warfare service troops (Table 4) and constitute and activate

chemical mortar battalions on the basis of approved special projects rather

16

 Memo, C CWS for CG SOS, 11 May 42, sub: Cml Warfare; with tabs A-G. CWS

470.6/2730. 17

 (1) Memo, ACofS OPD for ACofS G-3, 18 May 42, sub: Cml Warfare Program. OPD

320.2. (2) The proposals, as revised by OPD, evolved from a conference between General Eisenhower, Brig. Gen. Robert W. Crawford, and Brig. Gen. Lehman W. Miller. 18

 The Assistant Chief of Staff, G-3, did not concur in the strength to be allotted the battalions,

desiring they be at reduced strength until assigned to overseas task forces. G-3 also indicated that

action had begun on revised training standards and on enlargement of the Replacement Training

Center and the Officer Candidate School. See Memo, G-3 for OPD, 11 Jun 42. WDGCT 320.2.
58 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

TABLE 4—1942 PROPOSED MODIFICATION IN CWS TROOP BASIS

a

 In addition to chemical sections in headquarters of units as authorized by approved Tables of Organization. b

 A decrease in Air Force personnel led to the reorganization of the chemical company (air bombardment) and chemical

company (air operations) into the chemical company (air operations) which had the same organization for all bombardment groups.

Source: Tab E to Memo, ACofS OPD for CofS USA, 13 Aug 42, sub: Revision in the Cml Warfare Program. OPD 385

CWP Sec IIA.

than assign one per division, and (2) that the Chief of Staff sign a letter

requesting the Combined Chiefs of Staffs (CCS) to give early consideration

to an over-all directive which could be used as a basis for production and

allocation of chemical warfare material and troops available to the United

Nations.19 The new troop basis increased the size of the CWS to 4,970

officers and 47,192 enlisted men. (Table 5)

Several problems yet remained, such as formal confirmation of combat

functions for the CWS, clarification of training responsibilities for CWS

units, the adjustment of the Army Supply Program to handle prospective

United Nations' requirements, and clarification of Air Force requirements

together with improvement in co-ordination of the manufacture of chemical

19

 (1) Memo, OPD for CofS, 13 Aug 42, sub: Revision of Cml Warfare Program. OPD 385

CWP, sec IIA. (2) See below, Chapter IV.
CRYSTALLIZING THE WARTIME MISSION 59

TABLE 5—CWS TROOP BASIS, AS OF 13 AUGUST 1942

Source: Tab E to Memo, ACofS OPD for CofS USA, 13 Aug 42, sub: Revision in the Chemical Warfare Program. OPD 385

CWP Sec IIA.

warfare equipment and aircraft.20 In September 1942 OPD informed the

ASF that the Chief of Staff had approved most of General Porter's major

recommendations on gas warfare and that action had been taken to implement them.21

When cables reached the War Department in the latter part of November 1942 strongly suggesting that the enemy might soon resort to gas

warfare, the Chief of Staff ordered the CWS to report on the status of

overseas shipments of CWS supplies and on the extent of implementation

of the protective equipment policy established the preceding June.22 General

Marshall apparently did not wish a gas warfare Pearl Harbor.

The Gas Mission Defined

General Marshall conveyed his concern over the potentialities of the

gas warfare situation to Secretary Stimson in mid-December 1942 when

the Chief of Staff expressed his conviction that the Germans would soon

launch gas attacks on the United Nations.23 Apparently both the director

of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, Dr. Vannevar Bush,

and the chairman of the National Defense Research Committee, Dr. James

Conant, were present in the office of the Secretary of War when General 20

 Memo, ACofS OPD (Maj Gen Thomas T. Handy) for CofS, 13 Aug 42, sub: Revision of

the Cml Warfare Program. The memos for record made on the OPD file copy provide an excellent

means for tracing the steps taken by the War Department to implement General Porter's proposals.

OPD 385 CWP, sec IIA. 21 Memo, ACofS OPD for CG SOS, 2 Sep 42, sub: Revision in the Cml Warfare Program.

OPD 385 CWP, sec IIA. 22

 Memo, CofS for CG SOS, 4 Dec 42, sub: Status of Cml Warfare Preparation. OPD 385

CWP, sec IIA. In June 1942 the War Department had established the policy of immediately

furnishing overseas personnel with some protective clothing and ointment and of ultimately

supplying them with complete sets of protective clothing together with a sufficient number of

plants to reimpregnate the clothing after laundering. See Ltr, TAG to CGs All Overseas Depts

et al., 10 Jun 42, sub: Cml Warfare Protective Clothing. AG 420. 23

 Memo, Harvey Bundy for SW, 21 Dec 42. OPD 385 CWP, sec IIA.
60 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Marshall made his remarks, for a week later both these distinguished

scientists posed several incisive questions to Secretary Stimson relative to

the fears expressed by the Chief of Staff. Bush and Conant asked whether

the War Department had taken adequate steps to prepare American soldiers

for defense against new German toxic agents.24 Second, they inquired

whether the United States was fully prepared to retaliate and, if so,

whether a public announcement to that effect should be made.25

These pointed questions, raised by the two civilians who were principally responsible for marshaling the scientific skills of the nation for

World War II, deserved serious study. Probably the questions were asked

without full knowledge of the numerous measures taken by the War Department during 1942 to improve the capacity of the Army for waging

gas warfare. But they served as the occasion for a hasty War Department

survey of what had been accomplished under the Porter proposals. Harvey

Bundy, special assistant to Secretary Stimson, incorporated the inquiries

in a memorandum to Mr. Stimson on 21 December. Three days later it

was in General Porter's hands for comment and recommendation.26

The Chief, CWS, indicated in rather broad terms what had been done

and what remained to be accomplished. He assured the General Staff that

the service gas mask was the best in the world and that it provided adequate protection against the German toxic agents to which Bush and Conant

had referred. On the less favorable side, he pointed out that maneuver

reports and inspections at ports of embarkation indicated that U.S. troops

had received inadequate defensive training in the use of protective items

other than the gas mask.27 As for the ability of the United States to

retaliate, General Porter stated that preparations included large stocks of

mustard gas on hand and a large and steadily increasing capacity for its

production. The Chief, CWS, reiterated his feeling that an overt threat of

retaliation would serve no useful purpose and might be taken by the enemy

as a sign of weakness.28

24

 The Germans were then thought to be preparing to employ both nitrogen mustard and

hydrocyanic acid. Although the latter was a well-known agent in World War I, a serious problem

had been that of producing adequate concentrations in the field. It was believed that the Germans

might have solved this problem. 25

 Memo, Bundy for SW, 21 Dec 42. OPD 385 CWP, sec IIA. 26

 Memo, C Log Gp OPD for C CWS, 24 Dec 42, sub: Cml Warfare Preparedness of U.S.

Army. OPD 385 CWP, sec IIA. 27

 These items included protective clothing, protective ointment, and gas detection equipment. 28

 (1) Memo, C CWS for OPD, 24 Dec 42, sub: Cml Warfare Preparedness of U.S. Army.

OPD 385 CWP, sec IIA. (2) In this instance, the United States feared that Germany might
CRYSTALLIZING THE WARTIME MISSION 61

1-TON CHEMICAL CONTAINERS awaiting shipment at a CWS storage yard,

OPD promptly assembled representatives of the CWS, ASF G-3, G-4,

AGF, and AAF to study the deficiencies noted by Porter. Upon examination

of the vital training problem, the conferees concluded that the Army was

not fully prepared to defend itself against gas attack because certain items

of individual protective equipment had only recently been standardized

and made available for training. They were of the opinion that the current

training policy was satisfactory but that until production of the new equipment caught up with requirements the training program would be incomplete. In the meantime, one proposed solution was to re-emphasize priority

for the chemical warfare training program of the Army, especially in field

maneuvers. More important, it was decided that the Chief, CWS, as

technical adviser to the Chief of Staff, ought to conduct any troop inspections

necessary to determine the technical status of chemical warfare training.

On the question of retaliation, the consensus was that the Army Air Forces

could do little with the small stocks of gas munitions then overseas. The

initiate gas warfare. In May 1942 President Roosevelt had warned Japan against the use of gas in

China and had promised retaliation if such acts continued. For details, see below, Chapter IV.
62 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

AAF and the CWS agreed that the immediate answer was a higher shipping

priority.29

On the basis of General Porter's letter and the meetings held by

representatives of the War Department General Staff, General Marshall

informed the Secretary of War: (1) that the Army would be provided

with new protective equipment by June 1943 (barring manufacturing priority difficulties); (2) that steps had been taken to expedite the training

of the Army in the use of protective equipment; and (3) that American

forces overseas were currently unprepared to retaliate but, granted the

necessary shipping priorities, available equipment and munitions could

be distributed by May 1943. The Chief of Staff concurred with General

Porter that no public threats of retaliation should be made.30 A more complete report on CWS and War Department accomplishments since May

1942 was submitted at the end of December in answer to General Marshall's

inquiry of 4 December. This report thoroughly reviewed the chemical warfare status of the United States and listed steps taken toward readiness.

The CWS recommended that higher priorities be given for critical materials

needed in the completion of impregnating plants, that additional impregnating (later known as processing) companies be authorized, and that

special directives governing the issue of impregnated clothing be published

for all theaters where gas warfare was likely.31

The gas mission of the Chemical Warfare Service had thus crystallized

by the close of 1942 as the result of almost a year of staff studies, discussion, alarms, and War Department directives. A number of factors

had combined to bring about a more realistic attitude toward gas warfare

than had been present at any time since 1918. Of these, the most impelling

was the fear that the enemy might initiate gas warfare. Under the leadership

of Secretary Stimson, Assistant Secretary McCloy, General Marshall, and

General Porter, the War Department began active preparations to meet

such a contingency in a manner that would insure American supremacy

in this field.

29

 Memos for Rcd, 26 and 29 Dec 42, on Memo, ACofS OPD for CofS, 31 Dec 42, sub: Summary of Cml Warfare Preparations. OPD 385 CWP, sec IIA. 30

 Memo, ACofS OPD for CofS, 31 Dec 42, sub: Summary of Cml Warfare Preparations, with

Tab A, Proposed Memo for SW. OPD 385 CWP, sec IIA. 31

 Memo, C CWS for ACofS OPD, 30 Dec 42, sub: Status of Cml Warfare Preparation. OPD

385 CWP, sec IIA.
CHAPTER IV

The United States Chemical

Warfare Committee

The War Department's emphasis in early 1942 on preparation for

retaliation gas warfare made evident the need for an agency to furnish

advice on chemical warfare policy, to develop a procurement and supply

program, and to co-ordinate these matters with the United Nations, particularly Great Britain.1

 In the late spring of 1942 the policy on gas warfare

of the United States and Great Britain was announced in unilateral statements by Prime Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt.2

 On 10 May

Churchill declared: "I wish to make it plain that we shall treat the unprovoked use of poison gas against our Russian ally exactly as if it were used

against ourselves, and if we are satisfied that this new outrage has been

committed by Hitler we will use our great and growing air superiority

in the west to carry gas warfare on the largest possible scale far and wide

upon the towns and cities of Germany." A month later President Roosevelt

stated: "I desire to make it unmistakably clear that if Japan persists in this

inhuman form of warfare against China or against any other of the United

Nations, such action will be regarded by this government as though taken

against the United States and retaliation in kind and in full measure will

be meted out."

 3

1

 (1) As early as February 1942 the Chief, CWS, had voiced the need for such an agency. See

Memo, C CWS for ACofS G-4, 24 Feb 42, sub: Co-ord of Cml Warfare Allied Activities. CWS

400.12/17. Maj. Gen. Brehon B. Somervell approved the procedure. See Memo, ACofS G-4 for

C CWS, 25 Feb 42. G-4/34199. (2) Before the United States entered World War II there had

been an exchange of information on chemical warfare through the assistant military attache in

London and through the representatives of the British Purchasing Commission in Washington. 2

 On 1 April 1942 Churchill had informed Roosevelt of assurances which the British had given

Marshal Joseph Stalin—that any German use of gas against the USSR would lead to unlimited

British retaliation. See Winston S. Churchill, The Hinge of Fate (Boston: Houghton Mifflin,

Company, 1950), pp. 203, 329-30. 3

 (1) Churchill's statement and that of Roosevelt are quoted in CCS 106/2, 14 Nov 42, Allied

Cml Warfare Program. This paper was the basis for Anglo-American gas warfare policy and

co-ordinated procurement and supply of chemical warfare matériel. (2) The Chinese had repeatedly accused the Japanese of using gas. This charge was never definitely established.
64 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

These statements established the general gas warfare policy of the

respective nations, but no organization had been established to implement

co-ordination between the parallel policies of the United States and the

British Commonwealth of Nations, and procedures for co-ordination of

effort in event of enemy gas attack were necessary as well as preparation

for a combined procurement and supply program. The British in 1940 had

established the Inter-Service Committee on Chemical Warfare (ISCCW),

a group representative of all services reporting to the British Chiefs of

Staff; and the United States had the Chemical Warfare Service which represented the interests of the Army, the component Army Air Forces, and,

by informal arrangement, the Navy. In August 1942 General Marshall

brought the question of co-ordination to the attention of the Combined

Chiefs of Staff and offered the services of the Chief of the Chemical Warfare

Service as adviser to the CCS.4 The Combined Chiefs referred this suggestion

to the Combined Staff Planners (CPS) who created an ad hoc chemical

warfare subcommittee headed by the Chief, CWS, which was to define the

United Nations chemical warfare policy and draw up a directive upon

which a co-ordinated United Nations chemical warfare procurement and

supply policy could be based.5 During discussions of initial drafts of a

report within the ad hoc subcommittee, the British representative proposed

establishment of a permanent subcommittee of the Combined Staff Planners

to carry out the combined program.6 This proposal was dropped during

the ad hoc subcommittee meeting of 22 October 1942 upon general agreement to use existing agencies.7

 A week later the ad hoc subcommittee reported the results of its study to the Combined Staff Planners.8

The chemical warfare subcommittee recommended that gas warfare be

4

 (1) Memo, CofS for U.S. Secretariat CCS, 27 Aug 42, sub: Allied Cml Warfare Program.

WDCSA 470.71 (8-13-42). Reproduced as CCS 106, 28 Aug 42. (2) For the background of

this recommendation, see above, Chapter III. Both in CWS 470.6/2754. 5

 (1) CPS 45/D, 5 Sep 42, Allied Cml Warfare Program. (2) Memo, Secy JPS for Gen

Porter et al., 9 Sep 42, sub: Allied Cml Warfare Program. Both in CWS 314.7 USCWC file. (3)

The subcommittee was dissolved following approval of CCS 106/2 at the 48th meeting of the

CCS on 14 November 1942. 6

 Memo, Wing Comdr W. Oulton, RAF, for Gen Porter et al., 19 Oct 42. CWS 314.7

USCWC File. 7

 Min of Mtg, CPS Subcom on UN Cml Warfare Program, 22 Oct 42. CWS 470.6/2754. 8

 (1) Memo, C CWS for Brig Gen Albert C. Wedemeyer and Capt R. L. Conolly, USN, 11

Sep 42, sub: Allied Cml Warfare Program (CPS 45/D). (2) Memo, Porter for Secy CPS, 30

Oct 42, sub: Allied Cml Warfare Program. Both in CWS 470.6/2754. (3) Drafts and notes of

the ad hoc subcommittee are filed in CWS 470.6/2754. (4) Other subcommittee members were:

Capts. A. R. Early and O. K. Olsen, USN; Maj. Lawrence J. Lincoln, USA; and Wing Commander Oulton, RAF.
THE UNITED STATES CHEMICAL WARFARE COMMITTEE 65

undertaken by both U.S. and British Commonwealth forces on the order

of the Combined Chiefs of Staff after approval by appropriate governmental

authority, or independently by any such nation, if in retaliation, on the

decision of a representative especially designated for that purpose by its

highest governmental authority.9 It also recommended that either U.S. or

British Commonwealth forces should provide evidence of the enemy's

use of gas in case combined action was requested. When the decision to

retaliate was made independently, the acting nation should give immediate,

confirmed information to the Combined Chiefs of Staff who would then

notify cobelligerents. Lastly, the subcommittee recommended that the CCS

issue a directive for a co-ordinated chemical warfare procurement and

supply program and included a suggested directive as a separate annex to

the report. This proposed directive placed responsibility for the chemical

warfare procurement and supply program in the United States with the

Commanding General, Army Services Forces, who was to designate the

Chief, CWS, and such other officers as he might deem appropriate as a

committee to execute this responsibility. This group, in co-ordination with

the U.S. Navy representative, would then contact the appropriate British

agency which would be selected by the British Chiefs of Staff. Both the

American and British agencies were to be staff in nature; where command

decisions were required these were to be obtained through normal command

channels. The proposed directive concluded with a list of specific functions

which the two committees were to perform. The Combined Chiefs of Staff

approved the report with but minor changes, and on 14 November 1942

it became an official document known as CCS 106/2.

Mission and Functions of the Committee

This document, CCS 106/2, described in some detail the duties of both

American and British agencies in co-ordinating the chemical warfare procurement and supply program. It listed seven separate functions for which

these agencies were responsible, six of which dealt exclusively with the

production and supply of gas warfare matériel.10 The Combined Chiefs

of Staff directed these agencies to establish potential production capacity

capable of rapid expansion to meet the needs of gas warfare while keeping

9

 In December 1942 the highest governmental authority in the United States was officially

defined as the President, who, it was understood, could act on the recommendation of the U.S.

Joint Chiefs of Staff. See JCS 176/1, 31 Dec 42, Allied Cml Warfare Program (Rpt by the JPS). 10

 These functions were substantially the same as those listed in the report by the chemical

warfare subcommittee of the CPS.
66 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

current production on the minimum level compatible with this goal. The

agencies were to provide for initial stocks at levels which would permit

gas warfare to be carried on pending expansion of production; they were

to establish uniform initial stock levels of all types of equipment for

combined theaters, and they were to determine and maintain minimum

levels of individual and collective protective equipment and to set up

logistical factors for antigas equipment, gas weapons, and munitions. A

further and very important function was the initiation of a program for

standardizing and interchanging all types of chemical warfare equipment

used by the United States and Great Britain. The directive concluded with

the admonition that, in the execution of these policies, "the extent of the

measures adopted would be limited to those compatible with a balanced

over-all munitions program."

 11

To carry out these provisions the Commanding General, ASF, promptly

established a committee headed by General Porter and including representatives chosen by G-2 and OPD of the War Department General Staff,

the Requirements and Operations Divisions of the ASF, and the U.S. Navy.12

General Porter asked the chiefs of the Industrial, Technical, Operations,

and Training Divisions of his office to appoint qualified officers to represent

their divisions in the work required by the CCS directive. As the Chief,

CWS, correctly observed, this work involved no small amount of time and

travel.13 Members of the Office of the Chief, CWS, eventually performed

a great deal of the work of the committee.

The new committee, as yet undesignated, held its first meeting on 1

11

 CCS 106/2, 14 Nov 42, App. A, Directive for a Co-ordinated UN Cml Warfare Proc and

Supply Program. 12

 (1) Ltr, CG SOS for C CWS, 1 Dec 42, sub: Allied Cml Warfare Program. SOS

470.6/2754 (later CCWCI). (2) On 30 November 1942 Admiral Ernest J. King directed that

a naval representative be appointed. See Ltr, COMINCH to VCNO, 30 Nov 42, sub: Allied Cml

Warfare Program. COMINCH file, FFI/S77/A16.3, serial 001441. (3) A British representative

also sat with this committee. By its third meeting on 17 February 1943, a representative from

the AAF had been named, and late in the year an AGF officer was oppointed. CCWC 19/1, 17

Feb 43, Min of Mtg 17 Feb 43. CCWC, USCWC, and CWC papers cited in this chapter are

located in CWS 314.7 USCWS file. (4) USCWC 142, 30 Mar 45, Performance of Responsibility

for Carrying Out a Co-ordinated Anglo-American Cml Warfare Proc and Supply Program (U.S.

Agency). Appendix A lists the members of the committee and subcommittees during the war.

This document is an account of the USCWC to that date, prepared by the secretary, Lt. Col.

Jacob K. Javits, CWS, and submitted by the chairman. 13

 (1) Memo. C CWS for C Ind Div et al., 19 Dec 42, sub: Allied Cml Warfare Program.

CWS 470.6/2754. (2) The workload of the secretary and the OC CWS became such by 1944

that the Chief, CWS, requested that two officers and three civilians be provided for USCWC

administration. Memo, C CWS for CG ASF, 1 Feb 44, sub: Co-ordinated Anglo-American Proc

and Supply Program (Secretariat). CWS 314.7 USCWC File.
THE UNITED STATES CHEMICAL WARFARE COMMITTEE 67

December 1942 to consider the Allied chemical warfare program.14 Conduct

of this meeting and of the subsequent monthly meetings followed the

general procedures of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) committees.15 For

instance, matters brought up for consideration were, whenever practicable,

presented in the form of a paper which the secretary circulated among the

members before placing the item on the agenda.

At its second meeting, in January 1943, the committee adopted the

name Combined Chemical Warfare Committee (CCWC) because it apparently considered its mission as being advisory to the Combined Chiefs

of Staff. In March the newly appointed British representative on the CCWC,

Lt. Col. Humphrey Paget of the Royal Engineers, took formal issue with

this interpretation of the committee's position.16 The British viewpoint was

that the committee was simply an advisory body to the U.S. Joint Chiefs

of Staff just as the British Inter-Service Committee on Chemical Warfare

advised the British Chiefs of Staff. Paget argued that his role on the CCWC

was that of a British liaison officer.17 Colonel Paget's objections initiated

a period of controversy and concern over the designation and role of the

committee.

General Porter was visiting London to discuss implementation of CCS

106/2 at the time Colonel Paget's formal objections were received. The

Operations Division of the War Department General Staff became concerned over the possibility of British pressure on General Porter for the

establishment of an over-all combined committee to sit in London. The

British had taken a renewed interest in chemical warfare, OPD felt, and

might try to establish a combined committee in London despite the published

British view of combined machinery as consisting of parallel joint agencies.

OPD sought and obtained concurrence of the ASF, AAF, and the Navy

14

 Ltr, Gen Porter to Brig Gen John R. Deane, Secy JCS, 15 Dec 42, sub: Allied Cml Warfare

Programs. CWS 470.6/2754. Reproduced as CCWC 6. 15

 For details on the operations of the JCS committee system, see Vernon E. Davis, History of

Joint Chiefs of Staff in World War II, Vol. II, Development of JCS Committee Structure. MS. 16

 (1) CCWC 29/1, 19 Mar 43, Min of Mtg CCWC 19 Mar 43. (2) Lt. Col. D. J. C. Wiseman, Gas Warfare, volume I of Special Weapons and Types of Warfare, The Second World War:

1939-1945, Army (British War Office, 1951), p. 122. (3) Colonel Paget's predecessor, Col. F.

C. Nottingham, had previously registered verbal protest at this interpretation. (4) The ARCADIA

Conference in December 1941 had given precision to the word "combined" by reserving it to

describe the machinery and action of the British-American partnership. The British thought of

combined machinery as parallel joint committees in both capitals. See Duncan Hall, North

American Supply, History Of The Second World War (United Kingdom Civil Series) (London:

Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1955), pp. 343, 347. 17

 Paget's views are summarized in a memorandum for the subcommittee, Title and Functions

of CCWC, 25 March 1943.
68 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Department in the view that a combined committee should be located in

Washington because the Combined Chiefs of Staff and most of its subordinate and supporting committees were located there. OPD further

argued that since most of the assignments of chemical warfare matériel

would be made from U.S. production, it was not logical that the assigning

body sit in London. The Chief of Staff expressed his agreement with these

views, and a cable was sent to General Porter stating the U.S. position.18

The United States had reversed its view of the committee function since

the report of the JSP ad hoc committee when the Americans had argued for

the use of existing agencies. It is possible that they regretted that decision.

The Combined Chemical Warfare Committee appointed a subcommittee

to examine the question of functions and derivation of authority for its

group. This subcommittee inconclusively reported that the CCWC was

neither combined nor joint. It did note that its functions more nearly

approached those of a joint committee. When General Porter returned

from London, the subcommittee report was taken up at the 30 April 1943

meeting, but the discussion bogged down because of conflicting views.19

Meanwhile, on 28 April 1943, the CCWC was officially notified that

the ISCCW was the agency designated by the British Chiefs of Staff to

act on CCS 106/2.20 It became apparent that the British concept of parallel

joint committees was the most acceptable solution to the organizational

problem. At Lt. Gen. Brehon B. Somervell's suggestion, the CCWC therefore adopted the title, United States Chemical Warfare Committee

(USCWC) at its May meeting.21 The question of organization and functions

was settled, and the arrangement worked so well that a subsequent attempt

to rewrite CCS 106/2 to provide for a combined committee was abortive.

The two committees achieved close co-operation in carrying out the

mission given them by the Combined Chiefs of Staff. As in the case of

the Combined Chiefs of Staff, which drew strength from the personal

friendship of Sir John Dill and General Marshall, the strong bonds between

members of the American and British committees made it possible for all

18

 (1) Memo, ACofS OPD for CofS, 13 Mar 43, sub: Instructions to C CWS. OPD 385 CWP,

sec IIB. This memo has in ink at the bottom "OK GCM" [George C. Marshall]. (2) CM-OUT

6548, 18 Mar 43. 19

 CCWC 34 and CCWC 34/1, 30 Apr 43. Min of Mtg CCWC 30 Apr 43. The second paper

is a revised version of the minutes. 20

 Memo, Col Paget for C CWS. Also reproduced as CCWC 33. 21

 (1) Memo, CG ASF for C CWS, 6 May 43, sub: Allied Cml Warfare Program. Adopted as

CCWC 35, (2) Memo, CofEngrs British Army Staff for C CWS, 6 May 43, No sub. CWS 314.7.

USCWC file. (3) USCWC 38, 20 May 43. Min of Mtg 20 May 43.
THE UNITED STATES CHEMICAL WARFARE COMMITTEE 69

their undertakings to be conducted with strength, forbearance, and mutual

understanding.22 As one of the principal members of the USCWC expressed

it: "The British constantly pointed to the combined C.W. effort as the best

combined effort throughout the war. Many, many times I've heard my

British friends remark that they wished they could enjoy the same effective,

smooth, pleasant co-operation with other U.S. agencies. And this model

of co-operative effort was accomplished in spite of wide basic difference

of opinion as to effectiveness of gas and use of gas."

 23

 The U.S. representatives, and particularly those from the Chemical Warfare Service, held the

view that gas was a decisive weapon if dispersed in sufficient quantities at

the right places and at the right time. The British, on the other hand,

regarded gas as a supplementary weapon to be used in conjunction with

high explosives and incendiaries.24

The two committees were able to co-operate more effectively not only

through a continual exchange of information but also through occasional

visits by official representatives. In September 1943, about six months after

General Porter's visit to Great Britain, two other members of the USCWC,

Brig. Gen. Alden H. Waitt and Lt. Col. Jacob K. Javits, visited London

to confer with members of the ISCCW. At these meetings, discussion

centered on varied subjects such as the allocation of the chemical warfare

effort of the two countries, the interchangeability of protective equipment,

chemical weapons, and munitions, and the co-ordination of logistical policies.25

 In February 1944 a British delegation headed by the ISCCW chairman, Air Marshal N. H. Bottomly, and including Maj. Gen. G. Brunskill

of the British Directorate of Special Weapons and Vehicles, attended a

meeting of the USCWC in Washington where the progress of the Anglo22

 Hall, North American Supply, pp. 348-49. 23

 Comments by Maj Gen Alden H. Waitt, USA (Ret.), 1955, on draft copy of this chapter. 24

 (1) Wiseman, Gas Warfare, p. 126. (2) Rpt of AC CWS (USCWC 53/1, 27 Oct 43),

for Fld Opns (Waitt) to USCWC, 27 Oct 43. (3) Unlike the U.S. Army, the British Army

had no central organization dealing with chemical warfare. Different arms and branches handled

chemical warfare duties. For instance, Ordnance was responsible for the supply and maintenance

of chemical weapons and equipment in the field; the Royal Engineers performed laboratory

analysis; the Pioneer Corps furnished smoke companies; while staff advice was provided by GSC

officers trained in chemical warfare and assisted at higher headquarters by technical officers who

were trained chemists. The limited amount of matériel and manpower in the British Army was a

governing factor in determining the effort which could be devoted to gas weapons. See USCWC

96, 21 Feb 44, Min of Mtg, 12 Feb 44. 25

 (1) Ibid. (2) CCW (43) 4th Mtg, 10 Sep 43, Min of Mtg 8 Sep 43. CCW was the publications symbol for the British Inter-Service Committee on Chemical Warfare. (3) CCW (43) 5th

Mtg, 8 Oct 43, Min of Mtg 5 Oct 43.
70 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

American chemical warfare program was discussed.26 These visits, and

others like them, definitely resulted in closer co-operation between the

British and American committees.27

In carrying out its duties the USCWC worked through a subcommittee

system. At first these subcommittees were ad hoc in nature, but on 8 November 1943, pressure of an ever-increasing number of War Department

requests led to establishment of four permanent subcommittees: Chemical

Warfare Operations, Gas and Smoke, Chemical Warfare Protective Equipment, and Incendiaries. Appointment of some ad hoc committees, however,

continued, including such groups as the Joint Chemical Spray Project Subcommittee.28

 Membership on the subcommittees was not limited to USCWC

members but was drawn from U.S. and British experts as needed.

Activities and Accomplishments

The USCWC continued in existence until after the close of World

War II. During the war the committee co-ordinated supply between the

U.S. services and with the British, it exchanged information on research;

it brought about a broad program of interchangeability and standardization

of all types of chemical warfare matériel used by U.S. and British Commonwealth forces; it prepared periodic reports of readiness for chemical

warfare; and in conjunction with various committees of the Joint Chiefs

of Staff it established a logistical basis for gas warfare. Unlike the ISCCW,

its British counterpart, the USCWC dealt with incendiary agents and

munitions and co-ordinated this program with the British Ministry of Aircraft Production and the Air Ministry.29

Co-ordination of Supply

To achieve the most effective use of raw materials, production facilities,

manpower, and shipping the United States and the British Commonwealth

of Nations had to co-ordinate their procurement and supply programs in

26

 See reference cited in Note 24 (3) above. 27

 See excerpt from Rpt of Chmn ISCCW on Visit to U.S.A., Feb-Mar 44 Quoted in USCWC

112, 25 Apr 44. Note by the Secretary [Rpts of British Visitors, Feb-Mar 44]. 28

 (1) See below, pages 72-73. (2) At the 30 October 1943 meeting, Col. H. Spencer Struble,

ASF, suggested the establishment of the permanent subcommittees on the ground that the General

Staff and the ASF were regarding the USCWC as an agency for the disposition of high echelon

chemical warfare policies. See USCWC 54, 30 Oct 43, Min of Mtg 30 Oct 43, and USCWC 55,

11 Nov 43, Min of Adjourned Mtg of U.S. Cml Warfare Comm 8 Nov 43. 29

 Memo, Chmn USCWC for DCofS, 21 Jan 44, sub: Co-ordinated Cml Warfare Program.

CWS 314.7 USCWC File.
THE UNITED STATES CHEMICAL WARFARE COMMITTEE 71

HC M1 SMOKE POTS IN USE, Rapido River, Italy, January 1944.

World War II. Of these factors shipping was usually the most critical.

CCS 106/2 provided that British and American agencies should initiate a

program for the standardization and interchangeability of all types of

chemical warfare equipment used by the respective nations. By this means

the planners hoped that the various fighting fronts could be supplied with

many chemical warfare items from the United States or Great Britain, whichever was closer, and valuable shipping space could be saved. Such items

as toxic agents, bombs, flame throwers, smoke pots, incendiaries, and protective equipment were among those exchanged for this purpose.30

One of the earliest questions studied by the USCWC was the coordination of Anglo-American requirements for smoke-producing materials.

Even before the formation of the USCWC in 1942 the United States and

Great Britain had begun talks on this subject. Later, the invasion of French

North Africa brought with it a need for smoke pots to screen the ports

against German air attack. In the summer of 1943 the U.S. Army did not

30

 The secretary of the committee felt that the co-ordination of supply was the most important

work of the USCWC. See Ltr, Jacob K. Javits to OCMH, 18 May 55.
72 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

yet have a large smoke pot of the type needed for starting and maintaining

a good smoke screen. The USCWC, therefore, arranged for the British to

supply large numbers of their No. 24 smoke pots until the United States

should finish developing what was to become the M5 smoke pot.31 This

agreement was expanded to the establishment of a basic policy that, insofar

as practicable, all troops in the European Theater of Operations (ETO)

would use British smoke pots and all forces in the North African theater

would be supplied with smoke pots by the United States. The two committees agreed that since the United States could not yet fulfill its responsibility for supply to the Mediterranean, 75 percent of that theater's requirements would be filled by the British and 25 percent from the United States.

The British agreed to provide 600,000 smoke pots for U.S. forces in the

ETO.32 Early in 1944 the USCWC reciprocated by consenting to furnish

floating smoke pots to Anglo-American forces in the European theater.33

These plans worked out substantially as scheduled. Large-size U.S. smoke

pots came off production lines in the spring of 1944. The United States

supplied these pots to United Nations troops in the Mediterranean; the

British supplied the forces in the ETO with land smoke pots, while the

United States provided them with floating smoke pots.

Other examples of items in which co-ordination of supply was effected

were gas bombs and tropical bleach. Until May 1944 the British supplied

the U.S. Eighth Air Force in England with ten thousand phosgene-filled

500-pound bombs.34 In the fall of 1943 USCWC representatives arranged

for the procurement of fifteen thousand tons of tropical bleach from Great

Britain, a measure which saved much valuable shipping space.35 In the

summer of 1944 the committee representatives made plans for the supply

31

 (1) CCW (43) 33, 3 Oct 43, Rpt by AC U.S. CWS (Waitt). (2) USCWS 55, 11 Nov 43,

Min of Adjourned Mtg of U.S. Cml Warfare Comm 8 Nov 43. (3) Brophy, Miles, and Cochrane,

From Laboratory to Field. 32

 (1) See Note 31 (1) above. (2) See reference cited in Note 12 (4) above. 33

 Ibid.

34

 (1) USCWC Periodic Rpt of Readiness for Cml Warfare as of 1 Jan 45, p. 104. (2)

USCWC 44, 24 Jan 43, Min of Mtg 24 Jan 43. (3) CCW (43) 29, 25 Aug 43, First Interim

Rpt by Air Ministry Tech Subcom. (4) CCW (43) 4th Mtg, Min of Mtg 8 Sep 43, p. 5. (5)

The United States was anxious to have Great Britain supply persistent and nonpersistent gas

bombs for the AAF in England. Various obstacles, including the inability to interchange the

British 65-pound mustard bomb for use on U.S. aircraft, compelled the War Department to ship

thousands of American bombs to England. See Memo for Rcd on Memo, ACofS OPD for CG

AAF, 24 Jun 43, sub: Eighth Air Force Preparedness for Offensive Cml Warfare. OPD 385 CWP,

sec IV. U.S. production of phosgene bombs resulted in the shipment of thousands to Great

Britain in 1944-45. (6) Bleach is used in decontamination. 35

 (1) See page 8 of reference cited in Note 31 (1) above. See reference cited in Note

12 (4) above.
THE UNITED STATES CHEMICAL WARFARE COMMITTEE 73

of U.S. gas munitions for American aircraft operated by the Royal Australian Air Force in the Pacific.36

A representative of the U.S. Navy served on the USCWC to achieve

close interservice co-ordination. As early as January 1943 conferences were

held under committee auspices in order to improve integration of Army

and Navy chemical warfare programs.37 These conferences were followed

in March by the establishment of the basis for the Navy's chemical warfare

program.38 This integration of procurement and supply simplified procedures and often led to considerable savings of men, matériel, and allimportant shipping space. Many of the savings came in the field of protective

equipment and supplies. The USCWC combined Navy, Marine Corps, and

Merchant Marine requirements for bleach with those of the Army and

reduced the total needs. When the committee discovered that Marine Corps

requirements for decontaminating agent, noncorrosive (DANC), a special

decontaminant for use on equipment, were greater than was indicated in

the light of Army experience, the Marines were persuaded to reduce their

estimates.39

Efforts to integrate requirements for impregnite and field impregnation

plants began while the USCWC was studying the protective-clothing policy

in late 1943.40 As a result of committee efforts the Army agreed to assume

the task of initial impregnation of Marine Corps uniforms and thus save

supplies of critical acetylene tetrachloride, the solvent used in the impregnation process.41

 The United States also saved supplies of other chemicals

as well as manpower, plants, and shipping space. Personnel shortages prevented the War Department from agreeing to a Navy proposal for the

Army to handle reimpregnation of Navy and Marine Corps protective

clothing in the event of gas warfare.42

36

 USCWC 121/6, 26 Aug 44, Min of Mtg 22 Aug 44. 37

 Ltr, VCNO to C CWS, 1 Jan 43, sub: Navy Cml Warfare Program. 38

 Ltr, King to VCNO, 6 Mar 43, sub: Cml Warfare Munitions Program. FF 1/S/77/A16-3.

Incl to Memo, CofS for CG ASF, 9 May 43, same sub. OPD 385 CWP, sec III, case 39. 39

 See reference cited in Note 12 (4) above. 40

 Impregnation is the process of treating ordinary clothing with a chemical solution to make

it resistant to the action of vapor and very small drops of blister or nerve gases. 41

 (1) USCWC 124/4, 19 Sep 44, Min of Mtg Subcom on Protective Equipment 15 Sep 44.

(2) USCWC 128/2, 9 Jan 45, Min of Mtg 2 Jan 45. 42

 (1) Memo by Secy USCWC, ca. Mar 45. (2) USCWC 128/4, ca. Jan 45, U.S. Army Impregnation of U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps Protective Clothing. (3) Some idea of the

immensity of the task which the Navy proposed in the event of gas warfare may be gleaned from

the comparative strengths of the Army and Navy on 30 June 1945 which were 8,266,373 and

3,855,969 respectively. The addition of nearly four million men with requirements for impregnation of clothing would have swamped Army resources, particularly as most of the Navy and

Marine forces were in the Pacific.
74 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

The further development of such agents as cyanogen chloride made

desirable the inclusion, in 1944, of a special type of activated charcoal in

gas-mask canisters. Although the Navy was procuring its own gas masks

at the time, it applied to the Army for a supply of this charcoal. The Army

felt unable to furnish more than 20 percent of the amount requested, since

charcoal was in such short supply that any additional allocation to the

Navy would have crippled the Army's own program.43 The USCWC

resolved the problem by arranging for a reduction in Navy requirements

so that the Army could meet Navy schedules. The committee endeavored

to co-ordinate Army-Navy gas-mask procurement and attained such success

that the Navy began using Army masks on a substantial scale, particularly

for shore-based personnel.44

The Navy generally used Army air munitions for its chemical munitions

program. Special requirements, such as phosgene for filling Navy rockets,

were co-ordinated by the USCWC.45 A need developed for the collection

of additional basic information on the effectiveness and proper tactical use

of chemical spray as well as for tests to ascertain just how much agent

would be required. This research was especially desirable because the Army

and the Navy had differing theories on the use of aerial spray.46 The

USCWC set up a special subcommittee, the Joint Chemical Spray Project

Subcommittee, to handle the co-ordination of this task.47

This subcommittee studied test reports from U.S. and British installations and visited staff chemical officers of the Third Air Force, the AAF

Board, and AAF Proving Ground Command to discover what information

was available. The members found that considerable data existed on singleplane spray attacks but little on the use of several planes simultaneously

for such attacks. The chairman of the USCWC wrote to the AAF and the

43

 (1) USCWC 82, 19 Jan 44, Min of Mtg Subcom on Protective Equipment 11 Jan 44. (2)

Ltr, Chmn USCWC to Col L. A. Dessez, USMC, 18 Dec 43, sub: Co-ordinated Anglo-American

Cml Warfare Proc and Supply Program (PC1 Charcoal for Navy Masks). Reproduced as

USCWC 78/3. 44

 (1) USCWC Rpt of Readiness for Cml Warfare as of 1 Jul 44, p. 164. (2) The Army mask

was unsuitable for shipboard use because of the nature of the work performed. The canister for

the Navy mask was placed behind the neck of the individual instead of at his side. This permitted

ease of movement at crowded battle stations. One third of the masks used by the Navy needed

diaphragms or other means of voice transmission. USCWC 97, 1 Mar 44, Min of Mtg Subcom

on Protective Equipment 16 Feb 44. 45

 USCWC 113, 4 May 44, Min of Mtg 28 Apr 44. 46

 (1) Ltr Rpt, Jt Cml Spray Proj Subcom to Chmn USCWC, 27 Jan 45, sub: Rpt. Incl 3,

Summary of Activities and Procedures, Sec III, p. 1. Hereafter cited as Jt Spray Proj Rpt. (2) See

Note 31 (2) above. 47

 Memo, Chmn USCWC for Gen Waitt et al., 28 Mar 44, incl to USCWC 111, 25 Apr 44.
THE UNITED STATES CHEMICAL WARFARE COMMITTEE 75

Navy requesting that the AAF set up a high-priority project to study formation spray attacks and that the Navy furnish the planes.48

 The AAF

referred the question to the AAF Board which set up a first-priority board

project. The first Navy test began at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, on

29 June 1944, and the AAF tests started 10 July. The Navy theory of

spraying was that it should be done at medium altitude (650-3,000 feet),

while the AAF held that spray attacks should be executed either at tree-top

level or above 10,000 feet. After the tests at Dugway the subcommittee

agreed with Army Air Forces views that low level attacks were both safer

and more effective.49

Interchangeability and Standardization of Matériel

Interchangeability and standardization of matériel offered great opportunities for logistic savings. During World War II the USCWC members

learned that these goals were difficult to achieve in wartime without long

experience in peacetime. Nonetheless, in World War II the United States

and British Commonwealth of Nations made some progress in these fields.

As the major portion of the Anglo-American gas effort would be from

the air, the USCWC sought to interchange or standardize bombs, clusters,

and spray tanks for use on U.S. or British aircraft.50 The USCWC and the

ISCCW agreed that in developing new items and in revising existing matériel, interchangeability should be sought if at all practicable. On 12

January 1943 the USCWC began discussions with the British Air Commission in Washington during which existing aircraft and munitions were

analyzed and the most practical areas for standardization or interchangeability considered.51

 Similar work started in March on smoke agents and

munitions.

The triple suspension bomb shackle made air chemical bombs generally

interchangeable between British and American aircraft. But efforts to inter48

 Ltr, Chmn USCWC to CG AAF and CNO, 4 May 44, cited in Jt Spray Proj Rpt, Sec III,

p. 5.

49

 Ibid., Sec I, p. 1. 50

 Over a year before Pearl Harbor a CWS officer was serving on a standardization committee

of the Army-Navy-British Purchasing Commission Joint Committee. See 1st Ind, 30 Nov 40, on

Ltr, Recorder, Army-Navy-British Purchasing Comm Jt Com to C CWS, 27 Nov 40, sub: CWS

Representative on Standardization Com of Army-Navy-British Purchasing Comm Jt Com. CWS

334.8/136-145. See also Memo, Recorder, Working Subcom in Standardization for Recorder, Jt

Aircraft Com, 31 Mar 42, sub: Special Subcom for Standardization of Aircraft Bombs. Jt Aircraft

Com 334.8. 51

 Memo for File, Lt Col Jacob K. Javits, Secy USCWC, 12 Jan 43, sub: Mtg British Air

Comm, 11 Jan 43, on Aircraft Phases of Program. In CmlHo SOS GSCW 400.112/23.
76 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

LAYING SMOKE SCREEN to conceal paratrooper landings near Lae, New Guinea,

September 1943. Planes barely visible, extreme right, are Douglas A-20's, equipped

with M10 spray tanks.

change the British 65-pound mustard-gas bomb for use with U.S. bombers

unfortunately were not successful. Rather than seek development of special

bomb cases, the CWS attempted to have standard Ordnance bomb cases

filled with gas and achieved notable success in the development of 500-

pound and 1,000-pound nonpersistent gas bombs using the general purpose

(GP) bomb case. Thanks to USCWC efforts, the British made their 500-

pound phosgene bomb and their spray tanks suitable for use on American

aircraft, thus bringing about a greater degree of readiness in the AAF in

Great Britain during the earlier part of the war.52 Tests arranged by the

USCWC demonstrated that the U.S. M10 spray tank was satisfactory for

British Typhoon aircraft. The American 100-pound bomb case, which

could be filled with white phosphorus as well as mustard gas, was also

interchangeable.

As the use of colored smoke for different munitions expanded, stand52

 See Note 45 above.
THE UNITED STATES CHEMICAL WARFARE COMMITTEE 77

ardization of colors became increasingly desirable. In January 1944 the

USCWC studied the colors then in use for signaling smokes. The committee

not only co-ordinated Army, Navy, and Marine Corps requirements with

those of the British but also obtained acceptance of four standard colors—

red, yellow, green, and violet—plus blue for the British. Stocks of other

colored smokes such as orange were gradually used up.53

By the time the USCWC and the British ISCCW came to consider the

question of standardization of protective equipment, most items had been

issued to the troops in the field. The committees decided that it would be

more feasible at that late date to obtain interchangeability by training

American and British troops to use each other's protective equipment than

to attempt to standardize such items.54 The USCWC, therefore, made

arrangements with the British for the supply of training matériel and

equipment for demonstrations and inaugurated publications to acquaint

U.S. and British chemical officers with each other's matériel.55 Although

both committees considered it desirable to obtain standardization of one

assault gas mask for British and American troops, their efforts to achieve

these objectives were unsuccessful.

Research and Development

For purposes of general co-ordination of research and development as

well as for standardization and interchangeability the USCWC and ISCCW

found it desirable to exchange military characteristics and requirements for

new items and revisions of existing items. The two committees also deemed

it important to exchange information on the lines of research and development that would be followed.56

Among the outstanding accomplishments of the committees was the

co-ordination of research on the effectiveness of gas warfare in the tropics.

When delegations from the ISCCW visited the United States in February

1944 they exchanged papers on this topic with General Porter. Preliminary

53

 (1) USCWC 81, 19 Jan 44, Min of Mtg Subcom on Gas and Smoke 11 Jan 44. (2) See

reference cited in Note 24(3) above. (3) See Note 41(2) above. (4) USCWC Periodic Rpt of

Readiness for Cml Warfare as of 1 Jan 45, p. 62. 54

 See Note 24(2 ) above. 55

 (1) WD Pamphlet 3-1, 15 Jun 44, Comparison of U.S. and British Cml Warfare Offensive

Equipment; WD Pamphlet 3-2, 6 Jan 44, Comparison of U.S. and British Cml Warfare Protective

Equipment. These publications contained sufficient descriptive matter to enable troops in the field

to requisition each other's matériel. (2) See reference cited in Note 12(4) above. 56

 See Note 31(1) above.
78 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

studies and research had indicated that gas possessed certain special advantages when used in tropical regions. The two committees eventually agreed

that definite answers should be obtained on the behavior and usefulness

of gas under such circumstances.57 Representatives of the two committees,

as well as of American, British, and Canadian chemical warfare agencies,

and of the NDRC, concluded arrangements on 4 March 1944 for co-ordinated tests at American and British test stations.58

 The Advisory Committee on Effectiveness of Gas Warfare in the Tropics was established to

co-ordinate planning and evaluate test results and was provided with a

full-time Project Co-ordination Staff to do the work. The United States

not only made use of test facilities on San José Island in the Gulf of Panama,

but also organized and sent the Far Eastern Technical Unit to Australia

to assist the British-Australian test station there and to support the Southwest Pacific Area (SWPA) in its efforts to prepare for gas warfare.59

The United States and Great Britain learned a great deal from these

tropical experiments with gas. For instance, in 1944 it was discovered

that clothing impregnated with British antivapor (AV) impregnite was

toxic to the wearer when used in tropical areas and that British protective

ointment was similarly irritating.60 Co-ordinated action by the USCWC

and ISCCW resulted in a requirement by Great Britain for twelve million

tubes of the newly developed U.S. M5 protective ointment, and both British

and Australian forces submitted requests for thousands of tons of American

impregnite.61 Since the M5 ointment was just getting into production, the

USCWC set up priorities governing its issue, including initial issue to

British troops in active Asiatic-Pacific tropical regions.62

57

 See reference cited in Note 24(3) above. 58

 (1) USCWC 101, 4 Mar 44, Effectiveness of Gas in Tropics. (2) USCWC 98/1, 4 Mar 44,

Outline of San José Proj. 59

 (1) See below, Chapter V, for data on lease of San José Island by the Republic of Panama

to U.S. Government. (2) Memo, Dir Proj Co-ord Staff (Dr. W. A. Noyes, Jr.) for Dugway

Proving Ground, San José Proj, et al., 8 Mar 44, sub: Organization and Functions of the Proj

Co-ord Staff. CWS 334.8. (3) Ltr, CG USASOS through CG USAFFE (MacArthur) to C CWS,

11 Aug 44, sub: Jt U.S.-Australian Cml Warfare Operational Tests. (4) For details on the

organization, operation, and results of these projects and test stations, see (a) Brophy, Miles, and

Cochrane, From Laboratory to Field; (b) Lincoln R. Thiesmeyer and John E. Burchard, Combat

Scientists (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1947). 60

 See reference cited in Note 12(4) above. 61

 (1) USCWC 87/5, 13 Jun 44, Rpt by Subcom on Protective Equipment. (2) USCWC 110,

17 Apr 44, Note by Secy. (3) USCWC 124/5, 16 Sep 44, Allocation of M5 Ointment. (4) Incl

to Memo, Chmn USCWC for CG ASF, 22 Sep 44, sub: Co-ordinated Anglo-American Cml Warfare Proc and Supply Program. 62

 USCWC 124/2, 14 Sep 44, Allocation of Production of M5 Ointment.
THE UNITED STATES CHEMICAL WARFARE COMMITTEE 79

Preparing the Readiness Reports

At various times after Pearl Harbor the War Department sought reports

of the current status of the U.S. chemical warfare effort.63 Several months

before the USCWC came into existence the Chief, CWS, had requested

that all theater commanders be directed to furnish their latest operational

and logistical data on chemical warfare matériel and personnel, as well as

such offensive and defensive plans for gas warfare as they might have

prepared.64 Although the War Department had approved the request, no

action was taken to obtain the information until after the committee raised

the issue in December 1942. At the first meeting General Porter submitted

a draft letter to theater commanders which the committee approved.65 The

War Department dispatched the letter and directed co-ordination with

the Navy.66

As the theaters reported their chemical warfare status and plans to

the Chemical Warfare Service, it became more and more apparent that

American forces overseas were unprepared for powerful retaliation should

the enemy initiate gas warfare. The USCWC used these theater plans to

prepare logistical studies of gas warfare readiness and included much of

the information in the USCWC semiannual reports of readiness.

Beginning in January 1943 the committee obtained information on the

state of readiness of the Navy and the British. The USCWC then worked

on the computation of logistical requirements for gas warfare, including

the necessary reserves as well as the production capacity for key items. A

full analysis was received from the British in April and the committee's

first estimate appeared on 14 July.67 Not until March 1944, however, did

the USCWC publish its first full-scale report that covered the gas warfare

situation as of 1 January 1944.68

63

 (1) Memo, ACofS OPD for CG SOS, 27 Apr 42, sub: Cml Warfare. OPD 441.5. (2) Memo,

CofS for CG SOS, 4 Dec 42, sub: Status of Cml Warfare Preparation. (3) Memo, C Log Gp

OPD for C CWS, 24 Dec 42, sub: Cml Warfare Preparedness of U.S. Army. Last two in OPD

385 CWP, sec IIA. 64

 Ltr, C CWS to ACofS OPD, 7 Sep 42, sub: Operational and Logistical Data. CWS

470.6/2754. 65

 (1) Min of Mtg of CCWC, 11 Dec 42. (2) The committee also agreed that joint and combined plans for chemical warfare should be requested for its use. 66

 Ltr, TAG to CINCSWPA et al., 19 Dec 42, sub: Theater Plans for Cml Warfare. AG 381

(12-8-42) OB-S-E-M. 67

 This report was sent to Great Britain and reproduced as CCW (43) 28, 25 Aug 43, U.S.

Cml Warfare Preparedness. 68

 USCWC 91/2, 15 Mar 44, Rpt of Readiness for Gas Warfare as of 1 Jan 44.
80 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

This report dealt with every phase of protection, offense, training, and

intelligence. It included an estimate of enemy capabilities, mentioned the

degree of protection provided American troops, gave the location of CWS

units, and enumerated stockages of offensive and defensive chemical warfare

items. Plans and principles for the employment of gas were discussed, and

information was furnished on special projects. Thereafter the report appeared semiannually and was distributed to the Combined Chiefs of Staff

and to all headquarters represented on the USCWC. The report then served

as a day-to-day handbook on chemical warfare.69

Establishing a Logistical Basis for Gas Warfare

The Combined Chiefs of Staff in CCS 106/2 charged the USCWC with

the task of establishing and maintaining initial stocks at levels which would

enable gas warfare to be sustained pending expansion of production.70 The

USCWC performed much of this work in close conjunction with the Chemical Warfare Service and the War Department. An example of the many

questions referred to the committee by the War Department was the important one of protective equipment supply policy. An initial issue of

individual protective equipment had been provided for all U.S. troops

moving overseas.71 In September 1943 the improvement in the strategic

situation led the ASF to suggest that an immediate survey be made of overseas reserve requirements for protective equipment with a view to reducing

the amounts needed.72 General Marshall referred the question to the

USCWC for study and recommendation.

Earlier War Department policy on reserve stocks of protective clothing

had been to divide the various theaters into three classes. In the first class

were placed theaters where gas warfare was most likely and where U.S.

forces would probably be in ground contact with the enemy when it began.

The second class embraced those theaters where gas warfare might develop

but where there would probably be no ground contact with the enemy. The

third class comprised those theaters where gas warfare was unlikely. The

planners assumed that all troops moving overseas would have minimum

69

 Beginning with the 1 July 1944 report, these semiannual reports of readiness covered all

phases of chemical warfare including flame, smoke, and incendiaries. 70

 CCS 106/2, 14 Nov 42, with App. A. 71

 Ltr, TAG to CGs All Overseas Depts et al., 10 Jun 42, sub: Cml Warfare Protective

Clothing. AG 420 (23 May 42) (2), sec I. 72

 Memo, Maj Gen LeRoy Lutes, ASF, for OPD, 29 Sep 43, sub: Theater Levels for Cml Warfare Matériel. OPD 385 CWP, sec IV.
THE UNITED STATES CHEMICAL WARFARE COMMITTEE 81

individual protective equipment and that these classes would apply only

to theater reserves.73 As planned by the Army Service Forces in 1943, those

regions remote from ground and air attack, such as the Caribbean and

South Atlantic, would have reserve stocks of protective equipment equal

to 5 percent of the command strength. The ASF used the figure of 40

percent to calculate reserve requirements for Hawaii and the ETO. Where

American soldiers were engaged in ground warfare in 1943—in North

Africa, the Southwest Pacific Area, and elsewhere—a protective clothing

reserve of 100 percent was authorized.74

The Subcommittee on Operations of the USCWC took what it considered a more realistic and detailed approach to the problem. The subcommittee felt that any regrouping of the theaters for purposes of reserve

supply levels should be based on the type of operations that were planned

and upon the activities and locations of specific numbers of troops within

the theaters.75 Accordingly, the USCWC recommended that the planners

divide the troop strength of each theater into one or more classes of supply

instead of placing the entire theater in one class. The committee reasoned

that in certain theaters, such as SWPA, there were troops far to the rear—

as in Australia—where enemy gas attack was improbable, whereas other

troops in forward areas such as New Guinea were daily exposed to the

possibility of Japanese use of gas. The USCWC suggested reserve levels

of 100 percent for troops in forward areas within a theater, 50 percent

for men in second class areas further to the rear, and only 5 percent for

troops in the most remote areas. These levels applied to all types of protective equipment and supplies which would be used only if gas warfare

started.76 This policy the War Department directed the ASF to implement.77

73

 USCWC 54, 30 Oct 43, Min of Mtg 30 Oct 43. 74

 Memo, Dir Reqmts Div ASF for ACofS OPD, 6 Mar 43, sub: Cml Warfare Impregnating

Program. AG 420 (23 May 43) (2), sec I. In addition, one set of protective clothing, over and

above the individual T/BA authorization, was issued to troops sailing for Europe and the Southwest Pacific. In July 1943 the ETO became a first-class area because of the build-up there for the

invasion of Europe. 75

 (1) USCWC 57, 29 Nov 43, Min of Mtg Subcom on Opns 17 Nov 43. (2) USCWC 58,

29 Nov 43, Min of Adjourned Mtg Subcom on Opns 22 Nov 43. 76

 Ltr, Chmn USCWC to CG ASF, 1 Dec 43, sub: Theater Levels for Cml Warfare Materials.

OPD 385 CWP, sec IV. 77

 (1) DF, Actg ACofS OPD to ACofS G-4 and CG ASF, 11 Dec 43, sub: Theater Levels for

Cml Warfare Materials. OPD 385 CWP, sec IV. (2) Ltr, TAG to CINCSWPA et al., 24 Apr 44,

sub: Cml Warfare Protective Clothing, Accessories, and Equipment. AG 420 (28 Mar 44)

OB-S-D-SPOPP-M. This established final protective equipment requirements. (3) The USCWC

also adopted a program by which the varying percentages of troops in different theaters would

get two-layer protective clothing and one-and-one-half-layer protective clothing. These distinctions

enabled the United States to save much manpower and matériel.
82 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Another question which the War Department referred to the committee

dealt with requirements for nonpersistent gases. The CWS had proposed

the expansion of production facilities to create stockpiles of nonpersistent

gas munitions which the AAF desired in 1944.78 The USCWC suggested

instead that sufficient facilities be created to sustain operational gas warfare.

The desired stockpiles could be manufactured by these plants and the

plants then placed in standby condition pending the outbreak of gas warfare.

Such a step would, in effect, provide a broad production base that would

make possible a considerable expansion in the event of gas warfare.79

Although the War Department adopted this idea in principle, it authorized

only one half of the production increase proposed by the USCWC.80

An important function of the USCWC was the determination of the

amount of preparation that should be made for offensive gas warfare. The

knotty question confronting the USCWC was the rate of military effort

upon which levels of munitions supply in the theaters should be based.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff had been careful to specify that any measures

adopted in preparation for gas warfare should be "limited to those compatible with a balanced over-all munitions program."

 81

The USCWC undertook to make statistical studies of theater stocks

of chemical munitions beginning in December 1943. From these studies

the committee evolved certain fundamental principles upon which future

committee recommendations were based. One principle was that in the

event the Axis Powers used gas U.S. retaliation should be immediate and

intensive, with airplanes flying 150 percent of their normal number of

missions during the first fifteen days of gas warfare. After this initial effort,

in which bomb loads would consist of 75-percent gas munitions and 25-

percent high explosives, the normal number of aircraft missions would

be flown with 50 percent of the bomb load consisting of gas.82 Additional

principles were that the European and Mediterranean Theaters of Operations, where the United Nations were on the strategic offensive, should have

78

 Memo, CG ASF for Chmn USCWC, 19 Jan 44, sub: Reqmts of Agents, Cml, CG, AC, and

CC. SPRMP 470.6 (13 Jan 44). See also USCWC 88, 24 Jan 44, Min of Mtg Subcom on Opns

22 Jan 44. 79

 USCWC 86/2, 5 Feb 44, Rpt of Com. 80

 USCWC 86/3, 24 Apr 44, Reqmts of Agents, CG, AC, and CC. 81

 CCS 106/2, 14 Nov 42, Annex A. 82

 The 50-percent figure was gradually reduced in planning during 1944 and 1945 to 25 percent.
THE UNITED STATES CHEMICAL WARFARE COMMITTEE 83

special consideration and that a reserve of gas bombs should be created in

the continental United States.83

In November 1943 and again in July 1944 the Army Air Forces raised

the question of the adequacy of current theater stocks of chemical munitions.

AAF experience in the European theater in 1944 revealed that theater gasbomb stocks amounted to about 17 percent of one month's expenditure of

the high explosive and incendiary bombs. As such a stock of gas bombs

was believed to be inadequate, the AAF requested that the theater levels

be reconsidered.84 The commanding general of the Army Air Forces, General Henry H. Arnold, took up the question of theater gas stocks with

his fellow members of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. He suggested that

a study be made of American ability to retaliate and called attention to

deficiencies in theater stocks of air chemical munitions.85

Instead of assigning the study to the USCWC, the Joint Chiefs handed

it over to the Joint Staff Planners (JPS), who worked in close collaboration

with the Joint Logistics Committee (JLC). The JPS and JLC designated

members of a joint ad hoc subcommittee on which several members of the

USCWC were called upon to serve, and the USCWC was asked to coordinate with the Joint Logistics Plans Committee on the study.86

 As prepared by this subcommittee, the study called for the use of gas in

overwhelming quantities as a decisive weapon against the Japanese. But

the study also pointed out certain deficiencies in the nonpersistent gas

program and noted the need for tripling production facilities if bombing

were continued over a long period. The subcommittee reduced the amount

83

 (1) USCWC 121/7, 28 Aug 44, Min of Mtg 24 Aug 44. (2) See USCWC 127, 9 Dec 44,

Capabilities of Implementing a Decision To Initiate Retaliatory Cml Warfare Against the

Japanese. (3) During this period the committee persuaded the War Department to authorize the

filling of three hundred thousand additional persistent gas bombs for storage in the United States.

See Memo, Chmn USCWC for ACofS OPD, 14 Jun 44, sub: Co-ordinated Anglo-American Cml

Warfare Proc and Supply Program (Cml Gas Bomb Levels), reproduced as USCWC 69/3, 15

Jun 44; and Memo, CG ASF for Chmn USCWC, 2 Aug 44, same sub. 84

 (1) Memo, CG AAF for ACofS OPD, 1 Nov 43, sub: Theater Plans for Cml Warfare (Cml

Gas Bomb Levels) (2) Memo, CG AAF for CofS (Attn: OPD), 12 Jul 44, sub: Theater Plans

for Cml Warfare. (3) DF, OPD to CG ASF, 13 Jul 44, same sub. All in OPD 385 CWP, sec IV.

(4) Initially the United States and Great Britain had agreed on a gas-bomb program at 25 percent

of the total bomb program. The British later changed their basis to so many missions per month.

See Memo for File, Col John C. MacArthur, 3 Apr 43, sub: General Porter's Mtg With Air Staff,

Air Ministry, 2 Apr 43. CWS 314.7 USCWC File. 85

 JCS 825/1, 30 June 44, Implications of Retaliatory Cml Warfare Against the Japanese. 86

 Memo, Chmn USCWC for JLPC, 6 Jul 44, sub: Co-ordinated Anglo-American Cml Warfare

Proc and Supply. Reproduced as USCWC 118/4.
84 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

of gas to be used in normal bombing missions from 50 to 30 percent of

the total bomb load.87

Notwithstanding the subcommittee's recommendations to triple production facilities, the JLC and JPS recommended that there be no expansion

of currently authorized production facilities except for certain loading

plants. For planning purposes the committees proposed 1 January 1945 as

a target date for readiness for retaliatory gas warfare.88 After one more

revision the Joint Chiefs approved the final version as JCS 825/4 on 16

October 1944. This study assumed that gas would be used only against

Japan proper, the Ryukyus, and the Bonins and set a normal gas mission

rate at 25 percent of the total tonnage.89 Because of the time factor, the

readiness date was set for 1 April 1945. In the study the planners indicated that the proposed mission rate would require the use of only about

half the existing persistent gas capacity and two thirds of the nonpersistent

capacity of the United States.90

In December 1944 the USCWC made recommendations to the General

Staff on implementing these proposals. Among others, the committee suggested that theater commanders in the Pacific be notified of the proposed

rate of air effort with gas, the levels of supply, and the date of readiness.

The USCWC also recommended that gas bombs amounting to sixty days'

supply be moved into continental U.S. reserve.91 Three main problems

confronted planners in their efforts to achieve gas warfare readiness in

the Pacific. These were: (1) the movement of existing stocks to the Pacific;

(2) the provision of storage facilities; and (3) the resumption of production, especially of empty bomb cases, without undue interference with

the high explosive and incendiary bomb programs which were proving so

successful in defeating the Axis.92

87

 (1) Of the gas bombs used, two thirds would be persistent and one third would be nonpersistent gases. See also JLC 144/3, 21 Sep 44, Capabilities of Implementing a Decision To

Initiate Retaliatory Cml Warfare Against the Japanese. (2) For some USCWC comments, see

USCWC 119/1, 10 Jul 44, Min of Mtg 6 Jul 44. 88

 JCS 825/2, 18 Aug 44, Capabilities of Implementing a Decision To Initiate Retaliatory Cml

Warfare Against the Japanese. For USCWC work in connection with this study, particularly the

logistical factors, see Memo, Chmn USCWC for Secy JLC, 25 Aug 44, same sub, submitted as

USCWC 121/5; and USCWC 121/6, 26 Aug 44. 89

 The area restriction was due to the fact that friendly populations occupied the rest of

Japanese-held areas. 90

 (1) JCS 825/4, 7 Oct 44, Capabilities of Implementing a Decision To Initiate Retaliatory

Cml Warfare Against the Japanese. (2) DF, OPD to CG ASF, 17 Oct 44, sub: Capabilities of

Implementing a Decision . . . (JCS 825/4). OPD 385 TS (16 Oct 44). 91

 (1) See Note 83(2) above. (2) USCWC 127/2, 15 Dec 44, Capabilities of Implementing a

Decision To Initiate Retaliatory Cml Warfare Against the Japanese. 92

 USCWC 145/3, 4 Aug 45, Implementation of JCS 825 Series.
THE UNITED STATES CHEMICAL WARFARE COMMITTEE 85

In March 1945 General of the Army George C. Marshall noted that

some theater commanders had misinterpreted the provisions of JCS 825/4

as a directive for their readiness for gas warfare as of the planning date,

including the forward area stockage of chemical munitions. The Chief

of Staff expressed concern and suggested that a study be made, for it

seemed that forward area stockage might be impracticable in view of the

tight shipping situation.93 The Joint Staff Planners studied the question and

came up with their recommendations shortly after the defeat of Germany.

They estimated that full readiness for swift and continuing retaliation

against Japan would require the shipment of 113,500 tons of gas munitions

from Europe and the United States, a possible reduction in the manufacture

of incendiary bomb cases, the conversion of certain CWS and Ordnance

units to handle gas munitions, and the provision of port capacity, labor,

and storage facilities in forward areas of the Pacific. Because the JPS (and

the Joint Intelligence Committee) considered the possibility that Japan would

resort to gas as remote, they recommended that the United States produce

and stockpile sufficient munitions to furnish the minimum amount needed

for retaliatory gas warfare as of 1 November 1945, and that theater commanders be allowed to move these minimum levels of supply as far forward

as shipping and other priorities would permit.94

As finally revised, the JPS-JLC report to the Joint Chiefs noted shortages

of gas munitions in the Pacific. Although President Roosevelt's promise of

swift retaliation required the presence of gas munitions in forward areas,

the two committees could not agree on the advisability of forward area

shipments and separated the question from that of production. They specified a minimum forward area stockage level in the Pacific of seventy-five

days' supply, with ninety days' required in the China and India-Burma

theaters. The planners also assumed that to end the war successfully with

gas would require no more than three months' strategic bombing and

six months of tactical bombing. They gave no directions which would

require shipments to build up theater stocks nor was anything said about

resuming production of toxic agents and munitions.95 The JCS gave informal

approval to the recommendations on 19 June 1945 and did not issue any

93

 JCS 825/5, 5 Mar 45, Theater Plans for Cml Warfare. 94

 JPS 484/5, 28 May 45, Theater Plans for Cml Warfare. The JPS felt that in view of the

extremely tight shipping situation likely to last until after Operation OLYMPIC (the invasion of

the island of Kyushu) the forward shipment of gas munitions should be avoided unless there was

a likelihood gas would be used. 95

 JCS 825/6, 13 Jun 45, Theater Plans for Cml Warfare.
86 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

directives either authorizing theater commanders to raise stocks in forward

areas or approving additional production.96

The Question of Initiating Gas Warfare

After the defeat of Germany, Army authorities in Washington suggested a re-examination of the existing American policy that called for

the use of gas in retaliation only.97 Several factors favored the use of gas

against the Japanese. Meteorological conditions in Japan favored gas. The

United States had predominant responsibility for the war in this area

and was more convinced of the decisive value of gas than were the British.

Finally, and probably most important, the high casualty rate suffered on

Iwo Jima and on Okinawa so alarmed the War Department that it gave

great emphasis to the study of every means which would shorten the war

and save American lives. General Joseph W. Stilwell, then the commanding

general of Army Ground Forces, suggested to the Chief of Staff the use

of mobile weapons such as 4.2-inch chemical mortars, pack artillery, recoilless rifles, rockets, and self-propelled artillery, and the increased use of

mechanized flame throwers and tank dozers. He also recommended that

consideration be given to the use of gas in the planned invasion of Japan.98

The director of the New Developments Division of the War Department

General Staff, Brig. Gen. William A. Borden, felt that the best means

of meeting the existing and anticipated conditions in the war against Japan

would be by increasing effective mobile fire power including flame throwers.

He further stated: "Efficient and proper employment of gas would be of

great assistance."

 99

96

 (1) Decision of Jt CsofS on JCS 825/6, Jun 45. In JCS 825/6. (2) Memo, Dir Reqmts &

Stock Contl Div ASF for Dir Plan Div, 17 Jul 45, sub: Comments on JCS 825/6. CWS 314.7

USCWC File. 97

 (1) The principal source for this section is OPD 385 TS, sec I-1945. (2) For the earlier

viewpoint, see DF, CofS to C CWS, 3 Jan 44, sub: U.S. Policy Regarding Initiation of Gas

Warfare. OPD 385 (27 Dec 43). This communication noted that use of gas against the Japanese

at that time (1944) would give Germany an excuse to use gas in retaliation and that such employment of gas would endanger the planned invasion of the Continent as well as the civil

population of the United Kingdom. In an interview after his capture, Hermann Goering stated

that if the United States had resorted to chemical warfare, the Germans would have launched gas

attacks on England. Intel Div Rpt 3897, CWS ETOUSA, 12 Jun 45, sub: Interrogation of Goering

on Cml Warfare. CWS 319.1 ETO. 98

 Memo, CG AGF for CofS. Copy in CmlHO is Tab A to Memo, Dir NDD for CofS, 12

May 45, sub: Equipment for Use Against Japan. CWS 314.7 Cave Warfare File. 99

 Memo, Dir NDD for CofS, 12 May 45, sub: Equipment for Use Against Japan. CWS 314.7

Cave Warfare File.
THE UNITED STATES CHEMICAL WARFARE COMMITTEE 87

A week after V-E Day, General Borden called a meeting of representatives of G-2, G-4, OPD, ASF, Ordnance, Engineers, and the CWS. The

representatives discussed General Stilwell's recommendations and the possible solutions to two major problems: (1) What equipment would be

best for overcoming the Japanese in their caves, pillboxes, and bunkers?

and (2) How should this equipment be best employed?100 The CWS set

up a project under the Assistant Chief, CWS, for Field Operations to supervise and co-ordinate CWS activities in connection with the over-all Army

project known as SPHINX.101 As part of this program, the USCWC and the

Chemical Warfare Service made extensive studies of the logistical requirements for gas warfare.102

Before June 1945 gas warfare studies had referred only to the question

of retaliatory gas warfare. An OPD study of 4 June took up the question

of the United States initiating gas warfare. While the study concluded

that gas would be helpful, it pointed out that the United States would

have to consider the effect on world opinion of using gas, for President

Roosevelt had publicly condemned gas warfare. Furthermore, the study

did not rate gas as the decisive weapon envisaged by the USCWC and the

CWS.103

Nonetheless, on 14 June General Marshall sent to Admiral Ernest J.

King another OPD study which recommended that the JCS immediately

order an increased production of gas and that the principle of initiating

gas warfare be informally discussed with President Harry S. Truman. If

Truman should agree to a reversal of Roosevelt's policy on the use of gas,

OPD suggested that Truman take up the question of altering current agreements with other United Nations members at the forthcoming Potsdam

Conference. General Marshall added, that if Admiral King agreed with

100

 Min of Mtg with Gen Borden 14 May 45, dtd 15 May 45, sub: Equipment for Use Against

Japan CWS 314.7 Cave Warfare File. 101

 Memo, C CWS for Dir NDD, 19 May 45, sub: Existing and Proposed Cml Weapons for

Reduction of Japanese Fortifications. CWS 314.7 Cave Warfare File. 102

 (1) USCWC 127 series. (2) The final CWS report on SPHINX reached the conclusion that

gas was the most promising weapon for reducing cave defenses and that the flame thrower was

the most effective nongas weapon. See Memo, C CWS for Dir NDD, 9 Jul 45, sub: Final

Summary Rpt on SPHINX Proj. CWS 314.7 SPHINX File. 103

 (1) Memo, Col Max S. Johnson, S&P Gp OPD, for Brig Gen George A. Lincoln, 4 Jun 45.

(2) Memo, Gen Lincoln for ACofS OPD (Lt Gen John E. Hull), 9 Jun 45. Both in ABC 475

92 (25 Feb 44), sec 1-C. (3) OPD did not consult the CWS or the AAF in the preparation of

this study, although these were the principal operating agencies concerned with the question. The

USCWC was not consulted although supposedly an advisory body on gas warfare policy under

CCS 106/2.
88 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

the proposed action, "I believe we should discuss the subject informally

with General Arnold and Admiral Leahy."

 104

A copy of the OPD study reached Admiral William D. Leahy, who

promptly expressed his opposition to the initiation of gas warfare. In writing

to General Marshall, Admiral Leahy stated his belief that President Roosevelt's categorical statement to the press of 8 June 43 that "we shall under

no circumstances resort to the use of such weapons [poisonous or noxious

gases] unless they are first used by our enemies" had settled the question.105

Nevertheless, Leahy added that he had ". . . no objection to a discussion

with the President, by anyone who believes in gas warfare, of the possibility

of a reversal of President Roosevelt's announced policy (8 June 1943)."

He went on to express his astonishment that no adequate provision had

yet been made for retaliation with gas in the Pacific.106

In all probability Admiral Leahy's response helped to discourage JCS

consideration of the Army's proposal for initiating gas warfare. When the

service chiefs went off to the Potsdam Conference in July they presumably

also had in mind the thought of using a newer and more devastating

weapon, even then being readied for test in the hot desert of New Mexico.

After the first atomic bomb fell on Hiroshima the Pacific war rapidly

came to a dramatic close.

Summary

While the United States Chemical Warfare Committee did not reach

as high a position in the co-ordination of the combined Anglo-American

gas warfare effort as perhaps many of its members desired, it nonetheless

achieved a great deal, and probably all that was expected of it. After

the usual initial controversies over mission, powers, and organization the

USCWC settled down and became almost a model of co-operative effort,

both with the U.S. services and with the British Inter-Service Committee

104

 (1) Memo, Marshall for King, 14 Jun 45, no sub. (2) Memo for Rcd, Col James K. Woolnough, S&P Gp OPD, 14 Jun 45, sub: U.S. Cml Warfare Policy. Both in OPD 385 TS, sec

I-1945. 105

 Press Release, June 8, 1943. Annex to JCS 825, 18 Apr 44, Retaliatory Measures of Warfare Against Japan. 106

 Memo, Leahy for Marshall, 20 Jun 45. OPD 385 TS, sec I-1945. Leahy repeated his opposition to chemical warfare in his autobiography I Was There (New York: Whittlesey House,

1950), p. 440. Marshall explained that the lack of logistical preparation was due to the approach

of U.S. forces within bombing range of the Japanese islands, as well as to the increased bomb

loads carried by the B-29's, before which most gas warfare would have been of a tactical rather

than strategic nature. See Memo, Marshall for Leahy (probably 21 Jun 45). OPD 385 TS, sec

I-1945.
THE UNITED STATES CHEMICAL WARFARE COMMITTEE 89

on Chemical Warfare. Although the committee lacked executive powers,

the presence of representatives of interested organizations paved the way

for the smooth passage of many USCWC recommendations through command channels.

Of all the committee's undertakings the co-ordination of supply seems

to have been the most important and most successful. During World War II

the most critical factor affecting both the British and American military

effort was ship tonnage. Both the United States and Great Britain were

committed to campaigns at the end of supply lines stretching across thousands of miles of ocean. While the decisive battle was to be fought only

a scant few miles from England, much of the raw materials for the British

war effort and all the finished American matériel had to be brought across

the sea and in spite of intense German submarine activity. Every ton saved

and every instance of crosshauling eliminated brought the day of ultimate

victory that much closer. In the case of gas warfare matériel, an "insurance"

item, it was even more important that its supply did not interfere more

than absolutely necessary with that of items in every day use.

Two factors restricted the co-ordination of supply: one was the fact

that there was a limit to the amount of matériel that Great Britain could

provide for American troops in Europe and the Mediterranean; the other

was the lack of standardization and interchangeability of items of British

and American matériel. The USCWC manfully undertook to effect such

standardization and interchangeability, but the lesson learned was that

once war has started it is too late for any significant success in these fields.

A number of items, especially aircraft munitions, were made interchangeable. In the field of protective equipment and clothing, interchangeability

was obtained by training because so many of the items had already been

standardized by each nation and issued to the troops in the field. But only

over a considerable number of peacetime years did it appear possible to

achieve any notable degree of standardization of the military items of two

or more countries.

One of the steps which the USCWC and the British ISCCW took

toward interchangeability and standardization was the interchange of information on the research and development programs of both nations and

with Canada. Not only did this eliminate some duplication of effort, but

it enabled the scientists to design items so that they could be used equally

well by troops of any of these nations. The process of research and development is such a slow one, however, that significant results are hardly

obtainable in the space of three or four years.
90 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

On a broader scale the USCWC prepared information for the use of

U.S. and British agencies in the form of reports of readiness for gas warfare.

These reports provided periodic information on intelligence, production,

training, research, supply, and many other items of interest.

The USCWC participated in the planning for a logistical basis for

chemical warfare, but in this instance the higher planning bodies in the

Joint Chiefs of Staff committee system took over so much of the work that

the role of the USCWC was pretty much limited to that of providing

statistical calculations and recommendations for preparedness.

When the question of initiating gas warfare came under discussion in

mid-1945 it is not too surprising that the committee, primarily established

for procurement and supply co-ordination rather than for advice on policy,

was not consulted. It is surprising that neither the Army Air Forces, as

the principal arm for using gas, nor the Chemical Warfare Service, with

the technical know-how was consulted. The reason for this is not clear,

but it was possibly due to a desire to keep the circle of people debating

the issue as small as possible, so that the pressure of public opinion for

or against the use of gas might not be stirred by some incautious hint that

the United States was considering its employment.

The operation of the committee does not appear to have differed materially from that of the various JCS committees. Toward the end of the

war the lack of a secretariat and the strain on the facilities of the Office

of the Chief of Chemical Warfare Service impelled the USCWC to seek

additional administrative assistance.

Bonds between the USCWC and the Chemical Warfare Service were

very close. On almost all subcommittees there was a plurality of CWS

officers. The chairman and his principal assistant were the Chief, CWS,

and his Assistant Chief for Field Operations. The various secretaries were

CWS officers, and the Office of the Chief, CWS, provided the clerical

assistance and most of the statistical and technical information on chemical

warfare. It would appear that, although other organizations and nations

had representation on the USCWC, the Chemical Warfare Service exerted

the greatest amount of influence on decisions arrived at by the committee.
CHAPTER V

The Chief's Office

During World War II

General Porter remained Chief of the Chemical Warfare Service

throughout the war and into the period of demobilization, retiring from

active duty on 13 November 1945. His personality had a profound influence

on the development of the CWS mission, and in a very definite sense the

success of that mission was the measure of General Porter's accomplishment.

Porter was graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1909 and commissioned in the Coast Artillery Corps the following year. In 1921 he

transferred as major to the Chemical Warfare Service, where he served

until his retirement from the Army. Although he lacked experience as

a chemical officer in World War I, his peacetime assignments gave him

an excellent background for his duties as Chief. After his graduation with

distinction from the Command and General Staff School in 1927, he attended both the Army Industrial College and the Army War College.

Porter was an affable and diplomatic officer who lived on easy terms

with most of his subordinates. He had the capacity for quickly sizing up

a complicated problem and reaching a satisfactory solution with apparently

little effort. He found time to listen to persons who wanted to catch

his ear and he encouraged subordinates who were at considerable distances

from headquarters to write him informal letters. A kindly reception of an

earnest presentation of an idea, however, did not necessarily mean that

Porter was convinced of its worth, although the person offering it might

have thought so at the time. One of Porter's chief assets was his ability

to conciliate members of his staff whenever they clashed over matters of

policy or for other reasons. If, as sometimes happened, the conciliatory

approach failed, he did not hesitate to take more drastic action. Another

asset was his unusual ability to encourage his subordinates to put forth

their best efforts. By not setting up impossible standards of performance,

and by offering criticism in a kindly and courteous manner, he spurred on
92 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

most of his staff to put forth their best efforts. Occasionally personal predilections led Porter to overlook the shortcomings of some of his associates,

a trait not unrelated to his congeniality and his desire to accommodate. But

instances of either harshness or favoritism were rare, and generally speaking, Porter's personality inspired genuine respect and loyalty throughout

the service.1

Porter was able to attract to the CWS a number of eminent civilians

who, as emergency officers, naturally contributed to the success of his

administration, both in Washington and in the field installations.2 He

either knew or quickly came to know the senior Reserve and emergency

officers on whom he had to rely so largely during the war. His intimate

acquaintance with the small group of Regular Army CWS officers aided

him in making assignments to key positions.

During the prewar years and on into the first few months of the war

the Chief, CWS, was under the direct jurisdiction of the Chief of Staff.

There was constant consultation between the General Staff and the CWS

staff over matters of policy. In March 1942, under a major War Department

reorganization, another echelon of command was placed between the supply

arms and services and the General Staff.3 That echelon, commanded by

General Somervell, was the Services of Supply, or as it was later called,

the Army Service Forces. (Chart 4) From that time until after the close

of the war, policy matters were usually formulated after consultation

between ASF staff officers and their opposite numbers in the CWS. At

times War Department General and Special Staff officers had direct contact

with CWS personnel, as in the case of the United States Chemical Warfare

Committee, but such contact was the exception rather than the rule.4

General Porter himself had direct and intimate contact on matters of

policy affecting chemical warfare with the Combined and Joint Chiefs

1

 This estimate is based on the author's own observations and on interviews with numerous

officers and key civilians in the CWS during and after World War II. 2

 When war was declared the Washington headquarters was at 23d and C Streets, N. W., with

additional space in the Munitions Building. In 1942 a move was made from 23d and C Streets to

building Tempo F across the street. In January 1943 more adequate quarters were secured in AAF

Annex 1 at Gravelly Point, Virginia, and the entire office was moved there. 3

 For details on this reorganization see: (1) Ray S. Cline, Washington Command Post: The

Operations Division, UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR II (Washington: 1951),

pp. 70-74, 90-93. (2) Frederick S. Haydon, "War Department Reorganization, August 1941-

March 1942," Military Affairs, XVI (1952), 12-29, 97-114. (3) John D. Millett, The Organization and Role of the Army Service Forces, UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR II

(Washington: 1954), Ch. II. 4

 Among War Department elements with which CWS had direct and formal contact were the

Operations Division and the War Department Manpower Board.
CHART 4—ORGANIZATION OF THE ARMY SERVICE FORCES,

As OF 30 JUNE 1943
94 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

of Staff, with the General and Special Staffs, and with the commanding

generals of the AAF and AGF. Officially he had to channel his communications through ASF headquarters. Seldom did this cause Porter any undue

concern, for he had great respect for General Somervell's leadership in

the supply field. Moreover, he realized the good work the ASF was doing

on such matters as production controls, manpower utilization, and uniformity of administrative procedures. He felt that the ASF had a proper

role in co-ordinating and directing the efforts of the chiefs of technical

services, and he supported every move in that direction.5 On the other hand,

General Porter, like the chiefs of other technical services, opposed every

effort by the Commanding General, ASF, or his staff to undercut the

prerogatives of those statutory branches of the War Department.6

Porter did much of his business through personal contacts, characterized

by absence of formality. He held frequent staff conferences with his principal assistants, a procedure which enabled him to keep informed of progress

being made in his various fields of responsibility and to initiate action

in line with ASF policies. These policies Porter became acquainted with

at General Somervell's monthly staff conferences of technical services chiefs,

as well as through communications from ASF headquarters. Unless absent

from Washington, Porter always attended the ASF monthly staff conferences, accompanied by either Col. Harry A. Kuhn or Lt. Col. Philip J.

Fitzgerald of his staff. After the OC CWS moved to Gravelly Point in

January 1943, the Chief had a "situation room" set up, where charts and

panels portraying CWS progress or lack of progress were displayed and

discussed with members of his staff. In the situation room the shortcomings

and deficiencies of the CWS were reviewed and analyzed. Through frequent

visits to CWS field installations and overseas theaters, Porter was also

enabled to gauge the strength and weaknesses of his service.

Early Wartime Organization

General Somervell felt that the most pressing problems facing the ASF

before mid-1943 were those of organization and mobilization.7 Two days

5

 Until April 1942 the term "supply arms and services" was used, when the ASF changed the

designation to "supply services" (SOS GO 4, 9 Apr 42). In May 1943 the designation was again

changed, this time to "technical services," and this term applied during and after the war. 6

 In 1943 Somervell presented a plan to the War Department which would have eliminated

the technical services. Millett, Army Service Forces. Chapter XXIV. 7

 ASF Conf of CGs, Serv Comds, 22-24 Jul 43, p. 2.
THE CHIEF'S OFFICE DURING WORLD WAR II 95

after the ASF came into being Somervell issued an initial directive for

the new organization which provided for the inclusion of a Control Division in his headquarters.8

 The mission of this division was to keep the

commanding general, his staff, and his key assistants constantly advised

on the status of the Army supply systems and other aspects of his work.

The Control Division was to accomplish its mission through such measures

as inspection aimed at determining the causes of delays and deficiencies,

through analysis and evaluation of recurring reports and statistics, and

through investigations of organizational procedures. On 27 March 1942,

Somervell directed that units similar in character to the Control Division

in his office be activated in all administrative elements under his command

and that they be manned by competent personnel. He gave as the reason for

establishing such units the fact that officers responsible for operations were

usually so occupied with current assignments that they did not have the

opportunity to survey the structure and procedures of their organizations

as a whole. Thus, he went on to say, deficiencies were not detected and

corrective action initiated at an early date.9 The new control divisions in

the technical services were to play a major role in all matters of an

organizational and administrative nature.

In compliance with the directive of the Commanding General, ASF,

a Control Division was established in the OC CWS on 11 April 1942.10

Shortly thereafter the Chief, CWS, directed that the new division investigate

and report on "the adequacy and correctness" of the organization of the

CWS, with special reference to the Office of the Chief.11 The CWS made

every effort to carry out General Somervell's directive to secure competent

individuals in staffing the Control Division. Col. Lowell A. Elliott became

first chief of the division. Upon his departure for Europe in May 1942,

Colonel Kuhn, commanding officer of the New York Chemical Warfare

Procurement District, was made chief and served in this capacity for the

duration of the war. Colonel Kuhn, who was to remain one of General

Porter's closest advisers throughout the war, had been a CWS officer since

World War I and had a broad background in the technical, training, and

procurement activities of the service. To assist Kuhn, Porter brought in

Reserve and emergency officers with outstanding experience in the business

8

 A copy of this directive is in Organizational Problems of the Army Service Forces, 1942-

1945, I, 7-14, a five-volume manuscript compiled by the Historical Branch, ASF. In OCMH. 9

 Memo, Gen Somervell for All Staff Divs et al., 27 Mar 42, sub: Contl, 00 020/29. 10

 OC CWS Off O 17, 11 Apr 42. 11

 Leo P. Brophy, Organizational Development, Pt. 1 of Administration and Personnel Management, Vol. II of History of the Chemical Warfare Service (1 Jul 40-15 Aug 45), p. 25.
96 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

world, as well as civilian employees with considerable training in business

administration. It was particularly important that the Control Division

engage only individuals of mature judgment, because of the nature of

its functions. It was unfortunate that the name "Control" was applied

to the division, for this designation did not stimulate ready acceptance

by other elements of the Chemical Warfare Service on whose adequacy

the Control Division had to report and with whom it had to work. In spite

of its name, the Control Division was purely a staff and not a command

unit, and its effectiveness depended chiefly on soundness of objectives and

methods as well as on maintaining amicable relationships with the elements

of the CWS and higher echelons. The division's effectiveness, as well as

its methods of operation, developed gradually as the war went on.

The directive which provided for the organization of the OC CWS

at the outbreak of the war had outlined an over-all organizational structure

but left details to be worked out as time went on.12 (See Chart 3.) Early

in 1942 attempts were made to define more exactly the respective roles of

the three services, Field, Technical, and Industrial, with regard to certain

phases of the CWS mission.13 After the activation of the Control Division

in the Chief's office in April 1942, the OC CWS put forth more pronounced

efforts to define the functions of each of its administrative elements and

to fit each element into its proper niche in the over-all organization.14 Sometimes the functions had been but recently delegated to the CWS, as in

the case of the requirement for accumulating and correlating data on

biological warfare, which was assigned orally in late 1941, and the price

adjustment function, delegated in mid-1942. The administration of activities

connected with biological warfare was placed in a Biological Division in

the Technical Service, where it remained until mid-1943. Supervision of

price adjustment activities was lodged with the Legal Division, because

of the close association between price adjustment and legal functions such

as drawing up and terminating contracts.

Some of the functions under consideration had been assigned originally

to a separate administrative unit, but experience had indicated that such

assignment was no longer practicable. This was the situation, for example,

with the Incendiary Branch which had been set up when the incendiary

program was turned over to the CWS in 1941. This branch co-ordinated all

12

 OC CWS Off O 12, 15 Jul 41. 13

 (1) OC CWS Off O 6, 14 Feb 42, and OC CWS Off O 11, 4 Mar 42. (2) See Chart 3 for

organizational features of the Field, Technical, and Industrial Services. 14

 Memo, Ind Div OC CWS to Contl Br OC CWS, 30 Oct 42, sub: Overlapping and Duplication of Functions. CWS 310.
THE CHIEF'S OFFICE DURING WORLD WAR II 97

matters pertaining to incendiaries including their design and development,

procurement, storage, and issue. It maintained contact with the Technical

Service of the Chief's office on design and development, with the Industrial

Service on the construction, procurement, and inspection facilities to manufacture the bomb, and with the Field Service on matters pertaining to the

storage and issue of incendiaries to troops in the field. By June 1942 the

incendiary program had been carried to the point where the functions

associated with it could be assumed by the Technical, Industrial, and Field

Services, and the branch was therefore eliminated.15

In still another instance, investigation revealed that closely allied or

identical functions were being performed by various units of the OC CWS.

The administration of legal activities was a case in point. Following the

15 July 1941 reorganization, three separate units of the Office of the Chief

performed legal functions, namely, the Purchase and Contracts Division of

the Industrial Service, the Patent Division of the Technical Service, and

the Legal Division of the Executive Office. By early 1942, the OC CWS

reached the conclusion that this setup was not making for the greatest

efficiency. Furthermore, in May the ASF sent a directive urging the coordination of legal activities. The chief of the Control Division brought

the matter to the attention of General Porter, pointing out that Control

Division studies had demonstrated that the dispersion of legal functions

among three administrative units was cumbersome and expensive. On 24

June 1942, therefore, all functions of a legal nature were placed under

the jurisdiction of the Legal Division, OC CWS.16

Organizational developments, especially in the early period of the war,

were affected to some extent by the military personnel situation. A number

of Reserve officers in grades from first lieutenant to lieutenant colonel

were being called to active duty, and in placing these officers the Army

had to give consideration to rank as well as ability. The result was that

it was often necessary to create organizational units to accommodate the

rank of the officers. Organizational changes for this reason were continuously taking place in the early years of the war, particularly in the lower

echelons.17

15

 OC CWS Off O 28, 2 Jun 42. 16

 (1) IOM, Contl Div OC CWS for C CWS, 30 May 42, sub: Co-ordination of Legal Work.

CWS 101/12-13. (2) OC CWS Off O 32, 24 Jun 42. 17

 Reference will be made here to only the most significant over-all organizational developments in World War II. For details on minor organizational changes see Leo P. Brophy, History

of the Chemical Warfare Service in World War II, Administration and Personnel Management.

MS, OCMH.
98 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Decentralization of Operations

A policy which had a marked effect on CWS organizational developments, both in the Chief's office and in the installations, was the ASF

encouragement of decentralization of operations. The theory behind this

policy was given expression by the chief of the Statistical Control Service

in General Somervell's office; in discussing the functions of the recently

activated control units, he said that one of the prime purposes of control

was "to effect maximum decentralization of operation while maintaining

centralization for co-ordination of broad policies and objectives."

 18

In conformity with this policy the Chemical Warfare Service gave considerable attention during the autumn of 1942 to the possibility of transferring elements of the Office of the Chief out of Washington. General

Porter and his staff were reluctant to take this step for they realized it

would make for administrative inefficiency. They had little choice in the

matter, however. For a time they considered the possibility of moving all

elements of the Chief's office to Edgewood but eventually gave up this

idea as impractical.19 General Porter and his assistants finally decided that

certain units of the Industrial and Technical Divisions could be decentralized

with the least loss of efficiency and in October 1942 made provision to

move these to Edgewood. About the same time a newly activated Chemical

Section of the Industrial Division, OC CWS, whose mission was to supervise

the purchase of all chemicals for the CWS, was located in New York City.

In 1943 a suboffice of the Chief was established at Baltimore, Maryland,

with the following branches stationed there: Historical Branch of the

Executive Office; Purchase Policies Branch of the Administrative Office of

the Assistant Chief, CWS, for Matériel; Storage Branch of the Supply

Division; and a branch of the Field Requirements Division.20 This decentralization, which lasted throughout the remainder of the war, resulted in a

need for additional personnel and in some loss in administrative efficiency.

Organizational Defects

The designation "service," applied to three major administrative units

18

 Brophy, Organizational Development, p. 28. 19

 (1) Interv, CmlHO with Maj Gen William N. Porter, USA (Ret.) 29 Apr 50. (2) Interv,

CmlHO with Col Harry A. Kuhn, USA (Ret.) 16 Mar 50. 20

 (1) Memo, C Contl Br OC CWS for C CWS, 12 Oct 42, sub: Decentralization of OC CWS.

(2) Memo, C Ind Div OC CWS for C CWS, 21 Oct 42, sub: Reorganization of Ind Div. (3)

Memo, C Tech Div OC CWS for C CWS, 19 Oct 42, sub: Reorganization of Tech Div. All in

CWS 310.1. (4) OC CWS Adm O 15, 11 Aug 43.
THE CHIEF'S OFFICE DURING WORLD WAR II 99

of OC CWS in July 1941, did not prove satisfactory. The term "service"

implied command rather than staff functions; just as the Chief of the Chemical Warfare Service had command over the entire organization, so the

chiefs of the smaller "services" under him assumed that they had command

responsibility over their respective units. In certain matters the chiefs of

the Industrial, the Technical, and the Field Services did have command

responsibility. This was especially true with regard to installations, since

each service was responsible for the conduct of activities at certain types

of installations. The chief of the Industrial Service had jurisdiction over the

arsenal and procurement districts, the chief of the Technical Service over

the research laboratories and proving grounds, and the chief of the Field

Service over the depots and training centers.21 As a result of a suggestion

from the Control Division, ASF, the three services of the OC CWS were

renamed "divisions" on 28 July 1942.22 The new divisions were intended

to be "staff" organizations, although for some time they were allowed to

retain a considerable degree of jurisdiction over installations. In order to

standardize terms, the OC CWS also directed that organizations below

division level be designated branches, sections, and subsections.23 The desire

of the Chief of the CWS to confine the activities of the new division chiefs

mainly to staff activities was not entirely realized, and this was one of

the factors which led to a major reorganization of the Chief's office in the

spring of 1943.

Another and more important factor centered around serious personality

differences among a few staff members in the Chief's office. Because procurement was an extremely important function in the early period of war,

the chief of the procurement unit was called upon to take vigorous measures

in order to get the job done. This pressure at times led to a tendency on

the part of the unit to dominate other elements of OC CWS, with the

result that personality clashes occurred among key officers. Perhaps because

the Chemical Warfare Service was a relatively small organization where

everybody in management knew almost everybody else, personal antagonisms were apt to be more pronounced than elsewhere. At any rate the

situation as it existed in early 1943 was intolerable and needed correction.

Something more than a shift of certain key officers was required, for there

were also shortcomings in the over-all organizational pattern which de21

 (1) OC CWS Organizational Charts, 1 May 42. (2) IOM, C Contl Br OC CWS for C CWS,

30 Jul 42, sub: Installations. CWS 31. 22

 Interv, CmlHO with Lt Col S. J. Levitan, 17 Oct 55. 23

 OC CWS Off O 40, 29 Jul 42.
100 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

manded attention. These shortcomings in certain instances were not unrelated to the strained personal relationships existing between key

individuals.24

For example, there was a lack of co-operation on important operational

matters between the Industrial and Technical Divisions. This difficulty

dated back at least to 1941 when representatives of those units discussed

some of the unsatisfactory conditions at a meeting. It was then disclosed

that the Industrial Service had made contract awards in certain cases without

first obtaining clearance on drawings and specifications, and that the Technical Service had not informed the Industrial Service when changes in

drawings and specifications were contemplated but only after they were

completed and approved.25 The root of this whole problem was the unsatisfactory state of drawings and specifications at that time—unsatisfactory,

that is, from the point of view of mass production of the item. Contractors

working on items could not use the existing specifications and drawings

and had to seek modifications through waivers and changes approved by

the CWS. A large number of such waivers and changes were issued resulting

in complete lack of uniformity in the same part produced by different

manufacturers. Efforts were made during 1942 to co-ordinate the operations

of the industrial and technical agencies by assigning to the deputy chief

of the Industrial Division and the chief of the Technical Division the determination of policy on such activities as continuance of research on a project,

drawing up of preliminary and final drawings and specifications for equipment, and issuance of waivers for changes of such drawings and specifications.26

 This innovation did not prove entirely successful, and as late as

the spring of 1943 a number of unsatisfactory procedures had still not been

corrected. The result was that items of inferior quality were being procured.27

 Some action to insure that CWS items would measure up to

specifications became vitally important.

General Porter found abundant proof that CWS matériel did not meet

the standards required in the field, when he and Brig. Gen. Charles E.

Loucks of his staff visited Europe in 1943. In England and North Africa

24

 This material is based on interviews with a number of key officers and civilians who were

on duty in the Chief's office in World War II. 25

 IOM, C Proc Plng Div for C Ind Serv, 17 Nov 41, sub: Conf in Connection with Current

Proc. CWS 337. 26

 Memo, C CWS for Chiefs Ind and Tech Divs, 25 Aug 42, sub: Co-ord of Ind and Tech Divs.

CWS 334.2/282. 27

 (1) Interv, CmlHO with Col Charles E. Loucks (formerly CG RMA and C Ind Div OC

CWS), 3 May 49. (2) Porter Interv, 16 Jul 49. (3) Interv, CmlHO with Col Harry A. Kuhn,

USA (Ret.), 23 Jan 49.
THE CHIEF'S OFFICE DURING WORLD WAR II 101

the two generals saw some of the. inferior items which had been sent out

from the zone of interior, and the Chief returned to the United States

determined to take drastic action with regard to uniformity of specifications

and inspection of items. One of the first things he did was to direct the

activation of an Inspection Division entirely independent of the Industrial

Division. This change became part of a general reorganization of Porter's

office which was made effective in May 1943.

Developments, May 1943-October 1945

Since its inception, the Control Division, OC CWS, had been conducting

a survey aimed at improving organization.28 On the basis of its findings

the Control Division drew up an organizational chart and presented it to

General Porter on his return from abroad in the spring of 1943. Among

the objectives which the Control Division listed for the new organization

were: reducing the number of persons reporting directly to the Chief;

reducing the emphasis placed on the procurement function by striking a

balance between that and other CWS functions; and improving the machinery for calculating CWS requirements. Porter studied the chart and

submitted it to members of his staff for comment. It was the consensus that

the proposed organization would be a definite improvement and General

Porter then took the matter up with Maj. Gen. Wilhelm D. Styer, Chief

of Staff, ASF, who gave his informal approval.29 Porter thereupon issued

a directive on 27 May 1943 which activated the new organization. (Chart

5) 30

Under this setup there were to be two assistant chiefs, CWS, one for

matériel and one for field operations. The Assistant Chief of CWS for

Matériel was to "supervise and co-ordinate" the functions of development,

procurement, inspection, and supply. These functions were to be administered by the following divisions: Technical, Industrial, Inspection, and

Supply. The Assistant Chief of CWS for Field Operations was to "supervise and co-ordinate the preparation of plans for the utilization of chemical

warfare matériel and troops." Under his jurisdiction were three divisions,

Field Requirements, Training, and War Plans and Theaters. Other divisions,

along with the executive branches, were directly under the supervision of

28

 Memo, C Contl Div OC CWS for C CWS, sub: Activities of Contl Div for the Period 15

Nov 42 to 31 Dec 43. 29

 (1) Porter interv, 16 Jul 49. (2) Memo, C CWS for CG ASF (Attn: Dir Mil Pers), 12

May 43, sub: Transfer of General Officer. CWS 210.3. 30

 OC CWS Off O 39, 27 May 43.
CHART 5—OFFICE, CHIEF OF CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE,

As OF 26 AUGUST 1943
THE CHIEF'S OFFICE DURING WORLD WAR II 103

BRIG. GEN. ROLLO C. DITTO, CWS,

Assistant Chief of Matériel.

BRIG. GEN. ALDEN H. WAITT, CWS,

Assistant Chief for Field Operations.

the Chief, CWS. Brig. Gen. Rollo C. Ditto was appointed Assistant Chief

of Matériel and General Waitt, Assistant Chief for Field Operations. Each

continued in his respective post until the close of the war. In August 1943

General Ditto's tables of distribution called for no officers and 286 civilians

and General Waitt's for 54 officers and 62 civilians. The total allotment

of officers and civilians in OC CWS at that time was 215 and 585 respectively.31

 This large number is in great contrast to the small force that had

manned the office in the peacetime years.

The 27 May 1943 reorganization of the Office of the Chief restricted

command functions to the Chief himself and in a limited degree to the

assistant chiefs. In their relations with General Porter the assistant chiefs

were staff officers, but in regard to the divisions and installation under their

jurisdictions they exercised command. For that reason their offices were

generally referred to informally as "Matériel Command" and "Operations

Command," instead of the Office of the Assistant Chief for Matériel and

the Office of the Assistant Chief for Field Operations. Besides, the formal

designations were much too long for day-to-day usage.

The new setup did a great deal to improve relationships among the

31

 OC CWS Off O 55, 5 Aug 43.
104 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

various elements of OC CWS. Better co-operation was attained between

the Industrial and Technical Divisions. The Assistant Chief of CWS for

Matériel now had jurisdiction over both divisions and he could act as

arbiter in the event of differences over policy. The way was open, moreover,

for making additional organizational changes aimed at better interdivision

co-operation. The best example of this development was the activation of

the Industrial Liaison Branch in the Industrial Division in August 1943.32

This unit acted for the chief of the Industrial Division in all matters requiring concurrence by the chief of the Technical Division, such as the

compilation of drawings and specifications and the clearing of requests

for changes and waivers. Again, better co-ordination was attained between

the industrial and the supply units in OC CWS because the Assistant Chief

for Matériel could act as an arbiter whenever differences over policy or

procedure arose between these divisions.

Better co-ordination of related activities was likewise attained under

the Assistant Chief, CWS, for Field Operations. The close association of

war plans and training had long been recognized, and for that reason

General Waitt was given jurisdiction over both activities. A significant

innovation was the incorporation of the intelligence function into Waitt's

organization. Previously this unit had reported directly to the executive

officer of OC CWS. The co-ordination of war plans, training, and intelligence under one jurisdiction in OC CWS was to prove very effective throughout the remainder of the war period.

Functions of the New Medical Division

For a decade and a half following World War I there had been a

Medical Division in OC CWS. But in 1932 General Gilchrist had eliminated

this division, and thereafter CWS and the Medical Department maintained

co-ordination solely through the medical research group at Edgewood

Arsenal. Just prior to World War II, increased emphasis began to be placed

on the medical aspects of gas warfare, and a Committee on the Treatment

of Gas Casualties was set up within the National Research Council. Later,

when the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) was

activated, the work was also carried on by its various committees and

subcommittees.33 The chemical warfare functions of the National Research

32

 OC CWS Adm O 14, 7 Aug 43. 33

 Data on the Medical Division was obtained from a six-page report prepared by Medical

Division for Historical Branch, OC CWS, 13 June 1945.
THE CHIEF'S OFFICE DURING WORLD WAR II 105

Council and the Office of Scientific Research and Development overlapped,

and by the spring of 1943 it was evident that there was need for a staff

officer in the CWS who would co-ordinate all functions having to do with

the medical aspects of chemical warfare. After consultation among the

Secretary of War, The Surgeon General, and the Chief, CWS, Dr. Cornelius

P. Rhoads of the Memorial Hospital, New York City, a renowned medical

administrator, was selected for the post.34 Dr. Rhoads was commissioned

as a colonel in the Medical Corps and served as chief of the Medical

Division until 18 April 1945 when he was succeeded by Col. John R. Wood,

Medical Corps, who served until the close of the war.

The Surgeon General and the Chief, CWS, reached an agreement on

30 March 1943 on the responsibilities of the proposed Medical Division

under Dr. Rhoads. They decided that the new division would be responsible

for the conduct of research connected with the prevention and treatment

of chemical warfare casualties; for carrying out toxicological studies required by the Chief, CWS; for investigating hazards to health of CWS

employees engaged in producing chemical warfare agents; and for keeping

The Surgeon General informed on the results of all investigations and

studies.35 The Medical Division was activated on 3 July 1943, and all medical and toxicological research being performed at Edgewood was placed

under its supervision.36 Before the close of 1943 new CWS medical laboratories had been set up at Camp Detrick, Maryland; Dugway Proving

Ground, Utah; and Camp Sibert, Alabama; and a mobile laboratory unit

had been activated at Bushnell, Florida. The Medical Division co-ordinated

the research work performed in these laboratories as well as at various

university laboratories and maintained liaison with The Surgeon General's

Office, the NDRC, and the Canadian and British agencies carrying on

chemical warfare research.37

Administrators later found that the research work and testing being

carried on by the Medical Division overlapped that carried on by the

Technical Division of the OC CWS. This overlapping was particularly

pronounced in projects being conducted under tropical conditions. The

34

 (1) Porter interv, 29 Apr 50. (2) Interv, CmlHO with Dr. Cornelius P. Rhoads (C Medical

Div OC CWS in World War II), 25 Sep 50. 35

 Memo, Lt Col George W. Perkins, OC CWS, for Brig Gen Charles C. Hillman, SGO, 30

Mar 43, sub: Proposed Medical Div for CWS. CWS 314.7 Policy File. The proposal was initialed

by General Waitt and Brig. Gen. Paul X. English for CWS and General Hillman for SGO. 36

 OC CWS Off O 48, 3 Jul 43. 37

 For details on NDRC-CWS relationships, see Brophy, Miles, and Cochrane, From Laboratory

to Field; and Baxter, Scientists Against Time, Chapter XVIII.
106 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

situation improved greatly as a result of the work of the Advisory Committee on Effectiveness of Gas Warfare in the Tropics and its operating

agency, the Project Co-ordination Staff, which were set up in March 1944

after consultation among American, British, and Canadian representatives

on chemical warfare.38

The committee, appointed by General Porter, was made up of two

civilians, Dr. Conant and Dr. Roger Adams, and representatives from the

U.S. Navy, Army Air Forces, and Army Ground Forces, British Army Staff,

British Commonwealth Scientific Office, the Canadian Government, and the

Australian Government. To the advisory committee the Project Co-ordination Staff submitted recommendations concerning such matters as allocation

of problems to various field test agencies, co-ordination and standardization

of testing methods, and the interpretation of data and results obtained

from field tests. The Chief, CWS, appointed a prominent civilian scientist,

Dr. W. A. Noyes, Jr., to head this staff and assigned two officers with

the rank of lieutenant colonel as assistants. These three were on a full-time

basis. The chairman of the committee, in addition, could receive assistance

from representatives of the Medical Division, the Technical Division, and

the Office of the Assistant Chief, CWS, for Field Operations. Representatives from the Navy and the British and Canadian chemical warfare

agencies were on the staff, which had authority to communicate directly

with stations and related projects in Australia, India, England, and the

United States on questions of information.39

In order to carry out more effectively research on chemical warfare

under tropical conditions, the United States and the Republic of Panama

made arrangements early in 1944 to lease San José Island to the U.S.

Army. This became a CWS installation, commanded during the war by a

brigadier general. In September 1944, a San José Division was activated

in the Chief's office, and the commanding general of the San José Project,

Brig. Gen. Egbert F. Bullene, was made chief of this division in addition

to his other duties.40

38

 For details, see above, Chapter IV. 39

 (1) OC CWS Adm [no number], 28 Mar 44. (2) Memo, C CWS for Secy USCWC, 3

Apr 44, sub: Advisory Com on Effectiveness of Gas in the Tropics. CWS 314.7 Gas Warfare

File. (3) Memo, Noyes, Dir Proj Co-ord Staff, for Advisory Com on Effectiveness of Gas Warfare

Matériel in the Tropics, 8 May 44, sub: Preliminary Copy of Memo to Fld Testing Agencies Outlining the Organization of the Proj Co-ord Staff. CWS 314.7 Gas Warfare File. (4) Memo, C

CWS for CG ASF, 12 Mar 46, sub: Anglo-American Co-operation on Cml Warfare Development. 40

 (1) OC CWS Adm O 22, 27 Sep 44. (2) For details, see below, Chapter VI.
THE CHIEF'S OFFICE DURING WORLD WAR II 107

Special Projects Division

The WBC Committee on biological warfare turned in a report to the

Secretary of War in June 1942 which served as the basis for Stimson's

recommending to President Roosevelt that a civilian agency be delegated

to supervise all aspects of this type warfare.41 Upon Presidential approval,

the War Research Service (WRS) headed by Mr. George W. Merck was

set up in the Federal Security Agency in the summer of 1942. The WRS

was a small co-ordinating organization which drew on the facilities, personnel, and experience of government and private institutions, including

the medical services of the Army and Navy, the Chemical Warfare Service,

the U.S. Public Health Service, the Department of Agriculture, G-2 of

the Army, the Office of Naval Intelligence, the Office of Strategic Services,

and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.42 After the assignment of the

biological warfare mission to the CWS in the fall of 1941, it will be

recalled, a Biological Division was set up in the Chief's office.43 Later this

division was redesignated the Special Assignments Branch. Its first chief

was Lt. Col. James H. Defandorf, who was succeeded in March 1943 by

Col. Fraser Moffat. The Special Assignments Branch was subject to the

technical supervision of the WRS.

The War Research Service secured the services of outstanding scientists

and administrators for full-time duty with the armed forces. Among those

whose talents were made available to the CWS was Dr. Ira L. Baldwin of

the University of Wisconsin. Late in 1942 Dr. Baldwin was assigned to

duty with the CWS with instructions to develop a research program, secure

a location for a biological warfare installation, design laboratories, and

recruit a staff.44 By this time the WRS had decided that exhaustive investigation of biological warfare agents would require research and development

on a scale not heretofore attempted and that the agency best equipped to

carry out those activities was the Chemical Warfare Service.

Through co-operation with the WRS, Dr. Baldwin secured the services

of a formidable group of scientists and technicians. A site outside Frederick,

Maryland, was selected for a biological warfare installation and construction of the future Camp Detrick was begun in the spring of 1943. This

41

 Following the submission of this report the WBC Committee disbanded. 42

 "Biological Warfare, Report to the Secretary of War by Mr. George W. Merck, Special

Consultant for Biological Warfare," The Military Surgeon, XCVIII (1946), 237-42. This is the

so-called Merck Report, which appeared in various publications but with slight variations in the

contents of certain paragraphs. 43

 See above, page 48. 44

 Ltr, Baldwin to CmlHO, 5 Dec 52.
108 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

was the first of four biological warfare installations built during World

War II. The others were the testing grounds at Horn Island, Pascagoula,

Mississippi; the Granite Park installation at Tooele, Utah; and a production

plant at Terre Haute, Indiana.

In December 1943 the Office of Strategic Services reported to the Joint

Chiefs of Staff that there was evidence that the German Army was preparing

to employ biological warfare.45 This report led Secretary Stimson on 13

January 1944 to transfer responsibility for all biological warfare projects

from the War Research Service to the Chemical Warfare Service. At the

same time the Secretary directed that the Chief, CWS, co-operate with

The Surgeon General on the defensive aspects, all under the direction of

the Commanding General, Army Service Forces.46 Later President Roosevelt

confirmed this division of responsibility.47 To co-ordinate biological warfare activities in his office, Stimson appointed Mr. George Merck as special

consultant to the Secretary of War on biological warfare. Stimson also set

up a United States Biological Warfare Committee (USBWC) to advise

Merck on policy matters and to maintain liaison with British and Canadian

representatives.48

This action by the Secretary of War led the Chief, CWS, in January

1944 to raise the Special Assignments Branch to the status of a division.

The new division, known as the Special Projects Division, was headed

successively by Cols. Martin B. Chittick, J. Enrique Zanetti, and H. N.

Worthley.49 In carrying out the main responsibility for biological warfare

preparations the division supervised the activities of some 3,900 persons,

of whom about 2,800 were Army personnel, about 1,000 Navy, and nearly

100 civilians. The majority of these were stationed at Camp Detrick, and

the remainder were divided among the headquarters of the Special Projects

Division in Washington and the other BW installations. The approved

organization chart for 16 September 1944 listed 9 Army officers and 8

civilians and 6 Navy officers and 7 Navy enlisted men in the headquarters

45

 This report proved inaccurate. See Research and Development in the Special Projects Division

(1 Jul 40-14 Aug 45), dated 20 Sep 45. CWS 314.7 R and D File. 46

 Memo, SW for CofS, 13 Jan 44, sub: BW. Cited in Rexmond C. Cochrane, Biological Warfare Research in the United States, History of the Chemical Warfare Service (1 Jul 40-15 Aug

45) p. 28. 47

 Merck Rpt. 48

 The USBWC was composed of representatives from the following headquarters: ASF, SGO,

CWS, Navy Bureau of Medicine, Navy Bureau of Ordnance, AAF, New Developments Division

of WD Special Staff, G-2, and Office of Strategic Services. 49

 OC CWS Off O [no number], 18 Jan 44.
THE CHIEF'S OFFICE DURING WORLD WAR II 109

office. Included in the activities of the Special Projects Division were administration and supervision of the work of scientists under contract in the

universities, research institutes, and industries. Like the War Research

Service before it, the Special Projects Division maintained liaison with

various government and nongovernment technical groups.

Other Developments

From early 1944 till the close of the war very few important organizational changes took place in the Office of the Chief. The most significant

development had something of a psychological aspect because it concerned

the interpretation of the relationship of the Chief, CWS, to the installations.

In the past, as has been mentioned, the chief of the Technical Division

considered himself responsible for the administration of laboratories and

proving grounds, the chief of the Industrial Division for arsenals and

procurement districts, and the chief of the Supply Division for the depots.

These relationships were portrayed graphically on the over-all organization

chart of the OC CWS. (See Chart 5.) During 1944 the chief of the Control Division urged the Chief, CWS, to emphasize more strongly his direct

command jurisdiction over the installations, and General Porter did this

by signing a new organization chart dated 11 December 1944. For the first

time during the war the installations were represented graphically as being

directly under the command of the Chief, CWS. To understand fully this

relationship, it is necessary to examine the administration of CWS field

installations in World War II.
CHAPTER VI

Field Organization of the

Chemical Warfare Service

The expansion of the Chemical Warfare Service field organization

which began in the emergency period of course became much more rapid

once war was declared. As part of the effort to meet the demands of a

nation at war and at the same time supply the United Nations with the

matériel to carry on war, activities at all existing CWS installations greatly

increased, and the need for new installations arose.

The Procurement Districts

Most CWS procurement in World War II was effected through contracts awarded in the procurement districts.1

 The day after the United

States declared war on Japan, General Porter recommended to the Under

Secretary of War that the number of CWS procurement districts be increased

from five to seven. He wanted to activate two new districts with headquarters at Atlanta and Dallas in order to tap the industrial capacity of

the southeastern and southwestern sections of the United States. For some

years War Department plans had called for the activation of a new district with headquarters at Birmingham, but General Porter argued for

Atlanta rather than Birmingham on the ground that Atlanta was a more

important center for industries useful to the Chemical Warfare Service.

The Chief, CWS, further recommended that if the establishment of the

two new districts was approved, the Atlanta district be placed immediately

on a procurement basis and Dallas on a procurement planning basis for

the first several months, pending a more accurate survey of the latter's

capabilities. On 17 December 1941 the Office of the Under Secretary of

War approved these recommendations.2

1

 For details, see Brophy, Miles, and Cochrane, From Laboratory to Field. 2

 Ltr, C CWS to USW, 9 Dec 41, and 1st Ind, sub: Additional Cml Warfare Proc Districts.

CWS 322.095/53.
FIELD ORGANIZATION OF CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE 111

Late in January 1942 the Office of the Chief, CWS, sent Maj. Herbert

P. Heiss to Atlanta to establish a procurement district office.3 A month later

Col. Alfred L. Rockwood was transferred from the San Francisco Procurement District to assume command of the new Atlanta office, and Major

Heiss then proceeded to Dallas to open the new office there. He arrived in

Dallas on 2 March, and five days later the district was activated. With the

creation of the Atlanta and Dallas districts, some of the territory formerly

attached to the Pittsburgh and Chicago districts was put under jurisdiction

of the new districts. The Atlanta district included the following states:

Florida, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,

and Mississippi; while the Dallas district included the states of Colorado,

New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. (See Map,

page 112.) Early in 1943, Headquarters, ASF, and OC CWS decided that

the continuation of the Atlanta office as a separate district office was not

justified and, in April 1943, it was designated a suboffice of the Dallas

district.

Of the twelve officers who were in charge of procurement districts

during the war, seven were Regular Army officers and five were Reserve

officers or were appointed from civilian life.4 All the Regular Army officers

had training and experience in procurement planning activities before the

war and several of them had attended the Harvard University School of

Business Administration for two-year periods. Every one of the Reserve

officers had some experience in the industrial, financial, or commercial

field. Lt. Col. Robert T. Norman, commanding officer of the Atlanta district and later executive officer of the Chicago district, had been associated

for fourteen years with a Washington, D. C., securities and investment

house. Col. Lester W. Hurd, commanding officer of the Boston district and

later of the New York district, was a well-known architectural engineer in

California. Colonel Heiss of the Atlanta and later of the Dallas districts

had extensive banking and industrial experience. Heiss was the only commanding officer who had come into the Army from civilian life and who

had not been a member of the Reserve. Col. Clarence W. Crowell, who

3

 Ltr, C CWS to CG Fourth Corps Area, 23 Jan 42, sub: Establishment of Atlanta Cml Warfare Proc District. CWS 322.095/36-65. 4

 Commanding officers of each of the procurement districts during the wartime period were:

Atlanta, Major Heiss, Colonel Rockwood, Lt. Col. Robert T. Norman; Boston, Col. Sterling E.

Whitesides, Jr., Col. Lester W. Hurd; Chicago, Col. Harry R. Lebkicher; Dallas, Col. H. P. Heiss,

Col. Clarence W. Crowell; New York, Colonel Kuhn, Col. Patrick F. Powers, Colonel Whitesides,

Colonel Hurd (in addition to his other duties as commanding officer of the Boston Procurement

District); Pittsburgh, Col. Rollo Ditto, Col. Raymond L. Abel; San Francisco, Col. James W.

Lyon.

FIELD ORGANIZATION OF CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE 113

succeeded Colonel Heiss as commanding officer of the Dallas district, was

vice president in charge of production at the Rochester Germicide Company,

Rochester, New York. Col. Raymond L. Abel of the Pittsburgh district was

a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Pittsburgh and

had considerable practical experience in the field of petroleum engineering.

The United States entrance into the war brought such a vast increase

in the number of contracts that the War Department decentralized authority

for approval of many more contracts to the procurement districts.5 On 13

December 1941 General Porter authorized the CWS districts to negotiate

contracts up to and including $200,000.6 On 3 January 1942 this authority

was extended to contracts up to $1,000,000 and on 23 March this figure

was raised to $5,000,000 at which level it remained throughout the war.7

The Chemical Warfare Service experienced certain difficulties in placing

contracts on items other than the gas mask. Thanks to the educational order

legislation, the CWS had access to the services of a number of large

manufacturers experienced in gas-mask production. With other chemical

warfare items the situation was somewhat different. Since the Industrial

Mobilization Plan of 1939 was not put into effect, the CWS lost some

well-established contractors allocated under that plan. It was necessary,

therefore, to seek other potential contractors, who in many instances were

small operators. While it would have been to the advantage of the government in certain cases to have had contractors with larger facilities, the

small firms, generally speaking, did an outstanding job once they had

converted their plants and had gained experience.8

Organizational Developments

The expansion of activities in the procurement districts necessitated a

corresponding expansion of organization. Administrative units which

formerly performed two or three functions were broken down into separate

units. For example, in the Pittsburgh district there was a Fiscal, Property,

5

 For details on War Department contracts see Smith, The Army and Economic Mobilization,

Chapter X. 6

 See Memo, C CWS for USW, 23 Dec 41. CWS 160/658. 7

 (1) Ltr, C Ind Div OC CWS to COs Proc Districts and Arsenals, 3 Jan 42, sub: Authority

to Contract. CWS 400.12/105. (2) Ltr, C CWS to COs Proc Districts and Arsenals, 23 Mar 42,

sub: Approval of Awards and Formal Contracts. CWS 160/3011. 8

 Almost all CWS contractors had to convert their plants because 95 percent of CWS items

were noncommercial. See CWS Presentation at SOS Staff Conference on Procurement and Production, 14 January 1943, page 2 in CWS 314.7 Procurement File.
114 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

and Transportation Section before December 1941, but in early 1942

separate sections were activated to deal with each of those functions. In

the Boston district, inspection, plant protection, and production were all

under an Engineering Division until 1942 when separate sections were

established. The activation of these separate administrative units would

not have been possible without the increased availability of officers.

Where the ever-growing workload did not account for the activation

of new administrative units, the decentralization of operations in accordance with ASF policy did. In 1942 such functions as priorities and allocations and manpower utilization were decentralized to the installations.

From 1943 to the close of the war, decentralization of operations took place

on pricing analysis, public relations, property disposal, contract termination,

and demobilization. Units to supervise these functions were set up in

the district offices and other pertinent installations.

During the opening months of 1943 the Chief of the CWS directed

all installations to activate control units in their organizations to assist the

Control Division of his office to carry out its functions and to conduct

control functions in the installations themselves.9 He indicated the benefits

which the commanding officers might expect from such units by describing

the work of the Control Division of his office. This division, he stated,

had recommended measures to integrate the organization and activities

of the service and to reduce the number of persons engaged in administrative tasks and paper work.10

 Following receipt of General Porter's directive, all of the CWS installations set up control units.11

The outstanding accomplishment in the Chemical Warfare Service with

regard to procurement district organization was the program of standardization of organization and procedures that was launched in the summer of

1943. In a letter to the commanding officer of each district the chief of

the Control Division, OC CWS, stated that studies of record-keeping

activities and work-simplification surveys made in the various districts

indicated a marked disparity in the business practices of the districts. This

resulted in certain districts utilizing more personnel than other districts

to perform tasks of a similar extent and nature, an intolerable situation

in the light of the manpower shortage. One step toward rectifying the

9

 See histories of CWS installations in World War II, MSS. 10

 Ltr, C CWS to CG EA, 23 Jan 43, sub: Contl Activities. CWS SPCWC 020.4 CWS (Control). Similar letters were sent to the various installations in January and February 1943. 11

 For the influence which ASF had on the internal developments of technical services such as

CWS, see Millett, Army Service Forces, pages 304-08.
FIELD ORGANIZATION OF CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE 115

situation was the standardization of the district organizations. The chief

of the Control Division of the Chief's office compiled a tentative draft of

a manual outlining a uniform organization for procurement districts, on

which he requested and received comments and suggestions by the commanding officers.12

On the basis of these recommendations, together with the principles

of organization formulated by the ASF, a standard organization was set

up in each district in September 1943. Local conditions dictated some

variations, but in most respects all districts were organized in essentially

the same manner from that time until the close of the war. The Chicago

District, for example, shows the standard setup as of 15 August 1944.

(Chart 6)

 13

 This organization was in conformity with ASF Manual M603

which was published in 1944. After publication of the manual, a study of

the Chicago district as typical of all CWS procurement district organizations

revealed that the district organization was in substantial agreement with

the standards set up by the ASF.

The standardization of organization in the procurement districts and

other CWS installations facilitated the standardization of administrative

procedures. Before the Control Division survey of the districts, for example,

each district office had its own forms and records system. This led to

endless confusion in the Chief's office, where the data coming in from the

installations had to be correlated. Until the forms and records were

standardized it was extremely difficult to tell in what areas progress was

being made.

Procurement District Headquarters and

Field Inspection Offices

Following the activation of a separate Inspection Division in the OC

CWS in May 1943,14 the technical functions of the inspection offices at

all CWS installations came under the jurisdiction of the new Inspection

Division. The principle of divided jurisdiction was never entirely satisfactory to a number of installation commanders, who felt that since they

12

 Ltr, C Contl Div OC CWS to CO NYCWPD et al., 31 Jul 43, sub: Standardization of

Proc Districts. CWS 319.1. 13

 The representative of the Chemical Commodity Division reported to the chief of that

division whose headquarters were in the New York procurement district. This division was set

up in August 1944 to centralize the administration of procurement of chemicals. For details see

Brophy, Miles, and Cochrane, From Laboratory to Field. 14

 See above, Chapter V.
CHART 6—CHICAGO PROCUREMENT DISTRICT, CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE,

As OF 15 AUGUST 1944
FIELD ORGANIZATION OF CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE 117

were generally responsible for the procurement of items they should be

responsible for the quality of the items procured no less than for the

quantity.15 But the experience in the early part of the war of having the

same officer responsible for both the production and inspection of items

had not proved successful. The solution adopted was to take responsibility

for inspection entirely out of the hands of the person accountable for

production, the installation commander, and place it with an inspection

officer responsible only to the chief of the Inspection Division, OC CWS.

From the point of view of operations, the system was effective because

the quality of chemical warfare items improved greatly after the spring

of 1943. The commanding officers of the procurement districts felt, however, that the same objectives could have been attained had the Chief,

CWS, held them personally accountable for both quantity and quality of

items. Such a procedure, they believed, would have avoided the administrative problems of divided authority that sprang up after separate inspection

offices were activated in the districts.

Developments in 1945

Following V-E Day the Pittsburgh Procurement District was deactivated

and the Boston and New York districts were consolidated under one commanding officer. This was the result of a requirement by ASF that for

reasons of economy the number of CWS installations be reduced. In June

1945 Colonel Hurd, commanding officer of the Boston district, was named

commanding officer of the New York district in addition to his other

duties. During the preceding month, plans had been worked out to transfer

part of the Pittsburgh district's business to the Chicago district and the

remainder to the New York district and to set up a suboffice of the New

York district in Pittsburgh. By V-J Day the transfers had been made, but

owing to the sudden ending of the war the Pittsburgh suboffice was never

activated.

The Chemical Warfare Center

The increased activities at Edgewood in research, training, manufacturing, and storage had, by the start of the war, made the designation

15

 Based on interviews and correspondence by the Chemical Corps Historical Office with

installation commanders and key personnel of the Inspection Division, OC CWS.
CHART 7—CHEMICAL WARFARE CENTER,

AS OF 10 MAY 1942
FIELD ORGANIZATION OF CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE 119

BRIG. GEN. RAY L. AVERY, Commanding General, Chemical Warfare Center,

Edgewood Arsenal, Md., 1942-46.

Edgewood Arsenal a misnomer.

Five days after Pearl Harbor, General Porter called this fact to the

attention of the War Department

in a letter recommending that a

Chemical Warfare Center be activated at Edgewood. No action

was taken on that recommendation,

and on 23 February 1942 the Chief,

CWS, again recommended that a

center be set up under a commanding general, with several "intermediate" commanders to supervise

the functions of research and development, training, and manufacturing. On 6 May 1942 the Secretary of War approved the recommendation, and four days later the

Chemical Warfare Center was activated.16

Brig. Gen. Ray L. Avery, commanding general of Edgewood Arsenal,

was put in charge of the new Chemical Warfare Center. (Chart 7) Avery

remained in that post for the duration of the war, retiring from active

service in April 1946. The organization of the center changed little throughout the war except for the activation of units to carry out newly assigned

functions. For example, in February 1943 a Control Division was established, and in May the old Inspection Office was abolished and a new

Inspection Office reporting directly to the chief of the Inspection Division,

OC CWS, was activated.

The transfer of elements of the Chief's office to Edgewood in the

fall of 1942 led to some administrative difficulties, particularly in personnel

matters.17 The Technical Division, OC CWS, for example, wanted to control

its members located at Edgewood directly through the Washington office.

The chief of the Technical Division felt that he could obtain more and

better qualified employees in that way. The Chief, CWS, nevertheless, de16

 (1) Ltr, C CWS to TAG, 12 Dec 41, and inds, sub: Cml Warfare Center. (2) Ltr, C CWS

to TAG, 23 Feb 42, and inds, sub: Cml Warfare Center, EA, Md. Both in CWS 322.095/52.

(3) EA GO 8, 20 Apr 42, and EA GO 18, 4 Dec 42. 17

 See above, Chapter V.
120 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

cided that all personnel activities at the Chemical Warfare Center should

be processed through that headquarters and this procedure was adopted.

The duties of the commanding general of the Chemical Warfare Center

corresponded closely to those of a post commander. They included personnel administration, internal security, public relations, post inspection,

and post engineer functions for all elements of the center. The centralization

of administration for those activities invariably made for a greater degree

of efficiency. For example, it was far more effective to have one central

office administer personnel functions than to have a half dozen independent

offices scattered over the post, as was formerly the practice.18

The Arsenals

The Chemical Warfare Center included an Arsenal Operations Department which supervised strictly arsenal activities. As the new arsenals at

Huntsville and Pine Bluff and later at Rocky Mountain 19 got into operation, the nature of arsenal activities at Edgewood changed. These new

arsenals took over the bulk of the arsenal operations in the CWS, and the

Edgewood plants eventually assumed the role of pilot plants, in addition

to handling a number of "blitz" jobs.

On 6 May 1942 General Porter recommended to the Secretary of War

that another CWS arsenal be erected near Denver, Colorado. Within a week

Under Secretary of War Patterson issued a memorandum of approval for

construction of the new arsenal.20 This memorandum stated that the new

installation would be used for producing certain gases and for loading

operations and that the necessary funds, except for the purchase of land,

would be made available to the CWS by the Army Air Forces.

Construction of the new arsenal, which was designated Rocky Mountain

Arsenal, was begun in June 1942. As a result of the experience gained in

building earlier CWS arsenals, the quality of its construction was superior

to that of the others.

In the course of the war each of the CWS arsenals came to carry out

much the same type of operation. Although the original plants at the

new Pine Bluff and Rocky Mountain Arsenals were built to carry out

certain specific operations, other types of plants were shortly erected at

both arsenals. During the war, each of the CWS arsenals manufactured toxic

18

 Ltr, Asst Ex O to Comdt Cml Warfare School et al., 20 Oct 42, sub: Centralization of Civ

Pers Functions. CWS 314.7/7 Eastern Cml Dep. 19

 See below, pp. 167-68. 20

 WD Memo of Approval 438, 12 May 42.
FIELD ORGANIZATION OF CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE 121

agents, smoke and incendiary matériel, and with these filled shells, grenades,

pots, and bombs supplied, as a rule, by the Ordnance Department.21

The physical layout of an arsenal was not without its effect upon the

installation's organization and administration. Of all the CWS arsenals,

Huntsville was by far the least compact. There, three separate plant areas

had been erected, each separated by considerable distances, and each in

turn separated from headquarters by several miles. Two of the plant areas

were duplicates of each other, because Huntsville Arsenal was built

on the theory that an enemy air attack was entirely feasible and that if

one area were knocked out there was a chance that the other area might

be saved. The third plant area at Huntsville was used for manufacturing

and filling incendiaries. In setting up an organization for the post, General

Ditto arranged for each area to have its own administrative units for

engineering, personnel administration, property administration, storage,

and transportation.22 Although these units were responsible to higher echelon units at post headquarters, the supervision was more nominal than

real. Because the system obviously made for duplication and added expense,

it soon became necessary to set up a more centralized organization at

Huntsville.

In contrast to Huntsville, Pine Bluff and Rocky Mountain Arsenals

were compact, and therefore no basis existed for the duplication of administrative units. But those arsenals, like other CWS installations, were

characterized by basic organizational and administrative defects in the

early period of their existence. One of those defects was the fact that a

great number of individuals reported directly to the commanding officer;

in other words, there was not proper delegation of authority. Still more

serious was the tendency on the part of commanding officers to organize

and administer arsenals like other posts, camps, and stations. This tendency

sprang from the limited experience of CWS officers in arsenal operations

which were of course more technical than operations at other types of

installations. Unlike the Ordnance Department, whose arsenal activities

dated back many years and were carried on somewhat extensively even

in peacetime, CWS operations came to a halt following World War I and

21

 (1) For details on construction and operations of CWS arsenals, see Brophy, Miles, and

Cochrane, From Laboratory to Field. (2) See CWS Rpt of Production, 1 Jan 40 through 31 Dec

45, compiled by Production Br Proc Div, OC CWS in CWS 314.7 Production File. 22

 General Ditto served as commanding general of Huntsville Arsenal until he was appointed

Assistant Chief, CWS, for Matériel in May 1943. He was succeeded by Col. Geoffrey Marshall.

The commanding generals of the other arsenals were: Brig. Gen. Augustin M. Prentiss, Pine

Bluff; General Loucks and, later, Brig. Gen. Alexander Wilson, Rocky Mountain.
122 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

were not resumed until the emergency period.23 Consequently there were

very few CWS officers, or civilians either, who were experts in arsenal activities. When war broke out, it was necessary for the Chief, CWS, to put

his arsenals under the command of high ranking officers considered good

administrators in the hope that they would utilize the services of Reserve

officers who were experts in the technical operations.24

The defects in arsenal organization were largely overcome by the close

of 1943. Under the ASF program for organizational improvement, both

the Control and Industrial Divisions, OC CWS, reviewed closely the organization charts of the various arsenals. Where the charts did not conform

to organizational standards, the commanding officers were contacted personally with a view to having them make the necessary changes.25

The Depots

At the time war was declared new depots at Huntsville and Pine Bluff

were in the planning stages, and the site for another depot in northern

Utah had not yet been selected.26 The burden on the Edgewood Depot

consequently was heavy, although the situation was somewhat eased by

the procedure adopted by the Supply Division, OC CWS, during the

emergency period of shipping equipment directly from points of manufacture to posts, camps, and stations throughout the country. The new depots

at Huntsville and Pine Bluff were ready for partial operation in the fall

of 1942. The site finally selected for the new depot in Utah was in Rush

Valley, Tooele County, near the town of St. John. There by early 1942

the CWS erected an immense new installation comprising 370,000 square

feet of closed storage space. In July 1942 this installation was designated

the Deseret Chemical Warfare Depot.27 Also in 1942, while the new

depots were under construction, the Chemical Warfare Service acquired

additional storage facilities in the following War Department general

depots: San Antonio, Texas; Memphis, Tennessee; Atlanta, Georgia; Ogden,

Utah; and New Cumberland, Pennsylvania. In March 1942 a large ware23

 (1) Constance McLaughlin Green, Harry C. Thomson, and Peter C. Roots, The Ordnance

Department: Planning Munitions for War, UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR II

(Washington: 1955), Ch II. (2) Levin H. Campbell, The Industry-Ordnance Team (New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1946), Ch. III. 24

 Porter interv, 29 Apr 50. 25

 Intervs, CmlHO with pers of Contl Div and Ind Div, OC CWS. 26

 History of the Deseret Chemical Warfare Depot to June 30, 1945, p. 3. MS. 27

 Ltr, TAG to C CWS, 14 Jul 42, sub: Designation of Deseret Cml Warfare Dep. AG 681.
FIELD ORGANIZATION OF CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE 123

house at Indianapolis, which the CWS had been occupying, was selected

as a depot for spare parts.28

Originally the depots located at CWS arsenals had the same name as

the arsenals, which led to confusion in the mails. In July 1943, therefore,

the names of those depots were changed as follows: Edgewood Chemical

Warfare Depot to Eastern Chemical Warfare Depot, Huntsville Chemical

Warfare Depot to Gulf Chemical Warfare Depot, and Pine Bluff Chemical

Warfare Depot to Midwest Chemical Warfare Depot.29 The latter two

depots were under the jurisdiction of the commanding officers of the arsenals

to which they were attached. While not officially designated as a depot,

a storage area at Rocky Mountain Arsenal was used to store items not

shipped immediately to ports of embarkation.

In 1944 the CWS acquired the last of its wartime depots when 1,100

acres of the Lake Ontario Ordnance Works were transferred to the CWS

and designated the Northeast Chemical Warfare Depot.30 (Chart 8)

The administration of the Eastern, Gulf, and Midwest Depots had

one characteristic in common:

 31

 in each case housekeeping functions were

performed by an adjoining installation. In the case of the Eastern Depot

the Chemical Warfare Center took care of those functions, while the Gulf

and Midwest housekeeping functions were handled by Huntsville and Pine

Bluff Arsenals respectively. In contrast to those three depots the other three

—Deseret, Northeast, and Indianapolis—were responsible for their own

housekeeping activities. In the CWS sections of general depots the Quartermaster Corps had responsibility.

Standardization of Depot Organizations

In no type of installation was such uniformity of organization achieved

as in the depots. This was the result of the intense interest which the

ASF showed in storage and distribution activities. Early in 1943 the ASF

made a survey of operating and storage methods in typical depots under

28

 Interv, CmlHO with Col Oscar Gullans, 6 Dec 54. Gullans was commanding officer of the

Indianapolis Depot during World War II. 29

 ASF Memo S50-4-43, 10 Aug 43, sub: Redesignation of CWS Br Deps. 30

 Ltr, TAG to C CWS, 27 Jun 44. AG 323.3. 31

 The commanding officers at the depots were: Col. Maurice S. Willett, Eastern; Col. Edward

B. Blanchard and later, Col. William S. Bacon, Deseret; Lt. Col. Oscar Gullans, Indianapolis;

and Maj. Homer J. Deschenes, Northeast. Officer in charge of depot operations at Gulf Depot was

Maj. William C. Behrenberg and later, Maj. James H. Cochran. Officer in charge at Midwest

Depot was Maj. Henry B. Merrill and later, Maj. Eldon B. Engle.
CHART 8—SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM, CHEMICAL WARFARE SUPPLY,

As OF 6 DECEMBER 1944
FIELD ORGANIZATION OF CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE 125

its jurisdiction. Its findings were published in Depot Operations Report

No. 67, March 1943, which, after making a number of criticisms of current

depot administration, went on to recommend basic organizational changes.

Chief among the changes was the activation of storage, stock control, and

maintenance units in all technical services headquarters and in all depots.

Pursuant to ASF directives the chief of the Supply Division, OC CWS,

took immediate steps to reorganize his division to include Storage, Stock

Control, and Maintenance Branches.32 Col. Norman D. Gillet also directed

the depots and the chemical sections of ASF depots to set up similar units.

By the summer of 1943 this had been accomplished. By the fall, control

units had also been activated in the depots, and the commanding officers

could thereby better maintain organizational standards established by higher

echelons. The publication of ASF Manual M417 in 1944 also served as a

guide to depot commanders on organizational standards. Chart 9 shows a

typical depot organization, that of the Eastern Depot, in April 1945.

Training Installations and Facilities 33

Camp Sibert

The expanded training program of the Army had by late 1941 led to

the need for additional CWS training facilities. In recognition of this fact,

G-3 on 2 December 1941 advised the Chief, CWS, that a new chemical

warfare replacement training center would be required in 1942.34 With

an adequate training area not available at Edgewood, it was necessary to

consider locating the training center elsewhere. A survey of the Maryland

countryside failed to disclose a large tract of reasonably priced land suitable

for the purpose, and a decision was made to locate a site elsewhere. In the

spring of 1942 an area near Gadsden, Alabama, in Etowah and Saint Clair

Counties, was surveyed and selected. This site included 36,300 acres of

sparsely inhabited rolling Alabama farmland, ample for a 5,000-man replacement training center and also able to accommodate, as stipulated by

the CWS, eventual expansion to 30,000 to provide for unit training. Promise

of good health conditions and suitability for year-round training led the

32

 See Leo P. Brophy, Organizational Development, pp. 247, 251-53. 33

 See below, Part Two, for details on CWS training activities during World War II. 34

 Memo, ACofS G-3 for C CWS, 2 Dec 41, sub: Expansion of CWS RTC Capacity. CWS

327.02/39.
CHART 9—EDGEWOOD ARSENAL, MARYLAND:
EASTERN CHEMICAL WARFARE DEPOT, As OF 20 APRIL 1945
128 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

GENERAL SHEKERJIAN, Commanding

General, Replacement Training Center,

Camp Sibert, Alabama.

CWS to determine on this location

for its new training center.35 The

Chief of Engineers was accordingly

directed in May 1942 to construct

the housing facilities for a 5,000-

man replacement training center

with completion date set for 1 December 1942.36

 The new reservation was designated Camp Sibert

in honor of the first Chief of the

Chemical Warfare Service.37 Col.

Thomas J. Johnston was made commanding officer while construction

was still under way. When the

RTC was moved from Edgewood

to Camp Sibert in the summer of

1942, Colonel Johnston became the

camp commander and Brig. Gen.

Haig Shekerjian, the RTC commander.

In the fall of 1942 the War Department authorized activation of a

Unit Training Center (UTC) at Camp Sibert. Activation of the UTC,

Chemical Warfare Service officials felt, would require another headquarters

since the functions of replacement training and unit training were so different that it would be impracticable to include them under one command.38

Therefore the UTC was activated as a separate CWS installation in September 1942. The War Department letter authorizing the installation was

indorsed by the Fourth Service Command to the commanding general of

the CWS Replacement Training Center instructing him to activate and

assume command of the new Unit Training Center.39 Accordingly General

Shekerjian became responsible for replacement and unit training activities.

35

 Rpt of Investigation of Site for CWS RTC: Atlanta Engineering District, 28 May 42, reproduced as Appendix B in Training of Replacement, Fillers and Cadres (Through 30 June 1944),

CWS History of Training, Pt. IV. 36

 Memo, CG SOS for CofEngrs, 19 May 42, sub: CWS RTC, Gadsden, Ala. Area. CWS

600.932/10. 37

 WD GO 47, 21 Sep 42. 38

 Interv, CmlHO with Brig Gen Egbert F. Bullene (formerly CO UTC), 27 Jan 50. 39

 Ltr, TAG to C CWS et al., 27 Sep 42, sub: Establishment of CWS UTC, Gadsden, Ala.

CWS 320.2.
FIELD ORGANIZATION OF CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE 129

GENERAL BULLENE, Commander,

Unit Training Center, Camp Sibert,

Alabama. (Photograph taken in 1952.)

This arrangement was not satisfactory to the Chief, CWS, who believed that efficient administration

required separate commanding officers for the UTC and the RTC. By

January 1943 the number of units in

training at Sibert had reached fiftyfour, as compared with thirteen

two months before, and General

Porter thereupon appointed Col.

Egbert F. Bullene, chief of the

Training Division in his office, as

commanding officer of the Unit

Training Center.40 Bullene was promoted to brigadier general on 27

April 1943, so that both the RTC

and the UTC were commanded by

general officers each of whom

enjoyed a status of relative independence. Meanwhile, Colonel

Johnston continued to command the post, providing services and utilities for

both training centers. Between the two centers a rivalry developed, which

was open and probably not unhealthy.

Within less than three months these administrative arrangements met

with opposition from the commanding general of the Fourth Service

Command, who objected to communicating with two general officers, each

of whom commanded autonomous installations at the same military station.

On 24 May 1943 he recommended to the ASF that existing instructions

be amended to permit him to assign General Shekerjian as post commander

and commanding general of the RTC, with Bullene, as Shekerjian's subordinate, to command the UTC.41

 General Porter opposed this recommendation but General Somervell sustained it, and appropriate orders were accordingly issued. The new arrangement continued in effect until the UTC

operations were suspended in March 1944.

The commanding general of the service command had ample authority

on which to base his recommendations of 24 May, for just twelve days

before the ASF had designated Camp Sibert a Class I installation of the

40

 WD SO 41, Par 2, 27 Feb 43. 41

 Ltr, CG Fourth Serv Comd to CG ASF, 24 May 43, sub: Reassignment of Officers at Camp

Sibert, Ala. AG 210.31 Camp Sibert.
130 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Fourth Service Command.42 This was in conformity with ASF policy in 1943

of emphasizing the role of the service commands in technical training.43

The chiefs of the technical services resisted this policy because they naturally

disliked surrendering direct control over their branch training. When

General Porter heard that Camp Sibert had been made a Class I installation,

he wrote a letter to General Somervell in which he questioned the wisdom

of the move. "Great pains," he declared, "have been taken to insure the

proper functioning of the training activities at Camp Sibert which are

essential not only for their product but as a laboratory for the development

of chemical warfare matériel of new and untried types . . . . the radical

change proposed might well cancel a considerable part of the progress

made." To this General Somervell replied that he was convinced the new

system would work well, and he urged General Porter to give it "a fair and

impartial trial."

 44

 Actual transfer was made in July 1943, and from that

time until the close of the war the Chief, CWS, was responsible only for

the promulgation of training doctrine, the establishment of student quotas,

and the preparation of training programs.

West Coast Chemical School

In July 1943 the CWS asked the ASF for authority to establish a chemical warfare school toward the West Coast. The recommendation was advanced as a means of providing final instruction for military personnel

moving into Pacific theaters of operations and of eliminating extensive

travel for those selected at western stations for training in chemical warfare. The functions of the new school would be: (1) to provide for short

technical refresher courses of one-week duration for CWS officers in the

Far West who were scheduled for overseas duty; (2) to provide short

courses for units gas officers who could not be economically sent to the Chemical Warfare School at Edgewood; (3) to conduct training for civilians,

as directed by the Office of Civilian Defense; and (4) to meet requests of

naval authorities for training naval personnel on the Pacific coast in gas

defense.45

42

 AR 170-10, as amended 12 May 43. This regulation, originally issued 24 December 1942,

defined a Class I installation as one coming under the jurisdiction of a service command and a

Class IV installation as one subject to the chief of a technical service. 43

 Millett, Army Service Forces, pp. 326-29. 44

 Memo, C CWS for CG ASF, 3 Jun 43, and 1st Ind, 9 Jun 43. CWS 323.3 Sibert 43. 45

 Ltr, AC CWS for Fld Opns to CG ASF, 14 Jul 43, sub: Cml Warfare School. CWS 352.11.
FIELD ORGANIZATION OF CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE 131

The reaction of the ASF to the proposal for another chemical warfare

school under the jurisdiction of the Chief, CWS, was not favorable. Instead, the chief of the Training Division, ASF, on 11 September 1943

directed that a chemical warfare school be set up at Camp Beale, California,

as a Class I installation under the jurisdiction of the commanding general

of the Ninth Service Command.46 Such a school, known as the West Coast

Chemical School, was activated in October 1943, and the first class assembled on 13 December.47

 As of 8 March 1944, 100 students were in attendance at the school, 56 of whom were officers and 44, enlisted men. These

included personnel from the Army, Navy, Coast Guard, and Marine Corps.48

Col. Maurice E. Jennings was named commandant of the school.

The school at Camp Beale was so located that it could operate with

little interference from other activities at the post. Its physical layout consisted of six 2-story barracks buildings, two mess halls, a 1-story supply

building, a 1-story headquarters building, and a 1-story building used for

a library, a day room for enlisted men, a post office, and a publications

supply room. The commanding general at Camp Beale was most cooperative in furnishing the school with any facilities it required.

Experience finally demonstrated, however, that it was not feasible to

operate the school as an activity of a service command, and on 24 April

1944 General Porter requested the director of Military Personnel, ASF,

to relocate the school at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. The Chief, CWS, gave

a number of reasons why he preferred to have the school at Rocky Mountain. There it would have the benefit of an environment meeting the special

needs of the CWS, where the commanding general could furnish the school

with chemical warfare matériel, and where the students would be impressed

with all the activities of a CWS installation. More direct liaison would be

afforded between the instructors at the school and the Chief's office, and

thus the staff of the school could keep up to date on current developments

in the CWS. The weather and terrain at Rocky Mountain Arsenal were

more conducive to the use of smoke and chemical agents in training than

at Camp Beale, and finally the housing and classroom facilities at the

arsenal were more suitable for conducting classes.49 General Porter's recom46

 TWX, C Tng Div ASF to CWS, c/o Dugway Proving Ground, 15 Oct 43. CWS 352.11. 47

 Ninth Serv Comd GO 135, 17 Oct 43. 48

 Memo, School Br, Mil Tng Div ASF for Dir of Mil Tng ASF, 8 Mar 44, sub: Tng Inspection of West Coast Cml Warfare School, Camp Beale, Marysville, Calif. CWS 333. 49

 Ltr, C CWS to CG ASF, 24 Apr 44, sub: Relocation of West Coast Cml Warfare School,

Camp Beale, Calif. CWS 323.3.
132 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

mendation to move the school was approved by the ASF on 14 May 1944

and on 1 June by the Secretary of War.50 From June 1944 until the close

of the war the school, which was now renamed the Western Chemical

Warfare School, was an activity of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. Col.

George J. B. Fisher succeeded Colonel Jennings as commandant when the

school was moved to the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. In July 1945 Colonel

Fisher was transferred to overseas duty and was succeeded by Col. Harold

Walmsley, who remained commandant until the close of the war.

Research and Development Facilities

During the emergency period it became evident that the facilities for

research, development, and testing at Edgewood were not adequate for

the large-scale program being inaugurated. As mentioned above, a new

technical research center had been constructed by December 1941, and by

that time also a new CWS laboratory had been erected on the campus of

the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.51 Later the CWS acquired the

use of a laboratory at Columbia University. Both laboratories became CWS

installations.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Laboratory.52

In the autumn of 1940 Bradley Dewey, president of the Dewey and

Almy Chemical Company, who had headed the Gas Defense Production

Division, CWS, in World War I and had kept up an active interest in the

service in the peacetime years, suggested that a new CWS development

laboratory be established at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.53 The

following February the proposition was discussed at a conference of high

ranking CWS officers and outstanding scientists in Washington.54 The

50

 Ltr, TAG to CG Ninth Serv Cmd and C CWS, 1 Jun 44, sub: Transfer and Redesignation

of West Coast Cml Warfare School. AG 352 (29 May 44) OB-I-SPMOU-M. 51

 See above, Chapter II. 52

 Unless otherwise indicated this section is based on an unpublished installation history of

MIT completed by CO CWS-MIT in World War II and Sylvester J. Hemleben, MIT CWS

Development Laboratory, The History of Research and Development of the Chemical Warfare

Service in World War II. 53

 (1) See above, Chapter I. (2) Ltr, Ex O OC CWS to Dr. Karl T. Compton, 15 Feb 41. CWS

400.112/114. 54

 The following representatives of CWS were at the conference: General Baker, C CWS;

Colonel English, Executive Officer, OC CWS; and Colonel Barker, chief of the Technical Division,

OC CWS. The following scientists were present: Dr. Lewis, Dr. H. E. Howe, Dr. Conant, and

Bradley Dewey.
FIELD ORGANIZATION OF CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE 133

purpose of the conference was described in these words: "To consider the

possibility of providing for additional development space and facilities

for the Chemical Warfare Service in order that any new ideas, devices, or

processes developed on the laboratory basis by the National Defense Research Committee might be tested out on a large scale to determine their

probable application for military purposes."

 55

 Conference members decided

to approach Dr. Karl T. Compton, president of MIT, on the possibility

of the CWS obtaining additional facilities there.

By mid-March an agreement had been drawn up between the CWS and

MIT which provided for a half-million dollar laboratory on grounds to

be leased to the CWS upon approval of the War Department and the

National Defense Research Committee.56 Under this agreement the services

of the MIT faculty, for advisory and consultant purposes, were made available to the Chemical Warfare Service. The new development laboratory

when erected was made a Class IV installation of the CWS under Army

Regulation 170-10 and was put under the command of Capt. Jacquard H.

Rothschild. As of 28 May 1943 the organization chart of the installation

called for 117 officers and 215 civilians. Because of the nature of its activities, the laboratory was organized along functional lines; the divisions

were Protective Materials, Respiratory, Chemical Development, and Engineering and Test. The laboratory continued in operation until 21 August

1945.

Columbia University Laboratory.57

The transfer of the incendiary bomb program to the CWS in the fall

of 1941 created the need for a laboratory devoted to the development of

incendiary munitions. Col. J. Enrique Zanetti, whom General Porter had

named as chief of the Incendiaries Branch in his headquarters, was a member

of the Columbia University faculty in chemistry and was therefore intimately

acquainted with the potentialities of the university's laboratories. Zanetti

envisioned an arrangement between CWS and Columbia such as already

existed between CWS and Massachusetts Institute of Technology: the

university would lease laboratory and office space to the Chemical Warfare

55

 Ltr, Ex O OC CWS to CG EA, 17 Feb 41, sub: Additional CWS Development Facilities.

CWS 334.8/146-48. 56

 1st Ind, 20 Mar 41, on Ltr, C CWS to TAG, 28 Feb 41. CWS 111/16. 57

 This section is based on Bernard Baum, Columbia University CWS Laboratories, History of

Research and Development of the Chemical Warfare Service in World War II, and Interv,

CmlHO with Prof. J. Enrique Zanetti, 25 Sep 50.
134 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Service and make available the services of its faculty members in engineering

and chemistry, and CWS would establish an administrative unit at the

university. Late in 1941 Colonel Zanetti approached Columbia's president,

Nicholas Murray Butler, on the proposition, and in early 1942 President

Butler agreed to the arrangement. On 31 January 1942 the War Department

approved the proposition, and a formal contract, similar to the CWS-MIT

contract was drawn up.58

In April 1942 Lt. Col. Ralph H. Talmadge was put in command of

the Columbia laboratory, which was designated a Class IV activity. A

peak personnel figure of 43 was reached at the laboratory in May 1943;

of those, 23 were officers, and 20 were civilians. The civilian employees

were not under federal civil service but were hired and trained by the

university.

When the Incendiary Branch of the Chief's office was inactivated in

June 1942, supervision of the Columbia CWS laboratory was turned over

to the Technical Division, OC CWS. The scope of the laboratory's activities

was broadened to include development work not only on the incendiary

bomb but also on other items such as the 4.2-inch chemical mortar and the

flame thrower. On 31 December 1943 the CWS-Columbia University contract was terminated and the laboratory's functions transferred to the

Chemical Warfare Center.

Testing Facilities

The expansion of CWS research and development activities created a

demand for new chemical warfare testing stations. At the start of the war

all chemical warfare testing was done at Edgewood, where the Technical,

Medical, and Inspection Divisions, the Chemical Warfare Board, the

Chemical Warfare School, and the adjoining Aberdeen Proving Ground

of the Ordnance Department all shared the same testing fields. By the

time war was declared these facilities were already greatly overcrowded.

To complicate matters still more, testing at the arsenal was becoming more

hazardous because of the growth of populated areas adjacent to the arsenal.

New testing grounds in a more sparsely populated locality were sorely

needed. Experience had demonstrated that this new locality should be

characterized by climatic and geographic features more favorable to the

58

 1st Ind, 31 Jan 42, on Ltr, C CWS to TAG, 18 Jan 42, sub: Research Lab for Incendiaries

at Columbia University, CWS 471.6/164 Incendiaries.
FIELD ORGANIZATION OF CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE 135

testing of various chemical warfare matériel than found in eastern Maryland.59

Dugway Proving Ground

On 3 January 1942 General Porter sent Maj. John R. Burns to Salt

Lake City to investigate the possibilities of a testing ground in Utah. Major

Burns, after conferring with the Army's district engineer and the representative of the Federal Grazing Service in Salt Lake City, recommended

a tract some eighty-five miles southwest of the city, lying partly in the Salt

Lake Desert and partly in the Dugway Valley. Burns' recommendation met

with the approval of the OC CWS and the War Department, and a 265,000-

acre stretch of land was acquired and developed into the CWS Proving

Ground, Tooele, Utah.60 On 1 March 1942 the installation was activated

with Burns, then a lieutenant colonel, in command. From its inception to

the close of the war Dugway conducted tests on both experimental and fully

developed munitions.

Burns, raised to the rank of colonel in August 1942, was succeeded as

commanding officer at Dugway on 28 November 1944 by Col. Graydon

C. Essman who remained in command until the close of the war. The

commanding officer at Dugway was responsible for both testing and housekeeping functions. To supervise the testing activities he appointed a director

of operations.61 Military strength at the post reached its peak in the summer

of 1944, when there were over one hundred and fifty commissioned officers

and over a thousand enlisted men on duty. These numbers included over

one hundred members of the Women's Army Corps (WAC). There were

few civilian employees at Dugway because of its inaccesibility.62

San José Project

The leasing of San José Island to the U.S. Government had been preceded by considerable reconnaissance of the Caribbean area for a suitable

site to carry on chemical research under tropical conditions.63 In the fall

of 1943 Col. Robert D. McLeod, Jr., and Dr. Carey Croneis of the National

Defense Research Committee made a thorough search of the territory adjoin59

 Ltr, C CWS to TAG, 14 Jan 42, sub: Test Area for CWS, included as Appendix B in

Bernard Baum, Dugway Proving Ground, 1 Mar 47, Vol. 23 of History of Research and Development in the Chemical Warfare Service (1 Jul 40-31 Sep 45). 60

 (1) Executive Order 9053, 6 Feb 42. (2) WD GO 11, 5 Mar 42. 61

 Baum, Dugway Proving Ground, pp. 68-69. 62

 Ibid., pp. 52-58. 63

 See above, Chapter V.
136 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

ing the Panama Canal Zone for a peninsular site but found none suitable.

Then by plane they searched the entire coast of Panama. They finally

decided on San José, some sixty miles from the Pacific entrance to the canal,

because the climate and topography were suitable and the foliage was of

the desired character.64 After consulting with the district engineer, Colonel

McLeod forwarded his recommendations to the Chief, CWS, on 25 October

1943.65

General Porter wanted to make doubly sure of the suitability of the

proposed site, so after reviewing McLeod's suggestions he sent General

Bullene, whom he had selected to direct the project, to the Panama area.

Bullene confirmed McLeod's findings, and thereupon the Chief, CWS,

recommended to the General Staff that the island be acquired. The General

Staff held up the recommendation pending assurance that the tests would

not harm the rare animal, plant, or reptile life on the island. After Bullene

secured a signed statement to that effect from the director of the National

Museum in Washington, the General Staff gave its approval.66

On 9 December 1943, the Chief of Staff directed Lt. Gen. George H.

Brett, Commanding General, Caribbean Defense Command, to lease San

José Island for the period of the war and one year thereafter. General Brett

was informed that General Bullene would arrive at the Caribbean Defense

Command headquarters on 11 December and the command was to build

"roads, trails and camp sites" for the San José Project. On 16 December,

General Brett requested the government of Panama to lease the island to

the government of the United States. To this request the Panamanian

Government gave ready assent.67

Shortly after General Bullene's arrival in Panama, a crew of native

workmen under the supervision of Mr. Russell Foster, engineer adviser to

64

 Dr. Ivan M. Johnston of the Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University described San José

as follows: "The forests of San José most resemble in important details large areas of forest in

Burma, Siam, Indo-China, Malaya, the Philippines and Formosa, and the woodland is similar to

that of the Bonin and Luchu Islands." San José Proj Miscellaneous Rpt, Forest Types of San

José Compared With Those of Southwestern Pacific and Southeastern Asia, 8 Dec 44, in Tech

Lib, ACmlC, Md. 65

 (1) Interv, CmlHO with Col Robert D. McLeod, Jr., 28 Sep 44. (2) Ltr, Col McLeod to

C CWS, 25 Oct 43, sub: Selection of Site for Tropical Tests. CWS files, Misc Series, Project

Coordination, 601 (San José Project), NA. (3) Col. Robert D. McLeod, Jr., "Forty-five Days

Under the Southern Cross," Armed Forces Chemical Journal, VIII (1954), No. 5-6. 66

 Bullene interv, 27 Jan 50. 67

 (1) Rad 5834, Marshall to CG CDC, 9 Dec 43. (2) Ltr, CofS CDC to Chargé d'Affaires,

U.S. Embassy, Panama, 16 Dec 43. AG 470.6-1 (C). (3) Ltr, Minister of Foreign Relations,

Govt of Panama, to Chargé d'Affaires, U.S. Embassy, Panama, 4 Jan 44. CWS 314.7 San José

Project File.
FIELD ORGANIZATION OF CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE 137

the Corps of Engineers, landed on the beach at San José and began to

cut a trail inland. Original plans called for the completion of the entire

testing program within a period of about two months, and construction

was undertaken with this time limit in mind. It was not long before drastic

revisions of the time schedule had to be made. General Bullene insisted

that every precaution be taken against the possible spread of malaria on

the island, even though this precaution might slow up construction. His

previous experience in the tropics had impressed upon him the need for

such measures, and in addition it was well known that an important

English project had failed because precautions against malaria had not

been taken. After differences arose between the CWS and the Corps of

Engineers on the building schedule, Bullene requested that the commanding

general of the Caribbean Defense Command transfer responsibility for

all construction to CWS jurisdiction.68 This was done, and Russell Foster

was transferred to CWS jurisdiction as an engineer adviser. Under Foster's

supervision 300 buildings, some 3 miles of 20-foot roadway, 109 miles of

10-foot roadway, and 14 miles of foot trails were constructed by August

1944.69

From the project's inception until early in September 1944, military personnel rolls averaged about five hundred officers and enlisted men.70

 As

the initial phases of the tests were concluded the chemical companies were

returned to the mainland.71 By November 1944 there were 43 officers and

413 enlisted men attached to the San José Project, and a year later, with

the war over, the number stood at 37 officers and 300 enlisted men.72

In addition to Army personnel, representatives from the following

organizations were stationed at San José: U.S. Navy, British Army, Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Air Force, and the National Defense Research

Committee. General Bullene described the project as a united effort of all

these participants to secure certain technical data which would be useful

in winning the war. Therefore he insisted that no distinction be made

between nationals or organizations and directed that men be assigned to

duties for which they were best qualified. Members of the NDRC, he

68

 Bullene Interv, 27 Jan 50. 69

 (1) Construction Status Rpt, San José Proj, Period Ending 15 Aug 44. CWS 314.7. (2)

Interv, CmlHO with Russell Foster, 15 Sep 44. 70

 Ltr, CG San José Proj to TAG, 5 Sep 44, sub: Medical Pers Requirements, CWS 314.7 San

José Project File. 71

 These were the 67th and 68th Chemical Smoke Generator Companies, the 27th Chemical

Decontamination Company, and the 95th Chemical Composite Company. 72

 San José Proj Manning Tables, CWS 314.7 San José Project File.
138 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

ruled, were to occupy the position of commissioned officers and were to

be accorded the same consideration as officers.73

By July 1944 the installation organization consisted of an administration

director, a technical director, an intelligence officer, an advisory council,

the adjutant, and the chief of the Army Pictorial Division, Signal Corps,

which made films of the project. The administration director was responsible for the quartering, rationing, messing, supply, medical attention, discipline, and morale services for all persons on the project. The technical

director, Colonel McLeod, was charged with the direction and supervision

of all technical tests and the preparation of the reports of tests which

would be forwarded to the commanding general through the Advisory

Council. The Advisory Council was a very important element in carrying out

the mission of the project. It was made up of the executive officer, technical

director, chiefs of the principal technical divisions, and other designated

key personnel. The duties of the Advisory Council were to analyze and

interpret the technical data of the various tests as an aid to the commanding

general in reaching sound conclusions in his reports to higher authority

and to prepare such operational instructions for the using arms and services

as were required.

In order to insure that the testing at San José would not be obstructed

by administrative difficulties, the Chief, CWS, activated a San José Project

Division in his office on 27 September 1944.74 Under this arrangement the

San José Project became a branch of the new division. General Bullene was

made chief of the San José Project Division, at the same time retaining

command at the project.

Biological Warfare Installations 75

Mention has been made of the biological warfare installations established in World War II.76

 Camp Detrick, the first and most important of

those installations, was activated on 17 April 1943 under the command

of Lt. Col. William S. Bacon.77 Bacon was succeeded by Cols. Martin B.

73

 San José Proj GO 8, 25 Apr 44. 74

 OC CWS Adm O 22, 27 Sep 44. 75

 Unless otherwise indicated, this section is based on Rexmond C. Cochrane, History of the

Chemical Warfare Service in World War II (1 July 1940-15 August 1945), Biological Warfare

Research in the United States (November 1947), 2 vols., MS, OCMH. 76

 See above, Chapter V. 77

 Ltr, TAG to C CWS, 17 Apr 43, sub: Designation of Camp Detrick, Md. AG 680.1

(4-7-43) OB-I-SPOPU-M.
FIELD ORGANIZATION OF CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE 139

Chittick and Joseph D. Sears. Actual construction of the camp, which came

to occupy an area of more than five hundred acres, was not completed

until June 1945. By then a small, self-contained city had been built containing more than 245 separate structures, including quarters for 5,000

workers. At the peak of operations in August 1945 there were at Camp

Detrick 245 Army officers and 1,457 enlisted personnel, 87 Navy officers

and 475 enlisted men, and 9 civilians, exclusive of civilian consultants.

By September 1944 the program at Camp Detrick, conducted jointly

by civilian scientists and employees of the Chemical Warfare Service, the

Medical Department, and the Navy, included research and development on

mechanical, chemical, and biological methods of defense against biological

warfare, production of agents and munitions for retaliatory employment,

development of manufacturing processes through engineering and pilot

plant studies, development of safety measures for protecting personnel on

the post and its surrounding communities, and devising of suitable inspection procedures for production plants.78

 Within a year of its activation the

technical staff had grown to such proportions, and the range of research

operations was so wide, that it became difficult for key personnel in one

unit to keep abreast of progress in other units. Consequently, a tendency

toward duplication of effort developed in some of the laboratories, a problem not finally solved until almost the end of the war.

Horn Island, off the Mississippi coast, was selected as a field test site

in early 1943, and construction got under way in June. No special structures, such as necessary at Camp Detrick, were required on the island aside

from quarters for the test personnel and technical buildings adjacent to the

grid area of the test site. The one unusual feature of the installation was

an eight-mile narrow-gauge railroad which had to be constructed because

building roads on the sandy island was not practicable. Track, locomotive,

and wooden cars were shipped from Fort Benning, Georgia, and installed

by a company of Seabees.

Administratively, Horn Island was a substation of Camp Detrick from

its activation until June 1944 when it became a separate installation under

the jurisdiction of the Special Projects Division, OC CWS.79 Because of its

78

 Special Projects Div, CWS Organizational Chart, 11 Sep 44. In Cochrane, History of the

CWS in WW II, Vol. II. 79

 Memo, AC of Opns, Special Projects Div for CO Camp Detrick and CO Horn Island, 17

June 44, sub: Administration of Horn Island, cited in Cochrane, History of CWS in WW II,

Vol. II, 4A.
140 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

proximity to the mainland, only the most restricted of field tests could be

made on the island. As the biological warfare program expanded, it became

obvious that a larger and more remote test area was necessary for the field

program envisioned.

The biological warfare installation known as Granite Peak, a 250-squaremile area at Tooele, Utah, was activated in June 1944 as the principal

large-scale test field. Administratively, Granite Peak was a subinstallation of

Dugway Proving Ground, to which it was adjacent, and many of the

administrative duties of the post were operated or supervised by the Dugway

Proving Ground post commander. The biological warfare and chemical

warfare field installations achieved a high degree of co-operation in their

test activities. For example, the proving ground detachment flew all airplane

missions required by Granite Peak operations, and existing Dugway facilities provided the meteorological forecasting service required at the

Peak.80 Nevertheless, Granite Peak retained full autonomy over all its

technical operations. Its test operations reached their height in July 1945,

when 10 Army officers and 97 enlisted men, and 5 Navy officers and 55

Navy enlisted men were engaged in conducting tests.

The Vigo Plant, near Terre Haute, Indiana, was an Ordnance Department plant which was turned over to the CWS in May 1944.81

 Its mission

was the production of agents being developed at Camp Detrick. Vigo was

considered to be a pilot plant rather than an arsenal, because of the experimental and highly technical nature of operations that were required before

it could be proved for its intended purpose and accepted by the chief of

the Special Projects Division and the Assistant Chief, CWS, for Matériel.

Proof of the plant was considered to mean operation of all facilities at

sufficiently high levels and for sufficient lengths of time to demonstrate the

plant's capacity to perform its mission.82 As plans for the operation of the

Vigo Plant were made, it was proposed to limit the scale of operations

to proving the plant, training personnel, providing end items for surveillance

and proof testing, and accumulating material in anticipation of military

requirements. The personnel involved in this operation in July 1945 con80

 Memo, O/C GPI for C Special Projects Div, 8 Sep 44, sub: Integration of Granite Peak and

Dugway Activities, CWS SPCYF 141/1. 81

 Ltr, TAG to C CWS, CofEngrs, and CofOrd, 13 May 44, sub: Redesignation of Vigo Ord

Plant, AG 322. 82

 Ltr, Special Projects Div to Tech Dir Camp Detrick and CO Vigo Plant, 5 Apr 45, sub:

Assignment of Responsibility and Authority for Proving the Vigo Plant. CWS SPCYF 400.4.
FIELD ORGANIZATION OF CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE 141

sisted of 115 Army officers and 863 enlisted men, 32 Navy officers and 304

Navy enlisted men, and 65 civilians.

Organizational developments in the CWS during World War II included the expansion of existing organizational structures, particularly in

the procurement districts, the activation of new administrative units in all

installations to carry out functions delegated by the Army Service Forces,

and the setting up of entirely new organizations such as the Chemical

Warfare Center, the training center at Camp Sibert, and the new CWS

laboratories, testing grounds, and biological warfare installations.

In its administrative no less than in its operational activities, the CWS

felt the influence of the ASF. But only with regard to the depots was ASF

influence direct and predominant. ASF headquarters specified that a standard

organization be established in each depot. In the procurement districts and

arsenals ASF initiative was never so pronounced. There the CWS generally

inaugurated and carried to completion all actions of an administrative

nature. These actions were, of course, subject to ASF approval.

In contrast to ASF activity at the depots, whose revised organizational

structures were looked upon approvingly by key personnel in the CWS, the

ASF decision to put Camp Sibert under the jurisdiction of the commanding

general of the Fourth Service Command, was not viewed with favor by

the Chief, CWS. General Somervell, nevertheless, stood by the ASF directive

to make Sibert a Class I activity of the Fourth Service Command, as noted

above. General Porter undoubtedly had that situation in mind when in

September 1944 he set up the San José Project Division in his office to

supervise all activities of the Panama installation. Porter was taking a

precaution to insure that all responsibility for San José would remain under

CWS control.
CHAPTER VII

Personnel Management

The proportion of civilians to military in the Chemical Warfare Service

was far higher in World War II than in World War I.1 In November 1918

there were only 784 civilians in the CWS as compared to 22,198 military,

a ratio of 3.5 percent. During the peacetime period a marked change took

place, the number of civilians usually exceeding the military. (See Tables 2

and 3.) The combined total of civilian and military personnel in the 1920's

and 1930's was not large, so that personnel management functions presented no particular difficulty. As the Chief, CWS, himself phrased it in

the spring of 1937, "The personnel duties devolving upon the Chief, Chemical Warfare Service, are not now onerous."

 2 The Personnel Office, OC

CWS," was staffed with one officer and one civilian clerk.

The situation began to change in the emergency period. From 1939

on there was a rise in both civilian and military personnel rolls, until

a peak was reached in late 1942 for civilians, and in late 1943 for military.

The greater increase, as might be expected, took place in the military

rolls. However, as already mentioned, the proportion of civilians to military

in World War II was far higher than in World War I. In December 1942

the number of civilians was 46 percent of the military, in December 1943,

36.5 percent, and in December 1944, 36 percent of the military.

Procurement and Assignment of Officers

In World War I the CWS obtained officers by transfer from other

branches of the Army and by direct commissioning from civilian life. The

1

 In addition to the documentary sources cited throughout this chapter, information was obtained through interviews with key officers and civilians engaged in CWS personnel management

activities in World War II. These included the following: General Porter, Brig. Gen. Henry M.

Black, Brig. Gen. (later Maj. Gen.) Charles E. Loucks, Col. Herrold Brooks, Col. Charles H.

McNary, Colonel Kuhn, Lt. Col. James B. Costello, Lt. Col. Evan H. Lewis, Lt. Col. Karl F.

Erickson, Maj. Floyd Van Domelen, Capt. James Wills, Miss Norma G. Bussink, Mr. Forest C.

Hall, Mr. Gerald M. Vest, and Dr. Victor G. Clare. 2

 1st Ind, C CWS to TAG, 30 Apr 37, on Ltr, TAG to Chiefs WD Arms and Services, 21 Apr

37, sub: Pers Matters. CWS 200/1.
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 143

National Defense Act of 1920 set up a quota of one hundred officers,

in addition to the Chief, for the CWS as the best possible estimate under

the uncertain conditions which then prevailed. This quota, which in actual

numbers was not obtained until 1940, was filled mainly by officers who

had served successfully in the CWS in World War I. The background of

these officers varied. Some had had scientific training and experience before

entering the Army while others were military specialists. The CWS had

a need for both.

As vacancies arose through attrition during the peacetime years, they

were filled by details or transfers into the CWS from other arms and

services, particularly the Coast Artillery Corps. In selecting such replacements it was the practice of the Chiefs of the CWS to select individuals

having at least excellent military ratings3 without special regard to technical qualifications. It was scarcely feasible to attempt to recruit scientific

specialists from other branches of the peacetime Army. It became the policy,

therefore, to rely on civilian scientists and engineers for developing the

more technical aspects of the CWS program, under the general direction

of officers who proved qualified to supervise research and development

activities. In order to carry out the program more effectively, CWS detailed

selected officers for two-year courses at the Massachusetts Institute of

Technology and the University of Wisconsin.

All CWS officers, including in some instances those who supervised

research and development work, received a variety of assignments in the

course of their military careers. They were required to train and command

troops, to serve as Special Staff officers in the field, to supervise procurement and supply activities, and on occasion to fill miscellaneous jobs listed

as War Department overhead. The variety of assignments in the Chemical

Warfare Service was wider than in most branches of the Army, and some

otherwise good officers could not adapt themselves to the system. Undoubtedly there was greater need for specialization in officer assignments and

from the mid-1930's on the CWS followed that policy. By the time of the

emergency, CWS officers were generally classified as specialists in military

field assignments, in research, or in procurement and supply. Of course the

limited activities of the peacetime years restricted the degree of specialization. This was particularly true in the realm of procurement. The emergency

brought to the CWS a desperate need for officers with industrial experience.

Since Regular officers were not available in sufficient numbers, the CWS

3

 The highest military rating was "superior," which was followed by "excellent."
144 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

met the need by assignment of qualified Reserve officers and by direct commission of civilians with the necessary qualifications.

In addition to its relatively few Regular Army officers the CWS had

a number of Reserve officers, who were generally assigned or attached to

chemical regiments stationed throughout the country. In 1939 these Reserve

officers totaled 2,100.4 As the need became critical these officers were called

to active duty. Unfortunately many could not pass the physical examination

and were eliminated. From 1940 to 1942 the War Department effected

transfer of Reserve officers from other branches under a procedure whereby

The Adjutant General's Office circulated to the various arms and services

the names and qualifications of especially able officers. In this way the CWS

obtained some seventy officers, ranging in rank from second lieutenant to

lieutenant colonel. But these sources did not come anywhere near filling

the requirement for officers in the war period. The extent of the problem

which the CWS faced in procuring officers may be gauged by a consideration of the number of officers who came into the service in the war years.

In late 1943 this figure reached a peak of over eight thousand—in contrast

to the less than one hundred Regulars of the peacetime years.

Civilians with proper qualifications provided an important source of

officer procurement in 1941-42. The Personnel Division of the Chief's

office and the procurement district offices carried out a program of

contacting industries where qualified civilians might be available. Pamphlets listing the specifications of CWS officers were compiled and circulated. In this way numerous civilians were attracted to the Chemical

Warfare Service and granted direct commissions.5

Another source of officer material was the Army Specialist Corps, fostered by the Army as a means of building up a quasi-military corps of

scientific, technical, and administrative personnel.6 This corps was activated

in the spring of 1942. Its members, many of whom had minor physical

4

 For details on Reserves, see below, Chapter VIII. 5

 (1) Ltr, C SFCWPD to C CWS, 22 Apr 42, sub: Policy References Comms. (2) Ltr, C

Pers Div OC CWS to Andrew P. Monroe, Vice President, N.J. Bell Telephone Co., 28 Apr 42.

Both in CWS 210.1/421-499. (3) Ltr, C CWS to Hon. Wirt Courtney, House of Representatives,

21 Sep 42. CWS 210.1/500. (4) Summary of Staff Mtg, OC CWS, 27 Feb 42. CWS 337. (5)

Memo, C Pers Div OC CWS for Col Edwin C. Maling, Cml Warfare School, 6 Apr 42. CWS

210.3/341-365. 6

 The Army Specialist Corps was activated under Executive Order 9078, 26 February 1942.

See WD Bull 11, Sec. 11, 1942, and WD Army Specialist Corps Regulations (Tentative, 1942,

G-1, 16545-46, Part III). For a general discussion of the Specialist Corps, see Millett, Army

Service Forces, p. 101, and Henry P. Seidemann, "Army Specialist Corps," Army Ordnance, XXIII

(1942), 502-04.
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 145

MAJ. GEN. DWIGHT F. DAVIS, Director General of the Army Specialist Corps,

with Lt. Col. William E. Jeffrey. Both are wearing the ASC uniform, distinguished by buttons and insignia of black plastic.

defects, wore uniforms similar to those worn by the military, but the corps

was civilian and not military. The program was discontinued in the fall

of 1942 because it did not prove practical. During its existence some fifty

Specialist Corps officers were assigned to the CWS, many of whom were

integrated into the service as Army officers, upon the corps' deactivation.

After its establishment at Edgewood in early 1942, the Officer Candidate

School became the chief source of officers so far as sheer numbers were

concerned.7 Graduates of the OCS were commissioned second lieutenants

and were usually assigned to CWS units. Other assignments of CWS officers

were to installations, to training centers, and to the Office of the Chief.

7

 For details on the OCS, see below, Chapter XIV.
146 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

A good many chemical warfare officers were assigned or attached in the

zone of interior to the Army Ground Forces, the Army Air Forces, and

the Army Service Forces. (Chart 10)

 8

The assignment of officers within the CWS was a function of the Office

of the Chief. General Porter personally assigned the commanding officers

of installations and members of his own staff, while commanding officers

of installations were responsible for the selection of their subordinates

through the Personnel Division, OC CWS. Although the commanding

officers could not always obtain the officers they wanted, the situation was

certainly not as bad as some commanders alleged. There developed a

tendency in one or two installations to explain all administrative deficiencies

on the ground that it was impossible to obtain the services of qualified

officers. The evidence does not support this contention.9 The trouble was

not so much that qualified officers could not be obtained, although at times

this problem did exist, but rather that there sometimes was a lack of appreciation of the potentialities of the officers on hand.

Promotion, Decorations, and Allotments

In order to assist the Personnel Division of his office in carrying out

its functions, General Porter in the summer of 1942 appointed a Promotion

and Decorations Board composed of the executive officer of his office and

the chiefs of the Fielid, Industrial, and Technical Services.10 Following the

publication of the very important ASF Circular 39, 11 June 1943, the Chief,

CWS, appointed a second board, known as an Allotment Board, to deal

with the allotment of civilian and military employees to CWS units and

installations. This Allotment Board consisted of the executive officer, the

two assistant chiefs of CWS, the chiefs of the Control and Personnel Divisions, and a recorder from the Personnel Division who had no vote.11

On 13 August 1943 the functions of the two boards were consolidated in

an Allotment, Promotion, Separation, and Decoration Board.12

Before the creation of the Promotion and Decorations Board the administration of those activities in the CWS left much to be desired. Some

8

 For a detailed breakdown of the distribution of CWS military personnel from December

1941 to December 1945, see below, Appendixes A, B, and C. 9

 This conclusion is based on interviews with key personnel officers in CWS in World War II

and on IOM, C Civ Pers Br OC CWS for C Pers Div OC CWS, 16 Feb 45. CWS 230. 10

 OC CWS Off O 36, 8 Jul 42. 11

 OC CWS Off O 46, 29 Jun 43. 12

 OC CWS Adm O 16, 13 Aug 43.
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 147

CHART 10—DISTRIBUTION OF CWS MILITARY PERSONNEL,

As OF 30 JUNE 1944

Source: Appendix A.

commanding officers were more prone than others to recommend promotions, and personal favoritism was all too often a determining factor. Once

the board began to function effectively the situation greatly improved. The

board's jurisdiction in all its functions—allotments, promotions, and decorations—was service-wide. Allotments of officers, as well as of enlisted men,
148 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

were on the basis of quotas furnished by The Adjutant General's Office,

which the board would break down to the various elements of the CWS,

such as installations, Office of the Chief, and training centers. After receiving notification of their quotas those elements would forward their

military personnel requisitions to The Adjutant General through the Military Personnel Branch, OC CWS. The Chemical Warfare Service always

had the prerogative, which it often exercised, of requesting higher quotas,

but all such requests had to carry ample justification.

Malassignment of Officers

There were two general types of officer malassignment: the assignment

of officers to duties that were not military functions; and the appointment

of officers to posts for which they lacked qualifications. The criticisms of

the CWS by the War Department Assignment Review Board centered

chiefly around the first type of malassignment. There can be no doubt

that this contention of the Assignment Review Board was correct. In many

instances CWS civilians carrying out certain duties were given commissions

and continued to do exactly the same work as before. The CWS took the

position that circumstances beyond its control had led to the granting of

these commissions, that the Civil Service Commission could not furnish

qualified replacements, and that the only solution to the problem was to

commission those civilians who were already on the job. Had these officers

been removed from their posts, the CWS maintained, especially on the

scale recommended by the review board, the results would have been

disastrous.

One of the rare instances when the Assignment Review Board questioned

the qualifications of CWS officers for their assignments was in the case

of some dozen officers holding key positions on the staff and faculty of

the Chemical Warfare School in early 1944. The review board took particular exception to the lack of experience on the part of these officers.

Brig. Gen. Alexander Wilson, commandant of the Chemical Warfare

School, generally agreed with this contention, although he held that the

situation was not nearly so bad as one might gather from merely screening

the Officer Qualification Records.13 General Wilson outlined the history

of how these officers came to occupy their posts. After the war broke out,

he said, the number of Regular Army officers with experience in chemical

13

 WD AGO Form 0857.
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 149

warfare training was entirely inadequate and CWS Reserve officers, most

of whom had had long experience in the field of chemistry, were placed

in training posts. These officers, through experience, became expert in

training and administrative duties. As understudies to these officers there

were a number of other officers, recent college graduates, who had little

or no practical civilian experience. In time, the older officers were assigned

to overseas duty, and the only officers available to fill their places were

the understudies, who, while they lacked civilian experience, had had several

years of training in their present assignments.14 The CWS did not find it

possible to replace those officers.

Procurement and Utilization of Enlisted Personnel

Enlisted personnel rolls expanded in approximately the same proportion

as officer rolls. From a total of 803 enlisted men in June 1939, the number

rose to 5,591 in December 1941 and to a wartime peak of 61,688 in June

1943. The year and a half after Pearl Harbor was the period of greatest

expansion. (See Appendix B.)

The majority of enlisted men assigned to the CWS went to the training

center at Edgewood, which was later moved to Camp Sibert. Relatively few

men were assigned to CWS installations. The Chief, CWS, was responsible

for the assignment, promotion, and movement of those men in and out of

the installations and for selecting those who were to attend special schools.

Enlisted personnel were customarily not retained at the installations for

long, since the service used them for overseas requisitions that it was continuously being called upon to fill.

Thanks to the Selective Service system, the CWS secured a number of

unusually well-qualified enlisted men.15 In June 1941, for example, there

were thirty-two enlisted men with college degrees in the 1st Laboratory

Company. Of these, seven had doctor's degrees and three had master's

degrees. After activation of the Officer Candidate School, men of this

caliber had opportunity to apply for admission. Many of the men assigned

to the installations were very well qualified for minor administrative and

clerical posts. The Chemical Warfare Center, particularly, utilized their

14

 2d Ind, Comdt Cml Warfare School to CG Cml Warfare Center on Ltr, C Pers Div OC CWS

to CG Cml Warfare Center, 11 Feb 44, sub: Correct Classification and Assignment of ASF

Officers and Enlisted Men. CWS 200.3. 15

 Robert R. Palmer, Bell I. Wiley, and William R. Keast. The Procurement and Training of

Ground Combat Troops, UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR II (Washington: 1948),

pp. 17-18.
150 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

services. When the great demand for men for overseas duty arose in 1943,

all general service enlisted men were transferred from zone of interior

installations to field service for eventual shipment overseas.16 Men with

varying degrees of physical disability replaced these enlisted men, but this

move proved generally unsatisfactory. The situation was largely rectified

when members of the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC) were

brought in as substitutes for the male personnel.

Negro Military Personnel

There were few Negro troops in the Army in the peacetime period, and

prior to 1940 the number of Negro units provided for in the Protective

Mobilization Plan (PMP) was decidedly limited.17 No provision was made

for any Negro chemical units. In the summer of 1940 the Assistant Chief

of Staff, G-3, recommended modification of the PMP in order to provide

more Negro units. The CWS initially felt the effects of the new policy

when the 1st Chemical Decontamination Company, constituted as a white

company in the PMP, was activated on 1 August 1940 at Fort Eustis, Virginia, as a Negro unit.18

In the summer of 1940 the War Department still had to work out

many policy details on the employment of Negro troops. These included

such items as the number of Negro troops to be called for active duty,

the question of whether to use Negro or white officers with colored units,

and the problem of what to do about the prevailing practice of segregating

white and Negro troops. On 8 October 1940 the President approved the

policy to be followed during the war.19 Negro strength in the Army was

to be maintained on the ratio of Negroes to the whites in the country as

a whole, and Negro organizations were to be established in each major

branch of the service, combatant as well as noncombatant. The existing War

Department policy of not intermingling white and Negro enlisted personnel was to be continued. Negro Reserve officers eligible for active duty

were to be assigned to Negro units and opportunity was to be given Negroes

to attend officer candidate schools. The aviation training of Negroes as

16

 ASF Cir 39, 11 Jun 43. 17

 Ulysses G. Lee, Employment of Negro Troops, a volume in preparation for the series

UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR II, is a detailed study of Negro troops throughout

the Army. 18

 WD Ltr, AG 320.2 (7-10-40) M (Ret) M-C, 20 Jul 40. 19

 Memo, ASW for the President, 8 Oct 40. The President penciled his "OK" and initials on

this memo. Cited in Lee, Employment of Negro Troops, Ch. IV.
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 151

pilots, mechanics, and technical specialists was to be accelerated, and at

arsenals and Army posts Negro civilians were to have equal opportunity

with whites for employment.

In conformity with the above policy the Replacement Center at Edgewood opened in 1941 with a capacity of 1,000 trainees—800 white and

200 Negro.20 Negroes were trained in approximately this proportion at

Edgewood and later at Camp Sibert. Since the percentage of Negro troops

in Classes IV and V of the Army General Classification Test was much

higher than that of white troops, the training of Negro troops as a whole

presented greater difficulties than that of white troops.21

From the spring of 1942 until the summer of 1943 seventy-five CWS

troop units composed of Negroes were activated at various installations

throughout the country. The seventy-five units consisted of the following:

12 chemical maintenance companies (aviation), 7 chemical depot companies (aviation), 1 chemical company (air operations), 20 chemical decontamination companies, 3 chemical processing companies, 30 chemical smoke

generator companies, and 2 chemical service companies. Forty-one of those

companies were eventually assigned to duty overseas.22

As indicated by the large number of Negro chemical companies, the

CWS had a relatively high percentage of Negro troops. As of 30 September

1943, over 17 percent of CWS enlisted men were Negro. The CWS percentage was exceeded only by those of the Quartermaster Corps, Transportation Corps, and Corps of Engineers.23

The chemical companies to which Negroes were assigned were, with

one exception, service rather than combat in nature. The exception was

the smoke generator company, and even this type of company in the early

period of the war was considered more service than combat. Plans at that

time called for the smoking of rear areas only, and the troops were trained

for that mission. But as the war progressed these companies saw front-line

action. Since the men were not trained for combat conditions, at first they

made a poor showing. With experience these units improved tremendously

and many of them had very good combat records.

The CWS trained about one hundred Negro officers at the Officer Candidate School. Upon graduation some of these officers were assigned to

20

 See, below, Part Two, for details on training of CWS troops. 21

 Classes IV and V were the two lowest levels of achievement. 22

 The 706th Chemical Maintenance Company (Aviation) was redesignated as 769th Chemical

Depot Company (Aviation) as of 20 December 1943. 23

 Lee, Employment of Negro Troops, Ch. XIX.
152 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

chemical units, others were transferred to the Transportation Corps and the

Air Forces, and those who were surplus were placed temporarily in the

officers' pool at the Chemical Warfare Center.

There was one instance of marked unrest among Negro troops in the

CWS. This outbreak, which occurred at Camp Sibert in July 1943, was

occasioned by the improper advances of a white civilian clerk toward a

Negro woman in the post exchange. Although the Negro soldiers showed

no hostility toward their white officers, they were slow in obeying orders

to disperse and return to their barracks. Perhaps the flare-up would have

reached more serious proportions had the Negro troops not received

assurance that the white clerk would be turned over to the civil authorities.24

Women's Army Corps Personnel in the Chemical Warfare Service

In the summer and early fall of 1942, shortly after President Roosevelt

signed the bill establishing the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, chemical

officers, under ASF direction, made a study of possible employment of

Waacs in the CWS.25 It was decided that Waacs might be used as replacements for enlisted men doing housekeeping duties in arsenals, as fill-ins

for certain types of civil service positions where it was impossible to obtain

civilians, and perhaps in chemical impregnating companies in the zone of

the interior. In the course of this study the Personnel Division, OC CWS,

contacted the WAAC to ascertain what the chances were of securing the

services of WAAC officers and auxiliaries. The Personnel Division was

informed that all existing WAAC units had been earmarked for assignment outside the CWS but that, not withstanding this fact the CWS should

submit a requisition, which would be filled if at all possible.26

On 7 January 1943 the Chief, CWS, sent his first requisition to the

director of the WAAC for 160 auxiliaries to be made available at Pine

Bluff Arsenal.27 The quota requested was not filled at the time because

there were then not enough Waacs to go around, but early in April the

first installment was sent to Pine Bluff. Faced with a serious shortage of

stenographers, typists, bus drivers, and dispatchers—positions for which

24

 Ltr, CG CWS UTC to C CWS, 20 Jul 43. CWS 000.7. 25

 Public Law 554, 15 May 42. For details on the WAAC and its successor, the WAC, see

Mattie E. Treadwell, The Women's Army Corps, UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR

II (Washington: 1954). The Wacs in CWS are discussed on pages 321-26 of that volume. 26

 Memo, Maj Earl L. Shepherd, Pers Div OC CWS, for Col Herrold E. Brooks, C Pers Div

OC CWS, 17 Nov 42, sub: WAAC. CWS 324.5 WAC. 27

 Ltr, C CWS to Dir WAAC (Through Mil Pers Div SOS), 7 Jan 43. CWS 324.5 WAC.
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 153

civilians could not be obtained—this installation used the Waacs to fill those

vacancies.28 A misunderstanding soon developed over the fact that the

Waacs did not always replace enlisted men. The Waacs apparently had

gone to Pine Bluff believing that such would be the case, although the

correspondence between the Chief, CWS, and the director of WAAC discloses that the chief problem at Pine Bluff was the shortage of civilian

personnel. Whatever the source of the misunderstanding, it became a serious

morale factor at Pine Bluff Arsenal and led to a number of resignations in

the summer of 1943 when the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps was integrated into the new Women's Army Corps, set up as an element of the

Army by an act of Congress.29

Late in April 1943 Dugway Proving Ground became the second CWS

installation to be assigned a WAAC unit, and in June Camp Detrick and

the Chemical Warfare Center were assigned quotas of Waacs. Later WAC

officers were assigned to the Office of the Chief, CWS, and to the Rocky

Mountain and Huntsville Arsenals. The number of Wacs assigned to the

CWS during the war totaled about seven hundred.30

WAC officers assigned to headquarters usually performed administrative duties such as those connected with time and payroll, with the motor

pool, or with the public relations office. Enlisted Wacs assigned to the

CWS, the vast majority of whom went to CWS installations, were employed

in a variety of skilled and semiskilled occupations. General Porter summarized the situation well in a letter to Oveta Culp Hobby, director of

the WAAC, on 5 July 1943, when he said:

WAAC enrollees at Chemical Warfare Service installations are engaged in activities

of wide scope and variety, embracing both skilled and semi-skilled occupations. The

more specialized personnel are performing the work of chemists, toxicologists, lawyers,

meteorologists, mechanical engineers, etc. Others with technical training are surgical

and veterinarian assistants, motion picture projectionists, radio and teletype operators,

glass blowers, draftsmen and photographers. In addition, of course, your Corps is

supplying stenographers, typists, mail, code, file, stockroom personnel, and copy clerks;

court reporters and librarians.31

One interesting feature of Waac assignment in the CWS which General

28

 Ltr, CG PBA to C CWS, 9 Jul 43. CWS 324.5 WAC. 29

 (1) Ltr, C Mil Pers Br OC CWS to CO 1st WAAC CWS Hq Det PBA (Through: CG

PBA), 19 Aug 43. CWS 324.5 WAC. (2) Public Law 110, 1 Jul 45. This law provided for the

changeover from the WAAC to the WAC within sixty days. 30

 Treadwell, Women's Army Corps, p. 321. 31

 (1) Public Law 110, 1 July 1943. (2) Ltr, C CWS to Dir WAAC, 5 Jul 43. CWS 324.5

WAC. The chief purpose behind General Porter's letter was to congratulate Director Hobby on

the success of the WAAC project.
154 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Porter did not mention in his letter to Director Hobby was the employment of Waacs in chemical impregnating companies in the zone of the

interior. As mentioned above, this possibility had been considered in the

fall of 1942. In April 1943 the CWS conducted an experiment with sixty

Waacs at Edgewood Arsenal to determine whether they could be used

on the work of impregnating protective clothes with chemicals. The experiment proved successful beyond all expectations, and henceforth Waacs

were assigned to those units, which for semantic reasons were redesignated

"processing companies."

 32

"Successful beyond all expectations" might be the phrase used to describe

the reaction in CWS, from General Porter down, to the work of the Wacs.

Those commanding officers and supervisors who were at first skeptical

about employing Wacs on certain types of assignments, laboratory technicians for example, soon changed their minds once the young women got

on the job. When in 1945 General Porter said of the Wacs, "We owe them

a great debt," he was expressing the sentiment of every commanding

officer and supervisor in the CWS.33 The attitude of the WAC toward

the CWS was likewise one of satisfaction. As the CWS WAC staff director,

Capt. Helen H. Hart, expressed it, WAC personnel were accepted in all

CWS installations "on an equal and respectful basis by the majority of

CWS personnel," and this situation, Captain Hart went on to say, "resulted

in WAC CWS Headquarter Detachments having some of the highest

morale among all WAC Detachments in the field."

 34

The Expanding Civilian Rolls

The number of civilian employees in the Chemical Warfare Service

jumped from about 7,000 at the outbreak of the war to a peak of over

28,000 in 1943.35 The breakdown of CWS personnel by designated groups

as of 31 December 1944 is shown in Table 6.

32

 See Ltr, AC CWS for Fld Opns to G-1 (Through: Dir Mil Pers Div ASF), 9 Jun 43, sub:

Use of WAAC in Cml Impregnating Companies. CWS 324.5 WAC. This letter indicates that as

of 31 May 1943 the Chief, CWS, requested the Commanding General, ASF, to change the designation from "Chemical Impregnating Company" to "Chemical Processing Company." 33

 Quoted in "Here Are the WACS," Chemical Warfare Bulletin, XXXI, No. 2 (1945), 4-11. 34

 Ltr, Capt Hart, CWS WAC Staff Dir, to CO HA, 3 May 44, sub: General George C.

Marshall's Memorandum. AG 320.2 WAC. The CWS WAC staff director sent similar letters to

the commanders of other installations. General Marshall in a memorandum of 6 April 1944 had

urged all elements of the Army to realize the dignity and importance of the Wacs, and the CWS

WAC staff director was commenting on this memorandum. 35

 See Table 3.
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 155

TABLE 6—ACTUAL STRENGTH OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES (FILLED POSITIONS),

31 DECEMBER 1944

a

 Includes 3 without compensations or at $1 per annum or $1 per month.

Source: CWS 230.

One of the earliest personnel requirements in the CWS in the emergency

period was for trained inspectors. The need first arose out of the educational order program under which two hundred gas-mask inspectors were

trained at Edgewood Arsenal before being sent out to perform their duties

at the gas-mask plants in the procurement districts.36 Later, in the summer

and fall of 1940, the procurement district offices began hiring inspectors

in connection with the procurement contracts they were awarding. These

inspectors were sent to Edgewood Arsenal for training before assuming

their responsibilities. After they had obtained experience on the job, these

inspectors in turn retained newly hired apprentices.37

Another significant training project undertaken by the CWS in the fall

of 1939 was the apprenticeship program. The project arose from efforts

36

 Ltr, CG EA to C CWS, 3 Dec 40, sub: Education Order Pers. CWS Files 230/681 (1939-

42) Series, NA. 37

 For details on the training of inspectors in World War II, see Brophy, Miles, and Cochrane,

From Laboratory to Field.
156 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

of the Assistant Secretary of War. In a letter of 13 September 1939 to the

chiefs of all the arms and services the Assistant Secretary called attention

to the problem of procuring an adequate supply of skilled labor for producing munitions. Even though there were great numbers of unemployed,

he stated realistically, a full use of all the skilled men then idle would

still leave a large deficit for meeting the war needs. As a solution he

proposed the use of apprenticeship programs and urged the supply arms

and services, in their field contacts with industry, to "foster and encourage

apprenticeship training by relating such training to the needs of national

defense."

 38

 The Office of the Chief, CWS, sent copies of this letter to

all CWS procurement districts with instructions that they be guided by

its contents.39

The CWS worked on plans for an apprenticeship training program at

Edgewood Arsenal from late 1939 on, but it was not until January 1942

that such a program was actually launched.40 At that time one hundred

apprentices began courses in various crafts. Of that number only two eventually completed their training. The reason for this was not lack of ability

or enterprise on the part of the young men, but rather the fact that almost

to a man they were inducted into the armed services under the Selective

Service Act. The one apprentice not inducted did finish his training. Another

who returned to Edgewood as a regular employee after the war also finished

his apprenticeship. On the basis of the record, the apprenticeship training

program at Edgewood was anything but a success, especially in view of the

fact that some of those apprentices had spent two years studying their

crafts.41

As serious as the problem of obtaining suitable employees at Edgewood

was the problem of retaining them once they had been hired. The chief

source of difficulty was the wage rate system of the War Department. For

a number of years the War Department had made efforts to keep the wage

rates of its employees in line with localities where its installations were

38

 Ltr, Col Harry K. Rutherford, Ord Deputy Dir OASW, to Chiefs Supply Arms and Servs,

13 Sep 39, sub: Encouragement of Apprenticeship Tng. CWS 230/471-480. 39

 Ltr, Maj George F. Unmacht, Asst Ex O OC CWS, to All Cml Warfare Proc Districts, 20

Sep 39, sub: Encouragement of Apprenticeship Tng. CWS 230/471-480. 40

 (1) Ltr, ASW to C CWS, and 1st Ind, 26 Dec 39, sub: Apprentice Tng. CWS 230/471-480.

(2) Memo, C CWS for CofS, 28 May 40, sub: Tng of Skilled and Semiskilled Workers. CWS

230/540. 41

 After the war a number of these men returned to Edgewood hoping to complete the training

they had started, but unfortunately, except for the cases just cited, there was no opportunity for

them to be taken back since the government no longer needed apprentices.
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 157

situated through the appointment of boards to survey wages. Such surveys

had been made in Edgewood in April 1925, August 1929, and November

1939.42 But the surveys could not keep up with rising wages in industry,

and by the spring of 1940 the rates were again out of line. The CWS began

to encounter the problem after its construction program got under way in

the fall of 1940. Skilled and semiskilled workers began leaving government

employ to work for private construction companies on the post, whose wage

rates were about 50 percent higher than the government's. Later the same

thing happened at Huntsville and Pine Bluff Arsenals.

Not only was the CWS losing employees to industry because of wage

rates. It was also losing them to other nearby government installations.

For, surprisingly, there was no uniform wage rate system throughout

neighboring government installations, and employees were leaving Edgewood to accept higher rates of pay for the same type work at the naval

installation at Bainbridge, Maryland, and at the Aberdeen Proving

Ground.43

In the summer of 1941 the Personnel Division, OC CWS, requested

the U.S. Employment Service (USES) to survey the situation at Edgewood.

The USES readily complied and set up a wage scale of unclassified positions. This system did not prove satisfactory chiefly because the CWS

did not have enough people trained to administer it. In the fall of 1941

the commanding officers at Edgewood and other CWS installations requested and received permission to raise the wages of their civilian employees. This they did by raising the grades of the laboring, craft, and

mechanical positions (so-called upgraded), a procedure which led to trouble

later on. What they should have done was to adjust the wage rates for

all positions, white collar and ungraded, to conform to the percentage rise

in general wage rates in the area. The grades of the jobs represented relative

differences in skill levels, and by raising the grades for some jobs and not

for others due recognition was not given to skill differentials. Since each

installation was given authority to make its own grade adjustments, the

entire wage structure soon became illogical and unworkable.

Late in December 1941 the Chief, CWS, in an effort to disentangle

the wage rate situation, requested the director of personnel of the War

42

 Ltr, C Pers Div OC CWS to CG ASF (Attn: Ind Pers Div), 6 Jun 45, sub: Wage Fixing

Procedures Prior to 28 Mar 34. CWS 248. 43

 (1) Ltr, CO EA to C CWS, 25 Apr 39, sub: Draftsmen at EA. CWS 230/431-470. (2)

Interv, CmlHO with Col Henry M. Black, 8 Aug 50.
158 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Department to appoint a specialist in wage administration to the CWS.44

This request was given favorable consideration. A civilian wage specialist,

Floyd Van Domelen, was commissioned in the CWS and assigned to the

Personnel Division of the Chief's office in May 1942. He set to work immediately to draw up a wage rate plan, a task he completed by August 1942.

The CWS was about to put the plan into operation when the ASF issued

a directive to set up a wage administration system throughout its entire

organization. In compliance, the CWS refrained from putting its own plan

into operation and participated instead in the over-all ASF plan.

The ASF wage administration plan called for the activation of a Wage

Administration Agency whose authority included setting wages for the

laboring, craft, and mechanical employees in the field installations.45 This

agency was set up, and under its direction the CWS established alignments

called ladder diagrams in each of its installations. These ladder diagrams

set up the positions which were not subject to the Classification Act of 1923,

as amended—laboring, craft, and mechanical positions—in accordance with

the difficulty and responsibility of each job. The Wage Administration

Agency then surveyed the wage rates in industrial establishments in the

vicinity of each installation to determine the prevailing rate for each particular type of position and the resulting wage schedule was applied to

the installation. The Wage Administration Agency collected its data on

local wage rates through locality wage survey boards which it set up in

the service commands. Representation on these boards was not confined

to a single arm or service, but various appropriate elements of the ASF

were represented. For example, the Locality Wage Survey Board which was

activated at Aberdeen Proving Ground in the fall of 1942 under the

commanding general of the Third Service Command had a CWS representative from Edgewood Arsenal.46

 In the opinion of perhaps the most

competent authority on wage administration in CWS, the ASF methods

of handling the wage problem were far superior to previous methods.47

Once the new system began to function, other arms and services were no

longer able to outbid the CWS for employees. The Navy still could, of

course; over-all reform had to wait until a later day.

44

 Memo, C CWS for Dir Pers WD, 30 Dec 41. CWS 230/1436. The Chief, CWS, in this

memorandum requested that Mr. Floyd Van Domelen be assigned to CWS. The request for Van

Domelen was honored. 45

 Ltr, C Civ Pers Br APG to C CWS, 23 Nov 42, sub: Establishment of Wage Survey Bd.

CWS 334. 46 Ibid. 47

 Interv, Cml HO with Floyd Van Domelen, 24 Oct 50.
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 159

Administration From Washington

The activities of the emergency period led to an increase in the number

of employees in the Chief's office. About a dozen civilians were added to

the rolls as a result of the educational order program. Several of these were

engineers and the remainder were clerk-stenographers.48 During 1940 and

1941 the number of new employees continued to increase, so that by the

time war was declared there were over 250 civilian employees in the overcrowded CWS headquarters offices in Washington. Included were employees

with specialist, professional, and clerk-stenographer ratings. During the

war this number was to be multiplied several times. In November 1942 the

figure reached a wartime peak of 675 civilian employees. From then until

the close of the war there was a progressive decline in numbers. (See

Table 3.)

The advent of war brought about a revolutionary change in the functions and responsibility of the CWS in regard to personnel administration.

Before Pearl Harbor the War Department procured, appointed, classified,

and promoted all civilians. The only function left for the CWS was assignment. This procedure was too time-consuming and unwieldy for wartime.

A week after the December attack, General Porter requested the Secretary

of War to grant him authority to handle all civilian personnel functions

in the CWS.49 The Secretary of War answered this request, and perhaps

others like it, with the issuance on 23 December 1941 of War Department

orders authorizing decentralization of personnel administration to bureau,

arm, and service levels. As a result of this and its other orders throughout

1942 and 1943, the War Department effected gradual decentralization to

the field installation level.50

The decentralization of personnel administration from the War Department to the Chemical Warfare Service necessarily brought about a considerable increase in the responsibilities of the chief of the Personnel Division

of General Porter's office. This post was occupied from 1938 until September 1942 by Col. Geoffrey Marshall. Colonel Marshall was succeeded

by Col. Herrold E. Brooks who remained chief throughout the war. In

48

 (1) Memo, Ex O OC CWS for Adm Div OC CWS, 24 May 39. CWS 230/475. (2) Ltr,

C CWS to ASW, 18 Oct 39, sub: Pers Whose Salaries Are Paid From Funds Allotted to the ASW.

CWS 230/471-480. 49

 Memo, C CWS for SW, 15 Dec 41, sub: Delegation of Authority. CWS 230/436. 50 WD Orders N, 23 Dec 41; WD Orders G, 1 Jun 42: WD Orders M, 13 Aug 42; WD

Orders C, 29 Jan 43; WD Orders J, 3 Jun 43.
160 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

contrast to the situation in 1937, when the unit administering personnel

activities in the Chief's office consisted of one officer, whose time was

"considerably occupied on other than personnel work," and one clerk, there

were in August 1944 nine officers and thirty-six civilians on duty with the

Personnel Division of the Chief's office.51 From 23 December 1941 until

1 September 1942 the Personnel Division of the Chief's office was responsible for administration of civilian activities in the OC CWS, as well as

for prescribing regulations for the administration of civilians in the field

installations. On 1 September 1942, under War Department orders, the

commanding officers of the field installations assumed authority to make

appointments and to carry out practically all other personnel functions.52

From that time until the end of the war, the Personnel Division, OC CWS,

acted merely as a staff agency with regard to the personnel administration

and activities of the installations.

The administration of personnel functions in the Office of the Chief

was handicapped in the early period of the war by a dearth of officers

trained in personnel management. Since few officers with this training

were available, it was necessary for officers on duty to learn through experience. Consequently it was difficult for the division to carry out all the

recognized activities of a large industrial personnel organization. As the

officers in the Personnel Division gained experience, the situation improved.

Recruitment of Civilian Personnel in the Office

of the Chief of Chemical Warfare Service

It is ironic that when the CWS was occupying inadequate headquarters

in the city of Washington in the early period of the war it could have

secured all the personnel it needed, but that when the headquarters was

moved to more spacious quarters at Gravelly Point, Virginia, in January

1943, it was impossible to secure a sufficient number of employees. The

Gravelly Point location was chiefly responsible for this predicament. Employees living in Washington had to pay two fares—one on the bus within

the city and the other on the bus between Washington and Gravelly Point

—and on the average it took an hour to get to work. The shortage of

personnel in the Chief's office was not overcome until employees were able

51

 (1) Ltr, TAG to Chiefs WD Arms and Services, 21 Apr 37, sub: Pers Matters. CWS 200/1.

(2) Ltr, DC CWS to Dir Pers ASF, 17 Aug 44, sub: Justification for Pers Utilization. CWS 230. 52

 (1) WD Orders N, 23 Dec 41; WD Orders M, 13 Aug 42. (2) OC CWS Organization

Chart, 1 May 42.
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 161

to make car pool arrangements and until a number of civilians residing on

the Virginia side of the Potomac were brought into the office.

After outbreak of war, the War Department received permission from

the Civil Service Commission to recruit employees from a central pool

in Washington. The Chief's office obtained its workers from this source

until the pool was discontinued in January 1943. For several months thereafter OC CWS recruited employees on its own. Workers already on the

job were urged to contact any of their acquaintances who might be likely

prospects. Various CWS installations were combed for any surplus stenographers and typists. Later in 1943 the ASF set up another pool, or recruiting

service, which it called the Pre-Assignment Development Unit. This agency

remained active until the close of the war.

The CWS had considerable difficulty in obtaining qualified accountants,

fiscal experts, and statisticians through the Civil Service Commission, both

for the Chief's office and the installations. The need was met in part by

dollar-a-year men and by experts from private industry who were loaned

to the CWS.53

Training of Civilian Employees in the Office

of the Chief of Chemical Warfare Service

As early as 10 July 1941 the Secretary of War called the attention of

the chiefs of War Department bureaus, arms, and services to the importance

of training civilian employees.54 Soon after Pearl Harbor a training program

got under way in the Chemical Warfare Service.55 Training in the Chief's

office consisted in the main of elementary and advanced instruction in

stenography and typing, in the operation of machine records and automatic

punch machines, and in interoffice correspondence routing and distribution.56

Employee Relations

Employee relations, which included counseling and personal services,

had been traditionally carried on in the CWS in connection with other

53

 Interv, CmlHO with Col Harry A. Kuhn, USA (Ret.), 13 Oct 50. 54

 Memo, SW for Chiefs WD Bureaus, Arms, and Services, 10 Jul 41. CWS 314.7 Training

File.

55 See below, pages 173-76, for details of training in the CWS installations. 56

 Memo, C Pers Div OC CWS for C Pers Div ASF, 8 Sep 43, sub: Clerical and Stenographic

Tng Course. CWS 353.
162 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

personnel activities, such as assignments, wage rates, and efficiency reports.

Since the personnel offices supervised these functions, they felt that they

should also deal with any problems arising in connection with the functions.

The theory that separate employee relations units were needed to carry

on civilian personnel counseling originated in the ASF. In conformity with

an ASF directive to appoint an employee counselor, General Porter brought

Miss Dorothy A. Whipple, who had had experience counseling school

teachers in the Detroit City school system, into his office in September

1942. Miss Whipple headed an Employee Relations Section in the Personnel

Division until the reorganization of the Chief's office in 1943. As a result

of that reorganization the Employee Relations Section was raised to the

status of an executive branch, where it remained for the duration of the

war.57

The separation of employee relations functions from other personnel

functions did not make for improved administration. In many instances

the Employee Relations Section had to consult with the Civilian Personnel

Branch before any type of action could be taken or recommended. This was

necessary because of the technical nature of the problems arising, such as

job classification matters, and because the Civilian Personnel Branch had

the complete personnel record of the employee in its files. It was a mistake

to have attempted the separation of the functions.

Installation Management of Civilian Personnel

The Edgewood Arsenal employed more civilians than any other CWS

installation. (Table 7) The difficulty which Edgewood experienced in the

emergency period and in the first year of the war in obtaining and retaining

civilian workers has already been mentioned. The differences in wage rates

between the Chemical Warfare Center and other nearby installations, it

will be recalled, was largely overcome as a result of the work of the

Locality Wage Survey Board in the fall of 1942. These results did not

come overnight, however, and in early 1943 the situation was still considered

so critical that Brig. Gen. Paul X. English, chief of the Industrial Division,

OC CWS, proposed that Edgewood Arsenal utilize military as well as

civilian employees in its plant operations.58 The chief of arsenal operations

57

 (1) Memo, Ex O OC CWS for file, 22 Sep 42, (2) Memo, C Pers Div OC CWS To All

Concerned, 6 Oct 42. Both in CWS 230.6. (3) Employee Relations Monthly Rpt, 1 Jun-1 Jul 43.

CWS 200.6. 58

 Ltr, C Civ Pers Div OC CWS to CG, Cml Warfare Center, 24 Jan 43, sub: Manpower at

EA, Md. CWS 230.
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 163

TABLE 7—PEAK CIVILIAN PERSONNEL FIGURES AT PRINCIPAL CWS INSTALLATIONS DURING WORLD WAR II

Source: Extracted from Station Files in custody of Mr. Michael D. Wertheimer, O Civ Pers, OACofS, G-1, DA.

at the Chemical Warfare Center, Col. Henry M. Black, contended that it

would not be feasible to employ military and civilian workers in the same

plant, chiefly because the military would become dissatisfied with working

for what they would consider a lower rate of pay, and that the prospects

of obtaining a sufficient number of the military to operate the plants

seemed remote.59

59

 Black interv, 8 Aug 50.
164 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

The problem was referred to James P. Mitchell, chief of the Civilian

Personnel Division, ASF, who decided against the utilization of military

personnel at the manufacturing plants at Edgewood.60 He believed that the

civilian manpower situation at the Chemical Warfare Center could be improved by co-operative action between the ASF and the CWS. Toward that

end Mr. Mitchell himself took the following specific steps: (1) he arranged

with the Transportation Corps to make four additional buses available

for service between Baltimore and Edgewood; (2) he detailed to the

Baltimore area an ASF labor supply officer, who was to give every possible

assistance to CWS; and (3) he directed the Civilian Personnel Division,

ASF, to investigate the possibility of raising wage rates at the Arsenal

Operations Department on the ground that it was a hazardous manufacturing unit. At the same time Mr. Mitchell requested the CWS to carry

out the following procedures: (1) detail an officer or a civilian or both

from the Chemical Warfare Center to the Baltimore office of the U.S.

Employment Service with authority to interview the referrals who would

be given priority, and hire those qualified; (2) keep a day-by-day record

of the number of referrals, number interviewed, number employed, number

rejected, and reasons for rejection; (3) maintain a daily list of new employees reporting for work and the number of separations with the reasons

for separations; and (4) maintain a close check on the transportation

system between Baltimore and Edgewood.61

Implementation of Mr. Mitchell's suggestions brought a definite improvement in the manpower situation at Edgewood. But the Chemical Warfare Center had to take an additional step before it solved its labor difficulties. Never able to obtain enough male employees the installation began

hiring women in growing numbers. By January 1944, 40 percent of the

employees of the arsenal operations were female. At that time approximately

45 percent of all employees were Negroes.62 The same general pattern was

characteristic of the other two CWS arsenals which were situated in the

South, namely, Huntsville and Pine Bluff, both with a large percentage of

Negro employees and female workers. Rocky Mountain Arsenal had a large

60

 (1) Mr. Mitchell later became Secretary of Labor. (2) For details on manpower problems

at the War Department level, see Byron Fairchild and Jonathan P. Grossman, The Army and

Industrial Manpower, a volume in preparation for the series UNITED STATES ARMY IN

WORLD WAR II. 61

 See Note 58, above. 62

 Rpt of the CWS Pers Utilization Bd appointed by SO 20, OC CWS, 24 Jan 44. CWS 314.7

Pers File.
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 165

WOMEN AT PINE BLUFF ARSENAL assembling M50 incendiary bombs.

number of women employees but comparatively few of its workers were

Negroes.

Arsenal employees were divided into the following broad categories:

common labor, semiskilled mechanics, skilled mechanics, machine operators,

maintenance and construction workers, chemical and mechanical engineers,

production supervisors, and personnel for administrative duties such as

accounting and plant protection. So far as sheer numbers went, recruitment

of civilians at the Huntsville and Pine Bluff Arsenals was not nearly as

difficult as at Edgewood. Both arsenals were located in predominately

agricultural areas and had access to pools of seasonal labor. Workers were

available in great numbers during the agricultural off-season periods but

were more difficult to obtain at other periods. The Civil Service regional

offices, the U.S. Employment Service, and the War Manpower Commission

co-operated in recruiting civilian personnel for the arsenals.

At times when the manpower situation was stringent, those agencies
166 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

assisted the arsenals in conducting recruiting campaigns. Advertisements

were run in local papers, and employees were urged to hand out printed

leaflets to their relatives and friends on the need for workers. A spectacular

touch was added when airplanes dropped handbills about this need over

the adjoining countryside. Recruitment of workers, in other respects, was

not lacking in the elements of human interest. There was, for example,

the incident at Huntsville Arsenal when, in the spring of 1943, the president of a college for Negro girls in Georgia stepped into the office of

the commanding officer and offered the services of approximately one

hundred young women in the graduating class. The offer was gratefully

accepted. The young women from Atlanta University came to the arsenal

fully aware of the rather distasteful nature of some of the work, but they

did a job, which in the opinion of one qualified to judge, could hardly

have been surpassed.63

Alabama and Arkansas agricultural workers, the most common type

of employees readily available to the Huntsville and Pine Bluff Arsenals,

were almost entirely unskilled laborers. Although their native intelligence

was undoubtedly equal to that of any similar group in the United States,

they were decidedly limited in educational background. A great many,

particularly among the Negroes, could not read or write, and this made

for difficulties in training them for semiskilled occupations. It was impossible, because of time restrictions, to attempt training for skilled occupations.

Skilled workers, technicians, and typists had to be obtained from other areas,

generally from localities considerably distant from the arsenals.

The differences in the wage scales between local industry and the government, such as existed at Edgewood, were not a problem at Pine Bluff

and Huntsville Arsenals. The agricultural workers who went to work at

Pine Bluff and Huntsville had never before done factory work and were

completely unaccustomed to the comparatively high rates paid by the

arsenals. A number of the Negro women who were hired had previously

been engaged as domestics at a rate very far below that of the arsenals.

Most of these workers had never experienced such prosperity, a fact which

was not, as far as the war effort went, an unmixed blessing. In far too many

instances, employees would not work any more days in a pay period than

necessary for mere existence.

63

 (1) Interv, CmlHO with L. Wilson Greene, 27 Oct 49. Greene was in charge of manufacturing activities at Huntsville in World War II. (2) In the plants where these women were

assigned to work there was usually a high concentration of tear gas, which made for physical

discomfort.
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 167

Rocky Mountain Arsenal had access to a comparatively high number

of skilled male workers, but to relatively few unskilled or semiskilled. For

many years before the war, Denver was noted as a center for small-scale

skilled industries. The advent of the emergency attracted a number of these

skilled mechanics and technicians to the airplane and shipping industries

on the west coast. Others remained at home, even though they were not

able to carry on their trades because of shortages of raw material. Many of

these skilled workers were willing to take employment only if it offered

wages commensurate with the rates to which they had been accustomed.

But they would not accept assignments as semiskilled workers, and consequently the arsenal had some difficulty in securing that type of labor.64

Unskilled women workers, as already indicated, were plentiful and the

arsenal experienced no difficulty in filling labor requirements in that group.

From late 1943 on, prisoners of war (POW's) were used at Rocky Mountain, except in the plants area.65

In 1942, in an effort to secure semiskilled workers, the commanding

general of Rocky Mountain Arsenal set up schools in Denver and the

surrounding towns. Shortly after the arsenal was activated, a number of

semiskilled workers were obtained from an unexpected source. The commanding general learned that sugar mill workers in the vicinity of Brighton,

Colorado, had skills very similar to those required by chemical plant operators. General Loucks, commanding general of Rocky Mountain Arsenal,

sent the chief of the Personnel Branch and his assistant to interview these

workers. The two administrators found that they were usually occupied in

their trade for a few months of the year and were very glad to go to work

at Rocky Mountain Arsenal provided they were released for mill work

from October to December. The arsenal readily agreed to this stipulation

and the sugar mill workers were brought to the arsenal.

The centralization of personnel functions at the Chemical Warfare

Center has already been referred to.66 Huntsville Arsenal also experienced

the need for a centralized personnel organization, for at that installation,

where all activities were highly decentralized, personnel functions were no

exception to the rule. Each operating division at the arsenal had its Own

personnel officers who were invariably officers of company grade subject

to the command of the respective division chiefs. Although there was a

personnel division at headquarters, it was lacking in effective authority.

64

 Van Domelen Interv, 24 Oct 50. 65

 History of Rocky Mountain Arsenal, II, 404-05, MS. 66

 See above, Chapter VI.
168 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

In the spring of 1944 an audit team from the Office of the Secretary

of War visited Huntsville and found defects in the methods of wage administration employed at the arsenal. This discovery led to a survey by the

Personnel Division, OC CWS, which resulted in a number of suggestions

not only on wage administration but also on the centralization of civilian

personnel functions, the substitution of civilians for military as personnel

officers, and the training of operating officials in sound personnel practices.

From July to December 1944 those measures were largely carried out at

Huntsville and resulted in a marked improvement in personnel administration.67

At Pine Bluff and Rocky Mountain Arsenals the administration of

civilian personnel functions was centralized almost from the start. At Pine

Bluff the chief of the civilian personnel unit reported to the chief of the

Administration Division of the Arsenal Operations Office, and at Rocky

Mountain to the commanding general.

The Depots

Graded civilian employees at the depots, as at the arsenals and other

CWS installations, were selected in accordance with civil service qualification standards and Classification Act salary schedules. Ungraded employees

were hired on the basis of job descriptions, designations, and wage schedules

approved by the Civilian Personnel Branch of the Chief's office.

Three of the CWS depots, Eastern, Midwest, and Gulf, were closely

associated with Edgewood, Pine Bluff, and Huntsville Arsenals, respectively, and were faced with identical problems of personnel procurement.

The outstanding need at depots, as at arsenals, was for skilled labor.

Skilled workers were just not available, and it was necessary to train apprentices on the jobs. It took some time before a satisfactory staff of

foremen was functioning at most of the depots. As at arsenals, many women

were hired and trained to do jobs formerly handled by men, and many

Negro workers were also brought in.

At the three remaining CWS depots, Indianapolis, Northeast, and

Deseret, the procurement of workers, unskilled as well as skilled, was

beset with difficulties. The Northeast Depot, in the Buffalo-Niagara Falls

67

 (1) Memo, C Civ Pers Br OC CWS for C Pers Div OC CWS, 25 May 44, sub: Rpt of Trip

to HA, Ala. (2) Inspection of Civ Pers Administration, HA by Civ Pers Div, OSW, 23 Dec 44.

Both in CWS 230.
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 169

vicinity, was in a labor area that was critical throughout the whole period

of the war. At the time the depot was activated, the 190th Chemical Depot

Company was brought from Edgewood for extended field training. This

company remained for a little over a month, during which it rendered

invaluable assistance in carrying out operations at the depot. The 190th

Chemical Depot Company was replaced for a short time by troops of the

71st Chemical Company (Smoke Generator), but in September 1944 the

71st received change of station orders. Then, in the fall of 1944, the depot

secured from the commanding general of the Second Service Command an

allotment of fifty enlisted men who had returned from overseas. This experiment, unfortunately, did not prove satisfactory because of the caliber of

men allotted, and very shortly the entire detachment was withdrawn.68

Although never able to obtain all the civilians it needed, the depot did

secure the services of a corps of loyal and efficient workers from the following sources: (1) employees of the Lake Ontario Ordnance Works who

stayed on the job after CWS took over the installation; (2) local residents; (3) seasonal employees such as school teachers and farmers; and

(4) relatives of employees solicited through personal appeal.

The Indianapolis Depot was situated in an area dotted by defense plants

which absorbed most of the available labor supply; in addition, two other

armed forces depots in the vicinity competed with the CWS depot in procuring civilian employees. One of these was an Ordnance Department depot

and the other an Army Air Forces depot. The CWS Indianapolis Depot

managed, notwithstanding, to hire and train a number of civilians. In

January 1945 prisoners of war provided a new source of labor.69

If the manpower situation at Buffalo, Niagara Falls, and Indianapolis

was bad, it was much worse at the Deseret Depot in the remote reaches

of Utah. There the labor supply was practically nonexistent, and an unusual

recruitment program had to be initiated in the fall of 1943 by Lt. Col.

William S. Bacon, the commanding officer. Bacon, who had had considerable experience with laborers of Mexican and Spanish ancestry, obtained

permission to recruit outside the state of Utah and arranged for setting up

recruiting offices in New Mexico. Experience had taught him that it was

useless to attempt to employ these workers without making provisions for

their families. He therefore provided for the transfer of as many married

couples and children as the housing facilities at Deseret would permit. But

68

 History of the Northeast Chemical Warfare Depot, June 1944-August 1945, p. 32, MS. 69

 For a discussion on the use of POW's, see below, pages 181-82.
170 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

that was only the beginning of his project. He next had to make certain

that they would remain on the job after they arrived at that isolated post.

In other words, he had to provide the newcomers with the necessary shopping and recreational facilities. Under Colonel Bacon's direction, a grocery

store, drug store, notion shop, restaurants, bars, and dance halls were

erected. All profits accruing from these enterprises poured back into the

general welfare fund. With so little in the vicinity to attract them, few

of the workers had any desire to go outside the camp and thus their services

were available day or night in the event of an emergency.70 The entire

project of recruiting and transporting these workers from New Mexico to

Deseret was a unique and farsighted undertaking.

These workers, almost without exception unskilled, were the main source

of labor at Deseret. A small number of other workers from Tooele and

Salt Lake City came to work at the depot each day, after provision had

been made with a public service company for their transportation.

There was no standard organization for administering personnel activities in the depots. Certain depots had no personnel units. The personnel

activities of the Gulf Depot, for example, were administered by Huntsville

Arsenal. The Eastern Depot had a personnel division until September 1942,

when its functions were taken over by the personnel division of the Chemical

Warfare Center. The other CWS depots each had personnel units.

The CWS sections of general depots were under the central administration of these depots, and therefore there were no separate personnel

units at these sections. Their personnel allotments were based on the over-all

allotments of the depots.

The Procurement Districts

The personnel requirements of the procurement districts included the

following general categories: (1) chemists and engineers for chemical

analyses and production methods; (2) clerical, administrative, and fiscal

personnel; (3) inspectors; and (4) warehouse employees.

In recruiting employees, the procurement districts generally possessed

certain advantages over the other types of CWS installations. All of the

district offices, and even the suboffices, were located in large cities where a

sizable pool of professional, skilled, and clerical labor was available. A

great many of the district employees lived within easy commuting distance

70

 (1) Ltr, Col Bacon to CmlHO, 21 Jul 50. (2) History of Deseret Chemical Warfare Depot,

pp. 31-35.
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 171

of their work, and few problems of transportation arose. At the time war

was declared and for about six months thereafter, there was an abundance

of applicants for positions in all the procurement districts. The district office

simply notified the local office of the U.S. Civil Service Commission or the

U.S. Employment Service of its needs, and they were filled. A gradual deterioration set in thereafter, the result of a number of factors.

Among the most significant of these factors was the ability of private

industry to pay higher wages than the government. It is ironic that in a

number of instances those companies owed their prosperity to government

contracts and yet they carried out recruiting campaigns which attracted employees away from government service. At times these recruiting campaigns

became aggressive to the point of impropriety. Certain war contractors on

the west coast for example, used the phrase "permanent jobs" in advertising vacancies; when the impropriety of this was called to their attention

they obligingly changed the wording to "jobs with permanent companies."

The only recourse open to the procurement district offices, under the

circumstances, was to provide for more rapid promotions and this they did.

Another factor which complicated the personnel situation was the

growth in the number of field inspection offices, the aftermath of the increased number of contracts. The CWS had to make provision with the

Civil Service Commission to permit chief inspectors in certain field offices

to hire all personnel under blanket authorities issued by the commission.

As time went on the procurement districts, like other installations, hired

more and more women to do jobs formerly done by men.

In all of the districts there were units administering personnel functions.

These units became more and more standardized in the wake of the district

reorganizations from July 1943 to the close of the war.71

There were no personnel units at the CWS sections of the ports of

embarkation or at the CWS government-owned, privately operated plants.

Requests for funds to cover authorization of civilian positions in the chemical sections of the ports were forwarded through the commanding officers

of the ports to the Office of the Chief, CWS. It was incumbent upon port

chemical officers to supply the Chief's office with pertinent data relating

to the jobs, such as organization charts and job descriptions.72 The OC

CWS, particularly the Supply Division, kept close watch on all port activ71

 Ltr, C Contl Div OC CWS to CO NYCWPD et al., 31 Jul 43, sub: Standardization of Proc

Districts. CWS 319.1. 72

 Memo, Ex O OC CWS for Port Cml Officers, 2 Nov 42, sub: Civ Pers Procedures. CWS 312.
172 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

ities. Personnel administration of CWS plants was a function of the procurement district in which the particular plant was located.

Employee Relations at Chemical Warfare Service Installations

The on-and-off-the-job problems of employees in the CWS were confined almost exclusively to the Chemical Warfare Center and the arsenals.

Difficulties arose on such matters as housing, transportation, care of the

children of working mothers, adequate eating accommodations, and recreation. The failure to solve these problems was a contributory factor to the

comparatively high rates of absenteeism and turnover at certain CWS arsenals

during the war.73 To reduce the rates of absenteeism and turnover, employee

relations officers were appointed at the various installations in 1943.

Although employee relations problems arose at all arsenals, they

came up in varying forms and degrees. For example, the housing problem

at Edgewood, Huntsville, and Pine Bluff grew out of an absolute shortage

of housing units, and arrangements had to be made with the Federal Housing Authority to erect housing projects near those installations. At Rocky

Mountain, the housing problem was confined to arrangements made by

the installation for the rental of houses to new employees.

Transportation was another problem which varied in difficulty from

place to place. All the arsenals were faced with this problem, which was

aggravated by the rationing of gasoline and tires. Nevertheless, the situation

was more serious at Huntsville and Pine Bluff than at Edgewood and Rocky

Mountain, because most of the workers at the former installations had to

travel long distances over poor secondary roads.

Employee problems at the arsenals differed in degree of difficulty also

with respect to the provision of eating accommodations. All the arsenals

felt the need for cafeterias, but the need was more pressing at Huntsville

and Pine Bluff, where many of the workers brought lunches that were not

conducive to the health and strength of efficient factory workers.

An employee relations problem of considerable importance, which was

always present at Edgewood, Huntsville, and Pine Bluff, was the preservation of amicable relations between members of the white and Negro races.

In matters of racial segregation the prevailing cultural patterns could not

be entirely ignored, particularly in view of the urgent need for uninterrupted production. Therefore the procedure was followed of accepting a

73

 Huntsville Arsenal had a very high rate of absenteeism. See page 19 of report cited in Note

62, above.
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 173

certain amount of segregation, but of providing equal rights, facilities, and

privileges to both races.

Training Civilian Workers

On-the-job training was widespread during the war at all CWS installations, particularly at the arsenals and depots. Under the circumstances, it

could not have been otherwise. Hundreds of new employees were being

hired, mostly in jobs of a semiskilled nature, and some provision had to

be made, immediately for training them at least in the fundamentals. Huntsville and Pine Bluff Arsenals had the services of a small cadre of experienced employees who had come from Edgewood Arsenal, but there were

too few of these to train all new applicants. To supplement the number

of instructors, the arsenals sent some of the most promising of the new

employees to Edgewood for training and, upon their return, placed them

as instructors to fresh recruits. Rocky Mountain Arsenal after activation

was fortunate in having access to employees from all of the other CWS

arsenals, employees who could act as instructors to new trainees.

Even before the new employee got to his job his training began. At

the personnel office where he was hired he received instruction on his status

and rights as a government worker. When he reported to the branch

to which he was assigned he was instructed on the duties of his job and

on matters of safety. Shortly after being hired he had the opportunity, if

he was an employee of the Office of the Chief or of most CWS installations,

of attending a course of about four hours' duration where CWS equipment

and products were demonstrated to a small group of new, and even perhaps

some old, employees. This introductory type of training was known as

orientation training.

The matter of safety was brought to an employee's attention on many

occasions, particularly if he was working in an arsenal. Practically every

course and program conducted at CWS arsenals during the war included

some instruction on safety.

The CWS received helpful guidance from a series of three training

programs inaugurated by the ASF in August 1942, programs which had

been developed co-operatively by the Army and the Industry Agency of the

War Manpower Commission. These three programs, each of which covered

ten hours of instruction, provided for the training of supervisors in the

"basic skills of how to instruct, how to lead, and how to manage the technical aspects of their jobs" and were named respectively, Job Instructor
174 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Training, Job Relations Training, and Job Methods Training.74 Later a Job

Safety Program was inaugurated and the four programs became known

collectively as the "J" series.

The "J" series led to the inauguration of training programs on a large

scale throughout the ASF. Those programs expanded far beyond the "J"

series and were aimed at meeting the particular needs of zone of interior

installations.

Arsenal Training Programs

Because of the nature of their operations, the arsenals needed more

extensive training programs than other types of installations. Typical of

all CWS arsenals was Rocky Mountain, which between the fall of 1942

and the end of 1945 conducted, in addition to the "J" series, some half

dozen courses. These included the following courses offered on a continuing

basis: a two-week to six-week course for inexperienced chemical engineers,

a one-week course in analytical procedures for new chemists, and a fourweek to eight-week course at factories for instrument makers and refrigerator plant operators. The following additional courses were given as

indicated: a one-month course (four 2-hour sessions per week) in chemical

plant operation and safety, conducted by the University of Colorado (course

was given twice), a two-month course (two 2-hour sessions per week),

conducted simultaneously by three Colorado universities (course given

once), and a six-week course for laboratory technicians at the University of

Denver (course given once).

The training program at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, elaborate as it was,

did not provide any extensive training for clerks and stenographers. There

was a good reason for this, namely, that Rocky Mountain was never faced

with any serious shortage of workers in these categories. At Huntsville

and Pine Bluff Arsenals, on the other hand, clerks and stenographers were

at a premium all during the wartime period. Among the most important

features of the training program at Huntsville and Pine Bluff was the

training, on a continuous basis, of clerks and typists. The most promising

candidates among the girls in the plants were transferred to the offices and

trained as clerks and typists.

Since Huntsville and Pine Bluff were not situated near colleges or universities, these arsenals made no effort to carry out a co-operative training

74

 SOS Adm Memo 24, 18 Aug 42.
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 175

program with private educational institutions. The Chemical Warfare

Center and Rocky Mountain Arsenal were more alike in this respect. The

various colleges in Baltimore co-operated with the CWS in setting up

courses for its employees. At times the U.S. Office of Education also cooperated. For example, in 1945 the CWS, in co-operation with the U.S.

Office of Education and the University of Baltimore, organized a fifteenweek course, two and one-half hours per week, for supervisors. By July

1945, 178 supervisors had completed this course and the results, in the

opinion of the commanding officer of the CWC, were excellent.75

In the administration of the training programs some arsenals did a

better job than others. Those installations with the best civilian training

records followed a few basic principles which made all the difference

between good and bad administration. Among these principles the following three were outstanding: (1) all supervisors were required to take

certain basic instruction, such as the "J" series; (2) the commanding officer

personally encouraged the training programs; and (3) there was good

co-ordination between the military and civilian key personnel on all training

matters.

Depot Training

The most extensive training program at the depots, as at the arsenals,

was on-the-job training. Within six months after the declaration of war, it

was impossible to hire trained workers such as crane or fork lift truck

operators, and consequently new employees had to be trained on the spot

to perform these operations. The same situation prevailed at all of the

depots throughout the wartime period.

The "J" series was introduced into the depots at the same time as at

other installations. Courses at special training schools were also initiated.

From 1943 until the close of the war, selected depot employees, both

military and civilian, were dispatched to the Forest Products Laboratory,

Madison, Wisconsin, to take a one-week course in packing and packaging.76

The training of depot employees was closely supervised by the Supply

Division, OC CWS. Training units were set up at those depots where

75

 Ltr, CG Cml Warfare Center to C CWS, 23 Jul 45, sub: Information, Education, and

Special Serv Activities. CWS 230. 76

 Ltr, C Storage Div OC CWS to CG Midwest Dep et al., 23 Sep 44, sub: Packing and

Packaging Course. CWS 352.
176 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

there were personnel organizations, such as the Indianapolis Depot and

the Deseret Depot. At other depots such as Eastern, Midwest, and Gulf,

the administration of training was the function of the training unit of

the adjoining arsenal.

Training in the Procurement Districts

The most pressing manpower need of the procurement districts in the

early part of the war was for inspectors. In the emergency period, as

indicated above, newly hired inspectors were sent from the districts to

Edgewood Arsenal for training. These employees upon their return to the

districts helped train more recently hired inspectors. Once war got under

way this method could not satisfy the greatly expanded need for inspectors.

To fill this need, the Chemical Warfare Service began an intensive drive

to procure female as well as male employees. It scoured the colleges in

the procurement districts for women who would qualify as inspector apprentices. Once trained, those college women did excellent work. For certain

types of inspection, such as that of munitions, the training standards were

lower, and a high school, vocational school, or even a grade school education was considered sufficient background. The minimum requirement for

inspectors of chemicals always remained high: a college background in

chemistry or chemical engineering.

The training of new inspectors was carried out in co-operation with

the city and state departments of education and with various private schools.

In the San Francisco district, for example, a course for inspectors was

inaugurated in December 1941 in co-operation with the California State

Department of Education. This course included instruction in measuring

instruments and gauges, basic metallurgy as applied to inspection, and

miscellaneous subjects such as principles of spring design and testing.

The state of California furnished teachers for this course. In other districts,

such as Boston, training was conducted almost entirely in private educational institutions such as the Durfee School at Fall River or Northeastern

University in Boston. In still other districts, like Dallas, the district training

unit itself conducted training courses for inspectors; a well-qualified civilian

put in charge laid out the courses of instruction, obtained suitable texts, and

arranged for the procurement of training films and other training aids.77

77

 Ltr, Ex O Inspection Off DCWPD to C CWS (Through C Inspection Div OC CWS), 14

Dec 43, sub: Recommendation for Award of Emblem for Meritorious Civ Serv. CWS 200.6.
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 177

Utilization of Employees

There was an extravagant waste of manpower in many war industries

during World War II. This waste occurred not only in government plants

but also in those operated by private industries. In some instances, cupidity

or mismanagement or a combination of both was responsible. In a greater

number of cases the cause was due to other factors, the most important

being the extremely rapid expansion of the industrial facilities of the country as a result of the demand for matériel in the first year of the war.

Contracts were let out to corporations or individuals who never had had

experience in manufacturing the particular items called for in the contract.

They had to learn by trial and error. Among other things, these manufacturers were totally unacquainted with the best methods of employing manpower in their plants, a technique they had to learn as time went on.

Older government plants had a certain amount of experience, of course,

in producing their particular products, but the tremendous increase in

the demand for more and more of all types of items led them to place

secondary emphasis on the conservation of manpower. The newer government plants, like the industries which converted to wartime manufacture,

were in a more serious predicament.

The Chemical Warfare Service, like the other technical services, was

faced with the problem of conserving manpower. As early as July 1942

the Commanding General, ASF, called attention to the need for better

use of personnel. He informed the Chief, CWS, that many of the War

Department offices were not using their employees to best advantage and

urged a survey to ascertain the number and function of clerical workers

by grade.78 This was the beginning of a drive by General Somervell to

conserve manpower, a drive which was to continue throughout the wartime

period. Time and again he reiterated, either through personal statements or

through official administrative action, the necessity for efficient utilization

of personnel, both military and civilian.79 In conformity with this policy

great emphasis was placed on work simplification and work measurement

programs throughout the ASF.80

78

 Memo, CG SOS for C CWS, 21 Jul 42. 79

 (1) ASF Adm Memo S-1, 10 Oct 42. (2) Ltr, CofS ASF to C CWS, 18 Jan 43. CWS 200.

(3) Memo, CofS ASF for C CWS, 27 Jul 43, sub: Reduction in Operating Pers. CWS 223. (4)

Address of CG ASF to Conf of Pers Contl Units of Tech Servs, Washington, D.C., 18 Jan 44.

CWS 337. 80

 Work measurement consisted of comparing the amount of work performed by the same

organization at different periods of time, or comparable organizations at the same period of time,

by indicating a ratio of personnel to workload.
178 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

In June 1943, it was disclosed, General Somervell had promised General

Marshall that he would reduce the number of ASF operating personnel

by 105,000 and that Under Secretary of War Patterson and James Mitchell,

director of ASF personnel, had assured Congress there would be a cut of

at least 100,000 in civilian personnel in the ASF.81 After the ASF apportioned this figure among its various elements, the Chemical Warfare Service

was cut back 2,424 employees in July 1943.82

The CWS record for reducing the actual number of its personnel during

the war was not outstanding. At times when many other branches and

services were showing a decrease in their employment rolls, the CWS was

showing an increase. But there was a very good reason behind the CWS

increase: the expanded chemical warfare procurement program in the

second half of the war. The CWS did not reach its peak of procurement

before 1944.83 Had the war continued, the Service would undoubtedly have

reached peak procurement in 1945 or later, because at the time the war came

to a close the demand for items like the flame thrower and the incendiary

bomb was rising.84 Although the CWS did not show a marked decline in

the actual number of its employees, the CWS record in making the best

use of its manpower was in the main impressive, as members of the ASF

staff noted on various occasions.85

On 4 March 1943 General Porter appointed a Manpower Utilization

Committee to supervise all projects aimed at conserving manpower in the

CWS.86 The Control Division, OC CWS, acted as the operating agency

for this committee and, through the control units at the installations,

administered work simplification and later work measurement programs

on a continuing basis. On 24 January 1944 the Chief, CWS, appointed

a Personnel Utilization Board of five military members, headed by General

Loucks, to survey the employment needs of each CWS installation and

make recommendations on better utilization of personnel.87

81

 Memo, Maj Robert G. Boyd for C Pers Div OC CWS, 23 Jun 43, sub: ASF Conf on Contl

of Pers. CWS 200.3. 82

 Ltr, C CWS to CG ASF, 28 Jul 43, sub: Pers Allotment. CWS 200.3. 83

 This information was obtained from Statistical Branch, Office of Comptroller of the Army. 84

 See Special ASF Staff Conf Analysis, Period I Supply, 21 Mar 45. At that time the only two

technical services with expanding procurement programs were the CWS and the Transportation

Corps. 85

 (1) Memo, CofS ASF for C CWS, 8 Jun 44, sub: Work Simplification. CWS 310. (2) ASF

Manpower Utilization Survey Team No. 6 Covering CWS Installations, Rpt on Spot Check of

HA, Ala., 21 Feb 45. (3) ASF Manpower Utilization Survey Team No. 6 Covering CWS Installations, Rpt on Spot Check of PBA, Ark. Last two in CWS 230. 86

 OC CWS SO 55, 4 Mar 43. 87

 OC CWS SO 20, 24 Jan 44.
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 179

Utilization of Personnel at Arsenals

Of all CWS civilian personnel 85 percent was engaged in activities

related to procurement.88 This type of activity was the most amenable to

work measurement, an operation on which the CWS put great emphasis,

particularly at the arsenals. Both the Control and Industrial Divisions, OC

CWS, scrutinized the personnel utilization reports of the arsenals very

closely and called upon the commanding officers to explain any apparent

failures to cut down the number of man-hours. In this way the arsenals

became conscious of the importance of the work simplification and work

measurement program and strove to make better records in their personnel

utilization indexes.

Certain factors beyond the control of the Chemical Warfare Service

mitigated against the optimum utilization of manpower at the arsenals.

Among these were changing schedules of production, uncertain flow of

components and raw materials, the relatively short period of actual operations, and empirical problems presented by the production of items never

before manufactured. Under such conditions it was just not possible to

make effective use of manpower at all times. That the Under Secretary

of War appreciated the problems peculiar to manufacturing plants is

indicated in Mr. Patterson's remark of May 1944 that it was often harder

to re-staff a plant that had lost workers than it had been to staff the plant

originally. Mr. Patterson therefore recommended that "each service should

act with great caution in cutting down plant operation since it will be very

difficult to get plants back into production."

 89

Another factor preventing effective use of personnel at the arsenals was

the duplication of functions by the CWS and the service commands.90

Army Regulation 170-10, as revised on 10 August 1942, provided that

the service commands perform at technical services installations certain

activities such as laundry, repair work, and maintenance. There were undoubtedly good reasons for this arrangement, but difficulties arose at CWS

arsenals when service command workmen began to duplicate or supplement

work done by CWS workmen.

The CWS did not eliminate its repair and maintenance crews at the

88

 Memo, Ex O OC CWS for Dir Pers ASF, 15 Jan 44, sub: Work Simplification Indices and

Pers Requirements for Zone of Interior Establishments of Tech Servs. CWS 200.3. 89

 Memo, AC Contl Div for AC CWS for Matériel, 16 May 44, sub: ASF Staff Conf, 12 May

44. CWS 337. 90

 For details on service commands, see Millett, Army Service Forces, Chapter XXI.
180 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

arsenals with the revision of Army Regulation 170-10. The Chief, CWS,

and the commanding officers of the arsenals felt that since the Chemical

Warfare Service was responsible for the operation of the arsenals it was

also responsible for their upkeep; it was just not possible to separate the

two. At the Chemical Warfare Center a happy arrangement was worked

out whereby the post engineer was made chief of the Service Division of

the arsenal.91 In this way the use of duplicate crews of workmen was

avoided. At the other arsenals there was no such arrangement, and duplication and overlapping did occur. At times the situation bordered on the

ridiculous. For example, at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, painters working

under the post engineer would paint only the door frames and window

casings of buildings. CWS painters would then have to paint the rest of

the building. This procedure resulted in additional expense and loss in

man-hours.92

The use of CWS repair and maintenance workers was, no doubt, contrary to Army Regulation 170-10 (revised). In July and August 1945

the ASF took steps to eliminate such practice by supplementing the Army

Regulation with official circulars.93 The circulars left the Chief, CWS,

no alternative but to prepare for the transfer of some seven hundred service

employees from the CWS to the service commands. This he was in process

of carrying out when the war came to an end, but he did not take the

action without a protest.94

Personnel Utilization at Other Chemical Warfare Service Installations

The work measurement program got under way in the depots as the

result of an ASF directive of November 1944. Under that directive the

Control and Supply Divisions of the Chief's office developed procedures

for putting the plan in operation at CWS depots and chemical warfare

sections of general depots.95 The program was not in operation in the depots

long enough for its efficiency to be properly judged.

CWS officials found that the work measurement program was not prac91

 (1) Ltr, EX O Cml Warfare Center to C CWS, 28 Jul 45, sub: Post Engineer Activities at

EA. CWS 231. (2) Interv, CmlHO and Mr. Gerald P. Schwarzkopf, C Serv Div, ACmlC, Md.,

14 Oct 54. 92

 History of Rocky Mountain Arsenal, VII, 2234. 93

 ASF Cirs 265, 312 and 342 of 1945. 94

 Ltr, C CWS to CG ASF (Att: Dir of Pers) 28 Aug 45, sub: Pers Readjustments Under ASF

Cirs 265 and 312. CWS 200. 95

 Activities of Contl Div OC CWS, 1 Jan 45-14 Aug 45, p. 9.
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 181

ticable in the procurement districts until uniformity of organization had

been attained. As indicated above, standardization was achieved in the fall

of 1943.96 The CWS then submitted a list of the activities and operations

of the procurement districts to the ASF for consideration in drawing up

a uniform system of work measurement for all districts. Not until the spring

of 1945 was the system formulated. Thus the war was practically over

before the work measurement program got started in the procurement

districts.

The utilization of personnel at CWS installations is somewhat difficult

to assess. Perhaps if the work measurement program had been initiated

earlier or if the war had continued it would be possible to pass judgment.

Although, as indicated, ASF staff officers commented favorably upon personnel utilization at certain CWS arsenals, a War Department special board,

the Gasser Board, which made a study in the summer and fall of 1945,

was not always so favorably impressed.97 Members of this board visited

some of the CWS installations and on the basis of their observations made

a number of recommendations on the more effective use of manpower.98

The war ended before these recommendations could be thoroughly studied.

Use of Prisoners of War

One of the means by which the CWS attempted to overcome the shortage of manpower was through the use of prisoners of war. Late in

December 1944 General Somervell urged General Porter to make greater

use of POW's for certain types of work. Porter immediately directed his

installation commanders to use the prisoners wherever possible and he put

an officer in the Industrial Division, OC CWS, in charge of all POW

activities." In May 1945 more than 1,900 prisoners of war were at CWS

installations, and over 1,900 more were at prisoner of war camps, working

on CWS projects.100

96

 See above, Chapter VI. 97

 See Fairchild and Grossman, The Army and Industrial Manpower, Chapter III, for discussion

of Gasser Board and other manpower boards and committees. 98

 Data on War Department Manpower Board surveys on certain installations are in WDMB

file 333. Members of the survey teams discussed their findings with CWS officers, who were

skeptical of surveys based on a few days' investigation. Van Domelen Interv, 24 Oct 50. 99

 (1) Ltr, CG ASF to C CWS, 21 Dec 44. (2) Ltr, C CWS to NYCWPD, 2 Jan 45, sub:

Utilization of POW Labor on Essential Work. (3) Ltr, C CWS to CO HA, 3 Jan 45, sub:

Utilization of POW Labor on Essential Work. Last two in CWS 2 30. 100

 Memo, C Plant Protection and Labor Br for Fiscal Div OC CWS, 28 May 45, sub: POW's

at Cml Warfare Installations.
182 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

The efficiency of prisoner of war labor depended to no small extent

on good supervision. Tests made in March 1945 indicated that the rate

of production in well-supervised POW camps was four times greater than

in poorly supervised camps.101

Guarding the Worker's Life and Health 102

CWS responsibility for safety in its arsenals and plants became crystallized in July 1942. From then until the close of the war the service had

responsibilities for plant protection, which included accident and fire

prevention as well as measures designed to prevent sabotage and espionage,

at the CWS arsenals and plants and at designated contractor plants.103

To supervise these functions throughout the CWS a Plant Protection, Safety,

and Labor Branch was activated in the Industrial Division, OC CWS, in

mid-1942. This office was headed, for the duration of the war, by Col.

James C. Sawders.

The Plant Protection, Safety, and Labor Branch, upon its inception,

undertook a program aimed at educating arsenal and plant supervisory

personnel on the importance of safety. The branch placed great emphasis

on engineering improvements such as guarding and grounding machinery,

and better ventilation. From early 1945 until the close of the war it

stressed the safety training of all employees. The result of all this activity

was remarkable: the CWS, which in 1942 and 1943 had one of the worst

safety records of any element of the War Department, improved until

by 1945 it had one of the best records.104

This record, commendable though it was, would have been even better

had the safety training of all employees been initiated at an earlier date.

Of course, the ideal situation would have been institution of a thoroughgoing safety program from the very start of the emergency period. Many

accidents would have been avoided had that been done.

101

 Ltr, Lt Col James C. Sawders to C Contl Div OC CWS, 24 Mar 45, sub: Rpt of Official

Travel. CWS 314.7 Pers File. 102

 The chief sources of information for this section were, in addition to the sources cited,

interviews and correspondence with the following World War II officers who had had experience

in intelligence and plant protection functions in CWS: Colonels MacArthur, Charles H. McNary,

James C. Sawders, and Sidney L. Weedon. 103

 SOS Cir C-1, 22 Jul 42. Although this circular was superseded by SOS Circular 66, 22

September 1942, CWS responsibilities were not modified. 104

 Rpt, CWS Proc Conf Held at BCWPD, Boston, Mass., 24-25 Apr 45, pp. 40-43, remarks

of Col James C. Sawders.
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 183

Sabotage and espionage were matters of immediate interest, not only

to the Plant Protection, Safety, and Labor Branch but also to the Intelligence Branch of the Chief's office, which during World War II was

headed by Lt. Col. Sidney L. Weedon. The Intelligence Branch had responsibility for security checks on officers, just as the Federal Bureau of Investigation did on civilians, as well as for counterintelligence activities.105

When a fire or accident occurred which indicated the possibility of sabotage

or espionage, the Intelligence Branch was concerned as to whether an

officer was involved; in the same way the Plant Protection Branch was

concerned about the possibility of civilians being involved. There were no

known instances of sabotage or espionage in the CWS in World War II.

It cannot be definitely stated that there were no cases of sabotage or

espionage because of the difficulty of establishing such activities as the cause

of fires and accidents. What can be stated definitely is that the Chemical

Warfare Service was extremely vigilant in the security screening of prospective officers and employees.

CWS personnel rolls, military and civilian, expanded rapidly in the

general mobilization of World War II. Reserve officers were brought into

the service in great numbers, and civilians with special qualifications were

given temporary commissions. These non-Regulars worked closely with the

small cadre of CWS Regular officers to carry out the wartime mission. All

during the war the CWS had access to a great number of qualified enlisted

men, and from 1942 on, to competent WAC personnel.

The problem of filling civilian manpower needs was more difficult.

Like all elements of the War Department the Chemical Warfare Service

was faced with ever-tightening restrictions on the number of employees

allotted. The CWS attempted to solve this problem by concentrating on

retaining the people it had, by training them to be more efficient, and by

conserving manpower generally through work simplification procedures.

105

 OC CWS Organization Charts, Aug 43 and Dec 44.

PART TWO

MILITARY TRAINING

CHAPTER VIII

Military Training

Responsibilities of the

Chemical Warfare Service

The military training responsibilities of the Chief of the Chemical

Warfare Service were succinctly stated in the National Defense Act of

1920 as:

a. ... supervision of the training of the Army in chemical warfare, both offensive

and defensive, including the necessary schools of instruction. . . .

b. . . . training ... of special troops. . . .1

Although amplified by subsequent administrative regulations, these provisions furnished the basic pattern followed in CWS training during World

War II.

War Department directives provided that chemical warfare training

should cover the fields of smoke, incendiary, and gas; yet the primary

concern of the CWS prior to World War II was unquestionably with gas.

Since the service had been created by Congress as an answer to the military

threat of toxic chemicals, the status of the CWS as an independent technical

service could scarcely have been justified if it were not prepared to cope

with this major menace. Fear of gas was largely fear of the unknown, and

its antidote was, in large measure, to acquaint troops with toxic agents and

how to counteract them. To impart such understanding was the primary

training responsibility of the Chemical Warfare Service and the point of

departure for the whole CWS mission.

The training of troops in protection against war gases can be approached

with two differing objectives in view. One is training to insure mere survival

of an enemy attack. The other is a more aggressive type of training, in1

 WD Bull 25, 9 Jun 20.
188 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

tended to enable troops to advance through their own as well as the enemy's

gas attacks. One is essentially negative; the other, an essentially positive

approach. Circumstances combined with events to determine eventually

a positive U.S. attitude toward training for gas warfare. Chemical officers

were generally aggressive-minded, although before the war their enthusiasm

was often curbed by opposition within as well as outside the Army.2 Denied

substantial funds for production and development of offensive matériel,

CWS threw much energy into training channels, where such limitations were

less hampering.

In addition to staff supervision of training of the entire Army in chemical warfare, the CWS was of course responsible for its own normal military

and technical branch training. Since the number of CWS officers and troops

was relatively small prior to 1940, this type of training presented no special

problem. The National Defense Act appeared to give precedence to the

more general training mission; and this was certainly the most challenging.

By mutual agreement, chemical warfare training responsibilities in the

early 1920's included training of the Navy and Marine Corps. The training

activities of the CWS, therefore, came to reach, in some degrees, all elements of the armed forces.

Prewar Training of Chemical Warfare Service Personnel

The technical (branch) training of Regular and Reserve CWS officers

and of CWS enlisted men conducted before the war, being necessarily

limited, provided little procedural experience for solving complex training

problems that were to confront the CWS after the beginning of hostilities.

The duty strength of the officer corps of the Chemical Warfare Service

had remained substantially unchanged for some years. In the month of the

outbreak of war in Europe it included ninety Regular Army officers and

approximately twenty-one hundred Reservists.3

Two factors tended to restrict the prewar training of Regular Army

officers assigned to the CWS. One was the limited number of these officers;

another, the diversified nature of their duties, some of which were highly

technical. It was scarcely feasible to institute a sufficient number of courses

to satisfy all the training requirements of CWS officers.

2

 See above, Chapter II. 3

 Annual Report of the Secretary of War to the President, 1940 (Washington: Government

Printing Office, 1940). Also, see above, Table 2.
MILITARY TRAINING RESPONSIBILITIES 189

Because of the slow turnover of officers during the decade preceding

the European war, the problem of indoctrinating those transferring to the

CWS from other branches was never pressing. Their military education

was usually well advanced when they entered the Chemical Warfare

Service. Attendance at a Chemical Warfare School course was required

immediately after transfer, following which on-the-job training largely

served to familiarize new officers with the specialized duties of the service.

Professional training of officers of the regular establishment was furthered by assigning them to courses of instruction at general and special

service schools according to quotas established by the War Department.

Some advanced training was accomplished at civilian schools, especially

in the form of postgraduate work at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Harvard School of Business Administration. Seven officers

were normally detached each year for duty as students at military and

civilian schools.

In all, more than one third of the officers assigned to the CWS before

World War II were on training duty. Besides 7 students, these included:

9 officers assigned to faculties of general and special service schools; 2

instructors of ROTC units; 9 company officers with chemical troop units;

4 division chemical officers; and 2 officers on duty with the Training Division, Office of the Chief, CWS. The twelve chemical officers assigned

to corps areas and overseas departments also had considerable training

responsibilities. Training represented a major activity of Regular Army

CWS officers.

Before World War II the Chemical Warfare Service had developed

a relatively strong corps of Reserve officers, which included two distinct

components, the branch assignment group and the corps area assignment

group. The branch assignment group comprised officers whose mobilization

assignment called for duty directly under the chief of branch. It consisted

largely of men whose civilian backgrounds indicated a technical military

occupational specialty appropriate to the CWS. In 1939 it included approximately 800 officers. Premobilization training of this group was a direct

responsibility of the Chief, CWS, although in practice this training was

generally decentralized to corps area chemical officers. The corps area

assignment group also included many Reserve officers with technical experience in chemical fields. However, members of this group were slated

for assignment to military units rather than to technical or procurement

installations. There were approximately 1,300 corps area assignment Reserve

officers in 1939. Responsibility for their training rested with corps area
190 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

and department commanders, although the Chief, CWS, was vitally concerned with their readiness for war service.

The two principal means for training Reserve officers were army extension (correspondence) courses and associate training for 14-day periods

with the Regular Army. These means were admittedly imperfect, yet nonetheless contributed measurably to the war preparation of the CWS Reserve.

The extension course of the Chemical Warfare School offered in 1939

a total of eighteen subcourses prepared by the school for the instruction

of CWS Reserve officers of all grades. One of these, Defense Against

Chemical Warfare, was a required subcourse for study by Reserve officers

of all arms and services. Associate training was, in theory, integrated with

extension course training. A total of 453 Chemical Warfare Service Reserve

officers were called to active duty for fourteen-day training periods during

fiscal year 1939.4

For recruitment, the Reserves depended largely on the Reserve Officers'

Training Corps. The unit maintained at Massachusetts Institute of Technology provided many highly trained technical officers. In 1935 a second

CWS unit was authorized at Texas Agricultural and Mechanical College,

from which source splendid troop leaders were obtained. Before the war

the junior class of each unit, funds permitting, was brought to Edgewood

Arsenal annually for summer training. Enrollment in these two units

stood at 326 on 30 June 1939.5

The Regular Army enlisted strength of the Chemical Warfare Service

in September 1939 totaled 759,6 or less than two thirds of the number

set by statute in 1920.7 Eighty percent of these men were assigned to the

handful of understrength CWS troop formations. The remainder were

scattered in small detachments from Manila to Governors Island. Their

training followed in general the conventional pattern of Army peacetime

field operations. Promotion to grades of staff, technical, and master sergeant

was based on written examinations conducted under direction of the Chief,

CWS. Occasional courses of instruction at the Chemical Warfare School

were provided for men seeking promotion under this system. The turnover

among senior enlisted men was so slow in the prewar years that NCO

courses were conducted infrequently. The eight-week course ending 26

4

 Annual Rpt of SW to President, 1939, p. 62. 5

 Annual Rpt of SW to President, 1940, p. 62. 6

 Ibid., App. A, Table D. 7

 Section 12a of the National Defense Act specified that CWS would be allotted 1,200 enlisted

men. See above, Chapter I.
MILITARY TRAINING RESPONSIBILITIES 191

May 1939 was the first NCO course that had been conducted since 1933.

It was inevitable that, with so few Regular Army officers assigned to the

CWS, considerable responsibility should devolve in peacetime upon the

senior noncommissioned officers of this branch. Many of these men were

commissioned during World War II and served with distinction in grades

up to and including that of colonel.

Training of Other Branches

Although the Chief, CWS, had a statutory responsibility for supervising

the training of the entire Army in chemical warfare, "both offensive and

defensive," this fact was never taken by the War Department as a reason

for relieving the unit commander of immediate responsibility for the readiness of his command for chemical combat.8

 Instead, the chemical training

program was developed so as to strengthen rather than weaken that responsibility. Thus the War Department from time to time established standards

of readiness and indicated the scope of assistance to be rendered by the

Chemical Warfare Service to field commanders in meeting these standards.9

An underlying doctrine in training for gas defense was that slack defense

invited attack while superior defense deterred attack. Good gas discipline

could be expected to deny military advantage to an enemy employing poison

gas—and thus to discourage him from such use. And gas discipline depended on sound training supplemented by dependable protective equipment.

Organization within the Army for defense against chemical attack was

based on the proposition that unit commanders at each echelon have on

their staff specialists capable of assisting them in gas defense training.

According to basic training doctrine, these specialists fell into two categories.10

 The "chemical" officer was a CWS technical specialist assigned

by superior authority to the staff of the commander of a division, corps,

army, corps area, or department. At lower echelons the term "gas" officer

(or noncommissioned officer) was used. Thus unit personnel were designated by unit commanders to serve as gas officers for regiments and bat8

 The unit commander was given this responsibility in the AEF gas manual, Defensive Measures Against Gas Attacks, 30 November 1917, p. 18. 9

 Ltr, TAG to All Corps Area and Dept Comdrs et al., 24 Jul 30, sub: Cml Warfare Tng and

Tactical Assignment of Cml Warfare Troops to GHQ Reserve. AG 321.94 (5-17-30) (Misc.)

M-C.

10

 Basic Field Manual, Vol. I, Field Service Pocketbook, Ch. 8, Defense Against Chemical

Attack, 31 Dec 37, superseded in May 1940 by FM 21-40.
192 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

BASIC TRAINING, Camp Roberts, California. Trainees receive instruction in

decontamination procedures.

talions and as gas noncommissioned officers for regiments, battalions,

companies, or corresponding units of both ground and air troops.

After recruit instruction in use of the gas mask, training followed three

well-defined phases: specialist training of unit gas officers and NCO's;

basic training of units under direction of their gas officers and NCO's; and,

finally, application of basic unit training in field problems involving gas

situations.

The specialized training of unit gas officers and noncommissioned officers was therefore the starting point for the progressive training of combat

forces in gas defense. This training was particularly the staff responsibility

of chemical officers, who were charged with conducting special courses of

instruction as frequently as necessary to insure that all units were provided

with suitably trained gas officers and noncommissioned officers. The Basic

Field Manual called for twenty-two hours of instruction for unit gas personnel. Opportunities were given for company grade line officers also to
MILITARY TRAINING RESPONSIBILITIES 193

GAS TRAINING FOR OFFICERS. Wearing masks, officers enter gassed area.

Specialist training, Camp Beale, California.

receive this type of training, in more detail, at the Chemical Warfare

School. Thus the training of unit gas officers and noncommissioned officers

was a staff responsibility of the Chief, CWS, who was concerned with the

training of instructors; the utilization of such unit personnel (and also of

staff chemical officers) in the training of combat troops was a responsibility

of unit command.

Unit training of combat commands in gas defense, as distinguished

from individual training, stressed collective protection. The field phase of

this training was intended to test the ability of the unit to meet gas

situations according to the tactical employment of the arm. The overall

standard set by the War Department contemplated "opposing effectively

any enemy employing chemical weapons."11 As head of a special staff

section of the War Department, the Chief, CWS, was concerned with

11

 Ltr, TAG to C CWS, 7 Jan 24, sub: CWSs Functions. AG 321.94 (1-2-24) (Misc.) M-C.

See above, pages 187-88.
194 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

how well gas discipline in the Army satisfied this standard and he accordingly advised the General Staff in matters pertaining to chemical warfare

for inclusion in annual War Department training directives.12

Compared to the amount of organization and effort involved in defensive training, that devoted to offensive chemical warfare was relatively

limited. Policy in this field was frequently reviewed by the War Department

General Staff. Standard procedure was that chemical weapons developed

for the U.S. Army should be produced "with a view to employment by

one or more of the combatant branches"

 13

 (that is, by Infantry, Field

Artillery, Air Corps, etc.). For such matériel, the CWS was in theory a

producer and supplier only. But the Chemical Warfare Service was never

content merely to purvey. It took the view that the stocks of smoke, incendiary, and gas munitions were specialties, the merits of which might be

overlooked if not adequately utilized. Hence an important function of CWS

officers detailed to the faculties of special service schools and the Command

and General Staff School was to further the introduction of chemical

warfare situations into instructional problems and at the same time assist

in the development of doctrine covering the employment of chemical

munitions by the several combat arms. The Chief, CWS, selected instructors

for assignment to those schools with the utmost care.

Not all chemical weapons were suited to employment by one of the

older arms. Such weapons constituted the armament of "special gas troops"

and the technique of their employment was taught at the Chemical Warfare

School.

Chemical Warfare School

The Chemical Warfare School at Edgewood Arsenal was, before the

war, the most important single training agency of the CWS. It was in effect

the fountainhead of chemical warfare training for the Army and its teachings were closely followed in the Navy and Marine Corps. It was also to

some extent a laboratory for the development of chemical warfare tactics

and techniques.

The school taught, almost exclusively, the offensive and defensive

aspects of gas warfare. The military employment of smoke was treated

12

 Memo, sub: Policy on Cml Warfare Training, approved by C CWS on 7 Jun 29. CWS

352/940. 13

 Ltr, TAG to All Corps Area and Dept Comdrs et al, 4 Oct 27, sub: Cml Warfare Tng. AG

321.94 (9-27-27).
MILITARY TRAINING RESPONSIBILITIES 195

TABLE 8—CHEMICAL WARFARE SCHOOL COURSES, SCHOOL YEAR

1937-38

a

 Regular Army-70 (includes 9 CWS officers); National Guard-19; Organized Reserves-15 (includes 11 CWS officers);

Marine Corps-10; Navy-91.

Source: Class records, Chemical Corps School.

briefly, and some consideration was given to incendiary warfare. Impracticability of biological warfare was accented. The faculty emphasized that

gas was an important development in military science; that wide use of

the gas weapon in the next war was inevitable; that American gas warfare

matériel, offensive and defensive, was superior, and, when employed together with the gas discipline so essential to troop protection, would ensure

the ability of the U.S. Army to stage gas attacks more effectively than

its enemies.

The great majority of students attending the school were from arms

and services other than the CWS. Most of them were expected after graduation to become instructors in gas defense in their organizations or to supervise some phase of chemical warfare operations. Accommodations available

at Edgewood Arsenal limited the capacity of the school to approximately

fifty students. Normally, only five classes were conducted during the school

year. Their duration varied from three to twelve weeks, and they ran

without overlap. In an average year, resident students attended the school

thirty weeks out of the fifty-two. The total number of graduates, as of 30

June 1939, was 2,809." (Table 8)

The Chemical Warfare School had a tendency toward extroversion,

naturally acquired through many years of teaching its military specialty to

other elements of the armed forces. During prewar years the school was

notably successful in bringing a working knowledge of gas warfare to

14

 Records, Cml C School.
196 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

a wide cross section of Army and Navy officers. It stood well among service

schools on two counts: it had developed a liberal approach to military

education, and it was held in high regard by its graduates.

Prior to 1939 three courses had been developed for the instruction of

Army officers: the Basic, the Line and Staff, and the Field Officers' Courses.

The Basic Course was essentially an elaborate unit gas officers' course which

was attended in the late prewar years by an increasing number of National

Guard and some Reserve officers. It was intended to strengthen the gas

defense program by making available an increasing number of well qualified

junior line officers to aid in unit training of ground and air forces. The

Line and Staff Course (the longest prewar course conducted by the school)

trained company grade officers, principally Regular Army, in both offensive

and defensive chemical warfare. It presented a broad picture of gas warfare

involving all combatant arms. The Field Officers' Course was designed to

acquaint senior officers with the general features of chemical warfare from

the viewpoint of battalion and regimental commanders. This midsummer

course was timed for the convenience of officers graduating from or detailed to attend other Army schools, especially the general service schools.

In addition to these three standard courses for Army personnel, a Navy

Course was conducted each spring and fall, integrated with the naval

program of professional schooling. In order to assist in this instruction,

naval personnel stationed at Edgewood Arsenal were attached to the faculty

of the CW School.

Training Situation in 1939

In the two decades preceding World War II the CWS had developed

a training organization that was well designed to serve the primary purpose

of maintaining within the armed forces a healthy attitude toward gas

warfare. If in these years the use of chemical weapons other than gas was

not stressed, the omission must be attributed to the fact that other chemical

weapons were still largely unperfected.

The training activities of the branch engaged a large and possibly

disproportionate number of CWS officers. Training was in fact an engaging

occupation. Trainers at times developed an evangelical approach toward

gas warfare. The subject was novel and often welcomed by troops as a

change from monotonous military exercises. Despite limited allotments of

training time, the military concepts of the Chemical Warfare Service were

well disseminated at the close of the interwar period.
MILITARY TRAINING RESPONSIBILITIES 197

Considerable training had been accomplished in connection with the

projected mobilization of chemical combat troops. The composition of these

troops and the tactics of their employment in conjunction with field armies

were studied at service schools and in correspondence courses. The CWS

expected that gas warfare would be resumed where it had left off in 1918;

that the scale of gas casualties suffered by the American Army would be

reduced because of improved defensive techniques; and that gathering

momentum in the United States in the production of gas munitions during

the final phases of World War I would quickly be regained in a new

war so as to assure dominance in this field. In the view of the Chemical

Warfare Service, at least, gas was a normal military weapon and, as a

result of progressive training, the theory of its employment had become

integrated into the main stream of Army tactical doctrine.

While no attempt was made to conceal training activities, every nation

shrouded in secrecy its research and development in chemical warfare.

The U.S. found it difficult to obtain precise information as to the size and

scope of preparations for the offensive use of poison gas by other nations.

Intelligence estimates were based to some extent on more readily obtainable

information as to training activities in gas defense, which were generally

accepted as an index to national intentions. The considerable attention

given to chemical warfare defense in the United States Army was frequently

noted by military attaches of the Washington embassies. As a result, both

Germany and Japan came to a similar conclusion well before the outset of

hostilities—the United States was making serious preparations for gas

warfare.15

Actually the policy of President Roosevelt was to avert rather than

to precipitate gas warfare. This policy was unmistakably announced in his

veto message of 1937.16 Despite Presidential intent some veering in attitude

toward gas warfare is discernible in the years immediately preceding 1939.

This trend coincided with the steady deterioration of international conciliation as a means of avoiding war which followed the rise of Mussolini

and Hitler to power. It was reflected within the War Department as early

as 1930, when a noticeable shift in emphasis from strictly defensive training

in gas warfare took place.17 The combatant status of the Chemical Warfare

Service was reaffirmed in 1935 when Congress specified that the CWS,

15

 For a discussion of German estimate, see Herman Ochsner, History of German Chemical

Warfare in World War II, Chemical Corps Historical Studies, No. 2, pp. 15 and 17. 16

 See above, Chapter II. 17

 See Note 9 above.
198 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

as well as the combatant arms, be included in the allotment of Reserve

officers called to extended active duty.18

Having weathered much controversy in the two decades of its existence,

the CWS by 1939 confidently felt that its seasoned training doctrine would

contribute substantially to the success of any war into which the nation

might be drawn.

18

 Public Law 408, approved 30 August 1935. This was the Thomason Act, which authorized

the President to call one thousand Reserve officers to active duty every year for a period of active

service not to exceed one year.
CHAPTER IX

Partial Mobilization:

1939-41

The beginning of large-scale war in Europe on 3 September 1939 was

followed five days later by President Roosevelt's proclamation of a national

emergency, accompanied by Executive Order 8244 which authorized an

increase in the strength of the Army.1 These developments marked the start

of a new, more energetic stage of military activity—of preparations which

for many months were animated by a hope of avoiding conflict, but which

after the midsummer of 1940 were pointed increasingly toward the defeat

of the Axis Powers.2

Chemical warfare training in the initial phase of partial mobilization

showed slight advance beyond the normal procedures that already were

in effect. But the nation's gradual girding for war during 1939 and 1940

pointed up certain basic deficiencies in the chemical preparedness program

which became a matter of serious concern to the Chemical Warfare Service.

Chemical Troops in the Emergency Period

War Department planning at this time was based upon the quick

marshaling of an Initial Protective Force (IPF) which was designed

to resist invasion and to hold off an enemy pending mobilization under

the Protective Mobilization Plan (PMP). The strengthening of the Regular

Army and National Guard provided for by Executive Order No. 8244

was the first step in the development of this plan. The United States was

not expected to use gas offensively during the IPF stage although it seemed

likely that protection against gas attack would become important. The

CWS regarded this prospect soberly and had developed its planning toward

1

 WD Bull 18, 12 Sep 39. 2

 The beginning of CWS industrial mobilization at this time is discussed in Brophy, Miles and

Cochrane, From Laboratory to Field.
200 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

effective defense against any invader employing toxic agents. The offensive

use of chemical warfare by U.S. troops was reserved, so far as Army

planners could foresee, for later stages of war and for application if necessary on hostile soil. These factors tended to lower the priority under which

the main body of chemical troops would be mobilized and accordingly to

defer their training period.

The 90 officers and 759 enlisted men in the CWS in September 1939

were the hard core around which the tremendous expansion of the next

four years was to develop. Within this allocation seven Regular Army

chemical companies had been organized, all at reduced strength. These

were:

Headquarters Company and Company A, 2d Separate Chemical Battalion, stationed at Edgewood Arsenal where they served as testing and

demonstration units with the Chemical Warfare School (remainder of

battalion inactive).

Company A, 1st Separate Chemical Battalion, assigned to Hawaiian

Department and attached to the Hawaiian Division (remainder of battalion

inactive).

Company C, 2d Chemical Regiment, stationed at Fort Benning, Ga.,

as a school troops unit with The Infantry School (remainder of regiment

inactive).

412th Chemical Depot Company, on duty at Edgewood Chemical Warfare Depot.

1st Separate Chemical Company (pack), assigned to the Panama Canal

Department.

4th Separate Chemical Company, assigned to the Philippine Department.

At the outset of the emergency period, the initial problem was to build

up these active Regular Army companies to full strength, or as near full

strength as possible under the emergency increase. Later the inactive Regular

Army units could be mobilized to bring up to strength the 1st and 2d

Chemical Regiments and the 1st and 2d Separate Chemical Battalions.3

Once these measures had been accomplished, the main problems of CWS

troop mobilization would revolve around activation of the additional combat

and service units for which war planning then provided. These included

ten chemical regiments and eighteen chemical service type companies.

Six of the regiments were officer-manned reserve organizations; four

were designated as National Guard units and were allotted to corps areas

(but not to individual states) for inclusion in mobilization planning. These,

3

 The 1st Chemical Regiment was at this time wholly inactive.
PARTIAL MOBILIZATION: 1939-41 201

with the two regiments classed as Regular Army organizations, provided

a total of twelve chemical regiments, the maximum combat chemical strength

contemplated under full mobilization. These units were assigned to GHQ

Reserve in the proportion of two regiments for each field army. The service

companies on the other hand were intended for assignment organically to

armies in the proportion of one field laboratory, one maintenance company,

and one depot company to each army. This allocation of chemical troops

upon mobilization had been provided for by the War Department in 1931,

in a directive which with minor variations was the basis for 1939 planning.4

Originally, definite mobilization dates were set for these regiments

and service companies.5 This was later modified to leave open the date

of activating chemical units under the Protective Mobilization Plan. The

1931 instructions already referred to thus provided for the selection of

chemical units for activation "depending upon their relative state or organization and training." It was anticipated that at least two regiments

together with appropriate service units would qualify for activation at

about the time each field army mobilized.

There were two reasons for deferring a decision of the exact mobilization date for chemical troop units. First, there was general agreement that

other types of combat units would be more urgently needed in the initial

stages of an essentially defensive protective mobilization; second, there was

continuing uncertainty within the War Department as to the exercise of

combat functions by the CWS.

The Question of Combat Functions

Although prewar planning called for activating twelve chemical regiments under full mobilization, a situation had developed within the War

Department which now effectively debarred activation of any chemical

combat troops. Even though some increased War Department interest in

the offensive employment of toxic gas had accompanied the rise of militarism in Europe, the combatants did not resort to gas warfare when the

war began. By the spring of 1940 military campaigns of striking success

had been fought in Europe without recourse to the gas weapon. This development, which was contrary to many expectations, was taken to justify

4

 Ltr, TAG to All Corps Area and Dept Cmdrs et al., 4 Mar 31, sub: Allocation and Organization of Cml Troops. AG 320.2 CWS (2-9-31) (Misc.) M-C. 5

 Ltr, TAG to C CWS, 19 Dec 30, sub: Provisions for additional Chemical Units that may be

required in a major emergency. AG 381 (11-28-30) (Misc.) C.
202 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

a detailed re-examination of gas warfare organization and planning within

the American service.6

In a plan proposed by the War Department General Staff as a result

of a study of this subject in 1940, it was observed that the "Chemical

Warfare Service has been permitted since 1920 to organize and train chemical troops armed with weapons developed solely for the purpose of projecting chemicals."

 7 The Chief, CWS, General Baker, objecting to such

phraseology, replied: "This function was definitely assigned to it by law,

which has required that they be so organized and trained under War Department orders."

 8

The mission of chemical troops was "to supplement the arms in the

tactical employment of smoke, incendiary material and nontoxic agents."

 9

From the CWS viewpoint, this was merely an interim function; the real

reason for the existence of special gas troops was to insure means for

waging large-scale gas warfare once use of the gas weapon had been

initiated by an enemy. There was thus to be considered two missions for

chemical combat troops; first, a necessarily limited pre-gas warfare mission of supporting military operations with nontoxic chemicals; and second,

unrestricted employment of chemicals after the gas warfare phase of combat

had begun.

Chemical troops were at this time (1940) armed with mortars, Livens

projectors, chemical cylinders, irritant candles, and chemical land mines.10

The projector and the cylinder were generally considered to be in need

of improvement, and the 4.2-inch chemical mortar was in fact developed

as the result of CWS effort to increase the capability of chemical troops

to discharge nonpersistent gas. Yet production of this mortar—then regarded as the primary weapon of chemical troops—had been suspended

since 1935, and after the lapse of some five years the 81-mm. mortar had

been designated as the standard weapon for chemical troops. This arrange6

 Memo, Capt C. K. Galley for ACofS WPD, 7 May 40, sub: CWS Program for National

Defense. WPD 165-16. 7

 Ltr, TAG to C CWS, 2 Jul 40, sub: Combat Functions Now Exercised by the CWS. AG

320.2 (6-19-40) M-C. 8

 1st Ind, 12 Jul 40, to Ltr, TAG to C CWS, 2 Jul 40, sub: Combat Functions Now Exercised

by CWS. CWS 320.2/21. 9

 Ltr, TAG to All Corps Area and Dept Comdrs et al., 4 Mar 31, sub: Allocation and Organization of Cml Troops. AG 320.0 CWS (2-9-31) (Misc.) M-C. 10

 (1) Chemical Warfare Service Field Manual, Vol. I, Tactics and Technique, 1 Aug 38. (2)

Augustin M. Prentiss, Chemicals in War (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1937), pp.

346-83. (3) Alden H. Waitt, Gas Warfare (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1943), pp.

88-99.
PARTIAL MOBILIZATION: 1939-41 203

ment was unsatisfactory to the Chief, CWS, who maintained that the 81-mm.

mortar was technically inadequate for major gas operations.

A settlement of this disagreement between the General Staff and the

Chief, CWS, was aimed at in the 1940 proposal, which was "designated to

relieve the Chemical Warfare Service of its combat functions" and distribute these among infantry, cavalry, and engineer troops. The branches

would then determine military characteristics of weapons needed to undertake gas warfare missions within their appropriate spheres of tactical operation. The CWS pointed out that some of the conclusions advanced to

support this proposal were tenuous.11 Both the Infantry and the Cavalry

expressed reluctance to undertake large-scale gas operations. Disagreement

also developed within the War Department General Staff itself.12 The net

result was a decision which cleared the matter temporarily in the General

Staff but which was far from satisfactory to the CWS.

Ensuing instructions were to the effect that the CWS would retain its

combat functions, but that "combat units of Chemical Warfare Service

will be limited to those now in being and future augmentations of the Army

will make no provision for additional units of this character." The Chief,

CWS, was at the same time directed to "determine and report upon his

future needs for Reserve officers with the possibility of reducing the enrollment in the two Chemical Warfare Service ROTC units, or if need be, the

elimination of one of the units.13

At a time when mobilization of the Army was moving forward at a

rapid pace, this order confronted the Chemical Warfare Service with difficult questions about the future of a substantial number of Reserve officers

who had been trained for active duty with chemical regiments. Another

consideration which affected these units was the decision, arrived at earlier

that the regiment was not the most satisfactory type of wartime organization

for special gas troops. Instead of the regiment, the battalion was determined

to be the largest tactical unit that could be utilized effectively for controlling

chemical weapons operations.

The latter decision did not affect the status of the Reserve regiments.

Actually the regimental organization provided an ideal peacetime arrangement, since it permitted an effective chain of command to supervise inactive

duty training and facilitated the attachment of nontactical Reserve officers

11

 See Note 8, above. 12

 Papers relating to this staff study were filed in WPD 4286. 13

 Ltr, AGO to C CWS and CofOrd, 15 Jan 41, sub: Combat Functions Exercised by CWS.

AG 320.2 (8-27-40) M-C-M.
204 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

to military units for instructional purposes. The Reserve regiments were

widely distributed geographically and the officers assigned to them were

relatively well trained. Although the regiments were destined never to be

mobilized, as war grew imminent they became increasingly active not only

in perfecting their own readiness for mobilization, but also in aiding in the

chemical warfare training of other civilian components.

Although the 1940 staff proposals referred to above had to do with

the exercise of combat functions by the Chemical Warfare Service, the crux

of this matter was armament. The question of the official status of the

4.2-inch chemical mortar had been brought up so frequently by the CWS

that it was almost continuously under study by the General Staff after

1935.14

When the Army was reorganized after World War I, it was assumed

that war gases for the most part would be discharged by devices that

differed essentially from conventional military weapons. But the later trend

of munitions development was toward the conventional, rather than away

from it. In 1940 the CWS was contending that no weapon was as useful

in the tactical employment of gas as the 4.2-inch mortar. Yet there was

nothing so technical about this mortar as to preclude its use by either infantrymen or artillerymen.

The G-4 position, repeatedly affirmed, was that standard and not special

weapons should serve for chemical operations; and that since the combat

arms used these standard weapons with explosive charges, there was no

reason why they could not use the same weapons when loaded with gas

and smoke charges. This view was summed up by Brig. Gen. George P.

Tyner, ACofS, G-4: "I am against organizing 'chemical troops.' Why not

use Infantry or Field Artillery to throw chemical ammunition? Another

branch of the Army in the field is not necessary."

 15

 The Tyner view was

in line with the military principle of simplicity: one less supply channel,

one less organization in the chain of command, one less insignia in the

combat zone, and, in the case of the chemical mortar, one less weapon to

contend with. These all were worthy ends.

Yet the CWS was not convinced that the solution to the problem of

gas warfare was as simple as G-4 maintained. Gas was a tricky weapon

and its employment required special training not given by other branches.

The 81-mm. mortar, which G-4 wished to substitute for the 4.2-inch chem14

 Representative staff action on such papers can be noted in G-4/29895-1. 15

 See penciled note in General Tyner's writing, initialed by him and dated September 1939.

In G-4/29895-1.
PARTIAL MOBILIZATION: 1939-41 205

ical mortar, was unsatisfactory as a means of projecting nonpersistent gas.

On both these points the staff view differed from the CWS view. As far

as the General Staff was concerned, they were closed issues in the spring

of 1941, although the CWS never accepted their closure as final. As long

as the General Staff maintained its position, the CWS could not activate

the chemical combat units called for by prewar mobilization plans.

Action toward relieving the impasse between the General Staff and the

CWS on the question of chemical combat troops was initiated by General

Porter not long after his appointment as Chief, CWS. This took the shape

of a formal recommendation of 26 July 1941 that each of the two active

chemical weapons companies within the zone of interior (at Edgewood

Arsenal and at Fort Benning) be expanded into battalions and equipped

with 4.2-inch mortars.16 This communication, with the concurrences of

G-3, G-4, and the War Plans Division, was hand-carried to the Office of

the Chief of Staff. In the course of subsequent staff discussion, however, the

Porter proposal encountered objections, particularly from G-4 who now

held out for armament of the battalions with the 81-mm. mortar. The

matter was finally resolved by General Marshall, who approved activation

of the two battalions and directed the Chief, CWS, to include in fiscal

year 1943 estimates funds to equip these two battalions with 4.2-inch

mortars.17 Formal instructions to this effect were issued by the War Department on 10 September 1941.

This action clarified a question that had been of paramount concern

to the Chemical Warfare Service for half a dozen years and which was

seriously impeding training on the eve of the war. That the decision of

the Chief of Staff was well taken is evident from the battle record established by this weapon in firing high explosive and smoke shells. The incident

affords an interesting example of the willingness of General Marshall to

hear the presentation of the chief of an Army service and on occasion to

overrule staff action.

Chemical Service Units

Although the War Department General Staff repeatedly challenged the

need for chemical combat troops, it did not object to "service" type chemical

16

 (1) See above, Chapter II. (2) Memo, C CWS for Cof S, 26 Jul 41, sub: Cml Troops. CWS

320.2/266. 17

 See memo for record on retained copy of Memo, G-3 for TAG, 5 Sep 41, sub: Cml Troops.

In G-3/46556.
206 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

TROOPS OF 30 CHEMICAL MORTAR BATTALION, firing 4.2-inch mortars in le

Tholy area, France, October 1944.

units. Action to relieve the CWS of combat functions was in fact rationalized by a desire to enable the service to "devote full time to the organization and training of service troops required to perform essential service

functions."

 18

Three types of chemical service units were authorized at the commencement of the emergency period: laboratory, maintenance, and depot companies. These companies were organized on paper for many years but only

one, the 412th Chemical Depot Company, had ever been activated. In the

spring of 1940, when it became apparent that augmentation of PMP

would soon necessitate the mobilization of a number of these units, the

CWS initiated a study to determine the adequacy of the existing organizational setup in meeting the wartime service and supply functions of the

branch. Reasons for this action were partly military and partly technical.

The structure of chemical organizations in 1940 still bore the impress

of 1918. Yet as the new war developed abroad it became apparent that

many concepts of the earlier war were outmoded. Among the new realities, 18

 See Note 13 above.
PARTIAL MOBILIZATION: 1939-41 207

WHITE PHOSPHORUS FROM 4.2-lNCH MORTARS falling on enemy-occupied town

of le Tholy, France, October 1944.

the most important with respect to chemical warfare was the growing

dominance of air power. The range of gas was no longer held to the

extreme range of artillery. Strategic bombardment implied that the entire

communication zone as well as points in the zone of interior could be

struck with gas. Nor was the mass of the attack to be limited by the

quantitative restrictions imposed by ground methods. The prospects of gas

warfare enlarged rapidly with expanding air power, and the defensive

responsibilities of the Chemical Warfare Service increased in proportion.

CWS technical developments in the field of protection against gas

meanwhile, had advanced so far as to suggest that the whole problem

of technical field service for ground warfare be reviewed. Means were being

perfected for impregnating and reimpregnating the uniform to afford protection against mustard gas vapor, yet no organizational provision had been

made for accomplishing this in the field. As the scope of the problem of

contamination (the quick destruction of persistent gas), increased with the

rise of bombing capabilities, new techniques appeared for decontamination.

Laboratory, maintenance, and depot units also required study in the light
208 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

of recent operations in Europe. This entire task was assigned to a board

of officers known as the Service Units Board.19

After two months of careful study the Service Units Board submitted

a report which provided a working basis for the subsequent organization

and training of all but one of the CWS service units employed by the

ground and supply forces.20 The board proposed the organization of two

units hitherto unauthorized—the impregnating company and the decontaminating company. It redefined the functions of laboratory, maintenance,

and depot companies. Tables of Organization and Equipment for all units

were drawn up. It recommended that one of each of these five service

companies be organized, equipped, and trained immediately as pilot units

to test the adequacy of its proposals as a basis for later activations. These

recommendations were approved with minor changes by the Chief, CWS,

on 13 August 1940.21

In analyzing the training requirements for CWS service companies,

the Service Units Board indicated that each type of unit would require

certain specially trained individuals for jobs that had no exact counterpart

in civilian industry. Individual training of such men prior to M Day was

proposed. For unit training the board proposed a twenty-week, three-phase

program involving military training, technical operations, and field training.

The scope of strictly military training recommended is interesting in the

light of standards later found necessary. It was limited to that "required

in the initial development of a military organization and the insuring of

a degree of discipline that will make certain compliance with instructions.22

Activation of Ground Service Units

Three new chemical service companies were activated in 1940 for duty

with ground forces, in accordance with the recommendation of the Service

Units Board. These were:

10th Company (Maintenance) activated at Edgewood Arsenal, 1 July

1940.

19

 The board was activated under OC CWS SO 25, 6 May 40. 20

 The exception was the smoke generator company, which was not proposed by the Service

Units Board and which when finally organized functioned rather as a combat unit. 21

 Proceedings of a Board of Officers designated as the "Service Units Board," 2 July 1940.

General Baker's approval of 13 August 1940 appears at end of document. CWS 381/313, Special,

NA.

22

 Ibid.
PARTIAL MOBILIZATION: 1939-41 209

1st Chemical Company (Laboratory) activated at Edgewood Arsenal,

1 August 1940.

1st Chemical Company (Decontamination) activated at Fort Eustis,

Va., 1 August 1940.23

An impregnating company was not provided at this time because mobile

impregnating apparatus was not yet standardized. With this exception, the

1940 activations provided opportunities to test out the organizational and

training requirements of the several types of chemical service units, inasmuch

as one depot company had previously been activated.

The experience thus gained was valuable in connection with the activation in the summer of 1941 of the next group of chemical units. This group

included one of each of the five types of units then authorized. Three of

them—the 3d Laboratory, 3d Maintenance, and 3d Depot Companies—

had been constituted in 1935 and assigned to the Eighth Corps Area for

mobilization. Actually only the 3d Maintenance and the 3d Depot Companies were activated in the Eighth Corps Area at Fort Sam Houston; the

laboratory unit was activated at Edgewood Arsenal. The 1st Chemical

Impregnating Company and the 2d Chemical Decontamination Company,

which had been constituted in 1940, were also activated at Edgewood

Arsenal.24

The procedure followed in organizing these 1940-41 units was to

supply the new organization with a cadre of trained personnel drawn from

one of the companies stationed at Edgewood Arsenal or Fort Benning.

Fillers were then supplied from the Edgewood replacement center or were

shipped from reception centers directly to the unit. Because of the leisurely

rate at which chemical units were then being mobilized, unit training presented no serious problem.

Plans for Air Service Units

The looming importance of aerial warfare necessitated consideration

of air as well as of ground organizations for chemical service functions.

This matter had already been studied by the GHQ Air Force and T/O's

had been prepared for organizations believed best suited for air needs.

The general scheme for chemical service units within the Air Corps was

23

 The decontamination company was comprised of Negro troops. 24

 All of the chemical units activated in 1940 and 1941 were redesignated after the service units

program was enlarged.
210 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

based on an analysis of requirements of the GHQ Air Force for CWS

personnel, drawn up at Langley Field, Va., 28 January 1939.25 Under this

plan, a section from a chemical platoon, air base, was provided for each

operating GHQ air base. These detachments were to be trained in chemical

supply and maintenance functions. They were also to be prepared to conduct

the chemical warfare training of tactical units. Their supply functions were

to include the operation of chemical service points, where chemicals could

be delivered directly to airplanes or poured into tanks before attachment.

The plan also included the operation of air base distributing points, which

were small chemical depots located near bases or advanced airdromes. It

was not foreseen that units larger than platoons would be needed at operating air bases.

Rapid expansion of air power after 1940 necessitated activation of many

additional chemical platoons for the Air Corps. Cadres and fillers for these

units in most instances came from Edgewood Arsenal. In March 1941

a chemical service company, aviation, was set up for each numbered air

force. Thereafter the separate chemical platoons serving bases within the

air force area were drawn into the company organizations.

The organizational plan for air chemical units was at this time altogether tentative since the U.S. Army had no combat experience upon which

such planning could be based. The CWS was interested in developing the

project and was concerned with the technical training of the troops involved.

But the determination of unit requirements devolved upon the GHQ Air

Force and later upon the Army Air Forces.

Replacement Training at Edgewood Arsenal

Organization of a CWS Replacement Center at Edgewood Arsenal was

directed by the War Department in 1940 in accordance with a scheme

which provided for a general opening of replacement centers.26 The replacement center system, which became operative in the spring of 1941, changed

completely the peacetime arrangement for the introductory military training

of enlisted personnel. Before the beginning of mobilization, recruit instruction had been handled by the units themselves and was an accepted

feature of the general Army training program. The prewar replacement

25

 Rpt, Lt Col E. Montgomery, CmlO, GHQ Air Force, 28 Jan 39, sub: Analysis of the Requirements of the GHQ Air Force for Pers of the CWS. CWS 314.7 Personnel File. 26

 Ltr, TAG to Chiefs of Arms and Services et al., 23 Oct 40, sub: Replacement Centers. AG

680.1 (10-15-40) M-C-M.
PARTIAL MOBILIZATION: 1939-41 211

plans called for the establishment of replacement training centers to provide

inductees with such basic military and elementary technical training as

to enable them to be assimilated by Army units without difficulty. The

units, freed from the necessity of giving basic training, could then concentrate on the job of preparing as teams for combat operations.27

 The supply

of trained enlisted replacements was carefully planned under mobilization

regulations to avoid a difficulty which had been serious in World War I—

inability to maintain combat organizations at full strength by means of a

steady supply of replacements provided through special installations organized for that purpose. While the planning, in principle, was sound,

the replacement center system in practice left much to be desired because

planning sights were set too low. The primary, long-range mission of the

replacement centers was to furnish loss replacements; that is, to supply

trained soldiers to fill vacancies as they developed in military units. As the

number of centers and their expansion capacity were limited, the rapid

expansion of the Army after Pearl Harbor compelled the War Department

to send most inductees directly from reception centers to units in training.

Although the training of filler replacements to bring newly mobilized units

to authorized strength was also a replacement training center function,

the centers were never able to meet both demands satisfactorily.28

Administrative control of the replacement centers was retained by the

War Department which set up authorized capacities and regulated the

movement of men into and out of the centers. In this way it was able to

co-ordinate the utilization of manpower by military components with

troop bases. Management of training within the centers was left to corps

area commanders, except for the Signal, Ordnance, Armored, and CWS

centers; control of the latter was retained by the War Department and

exercised, in the case of the Edgewood Arsenal center, through the Chief,

CWS.

The CWS Replacement Center with a capacity of 1,000 trainees, was

the smallest of the twenty-one ground and service replacement centers

opened in 1941.29 Its mission was to receive, train, and forward to destination enlisted replacements for all CWS units.30

 The capacity authorized

27

 Palmer, Wiley, and Keast, Procurement and Training of Ground Combat Troops, pp. 170-71. 28

 (1) Ibid., p. 172. (2) WD Mob Reg 3-1, par 33b(1), 23 Nov 40. 29

 (1) Ltr, AGO to Chiefs of Arms and Services, et al., 25 Oct 40, sub: Replacement Centers.

AG 680.1 (10-15-40) M-C-M. (2) Biennial Report of the Chief of Staff of the United States

Army to the Secretary of War, July 1, 1939, to June 30, 1941, Chart 7. 30

 CWS PMP, 1940, par 12h. AG 381, Mob Plan.
212 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

was adequate for the training load foreseen under the then current CWS

Protective Mobilization Plan, since a trainee capacity of 1,000 meant (at

least in theory) that with the eight-week training schedule then in effect,

some 6,000 replacements could be turned out annually. Organization of

the center was to be completed by 15 February 1941, or one month prior

to the opening date. Assignment of instructors to receive special advanced

training for this duty was indicated. Accordingly a special Replacement

Center Officers' Course, of nine weeks' duration, was conducted at the

Chemical Warfare School from 15 December 1940 to 15 February 1941.

This course, in which fifty-two student officers were enrolled, broke

with the past and enabled the school to prepare CWS personnel for specific

branch operations. The course was designed to broaden the base of the

individual's technical knowledge and at the same time prepare him to

function as a replacement center trainer. However, subjects having to do

strictly with training accounted for only 79 out of a total of 364 hours

of instruction.31 Applicable mobilization training regulations were not

studied exhaustively, while the emphasis placed on gas defense training

suggested that the school was still leaning heavily upon its peacetime curriculum. Yet the course was undoubtedly helpful in preparation for replacement center duty.

The Replacement Center Officers' Course raised an issue which certainly

was not new in the Army but which was to plague the CWS continually

during the war. A basic question in training was: Does the training fit the

man for the job? The immediate corollary was: Is the man then assigned

to duty for which he has been trained? The answer to the latter question

would in many instances be no. Much training effort was wasted and

standards of performance were at times unnecessarily low because students,

after being trained for one type of duty, were assigned to another. An

instance is seen in this early course at the Chemical Warfare School. Of

the fifty-two officers attending the Replacement Center course, only seventeen were assigned to duty at the replacement center when it opened.32

Lt. Col. Henry Linsert, a Regular Army CWS officer, arrived at Edgewood Arsenal early in December 1940 to organize and take command of

the replacement center. A site for the installation was selected in the troop

area previously included in Fort Hoyle, where the necessary barracks, mess

halls, and company administration buildings—seventy-nine structures in

31

 The complete curriculum of this course appears below, in Appendix F. 32

 Interv, CmlHO with Col Donald E. Yanka, 13 Jul 51. Colonel Yanka was a student in the

Replacement Center Officers' Course.
PARTIAL MOBILIZATION: 1939-41 213

all—were erected.33 A pistol range was constructed and other facilities

were staked out for later completion. The training organization provided

for one battalion of four lettered companies (A, B, C, and D) plus a

headquarters company, a band, and an enlisted specialists' school. In order

to activate these units, seventy-four noncommissioned officers and thirty-two

privates were furnished as cadres from CWS units then stationed at Edgewood Arsenal.

As of 29 April 1941 the actual trainee strength at the Replacement

Training Center was 701 white and 226 Negro soldiers.34 The training plan

provided for assignment of up to 225 men to each lettered company, which

carried also a permanent cadre of 3 (later 6) officers and 25 enlisted

men. Training began on 15 March and continued until this entire group

completed the prescribed course of instruction. At the end of the first

training cycle, 648 soldiers had been processed at the replacement center

and were shipped (June 1941) to various CWS units in the zone of interior.

The second cycle produced in September 652 men, and the third cycle,

completed in December, 447 more. Thus in 1941 the inductees receiving

basic military training at Edgewood Arsenal before assignment to chemical

units totaled 1,747. However the strength of CWS units shot up during

the year from 1,506 to 5,591, so that the aggregate of 1941 replacement

trainees was far short of the total number of soldiers required. As a result,

many chemical units were obliged to accept as fillers substantial numbers

of recruits who came directly from reception centers and who had to be

absorbed without preliminary military training.

Replacement Training Programs

A perennial problem with every technical service is whether the accent

in training should be placed upon the military or technical aspects of

training. Both types were necessary. Yet the growing ferocity of modern

warfare has tended to increase the emphasis that must be placed upon the

purely military training if the technical soldier is to survive and function

in the combat zone. In branches such as the CWS the strictly military side

of the training program was necessarily subject to close staff supervision,

while the more technical aspects of training were properly left to the branch

33

 Fort Hoyle was a field artillery station maintained within the Edgewood Arsenal military

reservation until 1940. 34

 S. J. Hemleben and Louis Truncellito, CWS Summary of History of Training Through June

1945 (Revised) p. 79, MS.
214 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

concerned. Standing prewar instructions on this subject were embodied in

War Department General Orders No. 7, 1927:

Military training is required for all recruits of noncombatant branches immediately

upon their entrance into service. The responsibility for such training is placed upon

the immediate commanding officer of each recruit. . . . This training will be regarded

as purely military training, and as such should be conducted concurrently with special

instruction and performance of technical duties pertaining to the branch to which the

recruit is assigned.

In order to co-ordinate training among the arms and services under this

general directive, a Board on Revision of Training Methods studied this

matter and submitted a report to the War Department in 1934 which led

to the publication a year later of the first series of mobilization training

programs (MTP's). These early MTP's merely formalized the application

of General Orders No. 7; they represented very largely the views of the

several arms and services on allotment of time between basic military and

branch technical training.

The training directive followed initially at the CWS Replacement Center

was MTP 3-1, 18 September 1940, "For chemical regiments at unit training

centers and for chemical troop replacements at enlisted replacement centers."

This MTP, like all early ones, was admittedly tentative and subject to

development in the light of experience. A revision of this program, undertaken while the first training cycle was in progress, was ready for use

at the beginning of the second training cycle in June 1941. A second

revision was completed in September and remained in force until after

replacement center activities were transferred from Edgewood Arsenal.

The MTP used initially was unsatisfactory. It was designed to produce replacements for chemical weapons companies, although few such companies

were then in existence and War Department policy did not then contemplate the formation of additional units of this type. Rather, the need was

for fillers and loss replacements for chemical service companies and platoons, which required very different technical training from that provided

for weapons units.

Another objection to the early program was the insufficient time allowed

for the replacement training cycle. This cycle was initially set at eight

weeks. All men were assigned to basic companies for the first two weeks

during which period they received identical training. During this time

schooling was emphasized and some technical training was introduced.

At the beginning of the third week promising trainees were screened out
PARTIAL MOBILIZATION: 1939-41 215

for specialized training while the remainder continued in basic companies

for the "technical" phase of the program.35 Under current requirement

rates for occupational specialists, 20 percent of CWS enlisted personnel

were needed as truck drivers, clerks, and cooks.36 Accordingly a fifth of

the early trainees were selected to attend the replacement center specialists'

school during the technical training phase, where they were instructed in

one of these military occupational specialties.

It was found in practice that satisfactory development of the individual

soldier could not be achieved within the time originally allotted. This was

evident in connection with both military and technical training. More

time was required for hardening and conditioning many inductees, while

on the technical side more opportunity was needed for applicatory and

group exercises. The same criticism of MTP's was made by other arms

and services, so that in the fall of 1941 the replacement cycle was extended

from eight to thirteen weeks.37 Under the new setup, basic military training

was emphasized at the start of the course and was continued to some extent

during the first eight weeks; technical training was spread over the first

nine weeks; while the last three to four weeks were employed in special

technical exercises. This general allocation of time was found to be satisfactory. Later improvements in the training program were in the direction

of more realistic military training and more specialized technical training.

But it was now clear that, at this stage of mobilization, a well-indoctrinated

replacement could be produced on a quarterly basis.

Conduct of Replacement Training

The group of young Reserve officers initially assigned to staff the replacement center proved to be satisfactory. The enlisted cadre on the other

hand was less adequate. It was provided largely by Company A, 2d Separate

Chemical Battalion, a unit that already had been stripped of cadre material

to meet earlier calls. When the requirement arose for 106 men to provide

overhead for the replacement center there simply were not that many men

available of the type needed for this exacting duty. The men assigned were

satisfactory although unseasoned soldiers, most of them without instruc35

 MTP 3-1, 2 3 Nov 40. 36

 Ltr, TAG to Chiefs of Arms and Servs et al., 25 May 41, sub: Changes in Incls. AG 324.71

(4-21-41) E-A. 37

 MTP 3-3, 26 Nov 41.
216 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

tional ability. A substantial number had to be replaced at the conclusion

of the first training cycle.

The usefulness of the initial cadre no doubt would have been increased

had these men been given specialist training at the Chemical Warfare

School in a course paralleling the Replacement Center Officers' Course.

This was not done. However, a two-week Replacement Center NCO Course

was conducted at the school between the ending of the first and the beginning of the second RTC training cycle (26 May-7 June 1941). The course

record of this class reveals that the seventy-one hours of instruction included

little training that was directly helpful to the thirty students who attended.

Experience with the early training cycles clearly indicated that some

inductees would be unable to undertake the standard course until after

special development training. Defects most common were illiteracy, language difficulty, emotional instability, and physical defects. To accommodate such individuals, a Special Training Company was organized on 15

August 1941 in conformity with MTP 20-1. The unit consisted of two

platoons, one for white and one for Negro troops. This RTC preparatory

training had to be expanded with the growth of basic training activities;

it was responsible for acclimating many men to military service who otherwise would have been rejected.

Early replacement training at Edgewood Arsenal was handicapped

by the lack of training aids, training literature, and classroom facilities.

Trainees were armed with the pistol, a poor substitute for the rifle in

recruit training. Instructors were, at the outset, inexperienced in high-gear

instructional procedure. Because training time was not efficiently allocated,

graduates had to learn after joining chemical service units much that they

should have been taught at the replacement center. Yet the 1941 trainees

on the whole did compare favorably with those who later passed through

the more highly developed CWS Training Center. Two reasons explain

this fact. Most of the 1941 inductees proved to be of especially high caliber.

And the instructors made up in enthusiasm what they lacked in experience.

The practice of officially referring to the installations as replacement

training centers began in the spring of 1941. Previously, mobilization plans,

mobilization training programs, and mobilization regulations had all omitted

the word "training." The final adoption of the term served to emphasize

the fact that training was the dominant function of the centers.

As training improved, it became increasingly apparent that the CWS

center was inappropriately located. Edgewood Arsenal was selected in the

first place because of the concentration of research and development as
PARTIAL MOBILIZATION: 1939-41 217

well as school and troop activities at this station. Some land was available,

and a few barracks; yet neither area nor buildings were adequate to the

needs of replacement training. Housing facilities could be supplemented

by new construction, but there was no way to increase the land available

for training purposes on narrow Gunpowder Neck. The limited number of

ranges could not even meet requirements for CWS proving and experimental firing. Although a pistol range was developed, space was not

available for a rifle range. The manufacturing activities of the arsenal were

expanding rapidly during 1941 under priorities which impeded the development of needed replacement training facilities. Had requirements for

CWS basic training remained at the projected levels of 1940, it might

still have been possible to wedge this activity into the multiplicity of functions that were being undertaken on the constricted Edgewood reservation;

but by the fall of 1941 it already was apparent that much more than the

current capacity of the training center would be required.

The Chief, Chemical Warfare Service, was informed early in December

1941 that CWS replacement training capacity would have to be increased

shortly to 2,430 trainees.38 This step became necessary largely because of a

recently approved increase in chemical service troops to meet expanding

AAF requirements. The War Department wanted the additional replacement training load to be undertaken without construction of additional barracks. This could only be accomplished by the removal of an appropriate

number of troops, including one Field Artillery battalion, from the Edgewood Arsenal reservation. In addition, it was necessary to project the construction of a number of new facilities, both administrative and instructional,

in order properly to accommodate the greatly increased training activity.

Planning was in progress when the Pearl Harbor attack occurred.

Gas Defense Training: 1939-41

During the period of limited emergency, the U.S. Army mobilized thirtysix divisions and activated seventy air force groups—together a phenomenal

achievement. With these developments the Chief, CWS, was closely concerned as technical adviser to the War Department on gas defense training.

It was his responsibility to counteract the inevitable tendency to neglect, in

the rush of such rapid mobilization, a type of training for which need was

not immediate. It was his job to see that a serious flaw—vulnerability to gas

38

 Memo, G-3 for C CWS, 2 Dec 41, sub: Expansion of CWS RTC Trainee Capacity.

G-3/6457-364.
218 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

attack—did not develop in the course of preparations for battle. He had to

push a military specialty, yet do it with tact and with a nice appreciation of

larger objectives.

There was no lack, in 1939 of definite channels of responsibility for gas

defense training. Under peacetime procedures the War Department set the

objectives, the Chemical Warfare Service provided certain of the means,

corps area commanders supervised training, and unit commanders were responsible for its execution. But this originally simple arrangement became

more complicated as growing mobilization resulted in the appearance of an

increasing number of ranking unit commanders with varying views as to how

gas warfare directives should be interpreted.

The over-all War Department objective was stated as: "Our peacetime

preparation in chemical warfare will be based on opposing effectively any

enemy employing chemical agents and weapons.39 This was amplified, as

previously noted, by detailed instructions on gas defense training.40

A field interpretation and amplification of instructions on chemical warfare training appeared in a training memorandum issued by Headquarters,

Sixth Corps Area, in December 1940.41 This monumental directive presented

a complete picture of chemical warfare training as presumably undertaken

in the U.S. Army at that time. The memorandum meticulously considered

every detail to insure observance of all instructions that bore in any way on

the subject. Full compliance would have been gratifying in the CWS since

troops so trained would unquestionably have been capable of meeting any

enemy who chose to resort to gas warfare.

The Sixth Corps Area memorandum represents the high tide of training

under the corps area system. The old Army had taken such directives in

stride and had mastered the technique of according them a degree of compliance which satisfied higher authority. The new Army, on the other hand,

was inclined to heed the full letter of formal instructions, a feat which in

practice was seldom possible.

In peacetime training the CWS sought to cultivate respect for, while

averting unreasoning fear of, war gases. This aim had been rather generally

accomplished as long as training time was not at a great premium; but once

the momentum of mobilization began to build up, unit commanders became

39

 Ltr, TAG to All Corps Area and Dept Comdrs et al., 24 Jul 30, sub: Cml Warfare Tng and

Tactical Assignment of Cml Warfare Troops to GHQ Reserve. AG 321.94 (5-17-30) (Misc.)

M-C.

40

 Basic Field Manual, Vol. I, Ch. 8, 31 Dec 37. 41

 Tng Memo 13, Hq Sixth Corps Area, 4 Dec 40. See below, Appendix G.
PARTIAL MOBILIZATION: 1939-41 219

increasingly reluctant to spare time for the degree of gas defense training

which the CWS considered the minimum for realistic war preparation. In

order to decide where emphasis should be placed, officers who never before

had given the matter serious thought began to ask themselves what the

prospects actually were of gas warfare.

The views of most military men on gas warfare as an offensive weapon

were essentially pragmatic. Was it really worth while? There were two

schools of thought on the matter. One group held that gas was a revolutionary weapon, that its possibilities should be exploited, and that it was

folly for the nation to deny itself the fullest advantage of this or any other

new development of military science. The other felt that experience of the

war in Europe to date indicated that gas had only limited application in

modern military operations, that it was always ineffective against good defense, and that it was an adjunct to positional warfare—a type of warfare

never congenial to American military thinking. But while offensive gas warfare had both its advocates and opponents, no responsible officer questioned

the need for gas defense training. The question was: How little training

would meet essential needs?

Chemical Warfare Training of Ground Forces

As mobilization speeded up, a fundamental change began to appear in

the old relationship between the CWS and the unit commanders directly

responsible for gas defense training. Originally responsibility had been

channeled from the War Department, through corps areas, to units. The

first change in this pattern occurred in 1935, when air tactical units came

under control of the GHQ Air Force. Training of ground force units was

assumed by General Headquarters, U.S. Army, when that organization was

activated in July 1940. Thereafter, unit commanders were reached, on

matters relating to antigas defense, through one of these headquarters.

Only a skeleton GHQ staff moved into the Army War College in the

summer of 1940. No chemical officer was included in General McNair's

special staff until 1941, and GHQ continued without a formal chemical staff

section until 10 January 1942.42 This reflected General McNair's attitude on

gas warfare and adversely influenced gas defense training of ground units

throughout 1940 and 1941.

42

 (1) Greenfield, Palmer, and Wiley, The Organization of Ground Combat Troops, p. 26. (2)

Interv, CmlHO with Col Thomas J. Ford, 11 Jan. 56. Colonel Ford was made Ground Chemical

Officer in January 1942.
220 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Although the GHQ Chief of Staff was sympathetic to limited training

in defense against attack, he insisted that such training should not be extended to a point where it might interfere with his primary mission of training major elements of the field forces within the continental United States.

General McNair believed that artillery was the most suitable ground arm

for employing gas munitions; but he seriously questioned the advisability,

from a military viewpoint, of resorting to gas warfare under any circumstances. He saw no merit in special gas troops and he declined to permit the

introduction of gas situations into the large-scale maneuvers that were

conducted in 1940 and 1941.43

Staff chemical officers, meanwhile as called for by existing tables of

organization, were regularly provided for divisions and corps as these units

were mobilized. To each of the four field armies then in existence and to

each of the newly activated corps was assigned a senior CWS officer with

considerable training experience. National Guard divisions took the field

with their own chemical staff officers, many of whom were graduates of

prewar courses at the Chemical Warfare School. The unit organizational

setup for chemical warfare training of ground forces was adequate; yet

training accomplishments during the period of partial mobilization were not

satisfactory to the CWS. To a considerable degree this situation was the

result of General McNair's attitude on gas warfare.

GHQ was primarily concerned with unit rather than replacement training, and it regarded gas defense training as essentially the latter type.

During the early stage of mobilization, training of the individual soldier

was exclusively the province of the War Department under the replacement

training system. RTC training included a modicum of basic training in protection against gas attack, the amount of time devoted to this subject ranging

from four to ten hours according to the applicable mobilization training

program. For example, MTP 6-1, 1940, for field artillery replacements,

prescribed five hours of training, which was expected to develop: "An

ability to mask quickly and to wear the mask while performing military

duties; an ability to identify the more common chemical agents and a knowledge of the means of defense against them."

The soldier processed through one of the twenty-one ground replacement centers thus presumably emerged with some idea of how to protect

43

 (1) Ltr, Col Adrian St John, USA (Ret), to Hist Off OC CmlO, 21 Jun 51, no sub. (2)

Ltr, OC CWS to CmlO Second Army, 19 Aug 41, no sub. CWS 354.2/101. (3) Addendum to

Memo for Record on Memo, ACofS OPD for CofS USA, 13 Aug 42, sub: Revision in the

Chemical Warfare Program. OPD 385 CWP Sec IIA (4-22). (4) Ford interv, 11 Jan 56.
PARTIAL MOBILIZATION: 1939-41 221

RTC CLASSROOM TRAINING. Soldiers in their second week of training learn

how to identify different types of gases.

himself under gas attack. As mobilization accelerated, however, increasing

numbers of inductees had to be sent directly from reception centers to units

without replacement center training. Instruction of these men in the rudiments of protection against war gases had therefore to be undertaken by

unit commanders, usually with the assistance of unit gas personnel. Training

of the latter, under standard operating procedure, was accomplished at

special schools conducted by division and occasionally by corps chemical

officers.

Anticipating that the training of regimental and battalion gas officers in

such local schools would sometimes be difficult during the course of mobilization, the War Department announced a series of one-month classes at the

Chemical Warfare School to provide this type of training.44 In accordance

with GHQ policy that the detail of students to service schools should be

discretionary with unit commanders, no quotas were set. Thirteen of these

44

 Ltr, TAG to CGs of the Four Armies et al., 7 Oct 40, sub: Tng of Regimental and Battalion

Gas Officers. AG 210.63 CW Sch (9-25-40) M-M.
222 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

classes conducted in 1941 graduated 686 unit gas officers, constituting a

measurable contribution to the over-all gas defense program for the ground

forces.

Individual training within units, as prescribed by War Department

directives, was encouraged by GHQ. But, as indicated, when Army chemical

officers proposed injection of gas situations into corps and army maneuvers,

General McNair demurred. The formation of these large tactical units, the

first in U.S. peacetime history, afforded opportunity to advance the final

phase of chemical warfare training which previously had of necessity been

neglected—that is, the culmination of individual and specialized gas defense

instruction in field operations where large bodies of troops encountered

simulated gas attacks under conditions requiring the use of gas masks. The

Chemical Warfare Service felt that such a test was necessary in order to

ascertain the real status of gas discipline within the field forces as well as

for rounding out the entire chemical warfare training program. Yet, in the

view of GHQ, this goal was considerably less important than the immediate

task of developing command leadership and operating facility within corps

and armies.

While the CWS supported as far as it could the position of chemical

officers with field forces, the War Department General Staff was never inclined at this stage to question the training policies of GHQ. In retrospect,

it is clear that on this issue General McNair assumed a calculated risk which

was justified by subsequent events, although at the time the CWS felt that

an important feature of chemical warfare training was being unduly

neglected.

Army Air Forces Training

The approach to gas defense training in the Army Air Forces differed

in several particulars from that developed in the ground forces. Beginning

with the organization of the GHQ Air Force at Langley Field in 1935, able

chemical officers were on duty with the highest air echelons.45 Early appreciation of the importance of antigas protection of air bases led in 1936 to the

conduct of a special Air Forces gas defense course at the Chemical Warfare

School. The twenty air officers who graduated from this four-week course

provided the nucleus for development of the GHQ Air Force gas protection

scheme.

45

 After serving as instructor at the Air Tactical School, Maxwell Field, General Porter was on

duty as air chemical officer at the time of his appointment as Chief, CWS, in 1941.
PARTIAL MOBILIZATION: 1939-41 223

Compared to the problems confronting the ground forces, gas protection

of air installations was in some respects simplified. Field units had to provide for defense against gas from both ground and air; air units were concerned only with the latter. Nevertheless, the AAF gave a great deal of

thought to the protection of its bases against aerial gas attack.

Attempts to immobilize American air power by the immediate bombing

of advanced U.S. air bases were clearly foreseen as the opening operations

of air warfare. Before the commencement of hostilities in Europe, thinking

among Air officers—undoubtedly influenced by the doctrines of Giulio

Douhet—inclined to the belief that the earliest employment of gas warfare

would be in the attack on airdromes.46 That gas was not used for this purpose in the early stages of World War II resulted in somewhat lessened

apprehension, although the Army Air Forces was never willing to dismiss

entirely the threat of an enemy attempt to neutralize the growing air power

of the United States through a gas attack. The AAF meant to be reasonably

prepared and therefore gas defense measures were given serious and continued consideration, both under the GHQ Air Force and later, after air

training became one of his functions, under the Chief of the AAF.

In individual training of Army Air Forces soldiers, the replacement

training system worked out more satisfactorily than was the case with ground

forces. Practically all AAF inductees passed through air replacement training centers, and therefore reached air units with some basic training in selfprotection against war gases. MTP 1-1 (1940) prescribed six hours of instruction in defense against chemical attack for all AAF inductees. Inevitably

there were times when this training was slighted, but this was the exception

rather than the rule.

Because of the tremendous pressures under which AAF training was

conducted, expecially in the early stages of mobilization, more advanced

training in gas protection was necessarily limited. Schemes for the collective

protection of airdomes were prepared and key personnel trained in operating

procedures. A notable contribution to the advancement of individual and

collective protection was the training of 385 air force officers in a series of

seven Unit Gas Officers' classes conducted for the AAF by the Chemical

Warfare School during 1941. The role of the Chemical Warfare Service in

46

 (1) Giulio Douhet's Air Warfare, translated by Mrs. Dorothy Benedict, was reproduced by

the Air Corps in December 1933. Copy in Army Library. This work was seriously studied at the

Air Corps Tactical School. (2) Wesley F. Craven and James L. Cate, eds., The Army Air Forces

in World War II: Plans and Early Operations, January 1939 to August 1942 (Chicago: University

of Chicago Press, 1948), p. 51.
224 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

gas defense training within the Army Air Forces was one of advancing the

program as much as possible within the limitation imposed by more urgent

air training requirements.

School Training

Involvement in war between 1939 and 1941 followed a gradient so

gradual that it is difficult to reconcile events as they occurred with those that

had been foreseen under the protective mobilization plan. Mobilization of

the initial protective force, the springboard for PMP, was actually accomplished long before hostilities began. Yet operations of the Chemical Warfare School during the period of partial mobilization were not in accord

with any section of the plan; and it is not possible to indicate a point at

which implementation of the plan at the school did begin.

Removal of the school from Edgewood Arsenal to a location more

advantageous from a training viewpoint had been scheduled under earlier

war plans although this provision was eliminated from the plan which was

current when mobilization began. The Chemical Warfare School had been

housed for two decades in a two-story, hollow tile structure having two

classrooms on the upper floor and administration and faculty offices on the

ground floor. An adjoining building of identical size was occupied by the

reproduction plant and the school detachment. Nearby temporary structures,

build in 1918, were used for housing and messing students and for other

school needs. With the facilities available it was difficult for the school to

accommodate more than one class at a time.

The school commandant proposed, soon after the President's emergency

proclamation in 1939, that steps be taken to increase the capacity of the

school from fifty to one hundred students.47 The War Department was

reluctant to undertake the needed construction, since it was then seriously

considering closing all service schools as a means of conserving officer

strength.48 Until this idea was dropped, no action was taken to relieve the

school situation. However, in 1940, an enlargement program did get under

way, which resulted in raising the school's capacity to two hundred students.

Additional academic facilities were provided by erecting a well-designed

permanent structure between the two original tile buildings, thus merging

47

 Ltr, Comdt CW School to C CWS, 18 Sep 39, sub: Additional Facilities. CW Sch

352.11/148. 48

 Ltrs, TAG to C CWS, 7 Oct 38 and 18 Oct 39, sub: Schools. AG 352 (10-3-39) (10-9-39)

M-C.
PARTIAL MOBILIZATION: 1939-41 225

them into one spacious school edifice. The more than thirty new buildings

added in this period included adequate barracks for student officers, mess

halls, and supply facilities. Demonstration and outdoor training areas were

also improved. Although this development was somewhat belated and despite the fact that it applied principally to officer students, it did enable the

school, by 1941, to take a more active part in the accelerating chemical

warfare training program.

The school staff and faculty at the beginning of the emergency period

in 1939 included five CWS officers plus four officers attached from other

components who served as part-time instructors. A year later the staff had

increased to fourteen officers. There was no substantial change in this

number during 1941.49

The suspension of courses at special service schools on 1 February 1940

did not affect the Chemical Warfare School.50 This suspension enabled

students who were attending courses longer than those given at Edgewood

to participate in maneuvers in the spring of 1940. The Chemical Warfare

School was permitted to begin its regular Line and Staff Course on 4

February with a class composed principally of Reserve officers. This step

proved fortunate since most of the members of this class soon were called

to extended active duty.

The 23d Line and Staff Officers class and the 13th Field Officers class

conducted in 1940 were the last of these two series given at the Chemical

Warfare School. Their termination by the War Department was in line with

staff policy curtailing school attendance of Regular Army officers during the

period of limited emergency. This marked the end of an era. Hereafter

officer training at the Chemical Warfare School would concentrate on the

preparation of emergency officers for war duty.

Instruction of Reserve Officers

On 27 August 1940 Congress authorized the calling of Reserve officers

to active duty for periods of twelve consecutive months.51 This in practice

suspended the fourteen-day active duty arrangement which for years had

been the mainspring of Reserve officer training. Had it been possible to foresee at the time that most of the Reservists who were called up under this

authority would continue on duty through a major war, more adequate pro49

 Class records, Chemical Warfare School. 50

 Annual Rpt of SW to President, 1940, p. 63. 61

 Annual Rpt of SW to President, 1941, p. 73.
226 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

vision for their initial training could have been made. But the Army was

then thinking in terms of limited mobilization and was concentrating on

the immediate task of training the large numbers of enlisted men who were

about to enter military service under the Selective Service System. The training of officers was not at this time given major consideration.

Among the first Reserve officers called for extended active duty were

members of the corps area assignment group needed for special staff duty

with the ground and air units to be mobilized during the limited emergency

period. These men were products of the peacetime Reserve officers' training

program and many of them had military experience extending back to

World War I. Although they were comparatively well advanced in training

when called up, the CWS would nevertheless have profited by their attendance at a school course according to the plan generally followed in the

training of other special staff officers assigned to the divisions that were

activated in 1940 and 1941.52

The mobilization of so many corps area assignment group officers to

meet air and ground force T/O requirements for unit chemical officers had

a retarding effect on the activation of branch assignment Reservists, for

whom need soon developed under the rapidly expanding chemical warfare

procurement program. The ceiling which the War Department set on the

number of CWS Reserve officers that could be placed on extended active

duty was taken to apply to both branches of the Reserve; the CWS felt

bound to meet all requests for unit chemical troops, so that branch requirements were satisfied much more slowly than was desirable.53

 This situation

directly affected the training of branch assignment personnel. By the time

these officers were finally called to active duty, their services were so urgently

needed that they could not be spared to attend basic or refresher courses

prior to undertaking mobilization assignments.

Lack of an attempt at systematic school training of CWS nonregular

officers in preparation for mobilization duty marked not only the period of

partial mobilization, but in fact extended throughout the entire war period.

There were on active duty with the CWS, on 31 December 1940, 270 nonregular officers. Not more than half of these officers had ever attended any

school course. Except for OCS training, the ratio of nongraduates to all

officers on duty increased instead of declined in succeeding years. This

situation apparently resulted from want of a clear CWS policy on the school52

 Palmer, Wiley, and Keast, Procurement and Training of Ground Combat Troops, pp. 435-36. 53

 Interv, CmlHO with Col Geoffrey Marshall (former Comdt, Cml C Sch), 15 May 51.
PARTIAL MOBILIZATION: 1939-41 227

ing of officers initiated and firmly maintained from the outset of the national

emergency.

The CWS protective mobilization plan contemplated that training of

other components at the Chemical Warfare School would be discontinued

upon mobilization, when the school would reorganize for its primary mission

of training CWS troops. Two types of courses were specified in the new

setup: successive thirty-day refresher classes of seventy-five officers, and a

series of classes for enlisted specialists (meteorologists).54 This program

would have proven inadequate, even had it been followed. Yet there was

no evident inclination in 1940 to extend the school training of CWS officers.

In recommending to the War Department the courses to be conducted at the

school between 1 July 1940 and 30 June 1941, the CWS proposed only six

courses, none of them specifically for preparation of Chemical Warfare

Service officers for active duty.55

The negligible utilization of the Chemical Warfare School during the

period of limited emergency in training CWS personnel for war duty is

apparent from an analysis of courses conducted at the school during the

calendar years 1940 and 1941. The only notable departure in 1940 from the

normal prewar program of the school was the inclusion of a four-week

refresher course for the training of eighteen newly commissioned Thomason

Act Reserve officers. During 1941, aside from the schooling of replacement

center troops already described, no training of officers in performance of

CWS branch functions was undertaken; yet in this year more than 600 additional emergency officers were called to duty.

Since so few of the incoming officers were receiving formal training, the

chemical warfare school in 1941 was not being utilized to full capacity.

This was to some extent a result of the hiatus into which the chemical warfare program of the Army had drifted—a situation which was to be

remedied soon after Pearl Harbor. The unused capacity of the school was

employed meanwhile principally in furthering the training of the Army in

gas protection by means of a series of Unit Gas Officers' classes. Although

CWS officers were occasionally assigned to these classes, they were set up

for and principally attended by line officers, ground and air.

Progress toward rearming in the period of 1939-41 has been described

as "halting and confused."

 56

 These adjectives also describe chemical war54

 CWS PMP, 1940, par 12d and Annex 7, AG 381 Mob Plan. 55

 Memo, C CWS for ACofS, G-3, 7 Jun 40, sub: Courses at CW School. CWS 352.13. 56

 Watson, Prewar Plans and Preparation, p. 83.
228 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

fare training as it was carried forward during this period. A major factor

was the passive attitude of the War Department General Staff toward this

training, prior to the regeneration that followed the events of Pearl Harbor.

At the same time the Chemical Warfare Service was nervously seeking more

realistic antigas training. Often it was the unit commander who finally decided how far this training should be extended in his organization. In view

of the conflicting attitudes on chemical warfare, it is remarkable that training

in this field had advanced as well and as far as it had by 7 December 1941.
CHAPTER X

The Civilian Defense Mission

One of the first steps taken by Hon. Fiorello H. La Guardia as Director

of the Office of Civilian Defense, after that office had been set up, was to

request specifically that the War Department provide for the training of ten

successive classes of civilians to be selected by his office.1 The Secretary of

War approved La Guardia's request to set up schools for the training of

civilians, and on 21 May 1941 directed the activation of the first of these

schools.2

CWS Prewar Interest in Civilian Defense

CWS interest in civilian defense had extended back for some years. As

early as 1930, Col. Charles R. Alley, a CWS officer who had spent some

time on military attache duty and who was impressed by the importance

being accorded gas defense in European programs for civilian protection,

made a detailed study of measures for protection of American civilians

against enemy attack. Colonel Alley's proposals were the first of a number

of recommendations presented to the War Department General Staff during

the 1930's covering aspects of civilian protection over which the CWS felt

concern. During this period the developing threat of aerial warfare against

civilian populations was closely observed, particularly any means being perfected overseas to counteract the effects of the two types of agents which

the CWS was charged by law with developing and producing—war gases

and incendiaries. It was the view of the Chemical Warfare Service that the

Military Establishment had an inescapable responsibility to the civilian in

1

 (1) Executive Order No. 8757. (2) For discussion of civilian defense at War Department

level, see Stetson Conn, Byron Fairchild, and Rose C. Engelman, Guarding the United States and

Its Outposts, a volume in preparation in the series UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR

II. 2

 Memo, Dir Mil Pers Div SOS for C CWS, 5 Mar 43, and Inds, sub: Civilian Protection

Schools. SOS SPG, AO/020 General (2-17-43)-13.
MAYOR FIORELLO H. LA GUARDIA, New York City, first Director of Civilian

Defense, left, and Maj. Gen. William N. Porter, Chief of Chemical Warfare

Service, at graduation of first civilian defense class. Chemical Warfare School,

Edgewood, Maryland, 12 July 1941.
THE CIVILIAN DEFENSE MISSION 231

the matter of protection against air attack and that this responsibility should

be defined.3

The reaction of the General Staff to the several proposals submitted by

the CWS during this period was mixed. The dominant staff view was that

nothing should be done that would unduly alarm the general public on the

hazards attending strategic bombardment.4 Americans were known to be

sensitive to the implications of gas warfare; for this reason the War Department determined not to incur the charge of jingoism by emphasizing the

danger of gas attacks. At the same time Colonel Sherman Miles of War

Plans Division (WPD) felt that the matter should not be entirely neglected.5

The Chief, CWS, was accordingly directed in 1936 to prepare a pamphlet

containing information that would be useful to military authorities responsible for carrying out measures of passive protection against aerial attacks.6

The Chemical Warfare Service was chosen for the task because its concern

with both gas and incendiaries brought it more prominently into this field

than other technical agencies of the War Department. In the preparation of

this publication, the CWS was directed to confer with the Ordnance Department on the effects of explosive bombs, with the Corps of Engineers on the

design of bombproof shelters, and with the Medical Department on related

health measures. Co-ordination of views of all War Department bureaus

that could contribute technical assistance to civilian defense was thus assured.

This document was duly prepared in the Office of the Chief, CWS, with

the assistance of other branches. It was approved by the War Department

and was reproduced by multilith process at the Chemical Warfare School in

1936 under the title, Passive Defense Against Air Attack.

7

 Only 200 numbered copies, bound in red covers and classified "secret," were published.

By War Department direction, copies of this 43-page pamphlet were transmitted to each corps area commander and to overseas departments where

they were filed for use when needed.

3

 (1) Ltr, C CWS to TAG, 28 Jul 36, sub: Legislation to Govern Government Production of

Antigas Equipment. WPD 3942. (2) Memo, C CWS for CofS, 12 Sep 39, sub: Protection of the

Civil Population against Air or other Attack. WPD 4078-12 to 24. 4

 (1) Memo for Rcd, Brig Gen W. Krueger, Asst CofS, WPD, 8 Apr 37, sub: Anti-gas Protection of Civilians in War, WPD 3942. (2) Memo Brig Gen George V. Strong, Asst CofS WPD

for G-4, 3 Oct 39, sub: Gas Masks for Civilian Population WPD 4078-14. 5

 Memo, Sherman Miles to Asst CofS WPD, 3 Sep 36, sub: Legislation to Govern the Production of Anti-gas Protective Equipment. WPD 3942. 6

 The 1936 directive is referred to and briefly quoted in draft memo, W. K. [Walter Krueger],

Asst CofS WPD for CofS, Mar 37, sub: Provision for Anti-gas Protection of Civilians in War.

WPD 3942. 7

 CW School Publication No. 135, 1930. CWS 314.7 CW School File.
232 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

With the publication of the passive defense pamphlet the General Staff

dismissed, for the time being, further consideration of civilian defense. Yet

during the next two years steady deterioration of the political situation in

Europe led foreign governments to give increasing attention to problems of

civilian protection. Full reports of these developments were obtained by the

CWS through military attaches like Colonel Alley and from other sources.

Early in 1939 Maj. Gen. Walter C. Baker again brought this matter officially

to the attention of the War Department, proposing that military responsibility for the protection of U.S. citizens from aerial attack be more sharply

determined. Among matters of concern to the CWS at this time were arrangements for production of gas masks for civilian use, agreement on

channels for release of authoritative information that would allay undue

alarm over war gases and incendiaries, and procedure for instruction of

selected civilians in technical phases of air raid precautions. General Baker

pointed out that "until a general plan has been adopted the chemical plan

cannot be developed."

 8 The recommendations he presented in this letter

provided the basis for an outline plan for the Army's approach to civilian

defense, a plan prepared by the War Plans Division after the German invasion of Poland.9

 This staff study represented the first frank recognition by

the War Department of responsibility in the matter of civilian defense and

provided the groundwork for a realistic approach to problems that were to

loom large during the next four years.

In reviewing the WPD study after it had been referred to the Chemical

Warfare Service for comment, General Baker recommended particularly

that the development of civilian instructors and the specialized training of

selected civilians be undertaken .by the War Department.10 This proved to

be the precise direction in which extensive training activities of the CWS

were to tend less than two years later.

Preparation of Instructional Material

In June 1940 the New York City Fire Commissioner, John J. McElligott,

sent a representative to Washington to confer with the Chief, CWS on the

problem of familiarizing fire fighters with methods of combating gas and

8

 Ltr, C CWS to TAG, 9 Jan 39, sub: Protection of Civilian Population Against Air or Other

Attacks. CWS 470.6/732. 9

 Memo, WPD for CofS, 20 Feb 40, sub: Protection of Civilian Population from Air and

Other Attack. WPD 4078-3. 10

 Memo, C CWS for WPD, 30 Sep 39, no sub. CWS 470.6/732.
THE CIVILIAN DEFENSE MISSION 233

incendiary attacks. This and similar requests from responsible municipal

authorities for technical assistance on civilian defense problems were duly

reported by the CWS to the War Department and were instrumental in

getting the department to initiate the compilation of needed instructional

and training literature.11 The CWS was directed to prepare a pamphlet "to

furnish the local Civil Defense organization with information as to the

methods employed in Chemical Warfare and the means of combating

them."

 12

 This manuscript, eventually published by the Office of Civilian

Defense as Protection Against Gas (GPO, 1941), served as a wartime guide

for this type of civilian training.

Behind the comprehensive group of textbooks, handbooks, and planning

guides eventually published by the OCD is the story of the peacetime interest

of a senior CWS officer in civilian defense matters. For several years preceding World War II, Col. Adelno Gibson had collected standard manuals and

other writings on civilian defense from most of the countries of Europe.

Colonel Gibson communicated his enthusiasm for the subject to others. In

1938, as Second Corps Area Chemical Officer, he presented to senior Reserve

officers in the New York area a problem then being studied by the CWS.

This involved the provision of authentic information for the general public

on the effects of gas and incendiary bombing.13

One of these officers, Lt. Col. Walter P. Burn, an advertising executive,

became interested in this problem and decided to make it the subject of a

thesis which he was about to write in preparation for promotion. The

thoroughness with which Burn developed this subject and his novel approach to the popularizing of instructional material impressed CWS officers

who had the matter under study. Burn's thesis was available at the time the

Office of Civilian Defense was created and it was accordingly supplied to

that Office for study. As a result, the OCD requested the services of Colonel

Burn and made him chief of the Training Division. It was largely due to

Colonel Burn's ability and initiative that the impressive schedule of OCD

training publications was launched so promptly. As chief of the Training

Division, OCD, Burn was responsible for the preparation of training litera11

 (1) Copies of municipal communications were filed in CWS 470.6/732. (2) Ltr, TAG to

Corps Area & Army Comdrs, 6 Jul 40, sub: Protection of the Civil Population from Air and

Other Attack. AG 385 (6-27-40) M-C-M. (3) Ltr, TAG to C CWS, 23 Aug 40, sub: Instructional Matter. AG 383 (8-7-40) M-C. 12

 Ltr, TAG to C CWS, 12 Aug 40, sub: Preparation of Pamphlet entitled "Defense Against

Chemical Warfare." AG 062.1 (8-3-40) P (C). 13 Ltr Col Walter P. Burn, Ret, to Cml C Hist Off, 1 Jan 57.
234 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

GAS DEFENSE TRAINING FOR CIVILIANS at the Chemical Warfare School,

Edgewood, Maryland, 1941.

ture, manuals and films; the design of insignia and special uniforms; the

recruitment of skilled writers and artists who served on a voluntary basis;

and the enlistment for special missions of national organizations such as the

American Legion, the Boy Scouts, and the Red Cross.14

The incendiary bombing of British urban centers, which had become extremely ominous by the late summer of 1940, was viewed with special

apprehension by the U.S. citizens on the Atlantic seaboard. New York City

sent technical observers to England to obtain first-hand information on

combating incendiary fires. Increasingly urgent calls upon the War Department for technical data on which to base defensive planning finally forced it

to direct that, pending completion of official instructional literature, the best

information available should be issued to civilian authorities.15 The War

Department was moving cautiously but steadily toward full co-operation

14

 (1) Ltr, Col Adelno Gibson, CWS, Librarian Army War College, to Hist Br, CWS, 25 May

44. (2) Ltr, Maj Gen L. D. Gasser, C Protection Br OCD to Col W. P. Burn, 8 May 42. OCD

Protection Br Control & Communications Sec Dispatched Corres File NA. 15

 Ltr, AGO to C CWS, 23 Aug 40, sub: Instructional Matter to be Furnished the Civil Population. AG 383 (8-7-40) M-C.
THE CIVILIAN DEFENSE MISSION 235

with civilian agencies charged with protection of U.S. citizens against aerial

attack.

In line with this approach, the CWS, at the request of representatives of

the National Board of Fire Underwriters, conducted a demonstration at

Edgewood Arsenal on 9 October 1940, at which magnesium and oil incendiary bombs were ignited and extinguished.16

 This demonstration was

the first of hundreds staged by the CWS during the war to inform civilians

about the character of incendiary bombs and the methods of handling them.

As another important step in preparation for more active participation

in the civilian protection program, the Chief, CWS, was directed in February

1941 to prepare a short course of instruction to be given on a volunteer basis

to representatives of fire departments of large cities.17 An outline for a threeday course was prepared by the Chemical Warfare School in which instructional time was evenly divided between the handling of incendiaries and

protection against war gases.

The school staff then proceeded to develop a more extensive instructortraining course intended to qualify selected civilians for the task of teaching

volunteer workers at local levels. In a sense, the Army had to provide such

a course as a measure of self-defense. It was clear that civilian officials

would look to the military for technical instructions upon which to base the

more general training of civilians in connection with the national air raid

precaution program that the United States would doubtless be obliged to

adopt. It was equally clear that the Army, even at the beginning of 1941,

was much too busily employed in military training to embark on an extended

scheme for the training of civilians. A two-week course for a limited number

of carefully selected top echelon civilians appeared to provide a solution

which was within the ability of the War Department and which at the same

time would enable it substantially to satisfy the need for disseminating

authentic doctrine on the more technical aspect of civilian defense.

The Chemical Warfare School made a careful study of this subject and

early in 1941 developed a course of instruction which promised to meet these

requirements. As originally developed at the school this course included:

a. Incendiaries (22 hours): To afford technical instruction in characteristics of and in methods of coping with incendiary bombs.

b. Gas defense (26 hours): To acquaint students with war gases likely

16

 Ltr, OC CWS to CO EA, Md, 1 Oct 40, sub: Incendiary Bombs. CWS 470.6/732. 17

 Ltr, AGO to C CWS, 25 Feb 41, sub: Special Instruction at the CW School for Members of

Fire Departments. AG 362.01 (1-22-41) M-C
236 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

to be used against noncombatants and with methods of protection against

such agents.

c. High explosive bombs (17 hours): To afford familiarity with the

action of HE bombs and with practical measures of protection from their

effects.

d. Training methods (10 hours): To provide practical and theoretical

instruction in training of local civilians in air raid precautions.

School Training at Edgewood Arsenal

The Office of Civilian Defense took such an interest in the course set up

at Edgewood in June 1941 that it sent steno-typists to record the lectures.

OCD had to co-ordinate these lectures with the texts and illustrations which

it prepared. For that reason, and also because the OCD was getting numerous requests to visit Edgewood from governors, mayors, and other officials,

as well as from writers interested in Civilian Defense, General Gasser on 21

July 1941 requested the Secretary of War to designate a liaison officer between Edgewood Arsenal and the Office of Civilian Defense.18

 After consultation between Maj. Gen. William Bryden, Deputy Chief of Staff and

General Porter, Chief, CWS, 1st Lt. John N. Dick, a CWS Reserve officer

called to active duty in 1940, was appointed to this post.19 Dick had formerly

been Mayor La Guardia's personal representative in Washington and was

consequently no stranger to the Director of the Office of Civilian Defense.20

At the same time Dick was named liaison officer he was made chief of a

new activated Civilian Protection Division, OC CWS. In July 1942 this

division was redesignated a branch.21 That same month Lieutenant Dick was

succeeded by Col. George J. B. Fisher as chief of the branch and in July

1943 Colonel Fisher was succeeded by Lt. Col. Willard A. Johnston. In the

May 1943 reorganization of the Chief's Office the Civilian Protection Division became a branch of the Training Division.22

 Late in 1943 the branch

18

 Ltr, Brig Gen L. D. Gasser to SW, 21 Jul 41, sub: Request for Immediate Appointment of

Liaison Officer at Edgewood Arsenal to Coordinate Relationships with the Office of Civilian

Defense. CWS 314.7 Civilian Defense File. 19

 (1) Memo, DCofS for WD Member of the Board for Civilian Defense (Brig Gen L. D.

Gasser, Ret), 1 Aug 41, sub: Request for Appointment of Liaison Officer to Edgewood Arsenal to

Co-ordinate Relationships with Office of Civilian Defense. (2) Ltr, TAG to 1st Lt John N. Dick,

through the C CWS, 14 Aug 41, sub: Designation of Liaison Officer. Both in CWS 314.7

Civilian Defense File. 20

 (1) Interv, CmlHO with Col John N. Dick, 21 Mar 56. (2) The Washington Daily News,

December 23, 1941. 21

 (1) OC CWS Off O 14, 30 Jul 41. (2) OC CWS SO 100, 5 Aug 41. (3) OC CWS Off O

40, 29 Jul 42. 22

 OC CWS Organization Chart, 12 Jun 43.
THE CIVILIAN DEFENSE MISSION 237

was deactivated, because by that time the CWS civilian protection mission

had been accomplished.

The accommodation of civilian classes at the Chemical Warfare School

during the summer and fall of 1941 did not impose an undue strain on

school facilities. As has been indicated, the school at that particular period

was not being fully utilized in the training of CWS personnel. However, the

Chief, CWS, was convinced that all existing capacity of the school, and

much more, would soon be needed for military training. While civilian

defense training was accepted as a necessary contribution to an aspect of

national defense in which the CWS had long been interested, it was clear

that arrangement would have to be made for eventually carrying forward

this work at other locations. General Porter in August 1941 accordingly sent

two officers to survey sites where similar schools of instruction could be

established. As a result of this survey, four additional locations for the future

conduct of civilian defense training were tentatively selected in Texas, California, and Illinois.

In the eleven classes conducted at Edgewood Arsenal prior to 7 December

1941, 466 students from thirty-seven states were graduated. Out of this

relatively small group came many leaders to head civilian defense bodies in

every section of the country after war was declared. At the same time these

prewar classes provided invaluable experience in working out solutions to

problems that were without precedent in American experience.

Instead of merely instructing in a few essentially military techniques,

the school faculty soon found itself confronted with the task of expounding

a new thesis—how civilians might survive in modern war. It was fundamental that civilian protection was self-protection; that civilians themselves

must organize and operate their own defense setup. This doctrine had to be

rationalized and to some extent it had to be qualified. Overlapping of military and civilian authority needed clarification, and areas where one superseded the other had to be defined. For example, military control of the air

raid warning system, of handling unexploded bombs, and of area smoke

screening all was mandatory—for reasons which had to be made clear. On the

other hand, development of the warden system, of rescue parties, and of

fire-fighting services were all matters within civilian jurisdiction.

These and similar procedures that fell under OCD control obviously had

to be elucidated before groups such as were attending the classes. The

school undertook, whenever possible, to have nonmilitary subjects taught by

civilians. For this purpose, members of the OCD staff and other qualified

speakers came frequently to Edgewood to lay before succeeding classes
238 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

DEMONSTRATION IN DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES for civilians. Men in

protective clothing and gas masks mark off gassed area. Chemical Warfare

School, Edgewood Arsenal, Md.

matters of important civilian defense procedure. Yet there was never any

question, either of this stage or later, that here was a U.S. Army school

following military instructional procedures but adapting itself to the training

of civilians.

The fact that the students were on a military reservation attending an

Army school gave prestige to the instruction at a time when this was most

needed. It was frequently noted that a young officer wearing a second

lieutenant's uniform would be listened to more respectfully than a speaker

in civilian garb discussing a subject on which he was a nationally recognized

authority. The confidence with which instruction was accepted was one of

the rewarding features of this early training activity. Even though pedagogically the course may not have rated high at the beginning, this fact was
THE CIVILIAN DEFENSE MISSION 239

incidental since the students who had volunteered for this training were at

Edgewood Arsenal to learn; and that is what they proceeded to do. To some

extent it was a case of student and instructor learning at the same time and

of each recognizing the other as pioneering in a new field. There was at first

a great deal of lecturing and not enough group discussion and applied work.

The tendency of the school was to emphasize, it may be unduly, those subjects which for years had been its specialty. Yet there was much praise and

little criticism from the students who derived a feeling of direct and personal

participation in preparation for war which they could have gotten in no

other way.

For these early classes at the Chemical Warfare School, sessions began

on a Monday morning and ended at noon on the second succeeding Saturday.

A charge of $23.00 per student was made for meals during the twelve-day

period. This and other incidental costs were usually paid by the municipality

or corporation by which the student was employed although often these

expenses were borne by the patriotic volunteer. A prorated charge of $60.00

per student covered cost of ammunition and other outright expenses incurred in connection with this instruction. Army appropriations were reimbursed to this extent by emergency funds made available to OCD, thus

satisfying a legal restriction that military appropriations should not be expended in the training of civilians.

During the fall of 1941, in response to insistent demands, the Chemical

Warfare School extended its civilian defense instruction into nearby areas.

This step was taken as an aid in the protection of industrial plants against

aerial attack, a matter of utmost concern at the time. The work involved

demonstrations and seminars at Boston, Princeton, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh. The course at Princeton consisted of a two-day session conducted for

the special benefit of CWS Reserve officers who were preparing for active

participation in the New Jersey state civil defense program.

Reserve officers contributed materially to the development of civilian

defense at this early stage, especially in the East. Notable in this connection

was the work of Col. J. Enrique Zanetti, a CWS Reserve officer and Columbia University professor, who wrote and lectured extensively on this subject

and demonstrated the burning of incendiaries before many interested

groups.23 Local officials charged with developing civilian defense organiza23

 In the fall of 1941 the Chief, CWS, put Colonel Zanetti in charge of the incendiary bomb

program in the CWS. See above, Chapter II.
240 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

tions very often pressed into service CWS officers who were acquainted

with technical features of air raid protection.

The twelfth civilian defense class was enjoying its mid-course week end

when the Japanese struck at Pearl Harbor. The final week of instruction for

this class had to be conducted by a skeletonized staff because on 8 December

the Chief, CWS (General Porter), directed the school to provide a group

of experienced instructors for an urgent training mission on the Pacific

Coast. As the details of the Pearl Harbor disaster became known, fear grew

that other shattering blows might be imminent. The Office of Civilian Defense was especially concerned over reactions in west coast metropolitan

centers. The Chemical Warfare Service had at that moment the only organized staff of instructors qualified to direct the type of training that would

quickly develop competent leadership in civilian defense at local levels.

Accordingly the War Department was asked by the OCD to dispatch a group

of officers to California for the purpose of undertaking the instruction of

local leaders in civilian defense operations.

This request was immediately granted. A group of nine CWS officers,

headed by Lt. Col. George J. B. Fisher, reached San Francisco on 13

December and after hurried consultation with the Commanding General,

Western Defense Command, and the regional director of civilian defense,

was prepared to commence its training mission. Employing blitz tactics and

a condensation of the course developed at Edgewood Arsenal, simultaneous

three-day classes of instruction were conducted at San Francisco and Oakland. One instructional parry moved quickly north to Portland, Seattle, and

Spokane, while the other proceeded south to Los Angeles, Long Beach, and

San Diego.

Public interest ran high; enrollment constantly exceeded the 250 students

each class was intended to accommodate. Large groups witnessed the demonstrations and control center exercises. College auditoriums, public academies,

and civic buildings were made available for instructional purposes. War had

found the west coast with civilian protection programs still inadequate and

incomplete—a situation which citizens of all ranks now undertook to correct.

Hearty co-operation was afforded each training party. The doctrine stressed

was that knowledge plus proper organization would enable American citizens to withstand anything the Japanese could bring to bear against them.

This philosophy had a tonic effect. When the CWS contingent returned east

in mid-January it was with the feeling that a measurable contribution had

been made toward relieving the shock of the initial impact of war upon the

Western states.
THE CIVILIAN DEFENSE MISSION 241

War Department Civilian Protection Schools

The early desire of General Porter to relocate civilian training was influenced by two considerations. First, he wished to free facilities at Edgewood Arsenal for strictly military usage. Secondly, the eastern location of

the school was manifestly a handicap to students from the Far West. The

latter circumstance was particularly disturbing to the Office of Civilian Defense. After the series of ten classes originally requested was completed on

28 November 1941 the OCD then asked that six more classes be conducted

at Edgewood Arsenal, at the same time hoping that a number of additional

schools would be established.

Already the Commission on Colleges and Civilian Defense had offered

the co-operation of the nation's colleges in the civilian defense program.

OCD decided that the use of college facilities for civilian defense schools

was desirable and accordingly arranged for a meeting between Dr. Francis

J. Brown, executive secretary of the Commission, and a group of Army

officers, to study this possibility. This meeting, held in Washington on 5

December 1941, made a number of proposals which OCD adopted and laid

before the War Department. Among these were recommendations; (1) that

six branch schools, each with a capacity for fifty students, be established,

(2) that these schools be located in colleges well distributed geographically,

(3) that all schools be controlled and operated by the War Department, and

(4) that necessary funds be made available by OCD and U.S. Office of Education.24

 The Chief, CWS, was in due time directed by the War Department

to establish and operate these schools at locations selected by him.25

The two schools first established were opened on 15 February 1942 at

Leland Stanford Jr. University (California) and at Texas Agricultural and

Mechanical College—two of the four sites that had been selected tentatively

by the CWS the preceding August. The next month a third school was ready

to open at Amherst College in Massachusetts. Conduct of civilian instruction

at the Chemical Warfare School terminated on 31 March 1942, by which

time a fourth school was in operation at University of Maryland.26 The

opening in June of schools at the University of Florida, Purdue University

(Indiana), and finally at the University of Washington (Seattle) completed

the original program as proposed by the OCD.

24

 Ltr, OCD to TAG, 10 Dec 41, sub: CD Schools for 1942. AG 352 (12-10-41). 25

 Ltr, AGO to C CWS, 16 Jan 42, sub: CD Schools for 1942. AG 352 (12-10-41). 26

 The Maryland school was originally intended to serve instead of the Edgewood school as a

mother institution for the six branch schools. Later this was found to be impracticable.
242 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

It was necessary to make a few changes in the locations initially selected.

The school established at the University of Florida was not well attended so

it was decided in August 1942 to transfer its staff and faculty to southern

California where insistent demand for this training had developed. Thus a

school at Occidental College, Los Angeles, opened on 1 September 1942 and

continued in successful operation until the training program was terminated.

Another adjustment made in November 1942 was the transfer of the Texas

A. & M. school to Loyola University, New Orleans. The University of Maryland school was closed in September 1942, primarily in order to provide

personnel for another training activity.

Each of these facilities, designated as War Department Civilian Protection Schools, was organized under a common pattern which followed experience gained at Edgewood Arsenal. A staff of six officer-instructors and an

enlisted detachment of twenty-five men plus several clerical assistants were

provided for each school, the senior officer in each instance being designated

as school director. Cost of housing and meals, usually supplied by the university, was borne by the individual student. Outdoor instructional areas,

including stage setting for a night incendiary demonstration, were set up by

military personnel. Under their contract with the War Department, universities where schools were located were reimbursed only for actual expenses incurred. This sum scarcely compensated the institutions for extensive

use made of their facilities, the value of which had to be written off as a

contribution to the national defense.

With the opening of the first branch schools in February 1942 the

original twelve-day course developed at the Chemical Warfare School was

shortened to nine days (sixty-six hours) of scheduled instruction. This

change was occasioned in part by the fact that certain instruction given at

Edgewood Arsenal could not be duplicated elsewhere. By streamlining the

course and eliminating interesting but nonessential periods it was found that

a satisfactory program of basic training in civilian defense could be completed by the end of the second Wednesday.

As finally organized, the general Civilian Defense Course included nine

subcourses as follows:

Aerial Attack (7 hours): To acquaint the student with the general

features of aerial action, including hostile operations and military countermeasures thereto—thus leading to a clearer conception of the factors in

modern war which necessitate development of civilian protection.

Civilian Defense Organization (3 hours): To insure familiarity with

the general outlines of organization on national, regional, state, and local
THE CIVILIAN DEFENSE MISSION 243

levels by which civilian defense is integrated to meet the problems presented

by aerial attack.

Bomb Disposal (41⁄2 hours): Presenting characteristics of explosive

bombs and the general problem of disposing of unexploded bombs; definition of respective responsibilities of civilian agencies and military agencies

in handling unexploded bomb situations.27

Incendiary Protection (9 hours): To impart understanding of the essential features of incendiary munitions, and of means and methods by which

they can be controlled without recourse to organized fire-fighting units.

Gas Protection (11 hours): Consideration of the nature and characteristics of gases that may be employed against civilian targets; methods of

protection against them; civilian organization of gas defense.

Plant Protection (5 hours): Problems of organization and technical

preparation of industrial plants, hospitals, and other large facilities as distinct from community protection.

Citizens Defense Corps (171⁄2 hours): To induce appreciation of the

corps as an integrated team capable of coping with the various types of

incidents, through review of functions of each unit and through exercises

involving their combined employment under the control center.

Local Training (31⁄2 hours): To prepare students to actively and effectively participate in local programs of civilian defense training.

General Subjects (51⁄2 hours): Miscellaneous exercises and conferences

not otherwise included.

By instructional directives, each of these subcourses was broken down

into a suitable number of lectures, conferences, demonstrations, and exercises to insure the most effective approach to the designated objective. An

instructor's period guide was provided by the Civilian Protection Branch,

OC CWS, for each lesson phase. A standardized schedule indicated the

sequence of instruction to be followed, text references, and academic procedure. Although each school director was authorized to make modifications

to meet local conditions or to emphasize local problems, such variations

were incidental. The school authorities realized that only within a firm overall pattern was it possible to reflect instructionally the frequent changes

being made in the technique of protection against air attack.

Teaching procedure at the schools was based on FM 21-5, Military

Training, and TM 21-250, Army Instruction. The texts employed were

publications of the U.S. Office of Civilian Defense, supplemented oc27

 Instructions in handling of unexploded bombs and related subjects were generally given by

Ordnance officers.
244 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

casionally by military manuals. Pertinent OCD publications were usually

supplied in sufficient quantities to provide one for each student to be used

at school and retained after graduation. Much of the resident instruction

was explanation, demonstration, and application of matter contained in these

texts. The atmosphere of the schools reflected the precision and thoroughness associated with the military service. Behind the immediate purpose of

quickly imparting needed knowledge was the implicit responsibility of imbuing each graduate with a sense of confidence in the armed forces of the

United States.28

The immediate and continued success of those schools was due in large

measure to the experience and capability of the instructors who were assigned to these faculties. These Reserve officers were in many instances professional college and university teachers who fitted readily into this new type

of semimilitary training conducted in an academic environment.

A reorganization of the teaching program of War Department Civilian

Protection Schools was undertaken in December 1942. By this time civilian

defense organization at local levels had been completed, the Citizens' Defense Corps was well established, and there was diminished need for the

general course as originally developed at the Chemical Warfare School.

However, definite requirement was now felt for more specialized instruction

than was possible in the standardized course. A group of four shorter courses

was accordingly worked out by the Civilian Protection Branch, OC CWS,

including:

Basic Protection Course (6 days): Thorough grounding in technique

applicable to community protection—handling of incendiaries, unexploded

bombs, and gas situations; air raid wardens duties; blackouts; panic prevention; training the general public; and similar basic problems with which all

were concerned.

Plant Protection Course (6 days): To specialize in training of selected

plant personnel in problems of organization and technical preparation of

industrial plants, hospitals, and other large institutions or facilities as distinct

from community protection. This course was generally similar to the basic

course except that the point of view was .that of the plant or institution

rather than the municipality.

Staff Course (5 days): Embraced command organization for control of

combined units in air raid action; strategy of civilian protection; integration

of military and civilian security agencies; planning and execution of local

28

 WD Civilian Protection Schools, Instruction Directive, 6 Feb 43.
THE CIVILIAN DEFENSE MISSION 245

programs; organization and direction of the Citizens' Defense Corps; control

center exercises.

Gas Specialists Course (5 days): To qualify senior (local) gas officers

and gas reconnaissance agents for performance of their duties; instruction

of the general public, and equipment and training of Citizens' Defense

Corps enrollees.

With the concurrence of the OCD, these shorter courses replaced the

original basic course after 1942. During the first six months of 1943 approximately twenty of them were conducted at each WDCP school, scheduled in

accordance with the training requirements of regional OCD authorities.

Miscellaneous Activities

Each WDCP school was called upon for considerable service over and

above the resident instruction of civilian students. At colleges where these

schools were located, the college laboratories served as practical substitutes

for chemical field laboratories. The prospect of Japan delivering at least a

token gas attack against the United States was by no means fantastic; should

such attack be made, it was important to identify accurately the agents used.29

For this reason, qualified instructors in analytical chemistry on the faculties

of these colleges were given special instruction at Edgewood Arsenal in

detection of war gases and arrangements were made with service commands

to have samples of any enemy chemical agents dropped within the zone of

the interior dispatched to the nearest school for analysis and positive

identification.

The number of Negroes trained at WDCP schools was relatively small.

This no doubt was due to the limited employment of Negroes as instructors

and as executives in local civilian defense organizations. Three classes of

all-Negro students were conducted in the fall of 1942 at the Prairie View

(Texas) Normal and Industrial College by the faculty of the Texas A. & M.

school. One hundred and fifty-one men and women from several southern

states were trained in these classes. The instructional staff was altogether

satisfied with the caliber of these students and would have welcomed the

opportunity to train additional Negroes had they been needed.

29

 Japan did drop incendiaries from naval aircraft and released balloons which landed within

continental United States. See Conn et al., Guarding the U.S., Ch. III, and Wesley F. Craven and

James L. Cate, eds., The Army Air Forces in World War II: VI, Men and Planes (Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1955), pp. 113, 116-18. Hereafter cited as Craven and Cate, Men

and Planes.
246 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

An important feature of extracurricula work of the schools was conducting plant protection seminars. These were held in every section of the

country, an outgrowth of the work originally undertaken in this field by the

Chemical Warfare School in the autumn of 1941. Word of such exercises

held in the Southwest was carried home by Mexican graduates of the Texas

school and led the Mexican Government formally to write the Americans to

stage a plant protection exercise at Monterrey, Nuevo Léon. This exercise

was successfully accomplished in September 1942 and occasioned a request

from the Republic of Mexico for a more elaborate civilian defense program

to be conducted in Mexico City.30 The project was arranged through the

Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs. With concurrence of the State Department, a party headed by the U.S. Director of Civilian Defense (James

M. Landis) and including experienced CWS instructors flew to the Mexican

capital in May 1943 for a three-day series of conferences to acquaint local

and national authorities with U.S. civil defense procedures.

The most spectacular training activity of CWS in World War II was an

outgrowth of the biweekly incendiary demonstration conducted by the University of Maryland WDCP school. This exercise constantly attracted large

groups of spectators from Washington, military as well as civilian, a fact

which influenced the school director, Col. Joseph D. Sears, to develop the

demonstration into an outstanding spectacle. After observing the popular

interest thus awakened and appreciating the desirability of carrying to a

larger audience the lessons taught in the exercise, the OCD requested the

War Department to make this a traveling unit. The War Department was

unwilling to increase the personnel then allotted to civilian defense training

but countered with the proposal that the Maryland school be closed and its

staff utilized for this purpose. Under this arrangement a mobile unit named

ACTION OVERHEAD was organized.

This undertaking put the CWS squarely into the show business. It required building up a staff with theatrical experience, including stage managers, lighting and sound effects men, and narrators. Personnel of the unit

included nine officers and thirty-five enlisted men, more than the normal

WDCP school complement, yet certainly small for the task at hand. The

15,000-word script followed in the show was developed principally by

Colonel Sears and was finally approved by the Office of the Chief, CWS,

and OCD on 31 August 1942, by which time ACTION OVERHEAD, in a

caravan of fourteen trucks, was ready for the road.

30

 Ltr, US Direc OCD to Col G. J. B. Fisher, OC CWS, 17 Dec 42, no sub, and inclosures.

General File Off Dir OCD, 093-Latin American Countries-Mexico, NA.
THE CIVILIAN DEFENSE MISSION 247

Throughout the performance the Army's instructional sequence of explanation, demonstration, and application was steadily followed. The hour

and a half demonstration was divided into two sections. In the first section

the various types of bombs used in air attack were displayed, explained, and

detonated. Then followed demonstrations of correct methods of counteraction, usually undertaken by local units of the Citizens' Defense Corps.

Stressed throughout this part of the exercises were practical knowledge,

foresight, and calmness in the face of air attack. The second section opened

with display of a typical control center, manned insofar as possible by local

civilian defense volunteers. After explanation of the setup and operation of

the control center, the demonstration field was blacked out for a simulated

air attack. When possible, a flight of planes from a nearby Army Air Force

base was employed, the dropping of live bombs being represented by static

detonation of high explosives and incendiaries. In cities where the AAF was

unable to co-operate in providing aircraft, sound strips were used to simulate

their approach.

During 1942 and 1943 ACTION OVERHEAD was presented before 21⁄4

million people in more than one hundred American cities, giving a realistic

interpretation of air attack and of civilian defense in action.

Supervision of War Department Civilian Protection Schools

Prior to the reorganization of the War Department in March 1942,

civilian defense matters were handled by the Civil Defense Branch, Office

of the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-3. After the creation of the Services of

Supply, these functions were transferred to the Civil Defense Section of the

Office of Chief of Administrative Services (SOS).31 The latter organization

thereafter co-ordinated all War Department activities in this field, including

conduct of schools. Since the training was essentially technical in nature, its

supervision was left with the CWS—the principal concern of the Services of

Supply being that the schools met the requirements of OCD and that they

were efficiently conducted.

Close liaison had to be maintained between the Office of the Chief, CWS,

and the Office of Civilian Defense in training and related activities. The

general operating procedure was for the OCD to indicate what teaching was

desirable, the War Department then determining how the instructional aim

would be attained. Army relations with the OCD were handled through the

31

 Ltr, C of Adm Servs SOS to CGs Air & Ground Forces, et al., 31 Mar 42, sub: Civilian

Defense. SPAAC 020 (3-29-42).
248 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Board of Civilian Protection. The OCD Training Division was an important

agency of the Board of Civilian Protection and its activities were directed by

the Army member of that board. In addition to continuous development of

the curriculum, which was a joint CWS-OCD project, the Training Division

was solely responsible for the allotting to regional directors of quotas for

civilian students.

At the end of a year of wartime operation, the OCD formally requested

that the WDCP schools be continued. In approving this proposal, the U.S.

Director of Civilian Defense was advised:

The War Department is agreeable to the continuation of these schools during the

calendar year 1943, provided it is your judgment they are serving an essential purpose.

The Chief, Chemical Warfare Service, has been informed accordingly, and he is

being directed to continue, as long as these schools are conducted by the War Department, to operate them in such a manner as will most effectively aid you in meeting the

important responsibilities of your office.32

The question of how far these schools were "serving an essential purpose" began to present itself in the spring of 1943. For understandable

reasons the active concern of the War Department with the civilian defense

program gradually lessened as the war progressed. In the course of two

years the Office of Civilian Defense, starting from scratch, had developed

a nationwide scheme of civilian self-protection against air raids that was

reasonably adequate, so that need for advanced training in this field was

beginning to lack urgency. The doubt and unrest that arose after the shocking events of December 1941 had been supplanted by a sense of national

confidence inspired by victories that began with the Battle of Midway. The

gradual build-up of United Nations strength finally forced the Axis powers

to assume the strategic defensive, which left them impotent to undertake

serious action against the U.S. mainland. At the same time shortages of manpower at home obliged the Army by 1943 to curtail every activity that did

not contribute directly to military victory overseas.

Early in 1943 the prospects of enemy attack were reviewed by the Combined Chemical Warfare Committee for study of the Policy for Gas Defense

of the U.S. A study prepared by this group on 20 May 1943 reported the

following conclusions:

(1) At present the enemy does not possess the means to deliver sustained gas

attacks against the United States.

(2) The enemy probably does possess the means to deliver surprise and sporadic

gas attacks against vital coastal installations in the United States.

32

 Ltr, C of Adm Serv to Dir OCD, 26 Dec 42, no sub. SPAAC 352.
THE CIVILIAN DEFENSE MISSION 249

(3) The enemy is not now capable of delivering any attacks against inland installations.

(4) Ample warning will be given before the enemy can get into a position which

will enable him to deliver regular and sustained gas attacks against the United

States.33

Although this report was made primarily with a view to determining

policy as to protection of military installations in the zone of interior, its

application to civilian defense was clear. The hazard of enemy gas attack

against American cities had diminished to the point of negligibility.

Nor was this situation the result solely of the deterioration of enemy

capabilities. U.S. defensive measures had progressively advanced until they

promised to deny important advantage to the attacker. The American public

had become acquainted with the characteristics of air raids and had developed more confidence in its ability to withstand their effects. The likelihood of creating panic in heavily populated areas by a show of air power

had greatly diminished.

The gas protection phase of the civilian defense program, developed

under CWS guidance, took into account certain psychological or moralesustaining ends as well as the physical protection of the individual. It involved protective matériel plus organization, with the two blended into a

functional entity. Civilian gas masks had been procured by the CWS and

were stored by the OCD in quantities sufficient to permit issuance of one to

every civilian whose duty required him to remain in a gassed area.34 The

civilian gas protection organization insured echelonment of responsibility

and technical competence where this was needed. It provided for the execution of antigas measures by civilians themselves under procedures authenticated by military experience and training. Although fortunately the

defensive scheme was never subjected to the test of combat, it did provide

ground for assurance that the threat of poison gas could be countered successfully.

What had been accomplished in the field of gas defense was paralleled

in other fields of air raid protection. Large industrial plants had developed

operational procedures which promised to avert serious disruption of production in consequence of aerial attack. Fire-fighting organizations had become

acquainted with the characteristics of incendiary bombing, against which defensive measures were introduced. State and municipal plans for evacuation,

33

 Agenda, Meeting OCWC, 20 May 43. 34

 CWS procured over 61⁄2 million noncombatant masks for adults and over 11⁄2 million for

children. CWS Report of Production, 1 January 1940 through 31 December 1945, pp. 20-21.
250 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

rescue, medical assistance, and other aspects of passive defense were developed. The ability of U.S. citizens to withstand assault by air was increasing rapidly at the same time that enemy capability of initiating such assault

was on the wane. This fact, recognized by Congress as well as by the general

public, resulted in decision to terminate the WDCP school program. The

schools accordingly were discontinued effective 21 July 1943.35

During their operation a total of 274 classes were conducted with an

average attendance of 37.7 trainees. Graduates included men and women

from every state in the Union as well as from Canada and Mexico. Over one

fifth of the 10,328 enrolled students were Army and Navy officers, some of

whom were trained for civilian protection duty in the zone of interior, others

in the theaters of operation.

Although it now appears that the operation of WDCP schools after midsummer of 1943 was not justified, the War Department willingly agreed to

continue aid to OCD in its training operations by providing CWS instructors

as needed for technical training in state civilian defense schools.36 It further

agreed to maintain two educational facilities, one on each coast, where Army

training of civilians could be undertaken again if occasion demanded. This

commitment lead to the activation of the West Coast Chemical Warfare

School at Camp Beale, California, in the fall of 1943, while plans were made

for resuming civilian training at the CW School if necessary. However, OCD

training activities virtually ceased with the closing of WDCP schools.

At the same time that it was diminishing within the zone of interior, the

need for training in air raid precaution was being emphasized abroad as the

extent of occupied territory increased. Civilian protection in occupied areas

was a function of Military Government, although few officers designated for

such duty had received any training in this specialty. The Chemical Warfare

School was directed in September 1943 to prepare an air raid protection

course to qualify CWS personnel to function as staff air raid protection

officers in each theater of operations and for the training of officers of other

branches for this type of duty within their units.37 Well-qualified instructors

released by the closing of WDCP schools were available for this purpose. A

series of seven 1-week classes, each averaging 43 students, was completed

at the Chemical Warfare School by the end of 1943. This brought to a close

an interesting if somewhat unusual CWS training activity.

35

 Ltr, AGO to CGS of SCs, 29 Jul 43, sub: WDCP Schools. SPX 352 (8 Jul 43). 36

 WD Memo 4590-4-43, 24 Mar 43, sub: Training of civilians. 37

 Ltr, TAG to C CWS 16 May 43, sub: Civ Defense Instruction of Selected Officers for

Expeditionary Forces. SPX 353 (3-12-43) OB-S-SPAAC-M.
CHAPTER XI

Official Publications

"Training literature" was the imposing description applied to the wartime products of the CWS publication agency. This term was only partially

appropriate. It did serve, however, to underwrite the idea that all texts required for military training were to be found in the list of official publications.

Volume of Wartime Publications

The War Department publications that were available at the beginning

of the war period are listed in a thin, pocket-size pamphlet of twenty-one

pages. The corresponding list and index of 16 May 1945 was a 386-page

quarto volume, FM-6, while two additional field manuals (21-7 and 21-8)

were required to enumerate the various films and graphic training aids that

were eventually provided. The contrast between the 1940 and 1945 listings

affords an interesting sidelight on America's unpreparedness for war when

the period of national emergency began. Not only did the Army lack the

military publications needed in a major war effort, but, to a considerable

extent, it lacked a realization of the necessity for such publications. And the

means for producing them scarcely existed.

The situation of the Chemical Warfare Service as to training publications, while unfavorable, was probably neither better nor worse than that

of the Army as a whole. Listed in the first issue of FM 21-6, 2 January 1940,

were six CWS publications. Two were volumes of the field manual series,

three were technical manuals describing chemical munitions, and one was a

training regulation (Examination for Gunners). Besides, the Chemical Warfare Service had two training films—one produced in 1930 and one in 1933

—as well as a portfolio of graphic training charts. There was in addition

some miscellaneous printed matter in the form of extension (correspondence) courses, technical bulletins, specifications covering supplies procured

by the CWS, a nomenclature and price list of chemical munitions, and so
252 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

forth. This modest group of prewar publications was a mere token compared

to the flood of printed materials which the CWS was soon to sponsor.

The renaissance of the Chemical Warfare Service in the emergency

period meant a marked stimulation of the development and production of

CWS materiel, all of which required description or other treatment in

official literature. The remarkable progress made during the war in producing fire and smoke weapons alone accounted for many new publications.

A glance at the number and status of these publications as of 1 July 1945

indicates the task involved in the preparation of CWS training literature

during World War II. At that time the following had been published or

were being prepared for publications:1

In addition to this series of publications, the CWS was particularly concerned with the preparation of FM 21-40, Defense Against Chemical Attack,

and TM 8-285, Treatment of Casualties from Chemical Agents. The following logistical documents also were prepared for official publication:

62 Supply Bulletins

28 Supply Catalog Pamphlets

4 Modification Work Orders

2 Lubrication Orders

1 War Department Pamphlet

Setting Up the Publications Program

The prewar official Army manual was well written, but in a staid and

unexciting style. It was directed toward the instructor rather than to the

1

 Memo, Tng Div OC CWS to Control Div, 21 Jul 45, sub: Quarterly Report of Publications

Analysis. CWS 314.7 Publications File. This report also lists translations of CWS publications as

follows: Into Chinese, 4; into French, 18; into Russian, 2.
OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS 253

trainee. Into the enlarged World War II publications program was introduced a new element, reader interest. Deliberate effort was made in writing

to capture and hold attention. Illustrations, both photographic and "art,"

were lavishly employed. The Publications Division, AGO, in time established

an editorial and art staff to assist preparing agencies in this work. The skills

of the advertising expert and commercial illustrator were utilized in producing attractive formats. The new manuals were often striking departures

from the publications of the past, yet such departures were necessary if the

mass of new instructional material was to be quickly translated into usable

knowledge. The preparation of publications to meet the standards of World

War II required the development of a group of technical specialists—writers,

editors, and illustrators—not previously available to the Chemical Warfare

Service.

The CWS manuals published before the war were prepared under the

general supervision of the Training Division of the Chief's Office. That

division was responsible for obtaining War Department authorization for

proposed publications, for arranging for the writing of manuals, and for

obtaining concurrences, when necessary, of other arms and services to final

drafts.

Three agencies at Edgewood Arsenal were engaged from time to time

in writing manuals. The preparation and review of training regulations and

manuals had been a function of the Chemical Warfare Board since 1925.2

The Research Division kept two civilians employed in writing CWS technical

reports and in preparing technical matter for inclusion in other publications.

The Chemical Warfare School prepared tactical texts either for its own use

or for official publication. Experienced officers serving with chemical troops

were sometimes called on for assistance. The task of preparing a prewar

manual was undertaken by whoever chanced to know most about a particular subject, and the task of reconciling divergent viewpoints of several

writers was attempted with varying success by the Training Division in

Washington. Occasionally the Training Division took a hand at writing.

The system represented a defensive rather than a positive approach to the

problem of providing the War Department texts needed to delineate the

CWS mission. As soon as the pressure for new publications became urgent,

a better scheme for producing them had to be devised.

Of the three offices concerned with the preparation of publications at

2

 Ltr, OC CWS to Pres CW Bd, 14 Dec 25, sub: Duties of Chemical Warfare Board. CWS

334/182.
254 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Edgewood Arsenal, the Chemical Warfare Board most nearly represented

the over-all viewpoint of the CWS. The preparation of all field and technical

manuals was centralized under the board in February 1941 as the first step

toward development of a group specializing in the writing of manuals.3 The

writing of CWS technical bulletins by the technical agency was continued;

with this exception the board was to co-ordinate and carry forward the

entire publications program. The board's small staff of two officer-writers

and one civilian artist was gradually built up to eight officers, four enlisted

men, and seven civilians in the course of the next year and a half.4

In these months the CWS developed a capable nucleus of a manual

writing agency. There was at the start a definite advantage in having this

unit grow up within the framework of the Chemical Warfare Board. Once

the child matured, difficulties arose. The work of the board's publications

section was somewhat outside the main current of board activities, and its

volume grew so fast as to make supervision by the board a continuing

problem. The section had in fact become an almost separate entity when,

in the fall of 1942, it was dissolved and its functions assumed by the newly

established Training Aids Section, an independent agency of the Chemical

Warfare Center.5 This section operated under the Training Division, OC

CWS,6 and was responsible for preparing training literature, films and film

strips, and tables of organization and allowances for chemical units. All

personnel who had been working on the preparation of publications were

transferred from the board to the Training Aids Section.7

This reorganization was advantageous to both the board and the Training Division. It freed the board from a considerable flow of administrative

work that was interfering with its own important duties, and it enabled the

Training Division to deal directly rather than indirectly with one of its

essential operating agencies. By the time the Training Aids Section broke

away, it no longer needed the administrative guidance that the board had

initially provided although its success during the remainder of the war period

was evidence of the sound development that marked its early growth.

The Training Aids Section remained an operating agency of the Office

of the Chief located at the Chemical Warfare Center until June 1943 when,

with its equipment and staff, it became a division of the Chemical Warfare

3

 Ltr, OC CWS to CG EA, 18 Feb 41, sub: Training Literature. CWS 300.7/212. 4

 CWS Hist of Tng, It. VI, Mil Tng Publications (1 Jul 39-30 Jun 44), p. 11. 5

 OC CWS, Off O 60, 20 Sep 42. 6

 See below, Chapter XVI, for details of activities of Training Division, OC CWS. 7

 OC CWS, SO 207, 20 Sep 42.
OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS 255

School.8 The reasons for this action are not entirely clear. There is no

indication that the work of the Training Aids Section had suffered because

of the nature of its administrative status between September 1942 and June

1943. It is true that during this period the preparation of publications was

somewhat hampered by lack of enough competent technicians, especially

civilians, to enable the section to keep abreast of the demands made upon it.

A great deal of highly specialized equipment, including cameras, enlargers,

and automatic typewriters, had been procured, so that the section was becoming well equipped to meet all calls made upon it. But the problem of

personnel was tougher, with greater difficulty in obtaining qualified civilians

in 1943 than in 1941 and 1942. The Training Aids Section had placed too

much reliance at the start on the services of officers and enlisted men who,

after becoming experienced in the work of the Training Aids Section, were

often reassigned to other duties. The CWS no doubt expected that by merging the training aids unit with the Chemical Warfare School the latter, with

its larger reserve of personnel, would be able to facilitate the work of

writing, illustrating, and editing. Actually the Training Aids Division suffered rather than benefited by this arrangement in that it was expected to

contribute to the needs of the school for training aids while receiving little

help from the school for its own manpower needs.

The preparation of official publications continued to be a responsibility

of the Chemical Warfare School until July 1944. While under the school,

the Training Aids Division had a somewhat autonomous status since the

school authorities had neither the time nor experience to assume active control of the publications program. On 19 July a new administrative procedure,

one that proved most satisfactory, was announced.9 It abolished the Training

Aids Division of the school, and placed the function of preparing official

publications in the Tactical Doctrine Branch, Training Division, OC CWS.

A field office of the Tactical Doctrine Branch was set up at the Chemical

Warfare Center, and to it was assigned the publications personnel and

facilities that during the preceding year had been accommodated within the

organic structure of the school. Thereafter the Chief's Office, instead of

supervising the preparation of official CWS publications, actually assumed

full responsibility and accomplished this work during the remainder of the

war period by means of its own field operating agency.

The trial-and-error organizational experience of the CWS publications

8

 OC CWS, Adm O 12, 14 Jun 43. 9

 OC CWS, Adm O 15, 19 Jul 44.
256 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

agency followed in part from the failure at the beginning to measure

properly the materiel and personnel requirements of this entirely new type

of producing unit. Appropriate budgetary needs were only grudgingly met

when they could no longer be avoided. At the time the agency was separated

from the Chemical Warfare Board in September 1942, $25,000 was set

aside to cover its operating expenses for the remainder of the fiscal year;

this proved to be less than half the sum actually needed. The staff of the

Tactical Doctrine Branch ultimately included 38 officers, 4 enlisted men, 4

enlisted women, and 49 civilians; of these, 4 officers and 3 civilians served

in Washington. Funds allocated to the CWS publications program for fiscal

year 1945 approached a half million dollars.10

The Pattern of Military Publications

The pattern of official War Department publications was firmly set at

the beginning of hostilities, under the general provisions of the 310 series

of Army Regulations. A general directive issued by the War Department in

January 1941 may be taken as launching in earnest the World War II

publications program. The system of military publications was supervised

by the Operations and Training Division, War Department General Staff.11

The principal standardized publications at this time were field manuals,

technical manuals, training circulars, mobilization regulations and training

programs, tables of organization and equipment, training films, and film

strips. Although this system was somewhat expanded, the essential pattern

was not altered during the war. The basic number "3" served to identify all

CWS publications in each category.

The publications system was based on two types of documents—the field

manual and the technical manual. The field manual group included a

general series, covering the fundamental employment of combined arms

and services, and a particular series, containing instructions on the employment of specific units of the several arms and services. The technical manual

group, on the other hand, described materiel, its maintenance and operation,

and contained other data more specialized in nature than was considered

appropriate for inclusion in field manuals. These two groups furnished basic

doctrine for the employment of CWS procedures and materials.

Although the field and technical manuals were conceived as being

relatively permanent in form, the demand for increasing CWS support

10

 Interv, CmlHO with Lt Col Norman E. Niles, 20 Aug 52. 11

 Ltr, TAG to Chiefs of Arms, et al., 27 Jan 41, sub: Training Literature. AG 062.12.
OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS 257

throughout World War II called for constant amendment and change to

accepted doctrine. Revision of these manuals could not keep pace with requirements, and two new series of publications, the training circular and the

technical bulletin (War Department as contrasted with CWS), were therefore adopted to permit the ready dissemination of tentative data.

At first the training circular was employed to amend both field and

technical manuals, as well as to announce new training policies. Toward

the end of the war the importance of the training circular diminished, especially after the appearance of the technical bulletin. The somewhat belated

addition of the latter to the list of official publications was necessitated by

the striking technological advances of America's munitions program. Introduced as a means for quick publication of technical information, the technical bulletin was exempt from prior review by The Adjutant General. It

represented the largest single item in the CWS publication program. Other

publications standardized during the war and with which the CWS was

particularly concerned were supply bulletins and spare parts catalogs.12

In the field of visual training aids, the film bulletin was introduced

during the war to complement the training film in much the same way that

the technical bulletin complemented the technical manual. It dealt with new

military developments, not necessarily based on doctrine, but issued for the

information of officers and enlisted men.

The graphic training aid (GTA), used to some extent before the war,

was widely employed in training. Two types were standardized as official

publications. War Department graphic training aids were those of Armywide application. In this category were a number produced by CWS for

training in defense against gas attack. A larger number were Chemical Warfare Service GTA's, intended only for use in the training of chemical personnel.

Through this wide range of publications—manuals, bulletins, films, film

bulletins, graphic training aids—ran two divergent currents. One was the

distinction between the tactical and the technical publications, as represented

by the field manual and the technical manual. The other was the need for

quick dissemination of data on new technical developments, without too

great a disturbance of the old and well established. These views could be

accommodated within the scheme of official publications. The Chemical

Warfare Service emphasized the technical rather than the tactical and the

new methods and materials rather than the old.

12

 Spare parts catalogs, published under ASF imprint, are discussed in Brophy, Miles, and

Cochrane, From Laboratory to Field.
258 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

The Preparation of Manuals

Before March 1942, responsibility for the formulation of doctrine for

employment of chemical munitions rested with the CWS. Under the 1942

reorganization of the War Department the AAF and the AGF were made

responsible for development of tactical and training doctrine for the

weapons which they used, and CWS responsibility was confined to the

preparation of suitable instructions covering the technical care and use of

the materiel it supplied. Within the Training Division, OC CWS, the

Tactical Doctrine Branch was responsible for co-ordinating, supervising,

and finally for actually authoring a manuscript. This name was adopted in

deference to Pentagon practice, the Tactical Doctrine Branch of the Office

of the Director of Military Training, ASF, being the office through which

CWS publications were cleared.13 Even tactical doctrine pertaining to CWS

service troops was cleared with the combat forces before publication. In the

case of incendiary bombs, matters of tactical employment were decided by

the Army Air Force. With such munitions as smoke generators and mechanized flame throwers, the line between tactics and technique was not always

clear; the CWS sometimes had to provide acceptable tactical answers. Yet

where tactical doctrine appeared in CWS publications, this was formulated

by or in agreement with the using arm and was not a principal contribution

of the CWS.

At the outset of the war, field manuals covering tactical and logistical

aspects of chemical warfare had already been published. The only wartime

addition to this series was the publication of six manuals covering field

operations of chemical service units.

Five CWS technical manuals had been published at the time of Pearl

Harbor. These were:

TM 3-205 The Gas Mask

TM 3-215 Military Chemistry and Chemical Agents

TM 3-240 Meteorology

TM 3-250 Storage and Shipment of Dangerous Chemicals

TM 3-305 Use of Smokes and Lacrimators in Training

Among the considerable number of CWS items then standardized, only the

gas mask and chemical agents were discussed in War Department technical

literature. It was therefore necessary, after war was under way, to publish

technical descriptions of certain equipment already being supplied to troops,

13

 WD Cir 59, 2 Mar 42.
OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS 259

and at the same time to prepare for publication descriptions of new chemical items as they appeared for the first time in the Army supply program—

mechanical smoke generators, field impregnating plants, incendiary bombs,

mechanized flame throwers, napalm, and so on. For without detailed instructions on how munitions should be used and maintained, they quickly

become a liability in a theater of operations.

The genesis of the technical description of a military item was to be

found in data accumulated during the stage of research and development.

Such data were used by the Technical Division at the Chemical Warfare

Center to prepare CWS technical bulletins. Thirty-seven of these were published between 1940 and 1943. Although of limited circulation, they were

important in providing a starting point for the development of the "3-series"

of War Department technical bulletins, publication of which was first undertaken in 1943.14

 The function of the CWS publication agency was to take

such essentially technical information as had been developed while the item

was being designed and eventually produced, and translate it into a manuscript meeting the needs of a lay reader, providing suitable illustrations, and

generally adapting the material to the standards set by The Adjutant General

for official publication. A few of the CWS technical bulletins thus found

their way into publication as War Department technical manuals although

the more general procedure was for them to appear, in 1944 and 1945, as

War Department technical bulletins. In practice, most of the "3-series" of

technical bulletins appeared so late that no attempt was made to incorporate

them in the more permanent medium of the technical manual.

While the CWS publication agency in time acquired a polished professional approach in the production of attractive and useful manuals, it

necessarily had to seek from others much of the substance which it incorporated into them. The source most generally drawn on, other than the

Technical Command, was the Chemical Warfare School. The school over

a number of years had developed a series of locally reproduced texts covering features of tactics and technique not included in the scanty list of official

publications. Some of these, as appropriations permitted, were accepted and

printed by the War Department as official texts. Thus three of the five CWS

technical manuals available at the beginning of the war were based on texts

originally developed for use at the Chemical Warfare School.15 This general

type of procedure continued throughout the war; the unofficial school texts

14

 WD Cir 297, 13 Nov 43. 15

 TM 3-215, Military Chemistry and Chemical Agents; TM 3-240, Meteorology; TM 3-305,

Use of Smokes and Lacrimators in Training.
260 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

were steadily laid aside as additional War Department publications became

available, while many of the latter that were processed by the Chemical Warfare Service were derived at least in part from school publications. As early

as February 1941, unofficial texts had ceased to be used in teaching at the

Chemical Warfare School.16

The debate over official and unofficial texts persisted in some measure

throughout the war. There was continuing complaint, even when a War

Department manual was available, that the coverage was incomplete and had

to be supplemented to meet local training needs. Often this was true. Yet

ASF policy was that the soldier should be trained with the same document

that would be available to him in the field and that no local publication

should take the place of this official text. Any compromise with this policy

would have been unfortunate, since uniformity in training was essential

whether the training was done in Louisiana, in northern Ireland, or in

Burma.

One useful bridge between the official and unofficial publication was the

"tentative" manual, numbered and approved by the War Department for

use only at special service schools. Several Chemical Warfare School texts

had this status until time and experience determined the desirability of

official publication. An example is FM 3-5 which appeared in June 1942 as

Tactics of Chemical Warfare, prepared under the direction of the Chief,

CWS, for use at the Chemical Warfare School only; later this was superseded by two War Department field manuals: (1) Characteristics and

Employment of Ground Chemical Munitions and (2) Characteristics and

Employment of Air Chemical Munitions.

The Chemical Warfare Board, after it ceased to be responsible for the

writing of publications, continued to review many of the manuscripts

processed by the Tactical Doctrine Branch, a procedure which enabled the

writing agency to take full advantage of the board's experience in all fields

of chemical warfare.

Procedures to be followed in the preparation of official publications

were set forth in great detail in ten mimeographed pages of ASF Circular

62, issued in March 1944. By this time the technical services were turning

out a steady stream of well written and attractively illustrated publications;

Circular 62 added little to what was then known, although it did authenticate

existing practices and provided a permanent record of the manual writing

16

 Memo, Asst Comdt to C Tng Div, OC CWS, 25 Feb 41, sub: Use of School Texts. CWS

300.7/206-231.
OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS 261

procedures in vogue in the ASF during World War II. One object of this

lengthy directive was to limit the multiplicity of War Department publications, although the success of the effort was questionable.

The steps ordinarily involved in the preparation of an official publication

appear somewhat complicated, yet they were necessary to insure system and

order in such a large publications program as that of the U.S. Army in

World War II. When a new CWS publication was needed, or when a

change in an existing publication was desirable, the CWS made a pertinent

recommendation to the ASF. If approved, the CWS then prepared a full

statement of the scope of the publication and an outline of the proposed

manuscript. This, after review, was referred by the ASF to The Adjutant

General who studied the project from the viewpoints of essentiality and

appropriate medium of publication. If TAG concurred, the outline was

returned to the CWS where it served as the blueprint for the preparation of

the manuscript. Informal concurrences were obtained from air and ground

forces headquarters as well as other interested agencies as the work progressed so that formal concurrences to the completed manuscript could be

obtained quickly as a routine matter. The final manuscript with illustrations

was sent to the ASF for approval and for securing necessary outside concurrences. Headquarters, ASF, then referred the manuscript to The Adjutant

General, who reviewed for conformity with editorial standards and with

media requirements; afterwards it was either returned to the Chemical Warfare Service for any essential changes or was transmitted to the printer for

reproduction. After printing, distribution to troops also was handled by

TAG. The same general procedure was followed in processing graphic training aids and film projects.17

Speeding Up the Program

As the publication program began to gain momentum, there appeared

danger that it might bog down unless something was done to reduce the

excessive time lapse between the initial approval and the final distribution

of a printed pamphlet. In the case of some CWS manuals, the interval ran

to as much as eight months.

This time was consumed in three ways: first, in writing and illustrating;

17

 The Signal Corps was responsible for the production of film materials of all sorts. See George

Raynor Thompson, Dixie R. Harris, Pauline M. Oakes, and Dulany Terrett, The Signal Corps:

The Test, a volume in UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR II, Chapter XIII.
262 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

second, in obtaining concurrences of interested commands; third, in printing

and binding. The ASF undertook to control the time spent on writing by

assigning a deadline to each project as it was approved and by requiring

submission of regular progress reports until the pamphlet was completed.

But shortcuts had to be developed in the matter of concurrences and also in

the printing of manuals.

The handling of concurrences to CWS publications by ground and air

forces was greatly simplified by the ASF in November 1943 under a procedure which permitted the publication of new technical manuals without

advice or consent of other agencies.18 It also delegated to technical services

full responsibility for approval of these publications, without reference to

the ASF—a real departure from the initial procedure referred to above. This

action was clearly dictated by the urgent necessity for speed in getting technical literature into the hands of troops. The line between the technical

manual and the field manual was now more sharply drawn. Into the technical

manual went instruction as to what was to be done about the maintenance

and operation of new equipment, thus leaving for later publication in a field

manual specific instructions for crew or individual equipment operation in

the field. This meant the elimination of doctrine from technical manuals,

and with it, much of the prepublication concern of the combat forces with

these pamphlets. Upon distribution, copies of new technical manuals were

circulated for comments which, wherever appropriate, were published later

as technical bulletins or as changes to technical manuals.

The mushrooming of the Army publications program had the effect of

clogging the Government Printing Office with work so that, by the summer

of 1943, as much as three months were required merely for the printing of

CWS manuals. In order to cut this time, use of the Chemical Warfare

School reproduction plant was proposed. This plant was well equipped for

offset printing which, under AGO policy, was acceptable for editions of less

than 30,000 copies. Since most CWS publications fell within this limit,

printing of manuals at the school was quickly authorized. During the remainder of the war practically all CWS pamphlets published for the War

Department were reproduced at the school plant. Final drafts of manuscripts were produced by electromatic typing and, upon approval, were thus

ready for immediate offset reproduction. The proximity of the publications

agency, within a few hundred yards of the reproduction plant, was a favor18

 ASF Administrative Memo S-98, 23 Nov 43, sub: Development and Promulgation of

Doctrine, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedure, filed in AGO publications, Air Force and Modern

Army Br, War Records Div.
OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS 263

able circumstance. The average time of printing a pamphlet was thus reduced

to about two weeks.

The deadline set by the ASF for the completion of official publications

ceased to apply to technical manuals after November 1943 since the preparation of these publications was now left entirely to the technical services. A

very effective deadline nevertheless remained in the War Department requirement that initial shipment of new munitions to overseas theaters be

accompanied by appropriate technical instructions.19 There is no record that

any new chemical equipment was actually held up in shipment because of

delays in providing technical literature, although occasionally frantic efforts

had to be made to prevent such a contingency. Manufacturers were asked to

prepare, in the format of technical manuals, instructions in the operation,

care, and maintenance of equipment they were supplying. This was expected

to insure the readiness of printed directions in time to accompany new equipment overseas. Chemical Warfare Service experience revealed that this procedure did not always result in producing a satisfactory substitute for a

technical manual prepared by the Tactical Doctrine Branch. For example,

the producer of the mechanical smoke generator, M-2, was asked in December 1943 to prepare an instructional pamphlet covering this new equipment

for which he had been awarded a contract. The pamphlet was ready in April

1944 but it did not satisfy War Department standards. The manufacturer's

publication was permitted to accompany the first shipments of these new

smoke generators; but the CWS undertook to rewrite, reillustrate, and reprint the pamphlet, which was distributed two months later as TM 3-381.

The measures taken to expedite the preparation of publications during

the later stages of the war resulted in reducing by at least 50 percent the

time requirements for CWS technical publications. In 1945 these were being

produced within approximately three months. In view of all the factors

involved, this meant that the program was moving at good speed. Yet study

of the official publications issued prior to the end of hostilities show that

many of them were distributed too late to have had much effect on military

operations. This was true, for example, of the excellent TM's covering

mechanized flame throwers; manuals could not be written until weapons

were standardized, which in this instance was late in the war.

Although the prewar list of publications was small, it was possible for

the individual officer to be acquainted with all manuals relating to chemical

19

 AGO Memos No. S310-1-43, 13 Jan 43, and No. S310-4-43, 19 Feb 43, sub: Technical

Manuals to Accompany Equipment. Both in AG 353(1-4-4)3.
264 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

warfare. The mass of material that had been published by the end of the

war precluded this—none but the specialist could become familiar with it all.

When the war ended it was not easy—nor was it desirable—to cut off the

publications program in mid-air. Many manuals were left only partially

written; these in most cases were completed, under the theory that it always

is much quicker to revise an existing publication than to bring out a first

edition. The publications program, in short, had built up a momentum that

inevitably carried it to a point well beyond the end of hostilities. How far

it was carried by the enthusiasm of the publications specialist beyond the

point of cogent need was a question that only the future can determine.
CHAPTER XII

Replacement Training

While most other elements of the armed forces had made substantial

progress in activating and training troops during the early months of partial

mobilization, the operations of the Chemical Warfare Service along these

lines remained almost at a standstill until the second half of 1941. Even so

at the end of December 1941, CWS personnel represented only four-tenths

of one percent of the U.S. Army. This ratio was to more than double within

the next two years, CWS strength increasing at twice the rate of the entire

Army. From 14 chemical units on 7 December 1941, the total rose to 289

on 30 June 1943. (Table 9) From 6,269 officers and enlisted men as of 31

December 1941 the service grew to a peak of 69,791 on 30 June 1943. The

accelerated expansion represented by the peak figures did not actually get

under way until some months after the Pearl Harbor attack.1

On 7 December 1941, the existing CWS RTC was quite inadequate. The

Chemical Warfare School lacked accommodations for enlisted students,

although construction nearing completion would eventually enable it to

handle up to two hundred officer students. The branch had no officer candidate school and no unit training facilities. Of even more concern to the

CWS was the fact that these deficiencies in its training establishment were

indicative of the lack of a suitable chemical troop basis. Although this situation was soon to be improved by a renewed concern in the Army over the

probability of gas warfare, this development was by no means foreseeable

at the end of 1941.2

Soon after the declaration of war the General Staff questioned whether

the technical branches were making adequate provision for service units

under the augmented protective mobilization plan for 1942. In response to

an inquiry on this point, the Chief, CWS, reported that insufficient chemical

1

 (1) Kent Roberts Greenfield, Robert R. Palmer, and Bell I. Wiley, The Organization of

Ground Combat Troops (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1947), p. 203, Table 3. (2)

App. A. 2

 See above, Chapter III.
266 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

TABLE 9—CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE UNITS ACTIVE DURING WORLD WAR IIa

(AS OF DATES INDICATED)

a

 Data on individual units may be found in Appendix H. b

 All units shown in this column activated prior to 7 December 1941. c

 Japanese signed surrender terms.

Source: Historical Data Cards, AGO.

units were authorized for ground forces and recommended a ratio of seven

chemical service companies per field army.3 Arrangements then projected for

constituting air chemical service units under the current 84-group AAF

program were considered satisfactory.

On the combat side the picture was gloomy. Only two chemical mortar

battalions had been authorized—and they were a considerable distance from

activation. Yet it was clear that if an adequate complement of service troops

was needed in connection with defense against enemy gas attack, weapons

troops in substantial numbers were just as necessary for retaliation. The two

went hand in hand in any balanced gas warfare program.

3

 Memo, C CWS for ACofS G-4, 13 Dec 41, sub: Adequacies of Service Troops. CWS

381/258 (12-13-41).
REPLACEMENT TRAINING 267

In comparison to most other arms and services, as already noted, CWS

mobilization at the beginning of 1942 was definitely retarded. This situation

had been chronic throughout the period of limited emergency. But, with the

development of a full and in fact desperate emergency, the War Department began to view more gravely the manifest shortcomings in the chemical

troop program. From January 1942 the military strength of the CWS was

to follow a rapidly ascending curve. Yet the handicap of a late start upon an

eventually ambitious training program was never entirely overcome.

The strength of the CWS at the end of April 1942 was 1,832 officers

and 12,068 enlisted men. Four chemical mortar battalions were in training

and by the end of June two more were to be mobilized. The air and ground

chemical troop basis as of 25 May 1942 called for 4,970 officers and 47,192

enlisted men. It contemplated the mobilization of 105 ground service units

and 105 air chemical units. The Army Supply Program called for the activation of twenty-two more chemical mortar battalions in 1943 and 1944.4

 The

sharp increases necessitated an immediate step-up of training activities.

The policy on chemical mortar battalions as worked out in the spring of

1942 made Army Ground Forces responsible for the activation and unit

training of these organizations; the officers, unit cadres, and filler and loss

replacements were to be trained and supplied by the CWS. Officer requirements for these battalions and for the chemical units in prospect for ground

and air forces necessitated immediate enlargement of the modest CWS

Officer Candidate School that began operations in January 1942. Troop requirements for nearly thirty-five thousand filler and loss replacements during

the remainder of the calendar year forced radical changes in the approach

to both individual and unit training. A new and vitalized chemical training

program for the Army at large coupled with War Department insistence on

more realistic chemical situations in ground force maneuvers combined to

give the CWS greatly enlarged training responsibilities.

The Upswing in RTC Requirements

Entry of the United States into World War II as an active belligerent

presented an immediate challenge to the system of prewar replacement training. If the preparatory training of all individual soldiers under the training

center system were to be continued, considerable increase in the number of

centers would be necessary. After careful study, the War Department re4

 See above, Chapter III.
268 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

jected this solution as impractical and instead directed such expansion of

existing RTC facilities as was feasible.5 This decision meant in effect that

the Army was falling back in considerable measure to the prewar arrangement of basic training of ground force inductees within units.

One way to stretch existing RTC facilities in meeting the new sharply

accelerated load of wartime training was to cut down the training cycle.

In December 1941 the War Department, as a temporary measure, directed

reduction of RTC training programs from thirteen to eight weeks.6 An effort

was made to meet the cutback in time without disrupting the essential training pattern that had been developed during 1941. Cuts were made in hours

allotted to subjects rather than in the subjects themselves with elimination,

where necessary, of advanced phases of technical work which bordered upon

unit training.

The curtailment of the basic training course by five weeks, while it

speeded up the output of the Edgewood Arsenal center, came far short of

solving the serious training problem which the CWS was then facing. The

steady increase in the RTC load is indicated by the following tabulation of

trainees:7

To provide for the increasing number of trainees being shipped to Edgewood Arsenal, the training organization of the RTC was progressively expanded. A second training battalion was activated in February 1942 and a

third battalion was partially organized a month later. Each battalion consisted of a headquarters and headquarters detachment and four lettered

companies. Each company had an authorized cadre of 6 officers and 27

enlisted men and 213 trainees.8

Integrated instruction within companies was followed while the RTC

remained at Edgewood Arsenal, one lieutenant-instructor teaching nearly all

5

 (1) Palmer, Wiley, and Keast, Procurement and Training of Ground Combat Troops, p. 172.

(2) Memo, Brig Gen H. R. Bull for G-3, 3 Jan 42, no sub. AGO 381 (12-27-41) (2) (S). 6

 Ltr, TAG to C CWS, 19 Dec 41, sub: Reduction in Length of Tng Program at RTCs. AG

320.2 (12-17-41) MT-C. 7

 CWS Hist of Tng, Pt. IV, Tng of Replacements, Fillers and Cadres, p. 22. 8

 History of Edgewood Arsenal, Vol. I, Ch. 24, App. L. MS.
REPLACEMENT TRAINING 269

of the subjects to the men of his platoon. Progress of training was tested by

company commanders or, in the case of specialist schools, by the officer in

charge. The center commander instituted an individual proficiency chart

which was kept for each trainee and forwarded with his service record when

he was shipped out. This chart showed at a glance subjects studied, the hours

devoted to each, and the instructor's rating of the student. By crossing off

each hour of instruction as it was completed, the school readily noted absences which had to be made up by special instruction.

During 1941 and 1942 over 66 percent of the 7,270 trainees who passed

through the Edgewood Arsenal RTC were sent to fill chemical units in the

zone of interior. (Table 10) The RTC also supplied cadres to thirty-nine

TABLE 10—SHIPMENT OF RTC TRAINEES, EDGEWOOD ARSENAL, MARYLAND

a

 57 of these went to OCS.

Source: Special orders issued by Hq, Edgewood Arsenal, Md.

newly mobilized chemical companies during the same period, fillers for these

organizations being furnished directly from reception centers.

In expanding the Edgewood Arsenal RTC from an initial capacity of

1,000 in the spring of 1941 to 2,500 a year later, it became necessary to

house a large portion of the trainees in a tent camp area previously used by

the Civilian Military Training Corps. Although this imposed little hardship

on the troops, training suffered because of lack of areas and other facilities

to accommodate ten companies of over 200 men each.

While the first class of inductees was being processed at Edgewood

Arsenal in 1941, the replacement center commander prepared a sketch of

what he considered a layout requisite for an RTC capable of handling 1,000

men.9 The plan provided for the use of an area approximately three miles

9

 Memo, RTC EA for C CWS, 3 Apr 41, sub: RTC. CWS 381.39.
270 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

square, with suitable ranges and instructional and exercise areas. The creation

of such an installation on the Edgewood Arsenal reservation was not practicable at the beginning of 1941; by the end of the year there was much less

chance of adequately accommodating the training load that had developed.

The replacement center was only one of several training activities that

burgeoned at Edgewood Arsenal after war was declared. Officer candidate

training was soon demanding space. Advanced and specialized courses at the

Chemical Warfare School called for greater utilization of ranges. Training

activities had pyramided to such size that they required direction by a senior

officer who could integrate all of them, consolidate requirements insofar as

possible, and see that minimum needs were satisfied. To this task was assigned Brig. Gen. Haig Shekerjian, who became chief of the Troops and

Training Division at Edgewood Arsenal on 11 February 1942. For the next

three years General Shekerjian was to be intimately concerned with the replacement training program.

In estimating requirements for replacement training during 1942, the

CWS in February assumed that it would have to train 14,384 men.10

 Allowing for possible additional activations not yet authorized, the CWS foresaw

immediate need for a replacement center having a capacity for 5,000

trainees, which, under a thirteen-week training cycle, would provide 20,000

replacements per year.11 This figure was so far beyond the capabilities of

Edgewood Arsenal that the only possible solution was to look elsewhere for

a sizable training area. Construction of new RTC installations in 1942 was

contrary to War Department policy. But because of the critical plight of the

Chemical Warfare Service at this time, with its urgent need to meet the

enlarged requirements for chemical troops which the staff was then formulating, an exception had to be made in the case of the chemical training center.

The recommendation of the Chief, CWS, that an adequate RTC facility be

provided was accordingly approved. A site near Gadsden, Alabama, was

selected in March 1942, and work was begun on the new installation, Camp

Sibert, several months later.12

Once the decision was taken to develop a new RTC in the south, further

improvement of the Edgewood Arsenal installation ceased. Despite the fact

that the new facilities were not scheduled for completion before the follow10

 IOM, 1st Lt F. R. Williams to Ex O, Plans and Training Division, 18 Feb 42, sub: Estimate

of facilities for proposed RTC. CWS 314.7 Training File. 11

 The temporary reduction of the RTC course to eight weeks continued only until the spring

of 1942, when the thirteen-week course was restored. 12

 For details on the origins of Camp Sibert see above, Chapter VI.
REPLACEMENT TRAINING 271

ing December, the Chemical Warfare Service decided to begin occupancy

even before the government formally acquired title to the Alabama reservation. What the Edgewood RTC lacked and so desperately wanted at this

time was space. And there was space at the new location.

On 3 June a temporary camp area was selected by an advanced detail

from Edgewood Arsenal.13 This section of the reservation soon took the

name Tent City. Here shacks were demolished, ground cleared and leveled,

and lines of company tents established by the pioneer group so that the

temporary camp was habitable by 23 June 1942 when the permanent cadres

of Companies E and F, 2d Training Battalion, arrived from Edgewood

Arsenal to form the first RTC training units at the new station. On 8 July,

425 inductees arrived for assignment to these two companies. Thereafter no

more men were shipped from reception centers to the Edgewood facility;

as successive companies completed their training, the cadres moved to

Alabama and there prepared to receive fresh trainees. The last RTC elements

cleared Edgewood Arsenal on 6 September.

During the remainder of 1942 two projects were going forward simultaneously in different parts of the big reservation—expansion and development of the temporary camp, and construction of the barracks and other

facilities for the permanent installation. Work in the Tent City area was

done largely with troop labor, assisted by such civilian labor as could be

found for the purpose. New troops were now moving in steadily so that by

mid-July more than one thousand were present for duty. In order to accommodate them, it became necessary to arrange the training schedule so as to

employ trainees on, Wednesday afternoons, and even on Sundays, on the improvement and upkeep of the temporary camp and its facilities. On arrival,

the recruits "were made aware of the job in front of them by being given a

spade, a shovel, and a short pep talk almost before they had officially reported to their company officers."

 14

 The contribution of trainees to the early

development of Camp Sibert was large indeed. Throughout the summer and

fall there were endless drainage ditches to be dug, more company streets to

be laid out, new areas to be cleared. This work was undertaken cheerfully

enough by men who had recently given up civilian life to become soldiers,

13

 Movement of RTC from Edgewood Arsenal was directed by Ltr, AGO to CG 3d Corps Area

(CA), 6 Jun 42, sub: Movement of CWS RTC. SPX 370.5 (6-8-42) MS-SP-M. 14

 The Story of Camp Sibert: Training Center of the Chemical Warfare Service (to 31 March

1944). (Hereafter cited as The Story of Camp Sibert), p. 17. Prepared by Historical Branch OC

CWS.
272 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

though many of them must have questioned the lack of planning which

necessitated their employment for such tasks.

During the latter half of 1942, meanwhile, construction proceeded under

contracts let by the Corps of Engineers for barracks and other facilities

necessary for the permanent housing of five thousand RTC trainees. Unusually heavy rains which began in December and continued until April

hampered the work and increased its cost. The rains not only delayed construction—they very seriously interfered with training. The winter of 1942-

1943 was one of the worst on record. When the Coosa River overflowed its

banks in December, great areas of the main camp were flooded and made

unusable for training—a situation very different from the "suitability for

year-round training" that had been anticipated.

The completion date for the installation, originally set at December

1942, was not met. In fact, on 3 February 1943 the job was no more than

81 percent complete.15 Although the first contingent of RTC trainees began

moving from tents into their new barracks on 15 November 1942, all construction work was not finished until well into the following spring.

Camp Sibert proved large enough to afford adequate space for all the

varied types of training which the CWS undertook at this location. The

reservation was fourteen miles long and over five miles wide at its broadest

point. Its terrain included open fields, rolling uplands, and well wooded

areas. By the summer of 1943 the new RTC was part of a complete and selfsufficient training installation which included 1,500 buildings and 41 miles

of roadway. On the large parade ground, twenty battalions could pass in

review. There was a 1,000-bed hospital, bakery, laundry, 9 chapels, 3

libraries, 3 service clubs, 5 theaters, and eventually an airport with 2 runways each a mile long. The entire cost of constructing the camp was

$17,662,125.16

Camp Sibert was built for one purpose only: to facilitate the training of

chemical troops. Gradually the ranges, exercise areas, and maneuver fields

needed to attain this end were developed, although the training phase of

the Army's mobilization had passed its peak before all of them were in use.

After the activation of the CWS Unit Training Center at Camp Sibert in

15

 Memo, Div Engr, South Atlantic Div, for C Engrs, 5 Feb 43, no sub. CWS 314.7 Facilities

File.

16

 Corps of Engineers, Quarterly Inventory of WD Owned, Sponsored, and Leased Facilities,

31 Dec 45. For data on all CW facilities, see Appendix B in Brophy, Miles, and Cochrane, From

Laboratory to Field.
REPLACEMENT TRAINING 273

CHEMICAL WARFARE TROOPS UNDERGOING TRAINING on infiltration course,

Camp Sibert, Alabama.

October 1942, many of these training facilities were shared by RTC and

UTC.

For basic military training, the normal obstacle and infiltration courses,

rifle ranges, and exercise areas were provided. For technical training, some

novel facilities were developed. For example, a toxic gas maneuver area of

some six square miles was set up in an uninhabited section of the reservation, the first area of this kind ever available to U.S. troops. Another important training adjunct was the decontamination area, where the recruit

learned how to reopen terrain contaminated with gas. Here rough ground,

covered with underbrush and threaded with trails, was alternately gassed

and decontaminated. A range where 4.2-inch chemical mortars could be fired

practically at will without conflicting with other range requirements filled a

long-felt need. Never in its history had CWS been provided with such a good

setup for instruction in the tactics and techniques of chemical warfare. There

was elbow room at Camp Sibert. As soon as conditions permitted, the RTC

began to use it.
274 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

RTC Curriculum

In an introduction to a wartime account of training activities at Camp

Sibert, the commanding general (Shekerjian) wrote:

Many trainees who came to Camp Sibert held degrees in science and the arts; but

they were considered prospective soldiers rather than specialists. The first duty of the

camp was to make soldiers out of them. They had to be made physically hard, receptive

to discipline, mentally alert, cooperative and thoroughly versed in the fundamentals of

soldiering. Once the men had shed their civilian habits and became coordinated into a

military unit, they were far more capable of learning and applying the special chemical

warfare techniques covered in the later portion of their Camp Sibert training. The

instructors primarily aimed at conditioning the men for war. Having achieved this,

they taught them the technical aspects of their military duties.17

The issue of military versus technical training was only one of several

that had to be settled in connection with the progressive development of

the curriculum for RTC training. Other problems were: the amount of time

to allow for replacement training; the degree of functional specialization to

be aimed at in technical training; and the differing requirements for domestic

and overseas replacements. Some of these issues finally had to be decided

by higher authority in accord with considerations affecting the Army at

large, although in most instances CWS training needs were influential

factors. Solutions to these problems were never definitive. They had to be

worked out in the light of experience to meet the exigencies of constantly

shifting military situations, so that the answers developed in the latter stages

of the war would not necessarily have served at the beginning.

The preoccupation of technical branches with their own specialties was

reflected in the inadequate provisions that were made for basic military

training under the early mobilization training programs. Soon after the

Army reorganization of March 1942, the Army Service Forces undertook to

correct existing disparities and to insure uniformity in basic military training

at all replacement training centers under its control. The concept of RTC's

for service troops was new. The Military Training Division, ASF, from the

start held the view that the technical soldier should receive the same rigorous

basic training as the combatant soldier. The first fruit of this policy was the

promulgation in August 1942 of a basic military training program for all

replacement (and unit) training centers.18 Thereafter all inductees assigned

17

 The Story of Camp Sibert, pp. 2-3. 18

 Memo, Dir Mil Tng SOS for C CWS, 27 Aug 42, sub: Basic Tng Program. SOS SPTRR

353.01 (8-27-42).
REPLACEMENT TRAINING 275

to any branch of the Army Service Forces received identical and generally

adequate instruction in the fundamentals of soldiering.

This uniformity of programing was extended to cover specialist training

that was common to all branches. The early specialist schools conducted

while the RTC was located at Edgewood Arsenal had trained truck drivers,

motor mechanics, clerks, and cooks. These students were designated "administrative specialists" in contrast to "technical specialists" such as toxic gas

handlers whose training in specialist schools qualified them primarily for

duty with the Chemical Warfare Service. The "21-series" of mobilization

training programs drawn up by the Army Service Forces provided for unified

training of all administrative specialists, leaving the training of technical

specialists in the hands of the technical branches.

This same principle was observed throughout the war. For training that

was basic or common to all technical branches, programs were prepared by

the Military Training Division, ASF; for strictly technical instruction,

programs were prepared by the training division of the technical branch

concerned. For example, the "3-series" of chemical warfare MTP's followed

at Camp Sibert were modified from time to time to conform to the

"21-series" of basic programs promulgated by the Army Service Forces.

The question of how much time should be allowed for the replacement

center training of newly inducted soldiers was frequently reviewed as the

war progressed. The insufficiency of the eight-week program has been noted.

The thirteen-week program in effect at the outset of war had to be dropped

back to eight weeks during the first three months of 1942, for reasons which

were pressing at the time. The thirteen-week schedule was resumed in March

and continued to serve reasonably well until that stage of the war when the

need for combat loss replacements became of paramount importance.

As a result of his observations in North Africa, General Marshall stated

(at a conference on 10 June 1943) that RTC training should be revised to

afford better preparation for active combat in overseas theaters.19 This pronouncement marked a turning point in RTC training. In the course of two

years, the centers had come to rely on having their graduates received into

units where their military education could be rounded out and any defects

in individual training corrected. With most of the thirteen-week trainees

this procedure was possible, even where replacement center graduates were

sent to units overseas. But once conflict was fully joined, as it was in 1943,

organizations in combat zones wanted replacements who were ready for

19

 Notes on Conference, Tng Div ASF, 22 Jul 43. CWS 314.7 Tng File.
276 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

battle. To provide them, the War Department had to assign more time for

basic training, and in August 1943 the replacement training cycle was increased to provide seventeen weeks of training time.20

Under ideal conditions, the most desirable over-all arrangement might

have been to allow a total of six months for preparing a civilian to become

an effective member of a small-unit military team, with three months devoted

to individual and three months to unit training. Such an orderly approach to

mobilization has seldom been possible within the vagaries of American

military policy. The seventeen-week replacement training cycle represented

a satisfactory if not perfect solution to the problem of individual training

during the latter stages of the war. It was based, however, on two assumptions which were subject to some question:

a. That individual training for all technical services required identical

time.

b. That all technical soldiers (except medical) needed the same basic

military training.

The trend of ASF training policy was toward the development of a basic

individual soldier who could wear equally well the insignia of any technical

service. There was noticeable resistance on the part of the services to the

sacrifice of individual service identification implied by this policy. This again

is a question which must be considered in relation to progressive stages of

mobilization. To have applied the concept of composite training of the individual soldier at the start of the war may well have given validity to objections of the technical services. Later, after the peak of mobilization had

been passed, advantages of composite training became evident. Units by that

time had assumed a definite mold and were able more easily to assimilate

nondescript newcomers without risk of sacrifice to tradition and esprit.

Among matters of technical training initially left to the discretion of the

CWS was the question whether a soldier should be trained for duty in a

specific type of chemical unit or for general assignment in any type of unit.

This problem was complicated by the varied nature of CWS units. Replacements had to be trained for duty in mortar battalions and in smoke generator

companies, for processing companies, and for air chemical companies. As

long as there was assurance that men trained for specific types of chemical

organizations would be assigned to those units, specialized training in the

RTC course was advantageous. Such specialization was the rule at the outset

20

 WD, MTP 21-2, 1 Aug 43.
REPLACEMENT TRAINING 277

of the war. Of the five RTC lettered companies to which trainees were being

assigned in December 1941, two were designated as weapons companies,

two as chemical service (aviation) companies, and one as a decontamination

company.21

In practice, it was found that the number of RTC trainees who actually

reached the types of units for which they had been specifically trained was

small. This was especially true as increasing numbers of RTC graduates

began to move directly overseas. It was the uncertainties of the replacement

depot system that forced a change from specialized to more general technical

training.

This fact is to be noted in comparing the original MTP 3-3 issued in

November 1941 with the revision of this MTP dated May 1943. Technical

training under the first program was on a functional basis and was intended

to prepare replacements for assignment to one of seven specific combat or

service type chemical units. Technical training under the 1943 program was

aimed primarily at developing a basic chemical soldier. Specialization was

here limited to a few individuals who in the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth

weeks of training received special instructions as decontamination equipment

operators, maintenance repairmen, toxic gas handlers, or as members of

communication or mortar squads of chemical weapons companies. The number of replacements currently needed in these particular categories was

indicated to RTC headquarters by the OC CWS, according to existing troop

requirements. In this way clearly foreseeable (and usually limited) needs

for technical specialists were met under a program definitely oriented to the

development of the type of replacement principally called for during the

latter stages of the war—that is, a basically trained chemical soldier.

The pattern of RTC training in the spring of 1943 was at once simple,

flexible, and effective. All men assigned to a training company for the

thirteen-week course received the same basic military training during the

first four weeks; then, at the beginning of the technical training phase, a

few men were usually selected for eight weeks of specialized schooling as

cooks, clerks, motor vehicle operators, or automotive maintenance men. The

remainder of the company at this point began instruction in the technique

of chemical warfare, which was given for the next five weeks. Selected men

were then screened out for the three weeks of specialized technical training

referred to in the preceding paragraph, while all other trainees completed

basic technical training. In the last week of the course the entire company

21

 Ltr, C CWS to TAG, 15 Dec 41, sub: T/O for CWS RTC. CWS 400/169 (12-8-41).
278 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

was brought together again in unit exercises in which the specialists as well

as the basic trainees learned to function as a team.

Eighty percent or more of RTC graduates were listed as basic chemical

soldiers. Early in the war they were assigned specification serial number

(SSN) 521, a general classification which was not in fact indicative of the

training they had received. A more descriptive designation was authorized

by Technical Manual 12-427, 12 July 1944, which set up the classification

"chemical warfare man, general (979)." This manual had the effect of

sanctioning the training procedure already instituted, a chemical warfare

basic soldier being described as one who had received technical training in

the functioning of the 4.2-inch chemical mortar and also in the duties of

chemical service units. In April 1945, the description of a chemical warfare

basic soldier, SSN 979, was modified to exclude mortar training.22 This

change again regularized the training practice that evolved toward the end

of the war, under which the AGF assumed responsibility for training replacements for chemical combat units, while the CWS trained replacements

for chemical service units.

Although the number of men processed through the specialists schools

conducted in conjunction with regular RTC training was relatively small,

such instruction represented an important feature of the replacement training program. The demand for administrative specialists—cooks, clerks, and

automotive men who attended specialist schools during the entire eight-week

period of technical training—was fairly constant. The requirement for chemical technicians who attended specialist schools during the last three weeks

of the technical training phase of instruction began to fall off in the latter

stage of replacement training; by this time units had learned to develop

their own specialists and preferred to receive basically trained rather than

specialist trained replacements.

The lengthening of the training cycle to seventeen weeks in August 1943

involved no essential change in technical training, which continued as before to extend over eight weeks of the RTC course. The two additional

weeks allowed at the beginning of the course for basic military training were

intended to better preparation of the individual soldier for life in the combat

zone. The two additional weeks provided for basic team or unit training

was in substitution for the rounding out that earlier RTC graduates received

after joining their organizations, but which under operational conditions

after 1943 could no longer be assured to replacements. The final end product

22

 TM 12-427, C 1, 12 Apr 45.
REPLACEMENT TRAINING 279

of RTC training was thus a more rounded soldier than his predecessor, If

he was not always exactly tailored to meet an overseas requirement, this

circumstance must be attributed at least in part to the widely varying

demands of global war.

Training Procedures

After the transfer of RTC activities from Maryland to Alabama, the

training load followed an ascending curve until May 1943, when a total of

5,850 replacement trainees were being accommodated. The plan of organization had to be flexible enough to permit both expansion and contraction. A

second training regiment was organized in the spring of 1943. The following

winter the second regiment was disbanded; six months later it had to be

reconstituted.

From the training viewpoint the important units were the platoon and

the company. As already indicated, the company normally included 213

trainees, but frequently it was necessary to assign as many as 300 trainees

to one company. In such cases training suffered. The battalion had four

training companies, or 852 men. Thus the CWS RTC, with two regiments

of three battalions each, could handle 5,112 trainees.

The system of integrated instruction at Edgewood, where the lieutenant

commanding a training platoon taught his men nearly all the subjects in the

MTP, had some obvious advantages. But as training programs were successively lengthened and developed, increasing specialization of instruction

became necessary, so that a combination of both integrated and departmentalized instruction was eventually evolved. Under the thirteen- and seventeen-week programs at Camp Sibert, the platoon leader instructed in all (or

most) of the basic military subjects, while training in technical subjects was

generally departmentalized.

The decision of the War Department to mobilize a substantial number

of chemical organizations during 1942 presented the immediate problem of

providing suitable cadres around which these new units could be built. The

limited number of existing chemical companies excluded the possibility of

obtaining the necessary cadres from parent organizations. It therefore became necessary to fill cadre positions with replacement trainees.

A special cadre training company was established at the Edgewood

Arsenal RTC in June 1942.23 Since some eight hundred cadremen had already

23

 Ltr, C CWS to Dir of Tng, SOS, 10 Apr 42, sub: Cadre Tng Company at CWS RTC. CWS

320.2/780 (4-10-42).
280 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

been shipped out from the RTC, the establishment of a cadre training company at this time can be taken to mean that the system of simply selecting

as cadre the more alert men who completed the regular RTC course was not

satisfactory and that some specialized training for this type of duty was required. Yet cadres for forty-eight chemical units were furnished from Edgewood Arsenal between 1940 and 1943, most of these men being specially

selected rather than specially trained.

The cadre training company at Edgewood Arsenal followed the general

pattern of the RTC specialist schools; at the end of the period of basic

military training, selected men were transferred to the cadre company where

for the remainder of the RTC course they received specialized instruction

according to the needs of organizations requiring cadre complements. This

procedure was amplified after transfer of the RTC to Camp Sibert, where

only men who had completed the entire course of replacement training were

selected for additional instruction as cadremen. Selection was made by a

board of three officers and was based on demonstrated qualities of leadership, excellent character rating, and an Army General Classification Test

rating of ninety or over. Throughout 1943, when the group of cadre trainees

was usually in excess of one hundred this training was accomplished in four

weeks of additional instruction.

An important use of cadremen was in connection with the activation of

the chemical mortar battalions authorized under the 1942 Troop Basis.

Although responsibility for unit training of these battalions was delegated

by the War Department to the Army Ground Forces, the Chemical Warfare

Service was deeply interested in the training of weapons units and accordingly co-ordinated the early cadre training program quite closely with the

AGF schedule for the activation of chemical battalions.24 The needs of the

mortar battalions received careful consideration, both in the selection of

cadremen and in the attention given to their training. When these cadres left

Camp Sibert, they carried with them charts and other training aids to assist

in the work of instructing the newly activated weapons units.

As the need for cadre development by the CWS RTC gradually fell off,

an increasing number of chemical units completed their mobilization training

and were thus expected under existing War Department policy to provide

cadres for new units.25 Yet by 1944 this procedure for developing selected

24

 Memo, C CWS for CO CWS RTC, 22 Mar 42, sub: Cadre for Chemical Battalions. CWS

320.2/762 (3-30-42). 25

 Memo, G-3 for CG AGF, 1 Oct 43, sub: Tng of Replacements for CW Combat & Serv

Units. WDGCT 353 (28 Sep 43).
REPLACEMENT TRAINING 281

RTC trainees for positions of leadership was producing such good results

that in March the period of instruction was extended to nine weeks and

established as a "leadership training course." When circumstances permitted,

men who completed this training were frequently detailed to attend NCO

courses at the Chemical Warfare School.

A variation of the standard RTC course to meet Army Air Force requirements for chemical warfare replacements was undertaken in December 1942.

Under a procedure developed at that time, sixty-five AAF trainees were

shipped to the CWS RTC every two weeks, after completion of four weeks

of basic Air Force training.26 Upon arrival, they entered the fifth week of

instruction under MTP 3-3 at Camp Sibert, completing the course nine

weeks later. They were then given four weeks of specialized instruction in

the functions of either a chemical noncommissioned officer (SSN 870), a

decontaminating equipment operator (SSN 809), or a toxic gas handler

(SSN 786). This program was continued throughout 1943. When terminated

on 31 January 1944, it had produced 1,450 enlisted men technically trained

for duty with various chemical activities of the AAF.

A weakness of the RTC training organization was the inexperience of

the instructors upon whom fell the principal burden of training. The NCO

instructors of 1943 were often soldiers with less than six months of service.

The platoon commanders in the training companies were in many cases OCS

graduates who themselves were recent products of RTC training. Those in

closest contact with the trainees, those whom the trainees were expected to

emulate, were almost always individuals with meager military backgrounds.

This was a situation that could only be improved by two courses of action:

first, by continuous instruction of trainer personnel; and second, by close

supervision of training.

The facilities of the Chemical Warfare School at Edgewood Arsenal

were never adequately used in the development of commissioned and enlisted

instructors for RTC duty. Had the school been located at the training center

during 1943, undoubtedly it would have played a more important role in

this connection. As it was, the RTC had to depend upon its own resources for

fitting its instructional staff to the specific work at hand.

Such preassignment training was accomplished by means of courses of

instruction for both officers and enlisted men which were conducted, after

the spring of 1943, in conjunction with the system of specialist schools.

These courses included intensive study of the important subjects covered in

26

 Ltr, Tng Div OC CWS to Dir Mil Tng SOS, 14 Nov 42, sub: Tech Tng of Enlisted Pers

and Services with AAF. CWS 353 Camp Sibert, 1943.
282 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

MTP training as well as of approved instructional procedures. After assignment, instructors continued their training in troop schools held twice weekly

under the provisions of MTP 3-3. Another measure to strengthen training

procedure was the institution of nightly cadre meetings at which the officer

and NCO staff of each training company met to review and plan instruction

scheduled for the following day. Instructors also were frequently detached to

attend courses at other service schools. By these means the capability of

instructors was gradually improved. It was not until late in the war that

veterans with combat zone experience became available for training center

duty.

Officer Pools

The officer pool was a necessary device for adjusting variations between

the supply of and the demand for commissioned officers. Its most important

function was to serve as a reservoir for the temporary storage of excess

officers until they could be absorbed into the military system. As long as the

overproduction of officers was not great, pools presented no serious administrative problems. But when as was the case by midsummer of 1943,

one out of every four CWS officers was being carried in a pool, the requirements for accommodating and training so many individuals became unduly

heavy. The evils of officer pools were an inevitable consequence of large

officer surpluses, which in turn came about as an incidental result of the

unevenness of military mobilization. The War Department undertook to

keep officer production in line with military needs, particularly by regulating

the output of officer candidate schools. Where early forecasts of requirements

erred, mistakes were in the direction of too many rather than too few. While

the situation of the Chemical Warfare Service in this respect was somewhat

aggravated by uncertainties as to gas warfare as well as by delays in the

mobilization of chemical troop units, the upswing from a paucity to an overproduction of officers, which became evident after two years of war, was

reflected in the make-up of all technical services.

Late in 1941, when commissioned officers were in short supply, pools

were sponsored by the War Department, especially in order to insure availability of filler and loss replacements as needed. The pools at first were

therefore associated with replacement centers and were in fact designated

as replacement pools. The CWS was initially authorized a pool strength of

150 officers.27 This quota thus became included in officer procurement ob27

 Ltr, AGO to Chiefs, Arms and Services, 19 Dec 41. Sub: Officer Filler and Loss Replacements. AG 320.2 (12-15-41) OP-A-M.
REPLACEMENT TRAINING 283

jectives. Once the Officer Candidate School began to produce more graduates

than could immediately be absorbed, this authorized strength was disregarded

and the pool became a means by which unneeded officers could mark time

until their services were finally required. This situation extended over a

period of many months.

The first CWS officer pool was established at Edgewood Arsenal, where

before long it began to impinge upon the already complicated activities of

that post. As soon as conditions permitted, a second pool was established at

Camp Sibert. By the end of 1942, CWS officer pools had also been set up

at other arsenals and in procurement district headquarters. At the latter

stations, officers in pools were given on-the-job training in manufacturing,

procurement, and supply operations. They were rotated occasionally in types

of activity other than their specialty.28 At both Edgewood and Sibert pool,

officers were organized into self-commanded provisional units which followed successive training courses extending to eight weeks. At the height of

the pool load in the spring of 1943 the numbers of CWS officers carried in

pools totaled 2,005, distributed as follows:29

The administration of CWS officer pools was complicated by the fact

that the excessively populated pools were located in fifteen different places

in the zone of interior. The maintenance of a centralized and uniform control of these groups presented serious difficulties which never were fully

resolved. At Camp Sibert the operation of the local pool became a responsibility of the Unit Training Center.30

 Some effort was made to centralize the

administration of all pools from Sibert, although this scheme was later

dropped and the co-ordination of pool activities was resumed by the office

of the Chief, CWS. In these matters, both Personnel and Training Divisions

were concerned. The responsibility of each organization was clear-cut; Per28

 (1) Ltr, C Tng Div OC CWS to CG ASF, 20 Jul 43, sub: Tng of Officers Assigned to CWS

Officer Replacement Pool. (2) Ltr, C CWS to CG ASF, 25 Jan 44, sub: Officer Replacement

Pools. Both in CWS 353. 29

 Ltr, C CWS to ASF, 15 Jun 43, sub: Tng Programs for Officers Assigned to Army Serv

Forces Officers Replacement Pools. CWS 353.11. 30

 Memo, CG ASF to CG Fourth Serv Comd, 22 Jun 43, sub: CWS UTC at Camp Sibert, Ala.

CWS 314.7 Tng File.
284 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

sonnel Division shifted individuals from pools into appropriate jobs as soon

as these became open, while the Training Division undertook to see that

pool officers were profitably engaged without burdening the installations

where they were assigned. The fact that the CWS never appeared able or

willing to assign qualified and experienced officers to the tasks of devising

really satisfactory solutions to the troublesome pool problems was probably

due to the optimistic hope that in time the pools would empty themselves.

Toward the end of hostilities this situation did ease in considerable measure,

although by then the usefulness of many emergency officers had been impaired by periods of stagnation in zone of interior pools as well as in overseas theaters.

Supervisory Control

Although the CWS Replacement Training Center eventually attained

high standards of training efficiency, these were reached only after the lapse

of considerable time and while a suitable organization was being forged at

both operating and supervisory levels. It was the immediate responsibility

of Training Division, OC CWS, to direct and control the activities of the

replacement training center—first, under the general authority of the War

Department General Staff, G-3; and, after March 1942, as supervised by

the Military Training Division, ASF.

In March 1942, four agencies were involved in the direction of RTC

training. These were: War Department General Staff, G-3, which remained

the ultimate authority on matters of training doctrine and policy, but whose

functions after 1942 were usually limited to co-ordination among the AGF,

the AAF, and the ASF; the Director, Military Personnel Division, ASF, who

controlled the flow of trainees into and out of the centers;31 The Director of

Military Training, ASF, who prepared the military training program and

established instructional standards for all centers; and the Chief of the

Technical Service, whose training staff prepared the program for technical

training, arranged for provision of training facilities (including personnel),

established quotas for specialist training, and conducted inspections to insure

compliance with standard directives. This division of operating responsibility

was clear-cut, logical, and satisfactory. The injection of the service command

into this picture in 1943 came too late to affect the bulk of CWS training.

Before the 1942 reorganization, while training centers were under the

31

 Millett, Army Service Forces, pp. 158-59.
REPLACEMENT TRAINING 285

direct control of the War Department General Staff, considerable latitude

had been allowed the technical branches in conducting replacement and other

training. The primary concern of G-3 was the training of combat units; and

the prewar staff was never adequate to handle this all-important function.

In assuming responsibility for control of all supply services training, Brig.

Gen. Clarence R. Huebner, ASF Director of Military Training, soon made

his influence felt, first in stimulating the strictly military phase of the training program, and eventually in improving the quality as well as increasing

the scope of training activities in general.

The Training Division, OC CWS, therefore found strong support from

above for its replacement training program. Yet the center itself, as it

approached the peak of its activities at the beginning of 1943, was suffering

from severe growing pains. As long as the camp was still under construction,

while barracks and ranges were still unavailable, and while Camp Sibert lay

under a flood of unusual winter rains, shortcomings in training did not

always show up distinctly. An inspecting officer then commented: "In spite

of most severe handicaps a very creditable showing is being made at this

center."

 32

Yet a comprehensive inspection of the CWS RTC by the executive

officer of the Training Division, OC CWS, in January 1943 indicated that,

as the "severe handicaps" of 1942 were eliminated, commensurate improvement of training performance did not result. At the time of this inspection

the replacement trainee load was 5,300. There were also fifty-eight chemical

units in training or being activated for training at Camp Sibert. The operational distinction between RTC and UTC was not recognized to the extent

that a separate command organization was provided for each—a fault of OC

CWS which was soon corrected. The increase in the training load had not

been accompanied by a corresponding increase in instructor personnel; the

RTC staff was understrength, due especially to a dearth of qualified officers.

Supervisory control of training by RTC headquarters was inadequate. Period

outlines for guidance of instructors were not being used so that teaching

methods varied and the use of training aids was ineffectual. Units went

through the motions of complying with instructions from higher authority

but without sparking their work with energy and imagination. Poor preparation, hesitancy, and indecision on the part of company officers were noticeable. Supervision by field grade officers of the tactical work of units left

32

 Memo, Lt Col C. D. Hill for Dir of Tng SOS, 17 Oct 42, sub: Inspection of CWS RTC.

SOS SPTRR 333.1 (Camp Sibert) (10-17-42).
286 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

much to be desired.33 These findings were confirmed by an ASF inspection

conducted 26-29 January 1943.34

In a visit to Camp Sibert late in January 1943, General Porter reviewed

the training situation and determined what assistance could be given the

undermanned training organization. He then took steps which resulted in

marked improvement of RTC training during and after the spring of 1943.

Orders were issued 14 February designating separate commanders for RTC

and UTC. Experienced Regular Army colonels were assigned to command

the two RTC regiments. The officer complement of the center was increased

from 152 to 196.35 An effective control section was established for continuous

inspection of training and improvement of training methods and training

aids. General tightening of supervision brought about more effective compliance with the training precepts found in Field Manual 21-5, with the

consequent production of consistently better trained replacements.

The centralized control of training aids was a definite improvement

which could profitably have been instituted earlier. Many training tools were

continually in short supply; for example, the center never had on hand more

than one hundred compasses or approximately four hundred sets of intrenching tools. It was thus necessary to spread the use of limited materiel as well

as to produce effective visual aids to training. Under arrangements eventually

adopted, companies upon arrival at designated areas for scheduled instruction found a truck loaded with the necessary instructional materials. Development, procurement, and distribution of training aids were all controlled

by the RTC directors of training and supply.

Unquestionably, the morale of both trainees and instructor staff at the

CWS RTC began to improve with the completion of permanent barracks

and, with the use of the splendid training facilities, the center eventually

obtained. Better housing and better training combined, after the spring of

1943, to raise the CWS RTC to the level of an almost model installation.

This improvement is reflected in the report of an inspection made a year

later which gives an objective picture of a fully integrated training center

whose growing pains were well behind it.36

33

 Memo, Maj F. R. Williams, CWS, for C CWS, 14 Jan 43, sub: Reporting Inspection of CWS.

RTC, 4-7 Jan 43. CWS 314.7 Tng File. 34

 Memo, Lt Col W. C. Fisher for Dir of Tng ASF, 4 Feb 43, sub: Inspection of CWS RTC.

ASF SPTRR 333.1 (Camp Sibert) (2-4-43). 35

 The CWS RTC was authorized a commissioned strength of 250 officers. 2d Ind, ASF to C

CWS, 31 Mar 43, sub: Allotment of Officers, CWS RTC. ASF SPGAO 320.2 CWS (3-5-43). 36

 Memo, Lt Col James D. Strong and Capt Douglas A. Craig for Dir Mil Tng ASF, 5 Apr 44,

sub: Inspection of CWS RTC. ASF ASPTT 333.1 (CWS) (5 Apr 44).
REPLACEMENT TRAINING 287

By this time (1944) the center was organized into two training regiments; one regiment conducted general basic military training, and the other

CWS replacement training. In commenting on the latter, the inspectors

reported:

In technical training this center has developed a number of ingenious and excellent training devices whereby such subjects as toxic gas handling, impregnation

procedure, depot operations, and decontamination operations are taught effectively. In

some cases exceedingly clever yet practical training has resulted where there may be a

lack of technical training doctrine. It is believed that this is one of the functions in

which a replacement training center can lend much to the established doctrine.37

After Camp Sibert had been designated as a Class I activity of the Fourth

Service Command in May 1943, CWS activities at the camp were limited

to the promulgation of training doctrine, the establishment of student

quotas, and the preparation of training programs. While this system was

workable, it appears likely that had gas warfare materialized CWS control

of the installation would have become necessary.

Movement of Trainees

Under the operating procedure prior to 1942, the training center commander reported to The Adjutant General every ten days the number of

inductees he could accommodate within the RTC capacity set by the War

Department. On the basis of these reports, the AGO directed reception

centers to send to each replacement center enough selectees to keep the

center operating at full capacity.

At the beginning of RTC operations at Edgewood Arsenal, when capacity

was rated at eight hundred white and two hundred Negro trainees, The

Adjutant General found that the most convenient procedure was to fill the

camp to capacity and then ship no more trainees until after the camp was

emptied at the end of the training cycle. This procedure was followed for

the first two groups of trainees while the eight-week MTP was in effect.

Beginning with the first thirteen-week cycle in September 1941 The Adjutant

General began the practice of moving troops in and out at weekly (or biweekly) intervals, thus maintaining a steady flow of men through the

center.

The 1941 procedures were elaborated somewhat to meet the pressure of

37 Ibid.
288 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

wartime operations. In 1942 The Adjutant General began to issue early each

month a tabulated schedule indicating proposed movement of inductees from

reception centers to fill RTC's for the month following. For example, Camp

Sibert was informed by mid-June 1943 that a total of 1,675 trainees would

be received during July.38

Weekly reports submitted by the replacement training centers advised

TAG of enlisted men who would complete the training course one month

later.39 For example, the report from Camp Sibert on 29 June 1943 advised

that during the week of July 26-31 following, there would be available for

shipment 401 graduates with qualifications as indicated:40

Appropriate orders were issued in due course by The Adjutant General

according to the priority of requisitions for replacements then on hand.

First consideration was given to calls for loss replacements for overseas

units. Next, requisitions were filled from units preparing for overseas movement. Remaining RTC graduates were supplied as cadres or, finally, as fillers

for other zone of interior units.

Procedure for intake of personnel was modified after the peak of training activities had been passed, when TAG began the practice of informing

training centers of the total number of trainees they could expect during

specific four-week periods. This number was set for the Camp Sibert RTC

as 276 white trainees for the four weeks beginning 30 January 1944, a

figure which was changed from time to time as circumstances necessitated.41

38

 Ltr, TAG to All RTCs, et al., 7 Jun 43, sub: Schedule of Allotments and Movements of

Enlisted Men to RTCs for July 1943. AG 220.3 (6-7-43) OC-S-M. 39

 These reports were submitted in compliance with AGO Memorandum No. W615-58-42,

23 Nov 42. 40

 CWS 314.7 RTC File. 41

 Ltr, TAG to C CWS, 4 Jan 44, sub: Intake of Pers RTCs. CWS 320.2 ASF Tng Centers

1944.
REPLACEMENT TRAINING 289

Curtailment of the Program

Even before the RTC installation at Camp Sibert was fully completed,

it became apparent that its capacity would soon be in excess of foreseeable

chemical warfare requirements. The job of individual training, which had

loomed so large in the spring of 1942, was about to shrink to a replacement-attrition basis. A splendid training facility, urgently needed at the

beginning of the war and finally built at heavy expense, came too late to

serve adequately the purpose for which it was originally intended. By the

middle of 1943 ASF planners, appreciating this situation, were beginning to

seek other uses for this plant.

Reduction of capacity of the CWS RTC from 5,000 to 1,500 ASF

trainees was announced in August 1943 in a blanket action which affected

all ASF training centers. Within this limit, the monthly reception rate of

the Camp Sibert center was established at 300 white and no Negro trainees.42

This figure was computed to provide replacements for estimated normal

attrition and battle losses, without distinction between combat and service

chemical units.43 It proved somewhat low in view of the increased requirements for replacements which developed in early 1944 as a result of the

Italian campaign. In March 1944 the ASF raised the CWS RTC capacity

to 2,750 trainees with a monthly input of 500.44

Nevertheless, after the midsummer of 1943 the peak of technical RTC

training at Camp Sibert had been passed. The distinctive character of the

center as a chemical warfare training facility began to change as it was

increasingly utilized for more general training activities. The CWS was

anxious that the good instructional organization and facility that had been

developed should be maintained against the continuing possibility of gas

warfare, and for this reason opportunities for undertaking other training

missions were welcomed. One of these came with the establishment of the

Fourth Service Command Basic Training Center at Camp Sibert on 24

December 1943. After this date, all service command personnel lacking

basic military training received this instruction in conjunction with chemical

troops. Beginning in January 1944, the same six-week course of basic train42

 Ltr, CG ASF to C CWS, et al., 28 Aug 43, sub: ASF RTCs. AG 354.1 (20 Aug 43)

OC-E-SPTRR-M. Beginning with the September 1943 increments, no more Negro troops were

sent to the RTC at Sibert. The last Negro troops left the RTC in November 1943. 43

 See Note 25, above. 44

 ASF Cir 66, 6 Mar 44.
290 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

ing was also given to all Special Service enlisted men.45 Finally, in April

1944, the ASF announced the plan of redesignating as "Army Service Forces

Training Centers" the existing training installations which had originally

served the technical branches as replacement and unit training centers.46

This move permitted a pooling of ASF training facilities which was necessitated by critical manpower shortages then existing; it was at the same

time a tacit recognition of the fact that the major portion of the job of

specialized technical training of inductees had been completed.

Certainly by the summer of 1944 chemical warfare technical training

at Camp Sibert was shrinking fast. Unit training of chemical organizations

was by that time virtually completed. Responsibility for training of loss

replacements for chemical battalions had been transferred from the Chemical

Warfare Service to the Army Ground Forces. Requirements for loss replacements for chemical service units had diminished with the stabilization of

these organizations. Despite the fact that additional general basic training

was being undertaken at Camp Sibert, the total training load was still less

than the minimum considered by the staff as justifying retention of a training center installation.

In addition to the normal tendency of any government agency to continue under the momentum it has developed long after the initial impetus

has ceased, another consideration influenced the reluctance of the CWS to

see this center abandoned. Camp Sibert was the only training center where

toxic chemicals could be used freely in tactical exercises; if combat employment of gas should be undertaken, this installation would be urgently

needed. In an effort to avert the closing of the center, the Chemical Warfare

Service made several proposals:

a. That the Army Ground Forces send chemical battalions to Camp

Sibert for advanced training in the firing of toxic gas before being committed

for overseas movement.

b. That the AGF utilize the facilities available at Camp Sibert for training of replacements for chemical combat units.

c. That the CWS officer candidate school be transferred from Edgewood

Arsenal to Camp Sibert.47

45

 These were entertainers who were members of the Special Services, ASF. See Millett, Army

Service Forces, p. 348. 46

 ASF Cir 104, Sec. III, 15 Apr 44. 47

 Ltr, AC CWS to Dir Mil Tng ASF, 14 Aug 44, sub: Utilization of Camp Sibert, Alabama.

CWS 314.7 Tng File.
REPLACEMENT TRAINING 291

Although these proposals did not materialize, final action on the discontinuance of Camp Sibert was deferred until 1945; this along with four other

ASF training centers was closed in April of that year.48

Subsequent replacement training was conducted under a plan by which

inductees designated for duty with chemical units received basic military

training at the ASF training center at Camp Lee, Va., after which they were

sent to Edgewood Arsenal on detached service for the technical training

called for by current MTP's.49 This plan was one of the most promising of

several that had been tried in connection with replacement training between

1941 and 1945. It appeared to satisfy ASF insistence upon interchangeability

of trainees, since after completion of the course at the ASF training center

the soldier could be sent to any one of several technical training centers for

the remainder of his replacement instruction. It made and held the technical

training center responsible only for technical training, thus bringing to an

end the long and sometimes futile attempt to make the technical branch

trainer an expert in general combat. It gave the CWS absolute control of

training at the place where this control was most needed, that is, in connection with the technical aspects of chemical warfare.

This arrangement did not undergo an exhaustive test since, in the closing

phase of the war, CWS replacement training diminished almost to the

vanishing point. During July 1944, trainees were being received at Camp

Sibert at the rate of 550 every four weeks. Thereafter incoming shipments

declined steadily. In June 1945, replacements were being received for technical training at Edgewood Arsenal at the rate of only thirty-two every four

weeks.50

Development of the CWS replacement training program was retarded

substantially by the transfer of the RTC from Edgewood Arsenal to Camp

Sibert during the summer of 1942. A year later a quite satisfactory level of

training operation had been attained, but the fact remains that men who

passed through the RTC during the last half of 1942, when the need for

well-trained replacements was most urgent, were not able to obtain the

quality of training to which they were entitled. This was not necessarily a

fault of those conducting or supervising CWS training. The difficulty was

implicit in circumstances affecting the entire CWS program.

48

 Ltr, ASF to CG Fourth SC, et al, 8 Feb 45, sub: Discontinuance of ASF TCs. AG SPX

354.1 (5 Feb 45) OB-I-SPMDC. 49

 Ltr, CG ASF to CG Third SC, et al., 4 Apr 45, sub: Movement of CWS Pers and Equipment, ASFTC, Camp Sibert, Ala. AG SPX 370.5 (3 Apr 45) OB-S-SPMOT-M. 50

 Rpt of CWS, 1945, p. 86.
292 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

The CWS RTC operated within a rigidly prescribed orbit. Within this

orbit it had some leeway, principally in the matter of technical training. Yet

the time-bounds of instruction, both technical and military, were set by the

ASF. As regards military training, there was never occasion for the Chemical

Warfare Service to question directives which constantly emphasized the need

for developing combat effectiveness in the technical soldier; reports from

theater chemical officers invariably placed more stress on military than on

technical proficiency. The training standards set by the ASF were high; if

operating agencies were sometimes left breathless in pursuing them, they

always recognized that the raising of training sights resulted in a superior

RTC output. As difficulties and handicaps, both operational and instructional, were successively overcome the CWS replacement trainee finally

began to emerge with the regularity of a production-line item. However,

the question arose whether the rigidity of the process did not at times work

against the flexibility of the product.

Actually the output of replacement (or individual) training centers

needed to be shaped into four distinct patterns. The outlines of these distinctive products were not foreseen with clarity when the centers were projected

in 1935. In the afterlight of war experience they stand out as: Replacements

for zone of interior units; fillers for zone of interior units; cadres for new

organizations; and replacements for theater of operation units.

Replacement of administrative losses in military organizations that still

were training in the United States was the requirement easiest to fill. Once

the soldier had received a modicum of basic training, it was not too difficult

for him to swing into step with an outfit that was still some distance short

of readiness for combat and to complete his more advanced training with

comrades with whom he expected to share campaign experiences. If replacement training was to be shortened anywhere, it was at this point that curtailment could best be afforded.

Fillers for newly constituted units that were starting out, with no more

than cadres, on the long road to military proficiency, should have been welltrained RTC products. When they were, development of the unit was

relatively rapid. Unfortunately neither the ASF nor the AGF replacement

centers were large enough to satisfy this need for fillers, so that all too often

it was necessary to shunt recruits directly from reception centers to field

units.

The cadreman was the most important single product of replacement

training—not numerically, but with regard to his influence in the shaping

of new and unparented organizations. The CWS RTC had been operating
REPLACEMENT TRAINING 293

more than a year before a clear-cut solution to the cadre training problem

was devised. Meanwhile the thin line of early chemical units was depleted

by constant calls for cadres. The need for cadres was urgent only during

the early stages of mobilization; thereafter this need was negligible. As was

true with many aspects of training, by the time an ideal solution to the

problem had been devised, it was found that the problem no longer existed.

Both fillers and loss replacements for zone of interior units were individually trained soldiers who were expected to receive final team training with

the units they joined. This was all that was expected of replacement training

and all actually that was needed. Before proceeding to a theater of operations, the unit still had time to accommodate newcomers. But once the unit

was overseas, this situation changed radically. There was no opportunity

during combat to devote much attention to incoming replacements. The new

arrivals had to be tailored to fit; they needed team training as well as individual training before assignment; and all together they were, or should

have been, quite finished RTC products. By the time demands for replacements for the theaters became insistant, requirements for domestic units had

slackened appreciably. And with the Chemical Warfare Service, calls for

overseas loss replacements were less than had been anticipated. The one uncorrectible failure of the replacement center system as a whole was its

inability to supply fillers for all new units that had to be manned during

1942 and 1943. This and other inadequacies of the replacement centers may

possibly be traced to the fact that in early planning the replacement function

was unduly emphasized. In the CWS it appears that adequate provision for

training of fillers for chemical units was not made, although this proved to

be numerically the most important aspect of individual training of enlisted

personnel.

While there were differences in types of RTC trainees, the underlying

requirement for the newly inducted soldier was recruit training. Confusion

would have been avoided and better training provided if the replacement

installations from the start had been designed and designated as basic

training centers.
CHAPTER XIII

Training of Chemical Units

Of the 298 chemical units in existence at the cessation of hostilities (2

September 1945), all but 14 were mobilized after the Pearl Harbor attack.

(See Table 9.) Taking into account organizations reconstituted and disbanded, a total of 383 chemical units and 31 platoons and detachments were

activated while the war was in progress.1 This unparalleled expansion, unexpected and not provided for in prewar planning, gave rise to a number

of problems in connection with unit training.

The Building of Military Organizations

The creation of a new military organization involved much more than

mobilizing the personnel and materiel called for by tables of organization

and equipment. The assembly of the officers, cadre, and fillers at a given

time and place was akin to the act of conception. The period of unit training which followed was in reality a period of gestation, the requirements

of which had to be fully satisfied before the organization could emerge to

a status of functional unity. The mobilization training program was merely

a systematic working pattern under which this objective could be accomplished within a given time—eight weeks, thirteen weeks, seventeen weeks

—the period of gestation varying as the war progressed.

From the start the unit contained an embryo, the cadre. This included

noncommissioned officers and a handful of key enlisted specialists, all having

needed know-how. The cadre was presumably trained and competent. During

the period of unit training, the cadre's knowledge and experience was expected to extend throughout the organization until finally the entire company

could attain the cadre's level of competence.

Individual Training by Units

In order to insure uniformly successful unit training it was important

that properly prepared components be provided for assembly into a com1

 App. H. In addition to the units listed in this appendix, 142 CWS units were activated at

various AAF fields on a provisional basis between August 1940 and September 1942.
TRAINING OF CHEMICAL UNITS 295

pleted end product. The officers had to have preliminary training in order

to insure that they would be able to train the men of their unit and eventually

lead them into action. The cadre had to be selected carefully either from

the ranks of veteran units or from likely RTC graduates. Basically trained

personnel ready to learn the business of military teamwork were needed to

fill the organization to authorized strength. During 1942 and 1943 all of

these desiderata could seldom be satisfied. In the matter of fillers, for

example, new units constantly had to be assigned awkward inductees, a

development which necessitated some compromise between replacement

training and unit training.

To observe the technical distinction that exists between these two types

of training was often impossible. Unit training as such could not be attempted until the individual training of the soldier was at least well advanced. Yet as a matter of general policy the War Department decided

early in 1942 that individual training would have to be undertaken to a

large extent within units. This decision meant in reality that when untrained

fillers were received by a newly activated unit (as was normally the case),

they had to be given basic military training by the officers and cadre of the

organization before actual unit training could be undertaken. Thus much

that went by the name of unit training was actually preunit training conducted by the organization.

A more orderly arrangement would have been completion of individual

training at the replacement training center, with the unit training center

left free to concentrate on its proper function.2 Where, as at Camp Sibert,

unit and replacement training organizations conducted recruit instruction

simultaneously, it was not always easily justified. Yet there was at least one

advantage to the latter arrangement, which of necessity was so often followed. Officers who accompanied the men of their unit through the individual as well as the teamwork stage of military education came to know and

understand them intimately.

Which of these two systems was preferable? Is it more advantageous to

train the inductee in the elements of soldiering at the replacement center

and limit UTC instruction to the development of military teamwork? Or

should newly activated units develop their own fillers and rely on the RTC

for loss replacement only? Although the second scheme worked satisfactorily

in the training of chemical units during World War II, it does not necessarily follow that it is the better arrangement. Certainly it was adopted

2

 This arrangement eventually became possible, but not until the summer of 1944 when the

chemical unit training program was almost completed. See below, page 324.
296 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

through necessity rather than by choice. The problem must also be considered in relation to the evolution of chemical warfare training during the

war. A significant training development was the shift, already mentioned in

connection with replacement training, from the specialized individual training of 1941 to the generalized individual training of 1944. If the chemical

soldier of the future is to be developed in basic training as an all-round

rather than a specialized individual, he should receive his elementary military

training before he joins his unit.

Purposes of Unit Training

The basic military training of inductees, whether conducted in a unit or

a replacement training center, was essentially the same. What unit training

undertook was to advance the organization from that state of functional

ineptitude characteristic of the newly activated company to a plateau of

capability where the unit, with all of its members working in unison, could

competently perform the specialized military function for which it was

created.

Chemical unit training, like individual training, had its nontechnical

phase and its technical phase. It comprised military subjects that could be

taught by any fairly competent military instructor, and it comprised technical

subjects which only specialists in chemical warfare could teach. In unit as

in replacement training, there were tendencies to overemphasize the technical aspects of training in certain instances and to depreciate them in other

instances.

Before they could be committed to a theater of operations, units had to

know how to live in the field as well as how to perform their technical

functions in the field. They had to be able to pack and transport their equipment—whether a chemical laboratory or a smoke generator—and to set up

and begin operations where needed in the combat zone. And if they hoped

to operate very long in World War II, they had to become skillful in withstanding enemy attack. This meant they had to be proficient in camouflage;

resolute under aerial bombing; prepared to defend their positions against

paratroopers or infiltrators; in short to be wise in all the methods of modern

warfare. Military training requirements included camouflage technique as

well as collective protection against gas attack, defense tactics as well as the

art of living comfortably in bivouac. These things had to be taught to units

while they were mastering their technical functions and before they could

be passed out of the stage of unit training.
TRAINING OF CHEMICAL UNITS 297

CWS Participation in Unit Training

The development of chemical units was complicated by the varying

sources of authority for their initial training, a situation that in turn was an

incidental result of the ground-air-service setup under which the Army

operated during the World War II. Since this logical pattern of organization had not been considered in mobilization planning, all of its implications

were not appreciated in advance. The virtual autonomy of the Army Air

Forces had been anticipated, and the role of the Chemical Warfare Service

in training chemical personnel for service with the Air Forces had been reduced to an acceptable procedure. But the relationship between the CWS and

an independent ground force command produced unforeseen problems.

Unit Training Responsibility

In July 1941, G-3 delegated to the newly established Army Air Forces

authority to activate all units, including service, for duty with air—yet

retained within the General Staff control of activation of all other units.

This arrangement continued until March 1942, when the reorganization of

the War Department made possible and even necessitated decentralizing

the work of activating and training other-than-air units, specifically, ground

combat and service organizations. The reorganization directive indicated

that the AGF would train ground force units; that the ASF would train

units under its jurisdiction; and that the AAF would train tactical air units.3

This simple division of unit training responsibility proved unsatisfactory

to the ground and air commands. New War Department instructions issued

in May established the more acceptable policy that the prospective zone of

employment would determine the command that should train the unit.4

Under the revised policy, training responsibilities of Army Service

Forces extended only to those service units that were organized to operate

ASF-type installations and activities, including overseas service or communication zone operations. Ground and air forces became responsible for training both tactical and noncombat units organized for operation within their

respective commands.5 Flexibility under this policy was provided by authoriz3

 WD Cir 59, 2 Mar 42. 4

 Memo, ACofS G-3 for CGs AGF, AAF, SOS, 30 May 42, sub: Responsibility for Training.

WDGCT 353 (5-30-42). See Palmer, Wiley, and Keast, Procurement and Training of Ground

Combat Units, pp. 504-05. 5

 Similar responsibility was given the defense commands, which already were involved in

activation of chemical smoke units.
298 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

ing the shifting of unit training responsibility by mutual agreement among

the AGF, the AAF, and the ASF in order to make better use of existing

facilities and to avoid duplication of effort. The CWS thus trained a number

of chemical service units at the request of the senior combat commands.

Mortar Battalions

The combat traditions of chemical troops were inherited from World

War I, when these troops first appeared as the offspring of combat engineers.

The early chemical troops had one mission only—to attack the enemy with

chemical weapons. The use of chemical warfare units for such work as

impregnating clothing against vesicant fumes and destroying persistent

enemy agents developed much later. These service functions of the CWS

increased in importance during the peacetime years when CWS combatant

functions were being minimized.6 But this trend was neither understood nor

fully accepted by the majority of CWS officers, who assumed that once the

use of gas began their branch would be in the front line of offensive action.

Duty with chemical mortar battalions was therefore eagerly sought by

combat-minded officers.

Throughout the entire period of the war there was never any question

as to where these battalions belonged. They were mobilized by the Army

Ground Forces, and the Army Ground Forces zealously retained responsibility for their unit training. The Chemical Warfare Service was at no time

fully reconciled to the latter arrangement and sought to take an active part

in at least the technical training of chemical mortar battalions.

The attitude of General McNair's staff on this point was that the

Ordnance Department supplied high explosive shells but did not dictate

their tactical employment by the Field Artillery; that by the same token, the

CWS should provide the chemical agents and leave to the field forces the

task of employing them. This appeared to be sound reasoning. The question

the CWS raised was whether these units could be properly trained for effective employment under a command that lacked sympathy with their tactical

mission.

The two battalions which the Chief of Staff first authorized for activation

in September 1941 were not actually mobilized until January 1942. By that

time the activation of four more battalions had been authorized. Two of the

additional battalions were mobilized in April and two in June 1942. These

6

 See above, Chapter II.
TRAINING OF CHEMICAL UNITS 299

six battalions were created for the primary purpose of providing the U.S.

Army with means of retaliating with gas in ground operations. Since they

represented an important feature of the War Department's program for

improving readiness for gas warfare, the CWS felt considerable responsibility for their technical competence. The battalions fired smoke, yet this

mission alone could not justify their existence. Their employment in firing

high explosive shell had been proposed by the CWS but was not at this time

(spring of 1942) authorized by the General Staff. The original proposal of

General Porter that chemical battalions be activated at the rate of one per

infantry division was rejected in favor of the plan for mobilizing units on

the basis of "special projects." This was taken to mean, in effect, that when

gas warfare began or appeared to be imminent, additional battalions provided for under the 1942 Troop Basis would be activated.

The battalions activated or expanded in the winter and early spring of

1942 received their initial cadres from existing chemical units. On 1 January,

Company C of the 2d Chemical Regiment at Fort Benning, Ga., was inactivated and its personnel were transferred to the newly activated 3d

Separate Chemical Battalion (Motorized). Two weeks later Headquarters

Company and Company A of the 2d Battalion moved from their station at

Edgewood to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, but the 2d Battalion did not reach

full strength until Companies B, C, and D were activated in April.7 Additional personnel for these battalions came from the Infantry, the Coast

Artillery, the Medical Department, and the CWS Replacement Training

Center. Officers and enlisted men in both battalions were of high caliber

and, spurred on by the memory of the recent Pearl Harbor attack, they were

anxious to do a particularly good job. Each battalion had some officers who

understood infantry tactics, a requirement in the training of the units for

infantry support.8

As provided in the mobilization regulations,9 the battalions carried out

7

 (1) Ltr, TAG to CGs Third Army and IV Corps Area, 13 Dec 41, sub: Organization of 3d

Separate Chemical Battalion and Inactivation of Company C, 2d Chemical Regiment. AG 320.2

(12-2-41) MR-M-C. (2) Ltr, TAG to CG III Corps Area, 5 Jan 42, sub: Transfer of 2d

Separate Chemical Battalion. AG 370.5-2d Cml Bn. (3) Ltr, TAG to CG I Corps Area et al., 3

Mar 42, sub: Constitution and Activation of Units for Ground Forces. AG 320.2 (1-28-42)

MR-M-C. (4) The chemical mortar battalions were variously known during World War II as

"separate chemical battalions," "chemical battalions (separate)," "chemical battalions (motorized)," and "chemical mortar battalions." 8

 Intervs, CmlHO with the following former officers of the 2d and 3d Battalions: Col Robert

W. Breaks, 14 November 1955; Lt Col Floyd B. Mitman, 8 December 1955; and Lt Col Harrison

S. Markham, 8 December 1955. 9

 WD MR 3-1, 23 Nov 40.
300 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

basic and unit training concurrently. The health and endurance of the individual soldier were emphasized; he was taught to use his weapons and

to care for himself in the field. Stress was placed on duty, honorable conduct,

and uncomplaining obedience. These remained the essentials of mobilization

training during the war.

The tactical training of the early battalions was handicapped by a shortage of mortars and ammunition, a deficiency that was not overcome until

1943. Although the principal mission of the battalions was the firing of

toxics and smoke, the 2d also fired some five hundred rounds of high explosives before going overseas.10

 Another handicap in the initial period of

training was the lack of a specific training program for chemical battalions.

This situation was rectified somewhat in May 1942 with the publication of a

program for the mobilization training of the battalions, but it was not until

January 1944 that the War Department published a Unit Training Program

for chemical battalions.11

In July 1942 both the 2d and 3d Battalions, having been trained up to

company level, were directed to participate in Army maneuvers. The 2d was

ordered to the Carolina maneuver area and the 3d, which had been transferred from Fort Benning to Fort Bliss, Tex., in April, was ordered to the

Louisiana maneuver area. From November 1942 to March 1943, companies

of the 2d and 3d Battalions were rotated for amphibious training at Camp

Gordon Johnston, Florida, under the Chemical Warfare Amphibious Project,

the object of which was the training of the companies in the use of smoke

in landing operations, a technique which these units never used in combat.12

 Before being sent overseas the 2d Battalion was attached to the 45th

Infantry Division for training at Camp Pickett, Va.13 This was one of the

10

 Interv, CmlHO with Col George R. Oglesby, 20 Mar 56. Colonel Oglesby was acting

Ground Chemical Officer in March and April 1943 when he was authorized supply of the 500

rounds. After April 1943 allowances were more liberal. 11

 (1) MTP 3-1, 19 May 42. (2) MTP 3-7, 15 Jan 44. 12

 (1) Marshall O. Becker, The Amphibious Training Center, Hist Sec, AGF, 1946, pp. 67-69.

(2) Interv CmlHO with Col Lloyd E. Fellenz, 6 Dec 55. Colonel Fellenz was in charge of the

CW Amphibious Project at Camp Gordon Johnston. (3) Ltr, Lt Col Alfred C. Day, Commanding

CW Amphibious Project, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, Amphibious Project, NOB, Norfolk, Va., to C CWS,

31 Jan 43, sub: Progress Report, Studies of Smoke Screens. CWS 319.1. (4) Ltr, Col Alfred C.

Day to CWS, 30 Apr 43, sub: Progress Report, Studies of Smoke Screens. CWS 319.1. (5)

Although there were no amphibious chemical mortar operations in the MTO or ETO, a 1944

amphibious training program in the Pacific led to the successful employment of chemical mortars

in assault landings. See Paul W. Pritchard, Brooks E. Kleber, and Dale Birdsell, Chemicals in

Combat, a volume in preparation for the series UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR

II (hereafter cited as Pritchard, Kleber, and Birdsell, Chemicals in Combat). 13

 Journal of 2d Cml Bn (Mtz) in World War II. The Chemical Corps Historical Office has a

file on each battalion containing varying amounts of information.
TRAINING OF CHEMICAL UNITS 301

ARMY MANEUVERS, LOUISIANA, 1942.

Infantryman advancing under cover of

smoke screen.

very few instances in World War

II where a chemical mortar battalion actually went through a period of training in the zone of interior with a division.

Cadres from the 2d and 3d Battalions, together with some 800 men

from the RTC at Edgewood who

had been given special mortar training over a period of four to six

weeks, were detailed as cadres for

the 81st, 83d, and 84th Battalions

when they were activated in the

spring of 1942. The 81st and 82d

were both activated on 25 April

1942 at Forts D. A. Russell and

Bliss, Tex., respectively. The 83d

was activated 19 June 1942 at Camp

Gordon, Ga., and the 84th on 5 June

at Camp Rucker, Ala. These battalions, like the 2d and 3d before

them, were handicapped by a shortage of mortars, ammunition, training literature, and training aids.14

 Until

mortars were received at the beginning of 1943 emphasis was placed on physical conditioning of the men, identification of chemical agents, and small

arms training. In March 1943 the 82d was ordered to the Louisiana maneuver area, and in the following month the 81st was directed to participate in

the same maneuvers. This was the last occasion during the war when chemical mortar battalions took part in Army maneuvers, so important for the

training of combat units.

Despite the handicaps which the 81st, 82d, 83d, and 84th Battalions

14

 (1) Memo, Maj Howard P. McCormick, Planning and Equipment Br for C Planning and

Equipment Br, OC CWS, 22 Oct 42, sub: Unit Supply and Matériel Inspection of the 81st and

82d Chemical Battalions. CWS 314.7 Training File. (2) Ltr, Asst IG Third Army to CG Third

Army, 31 Oct 42, sub: Lack of Weapons as noted in the Annual General Inspection of the 81st

Chemical Battalion. Ret Third Army File 33.1. (3) Intervs CmlHO with the following former

officers of the battalions: Lt Cols James A. Richardson, Harrison S. Markham, and George Young,

and Maj Charles Brightwell. All interviews, 8 Dec 55.
302 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

faced, their training seems to have been quite satisfactory so far as it went.

Raw recruits were trained to be good soldiers through long and tedious

hours of work and instruction. Ambitious enlisted men were offered opportunities for promotion or for attendance at OCS. The men in the ranks, if

the words of one of them can be taken at face value, were motivated by a

genuine pride in their accomplishment. "Here we are today," wrote a

corporal of the 82d Battalion in his seventh month at Fort Bliss, "products

of the military training, better Americans and more interested citizens. We

have made new friends and acquaintances. We have learned the ways of the

outdoors and of nature, of living together and sharing with our fellow

soldier. We have learned to listen and obey and follow for a common cause

and for the good and welfare of all."

 15

The Army inspectors were likewise impressed with the results of the

training, sometimes to an extraordinary degree. To quote from the critique

of a Second Army inspector of the 84th Separate Chemical Battalion, "I was

amazed to see the same men who were at the train three months ago, raw

recruits, now men who put on such a good showing. I find the 84th Chemical

Battalion gave a very enviable account of themselves."

 16

While the principal mission of the mortar battalions was the dispersion

of toxic agents and smoke, the CWS was of the opinion that the battalions

could be profitably used to fire high explosives in support of the infantry.

Before any such assignment was possible two preliminary steps were necessary. First, the War Department would have to approve a military requirement for a high explosive (HE) shell for the 4.2-inch mortar, and secondly,

the Army Ground Forces would have to be convinced that the 4.2-inch

mortar could be used to advantage in supplementing the 105-mm. howitzer

in close support of the Infantry.

The CWS had little difficulty in securing approval for establishing a

military requirement for the 4.2-inch high explosive shell; on 10 April 1942

the Chief, CWS, submitted a request to the commanding general, ASF,

which was approved on 26 April 1942.17 Convincing the Army Ground

Forces of the potentialities of the mortar for firing HE was a much more

15

 Cpl Samuel Gluck, "Recapitulation," The Retort, 1 Jan 43, a publication of the 82d

Chemical Bn, Fort Bliss, Tex. 16

 Remarks of Col March Houser quoted by Lt Col H. S. Markham, CO, 84th Chem Bn, in

Toxic Times, 31 Jan 43, publication of the 84th Chemical Bn. 17

 Ltr, C CWS to CG SOS, 10 Apr 42, sub: High Explosive Shell for the 4.2-inch Chemical

Mortar, and 3d Ind., 26 Apr 42. By a 2d Indorsement AGF gave approval to the CWS recommendation. CWS 320.2/1-23.
TRAINING OF CHEMICAL UNITS 303

prolonged task. In order to accomplish the latter objective, the CWS had to

wage a campaign of persuasion on two fronts; in the North African Theater

of Operations and in Washington.

Within a month after U.S. troops had landed in North Africa on 8

November 1942, the chemical officer of the Western Task Force, Col.

Maurice E. Barker, called the attention of his commander, Maj. Gen. George

S. Patton, to the advantages that might be gained by employing 4.2-inch

mortars for firing HE. The less mountainous portions of the North African

country side were mostly open except for stone farm houses and country

villas, which amounted to small natural forts against which it would be

highly profitable to employ the 4.2-inch mortar. In the mountainous regions

the mortar could be used to put its shells into gullies and behind steep hills

where artillery fire could not reach. In December 1942 General Patton requested that the War Department make available a brigade of chemical

troops armed with the latest weapons for firing HE and white phosphorus

(WP).18

At the same time, the Chief, CWS, was attempting to impress upon the

War Department the benefits of utilizing a chemical mortar battalion for

firing HE. General Porter had a two-fold objective in mind: first, to

guarantee that a sufficient number of battalions would be sent to the theaters

to operate in a situation of gas warfare, and secondly, to insure that those

battalions would be used as effectively as possible should gas warfare not

materialize. Reports coming into the Chief's Office in early 1943 to the effect

that the British were using their 4.2-inch mortars to fire HE served to

stimulate and challenge the CWS. As the Chief of the Field Requirements

Branch, OC CWS, remarked, "The British are far ahead. Their CWS is in

their Army."

 19

In February 1943 the Chief, CWS, arranged for a conference among

representatives of the Army Service Forces, the Army Ground Forces, and

the Chemical Warfare Service, to discuss the feasibility of having a War

Department directive issued authorizing chemical troops to fire high explosives. Suggestions emanating from this meeting led to War Department

action on 26 April 1943 authorizing the firing of high explosives by chemical

troops.20

18

 Operational History of Chemical Battalions and the 4.2-inch Mortar in World War II, Pt. I,

pp. 23-24 (hereafter cited as Operational History of Chem Bn). This is a 154-page monograph

prepared by Historical Branch, OC CWS, in World War II. 19

 Ibid., p. 29. 20

 FM 100-5, C 3, 26 Apr 43.
304 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

The official change in mission to include the firing of high explosive

shells had a marked effect on the training of mortar battalions. From the

spring of 1943 on, training was concentrated more on that aspect of the

mission than on the dispersion of toxics and smoke. From May 1943 till

1945, twenty-two additional chemical battalions were activated by the AGF

and trained in various camps throughout the United States.21 Of these

twenty-two, the first four, the 85th, 86th, 87th, and 88th, all activated in

May and June 1943, drained the entire Regular establishment of available

battalion commanders. Thereafter battalion commanders came primarily

from the ranks of Reserve officers called to active duty.

Although the chemical mortar battalions were activated by the Army

Ground Forces and remained under AGF jurisdiction, the Chemical Warfare

Service, as indicated above, retained a considerable interest in them. The

CWS supplied most of their officers and cadres, procured their mortars and

ammunition, and was responsible for the technical aspects of their training.

The chemical mortar battalions were accepted in the theaters as stemming

from the CWS, even though their early growth was nurtured by the AGF.

The CWS, moreover, had a considerable role in the writing of the tables

of organization and mobilization training programs for the mortar battalions.

In carrying out these activities the Training Division, OC CWS, worked

closely with the Office of the Ground Chemical Officer in Washington. The

Ground Chemical Officer was a CWS officer, with the rank of colonel,

assigned to the AGF headquarters where he had AGF staff responsibilities

for all aspects of chemical warfare training. Since he normally had only two

officers and several enlisted men to assist him, the writing of mobilization

training programs and tables of organization largely devolved on the Office

of the Chief, CWS.22 Final approvel of these rested with the Commanding

General, AGF.

With the appearance of the mobilization training program for the unit

training of chemical battalions in January 1944, the platoon, company, and

21

 Seven of these twenty-two battalions were activated in July 1945 and inactivated in September

1945. For details on the four additional battalions activated overseas during the war see Pritchard,

Kleber, and Birdsell, Chemicals in Combat. 22

 Intervs CmlHO with the following: Col James E. McHugh, 17 Nov 55. (Colonel McHugh

was on duty in Training Division, OC CWS, from April 1943 until after the close of the war.)

Col Thomas J. Ford, 11 Jan 56. (Colonel Ford was Ground Chemical Officer from January 1942

to February 1943). Col. George R. Oglesby, 20 Mar 56. (Colonel Oglesby served in the Office of

the Ground Chemical Officer from June 1942 until June 1943.) M/Sgt Ludwig Pross, 29 Nov 55.

(Sergeant Pross was on duty in the Office of the Ground Chemical Officer from 1 May 1942 until

after the close of the war.)
TRAINING OF CHEMICAL UNITS 305

battalion phases of training were spelled out much more precisely than

heretofore.23 During the platoon and company phases of training, which

were to run for five and four weeks respectively, each unit was to be developed into a fighting team capable of operating, with other units in

various types of battle missions. In these phases, troops were to be psychologically prepared for the shock of battle by being subjected to overhead

fire, fire past their flanks, tank attacks against entrenchments of their own

construction, and realistic, simulated attacks from the air. During the battalion phase of training, which was scheduled for three weeks, each unit

was to be taught to perform its tactical and technical functions in the

battalion through movements, maneuvers, and exercises in simulated combat

situations. All three training phases called for additional instruction in basic

and general subjects, such as military intelligence, security, and physical and

mental conditioning.

The commanding officers of the battalions received the mobilization

training programs and other official publications from the Army chemical

officers, who had responsibility for supervising the technical aspects of the

training of the battalions and who conducted occasional inspections. The

Training Division, OC CWS, and the Ground Chemical Officer or his

representative also inspected the units, as did the AGF inspector general.

Actually there was not a great deal of outside supervision or inspection of

any kind and the battalion commanders were largely on their own. For

administrative and housekeeping purposes the commanding officers reported

to the AGF staff officer at their camps who was responsible for the so-called

Spare Parts units—those units not organically a part of a division.

The mobilization training program, the official War Department directive for training the battalions, guided the battalion commanders in the

compilation of their individual training schedules. These schedules were not

simple elaborations of the training programs, but included, in addition to the

requirements of the War Department, certain aspects of training which the

commanding officers felt should be stressed. In a way these schedules and

the training carried out under them reflected the personalities of the individual battalion commanders. If the commander was gifted with imagination,

training would tend to be realistic and consideration would be given in such

activities as firing the mortar and marches to actual tactical situations. The

military background of the commanding officer also tended to influence

23

 MTP 3-7, 15 Jan 44.
306 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

training. If, as sometimes happened, the commanding officer had an artillery

background, the firing of the mortar would be approached from the artillery

point of view.

The experience gained by battalions which had been in combat was not

overlooked in the training of the later battalions. The commanders overseas would send back comments to the Office of the Chief which would be

passed on to the commanding officers of the battalions in the United States.

One such letter in September 1943, which summarized the reactions of the

commanding officers of the 2d, 3d, and 83d Battalions, had this to say about

training:

Experience has shown that the soldier well grounded in the fundamentals of

scouting and patrolling, use of camouflage, cover and concealment, and taught to

move fast, will individually live to fight many battles. Next to that comes team work,

an item particularly important to our mortars. . . . Failures in mission will be the

result of poor team work. Failures in battle are inexcusable when such failures are a

result of poor training.24

The demand for company officers for chemical mortar battalions had the

effect of pointing up the whole CWS officer procurement program.25 More

junior officers were needed for chemical service units than for chemical

combat units; yet the ideal toward which the officer candidate aimed was the

platoon leader of a chemical mortar company. If he could measure up to

this job, he was assumed to be capable of filling any CWS assignment in

the grade of second lieutenant.

OCS students acquired some basic understanding of the employment of

war gases in ground combat. This knowledge was augmented by the theory

for the offensive employment of gas in courses which some of them later

attended at the Chemical Warfare School. But training of officers in the

conduct of HE fire could not be undertaken until the high explosive shell

was authorized for chemical battalions, so that this type of instruction was

not begun at the Chemical Warfare School until the fall of 1942. The

training of CWS officers for duty with chemical battalions was, on the whole,

never as well integrated as, for example, the preactivation training of artillery

officers scheduled for assignment to field artillery battalions.

This same lack of integration is evident in connection with the unit

24

 Ltr, Lt Col Kenneth A. Cunin, CO, 83d Cml Bn to Brig Gen Alden H. Waitt, 12 Sep 43. 25

 The influence of this demand on the organization and operation of the Officer Candidate

School is discussed below in Chapter XV.
TRAINING OF CHEMICAL UNITS 307

training of chemical battalions. The AGF did not have available firing areas

where toxic agents could be released, and arrangements were never worked

out for the battalions to fire gas munitions at CWS proving grounds; the

training of these units in gas warfare was therefore theoretical at best. At

the same time their training in close support of the infantry with HE was

never altogether satisfactory because their mobilization training was entirely

unrelated to that of the organizations they eventually supported in battle.

When the activation of the initial series of six chemical battalions was begun

in 1942, a third of the Army's wartime divisions already were mobilized;

and the division mobilization program was virtually completed by the time

activation of chemical battalions was resumed in 1943.26 Most of the battalions thus missed out on the splendid teamwork development of nondivisional units which climaxed AGF training in the United States. In many,

if not a majority of cases, the battalions first encountered the units they were

to support only after their arrival in the theaters of operation, so that lessons

that should have been learned in maneuvers had to be mastered in combat.

Smoke Units

From an operational standpoint, the smoke generator companies were

somewhere between combat and service units. When attached to combat

echelons in screening military operations from either air or ground attack,

they were regarded as combat elements. When they were utilized in the

static defense of fixed installations they generally came under communication zone control and were classed as ASF troops. In either case their employment was directly against enemy action, in contrast to the noncombatant

work of such purely service units as depot and processing companies. Since

the operation of smoke generators was somewhat technical and, at least

initially, experimental in nature, the development and training of smoke

units was handled by the CWS. Thus administratively, if not operationally,

they were classed as CWS service troops.

The earliest smoke generator companies were hastily organized in 1942

specifically for screening the Bremerton (Wash.) Navy Yard, west coast

aircraft plants, and the Sault Ste. Marie locks in Michigan against air attack.

Formal unit training of these organizations had to be curtailed because of

the immediate need for their services in the protection of these sensitive zone

26

 See Palmer, Wiley and Keast, Procurement and Training of Ground Combat Troops, pp.

489-492, for dates of the activation of U.S. Army divisions.
308 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

of interior installations. These companies each manned long lines of

stationary oil generators, an adaptation of the California orange grove

smudge pot. On-the-job training in the operation of these early smoke

devices was undertaken as a special CWS project in conjunction with chemical staff personnel of the defense commands involved. In the spring and

summer of 1942, the Chief's Office sent Lt. Col. James N. Hinyard to the

west coast and to Sault Ste. Marie to demonstrate the use of M1 mechanical

smoke generators recently procured by the Chemical Warfare Service.27

It was not until the development of the mechanical smoke generator, M1,

that the organization of mobile smoke generator units became feasible. Companies activated independently after the mechanical generator was included

in a revised T/O&E (as contrasted with those new companies formed

amoeba-like from existing units undergoing reorganization) received all or

part of their training at the CWS Unit Training Center. In all, forty smoke

generator companies were activated during World War II.28

Experimental Company, Jungle Warfare

In September 1943 the Chief, CWS, directed that a special company be

organized at Camp Sibert to conduct experiments on methods of reducing

Japanese-type pill boxes. This company, consisting of 17 officers and 277

enlisted men, was under rigid training from October 1943 until January

1944. It made use of a number of weapons in its experiments, including

the 4.2-inch mortar, portable flame throwers, Thompson submachine guns,

carbines, pistols, grenades, and Browning automatic rifles. Early in 1944

the company was deactivated by order of the War Department and its

personnel used to furnish cadres to chemical mortar battalions about to be

activated.29

Ground Service Units

Chemical ground service units were those intended to perform technical

or service functions of noncombatant nature with the field forces, under

either theater, army, or communications zone control. They included chem27

 Interv, CmlHO with Lt Col James N. Hinyard, 20 Jun 55. 28

 For employment of smoke units in the zone of interior and overseas see Pritchard, Kleber,

and Birdsell, Chemicals in Combat. 29

 Ltr, CG Camp Sibert to C CWS, 22 Jan 44, sub: Final Report on the Operations of the

Experimental Company, Jungle Warfare. ASF SPTR 370.2 (22 Jan 44).
TRAINING OF CHEMICAL UNITS 309

FLAME THROWER DEMONSTRATION, Camp Sibert, Alabama, 1944.

ical laboratory, maintenance, depot, decontamination, processing, and composite companies.30

 With the single exception of the 412th Chemical Depot

Company they were altogether new organizations with no background of

technical experience or military tradition. A considerable number of service

type units were Negro units.31

Unit training of these organizations was in the main handled by the

Chemical Warfare Service. This training was facilitated by the fact that

activation of the principal block of units, begun in March 1942, was spread

evenly over the next twelve months, during which period eighty-nine service

companies were mobilized.

The timing of the mobilization of these chemical service companies

viewed against the full background of the war was excellent. Their primary

mission was to limit the effectiveness of hostile gas attack; such secondary

functions as they undertook were quite incidental to this principal purpose.

By the time the War Department General Staff activated them, it had be30

 Eleven chemical battalion staffs were organized during the war, seven for smoke generator

and four for chemical service battalions. These organizations were not involved in chemical unit

training, which was essentially company training. 31

 App. H lists Negro and white units.
310 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

come clear that if gas were used against the Allies it would be in the final

phases of the war. Earlier the employment of toxic chemicals in curtain

raising air attacks had been regarded seriously by CWS tacticians, but the

Japanese at Pearl Harbor proved beyond doubt that other munitions were

more than adequate for such operations. This in fact no more than confirmed

experience in the initial stages of the war in Europe. At the same time reported enemy activities in the field of gas warfare strongly suggested that

the gas weapon might eventually be brought into play. And from the

strategical viewpoint it was fairly obvious that this development would come

only after the Axis powers were thrown on the defensive. In short, the

strong likelihood was that the employment of gas would not take place until

more than a year after the activation of gas defense units was begun, an

interval that would allow ample time for their training and disposition.

Since training of the bulk of these service units was not seriously undertaken until the fall of 1942, this activity came under the supervisory control

of Army Service Forces. The ASF in time delegated the responsibility to the

service commands, except for exempted installations where immediate control of training was exercised by branch chiefs.32

 This meant that unit training conducted at Camp Sibert was theoretically under the jurisdiction of the

commanding general, Fourth Service Command, while that conducted at

Edgewood Arsenal was directly controlled by the Chief, CWS. In practice

the Training Division, OC CWS, retained substantial control of this training

at both stations.

Air Service Units

The prewar scheme for organization of chemical units with the Army Air

Corps was geared to a defensive rather than to a positive and global strategy.

Under the 1939 plan, the principal air chemical service units were assigned

to airdromes. Under the 1942 plan, they were assigned to bomber formations.

The air expansion program of 1940 necessitated a substantial increase

in the Air Corps complement of chemical troops. This in turn made possible

the gradual development of the organizational pattern demanded in World

War II. Initially one chemical company was set up in each air district.33 This

32

 ASF policies regarding unit training which applied throughout the war were announced in

ltr, Dir of Tng SOS to Chiefs of Supply Service, et al., 28 Jul 42, sub: Unit Training Within the

Services of Supply. SOS SPTRU 353 (7-28-42). 33

 The four air districts corresponded to but did not coincide with the four defense commands

within the continental United States.
TRAINING OF CHEMICAL UNITS 311

company had platoons located at various bases throughout the district.

Under this setup the "company" was merely the holding corporation for a

large group of service platoons. These were designated as airdromes, service

center, and supply base platoons, 134 of them being activated in the zone of

interior. With the unit training of these platoons the CWS served only in a

monitoring capacity. Enlisted men were supplied principally from the Edgewood Arsenal Replacement Training Center, while local training of the

platoons was accomplished under the supervision of chemical staff personnel

assigned to the several air districts. These early air chemical platoons,

although later reorganized, were largely represented in the tactical service

units which eventually operated with the AAF during the war.

Three principal types of air chemical service organizations were determined upon in 1942 as necessary to support chemical operations of the Army

Air Forces. These were chemical companies, air operations; depot companies,

aviation; and maintenance companies, aviation. The air operations company

was the principal air chemical service unit. Its function was to handle, under

operational and combat conditions, liquid toxic or smoke agents used by the

type of bombardment aviation which it served.34 The company included 4

officers and 130 enlisted men.35 It consisted of a distributing point section

and four operating platoons, the latter capable of operating independently

on the basis of one platoon per squadron. The companies were distinctively

designated to indicate the type of air unit that served: (M & H) for medium

or heavy bombardment, (L) for light bombardment, and (D) for dive

bombardment. The air operations company was not trained to handle

arsenal-filled gas bombs or incendiaries.36

The majority of the air operations companies activated in 1942 were

organized from air chemical platoons activated and trained earlier. Twentyeight of the companies were given unit training by the CWS. Of these 6

were eventually sent overseas, 19 remained at Camp Sibert for periods of

from 6 to 8 months, and 14 were disbanded in December 1943. Many of

their officers and men were sent overseas as casual replacements.

The aviation maintenance company had the job of higher echelon maintenance, repair, and salvage of all chemical warfare equipment used by the

Army Air Forces. The aviation depot company handled and stored all bulk

chemical ammunition and spray tanks as well as incendiary munitions. Five

34

 AAF Tng Standard 40-4-1, 20 Jan 43, sub: CWS Tactical Service Units. 35

 T/O 3-457, 1 Jul 42. 36

 Actually the air operations companies were often employed in the theaters to handle all types

of chemical bombs.
312 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

aviation depot and three aviation maintenance companies were trained by

the CWS.

Unit Training at Camp Sibert

Chemical Warfare units were well represented in each component of

the Army, yet less than half of these organizations received their unit training directly under CWS auspices. The chemical mortar battalions, as indicated, were all trained by the AGF. Two-thirds of the 1942-1943 AAF

units were made up from chemical platoons that had been unit-trained at

air installations. CWS unit training was thus narrowed to those technical

service organizations which were trained at Edgewood Arsenal and Camp

Sibert. (Table 11)

TABLE 11—WARTIME TRAINING OF CWS SERVICE UNITS

a

 Seven smoke generator, 1 depot, 11 processing, and 1 composite-service companies were trained at Camp Sibert and

Edgewood and are included in both columns.

Source: App. H.

Although replacement training began at Camp Sibert in July 1942, it

was not until August that the CWS formally recommended establishment of

its Unit Training Center at that station. By the time the center was officially

activated on 5 October 1942, the program for mobilization of chemical service units already was well under way; many of the ground service companies

and the majority of the air service companies had been mobilized. Many of

the organizations mobilized before October 1942 could not be sent to the

new UTC to complete their training, but after 1942 chemical service units
TRAINING OF CHEMICAL UNITS 313

activated in the zone of interior normally trained at Camp Sibert. By

January 1943, UTC trainees numbered 9,067 as against 5,300 men receiving

replacement training. The rapid growth of unit training is indicated in the

following figures:

Internal organization of the UTC differed from that of the RTC in that

the replacement training unit was an artificial structure provided merely to

facilitate the training of individuals, while the UTC training unit was a

tactical organization as prescribed by an official T/O. The training cadre of

the RTC unit remained at the center to train succeeding groups of replacements; but the cadre of the UTC organization was "organic"; it was the

heart of the unit.

Although unit training was essentially self-training, that is, training of

the company by the company, the instruction of the unit by its officers and

noncommissioned officers was furthered in many ways by facilities available

at the center. It was possible for an organization to work out its own salvation in the matter of unit training; in fact most of the chemical units

mobilized before the UTC was activated were obliged to do so. This was a

painful process even when, as at Edgewood Arsenal, it was accomplished in

a climate of experience and under the shadow of veteran organizations. For

a rapid, production-line operation of unit building such as that which confronted the CWS in 1943 there was no substitute for the training center,

even though the true role of the center was merely to assist the unit in its

effort to train itself.

In devising the organization of a Unit Training Center there were at the

start no more than three tangibles from which to work. The approximate

number of new units to begin training at stated intervals was known. The

mission of each type of organization was understood. And a governing

mobilization training program was available. The aggregate number of units

to be trained dictated the battalion-regimental echelonment which provided

eventually for four regimental groups. It was therefore necessary to develop

a type of training center organization which would permit the commanding
314 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

general to exercise leadership through this command structure so as to insure

rapid development of the units in accordance with the standardized training

program.

After an experimental period of growth and development, the organizational pattern of UTC headquarters became fairly well stabilized in March

1943. Three principal offices were included: one to handle military administration; one for all supply matters; and one for operations and training.

The latter was the largest and most important office of the center command.

Its organization was reflected in a corresponding staff section at each regimental headquarters.

The technical training section of the operations and training office supervised each company in the technical phase of mobilization training. It set

the technical standards, and it was largely instrumental in seeing that these

standards were met.

The composition of the section was an index to the technical specialization involved in chemical warfare operations. The availability at UTC headquarters of groups specializing as experts in each of the fields for which

chemical service units were being trained provided a partial solution to the

recurrent problem of general versus specialized training of the individual.

A high degree of technical specialization was never a target in the wartime schooling of company grade officers. A captain or lieutenant when assigned, for example, to a smoke generator company ordinarily knew very

little about the technique of smoke production. However, before technical

training under the mobilization training program was started, the company

officers were required to attend a special course on the operation, maintenance, and tactical employment of smoke generators, conducted by the smoke

generator group of the technical training section.

This evening instruction, given while basic unit training was in progress,

continued until the officers were judged competent to undertake the technical

training of the company. Once this was begun the technical group maintained close contact with the unit, observing its progress in field operations

and evaluating its training accomplishments. By the time the company had

completed its technical training, its officers were themselves specialists in this

field.

This general procedure was followed with each type of unit activated

at the Unit Training Center. The principal effort in both replacement and

unit training as already mentioned, was toward the development of general

military effectiveness rather than the creation of a broad base of technical

proficiency. It was the important function of the technical training section
TRAINING OF CHEMICAL UNITS 315

to insure that the technical training phase of mobilization training was adequately handled. In addition to the primary mission of aiding in the technical

training of units, each group of specialists was employed in developing

specialized training programs and in preparing technical manuals and directives.

The functions of the supervisory section of the operations and training

office complemented the training supervision conducted by the regiments

and battalions. Supervision from training center headquarters emphasized

especially the technique of training, while supervision from regimental and

battalion headquarters gave more attention to the orderly expediting of

training programs.

The supervisory section included specialists in training methods who

were required repeatedly to visit units in training, to evaluate training procedures with relation to Army standards set by FM 21-5, and to report their

findings by standardized form to the several interested agencies. These reports were designed to help the unit, and they proved most useful in maintaining satisfactory training standards. The supervisory section was also

responsible for conducting classes of instruction in teaching methods which

all UTC instructors were required to attend.

The schedules section undertook at the beginning of UTC operations to

write the weekly training schedules to be followed by each organization in

accordance with the general provisions of the mobilization training program.

This soon proved to be impracticable; it was in fact undesirable, since it

infringed upon the training responsibility of the unit. Although schedule

writing was soon delegated to the companies, there remained several important functions to be performed by the schedules section of UTC headquarters. The weekly schedules had to be co-ordinated to avoid conflict in

the use of firing ranges, training areas, and other facilities. For this reason

it was necessary to have copies of all training schedules transmitted to the

schedules section well before their effective dates. This section thus became

a steering organization for all training operations at the center. At the same

time the data it accumulated provided the basis for procurement of munitions

and other matériel required in training operations. The schedules section

prepared lesson plans which outlined the instructional approach to be followed in each training period and initiated recommendations for changes in

current mobilization training programs.

The schools section was another busy office of UTC headquarters. It was

charged with the conduct of the specialist school which trained administrative specialists and chemical technicians. The section also made arrangements
316 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

for the attendance of selected trainees as students at specialized courses

conducted by other Army or civilian schools. In short, all training of unit

personnel undertaken away from the unit was channelized through the

schools section.

Activities of the remaining sections of the operations and training office

were indicated by their titles. The training aids section procured or built the

training aids needed by the entire command, stored them, and made them

available when and where needed by the companies. The weapons and

marksmanship section established standard operating procedure for the firing

ranges belonging to the Unit Training Center, supervised their use, and

initiated arrangements for the employment of outside ranges when needed.

The statistics section centralized in one office the preparation of numerous

reports required by higher authority on the progress of unit training. These

statistics, necessary in connection with the general personnel administration

of the Army, also proved to be of considerable value to the center command.

Two additional sections appeared somewhat later to meet special requirements. The POM section (preparation for overseas movement) eventually

checked all details incident to the complicated administrative procedure involved in the preparation of units for overseas movement. The camouflage

school section operated a special training course for instruction in the techniques of camouflage as they applied to the protection of chemical warfare

field establishments.

Although the activities of the operations and training office of necessity

were definitely compartmentalized, it did not prevent close co-operation

between the sections. The preparation of lesson plans by the schedules

section and the examination of teaching methods by the supervisory section

covered much common ground. While units were firing on ranges, supervision of their instruction was largely taken over by the weapons and marksmanship section. The technical training section worked closely with the

schools section in the operation of the specialist schools.

Organization of Units

Organization of the several companies into provisional training battalions

and regiments was dictated by the number of units present for training. By

February 1943 the formation of ten battalions of white and three battalions

of Negro troops was necessary. The First and Second Regiments each included three battalions, and the Third Regiment four battalions of white

troops. The Fourth Regiment comprised three battalions of Negro troops.
TRAINING OF CHEMICAL UNITS 317

This basic organization continued until Camp Sibert was converted into an

ASF training center in April 1944. (Table 12)

TABLE 12—PROVISIONAL ORGANIZATION, CWS UTC, FEBRUARY 1943

Source: CWS UTC, SO 42, 11 Feb 43.

The battalions and regiments were provisional organizations responsible

for the military control of the companies and for certain features of their

training operations. The number and type of companies assigned to battalions

were determined by administrative convenience. Five or six companies usually

constituted one battalion. One type of company predominated in each

battalion.

Four command levels were active within the Unit Training Center: UTC

headquarters, the regiment, the battalion, and the company. Although each

had definitely prescribed responsibilities in the scheme of unit training, the

first three existed solely for the purpose of furthering the efforts of the

company in preparing itself for field operations.
318 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

To the regiment, the center command delegated primary responsibility

for the training management of the companies. Some of these duties were

performed by the regiment. Others were carried out for the regiment by

the battalion, since it was impracticable for the regiment itself to provide

the intimate leadership needed in directing the operation of fifteen to twenty

companies in various stages of mobilization training. For example, the conduct of troop schools was a responsibility of the regiment.37

 In practice the

regiment conducted troop schools for all officers under its command, while

the battalion conducted troop schools for noncommissioned officers assigned

to its companies. Development of proficiency in military administration

within the units was a function of the regiment; supply administration was

checked by the regimental staff, while maintenance of training records was

scrutinized by battalion commanders. The regimental commander had five

principal staff officers: an executive, an adjutant, a supply officer, a motor

transport officer, and a training officer.

The important functions of the battalion in unit training were to insure,

by immediate personal contact with the training companies, that their training needs were met and that their training progress was steady. The battalion

commander observed and weighed the capabilities of the company organization and judged the military effectiveness of the company commander. The

battalion staff included, besides the major commanding, a captain as executive and one lieutenant as training officer. Aside from the conduct of NCO

troop schools, the staff was essentially a supervisory-management agency;

it directed the translation of training directives into training accomplishments.

The company was the pivot for all activities at the Unit Training Center.

From the moment of activation, the company commander was charged with

full exercise of the command of his organization, which included the conduct of all instruction and drills. He usually had an authorized complement

of lieutenants and an experienced cadre of enlisted personnel to assist him

in company training, yet the responsibility was his.

The company headquarters prepared the weekly training schedule which

transformed the generalities of the mobilization training program into a

specific timetable of training activity. The company maintained the training

progress chart, and recorded deviations from scheduled training that had to

be made either individually or by the unit. The company also initiated the

37

 Troop schools are not to be confused with specialists schools, which were conducted by UTC

headquarters staff.
TRAINING OF CHEMICAL UNITS 319

bimonthly training status report which indicated the progress made by the

unit toward completion of its mobilization training. These basic training

records were indispensable to training management, and as such they were

carefully scrutinized by higher echelons of the training command.

Unit Training Facilities

The movement of replacement trainees from their original "tent city"

camp into newly completed barracks, which began late in 1942, opened the

way for the accommodation of unit training at Camp Sibert. Shortly this

bivouac area, which had been developed by the Replacement Training

Center, became available for the housing of units. But it could shelter no

more than five thousand, and in immediate prospect was the unit training

of a much larger body of troops.

Putting the UTC in tents would have been a solution to its housing

problems. But this was not feasible because the units in training were being

filled almost entirely with raw reception center inductees who under existing

War Department policy were entitled to solid shelter while undergoing basic

training. The Chemical Warfare Service therefore proposed, and the War

Department shortly approved, the construction of necessary wooden barracks to accommodate a maximum of ten thousand white and three thousand

Negro troops, together with appropriate administrative and recreational

structures. Until these buildings were erected, the original RTC area was

occupied by the Unit Training Center.

This situation lasted but a few weeks. The UTC construction was pushed

to completion much more rapidly than expected, thanks to the ready availability of labor and materials in the Gadsden area. Competent contractors

were available to handle architectural and engineering details, building construction, roads, and utilities. Though construction was of the short-life

type, the buildings long survived the purpose they were intended to serve.

Weather was the principal impediment. Despite exceptionally heavy rainfall,

the new UTC headquarters was ready for occupancy in December 1942, and

most of the units moved to the new area during the following month. Eighty

percent of the training center construction was completed by February 1943,

the military following close on the heels of the civilian contractors, and

occupying buildings as soon as they were inspected and found acceptable.

The UTC housing scheme was developed on a pattern of regimental

areas, with provision for six regiments. Within these areas, groups of fivecompany battalions were laid out. Seven or eight 34-man barracks were
320 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

allocated to each company, the company group including also mess hall,

orderly and day rooms, and lavatory. Counting chapels, libraries, instructional and administrative buildings, in all 822 structures were authorized for

UTC occupancy, well over half the total number at Camp Sibert.38

Despite the haste in which the Unit Training Center was laid out and

built, it proved to be on the whole an efficient installation. Making the

streets wider than originally planned and strict care in the preservation of

standing trees, both favorite projects of the camp commander, were measures

which added to the pleasant atmosphere of the station. Experience indicated

some features of the UTC layout which needed improvement. The training

areas were too far from the housing area, so that too much time was wasted

in going back and forth. The arrangement of four organizational groups in

each battalion area, a practice which was followed in the Replacement

Training Center, permitted a more convenient arrangement of barracks,

mess halls, and orderly and supply rooms, than was possible under the fiveunit group adopted by the Unit Training Center. Particularly regretted was

the lack of a swimming pool, a much needed recreational facility.

In addition to barracks and administration buildings, the unit training

program called for extensive new instructional facilities to provide for a

training load well over twice that of the RTC. With the appearance of the

new fields, some built by contract and some by training center personnel,

Camp Sibert took on the atmosphere of an efficient instructional institution.

Many of the basic ideas employed were derived from other training agencies.

In this respect the CWS UTC had an advantage by appearing late in the

training picture; it could profit from the mistakes of other centers, reject the

unsuccessful and ineffective, and limit its training facilities to those of

proven worth. A list of these facilities is therefore more than an indication

of the scope of training conducted at the UTC—it is also a record of the

instructional aids which experience proved was most valuable for that

training.

These facilities included four known-distance ranges and three antiaircraft ranges for the .30-caliber rifle, two 1,000-inch ranges for the .22-caliber

rifle and the .30-caliber machine gun, a sub-machine gun range, and an antitank weapon range. There was an obstacle-infiltration course which featured

machine guns firing live ammunition. More advanced facilities were a

"jungle" course with unexpected and unusual targets, an assault range to

38

 (1) CWS History of Tng, Pt. V, Training of Units, p. 42 and App. D therein. (2) Story

of Camp Sibert, p. 25.
TRAINING OF CHEMICAL UNITS 321

teach street fighting, and a combat range for training in the tactics of small

unit operations.

A field fortification area and sanitation, rigging, and camouflage areas

were developed in connection with basic military training. Two regimental

obstacle courses and one "cross-country" course were designed and built by

the Unit Training Center and were extensively used for physical training.

A single large gas chamber was sufficient for the phase of instruction which

covered defense against chemical attack. While the use of ranges and training areas was controlled by UTC headquarters, it was generally the unit

commander who led his organization through these training exercises.

More unusual were those facilities developed for special use in the technical phases of unit training. These included areas devoted to each of the

specialties represented by the seven technical sections of the operations and

training division of the center. Technical instruction was first undertaken in

these areas, followed later by the application of principles in field operations.

Preliminary training of processing companies took place in buildings

which housed impregnating machinery in a semipermanent type of installation; after learning the technique of treating clothing with gas-resistant

chemicals, units continued their training with their own equipment under

field conditions. The depot area contained a typical field depot installation

which illustrated principles of perimeter defense and camouflage protection.

The toxic filling area included storage facilities and equipment for handling

all types of liquid chemicals. In the decontamination area, toxic vesicant

agents were neutralized according to approved methods. The laboratory

setup provided a standard M1 chemical field laboratory for analysis of chemical agents. Air operations classrooms and training areas contained full-scale

models of bomb bays and wing sections of different aircraft so that chemical

air operations companies could be trained in the installation of incendiary

bombs and in the filling and installation of spray tanks. In the maintenance

training shop were gathered all types of machinery used in the maintenance

and repair of CWS material. Technical instruction of smoke generator units

was begun in a special classroom provided with sectionalized models and

other training aids relating to smoke production.39

Although on the whole the various physical adjuncts to training that

were developed and employed at the Unit Training Center were adequate,

the assembly of the necessary matériel and the actual construction of facilities

while training was in progress presented many difficulties. The preparation

39

 CWS History of Tng, Pt. V, Training of Units, pp. 156-60.
322 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

UNIT TRAINING AT CAMP SIBERT. Members of a processing company in field

training remove clothing from predryer unit. This is the first stage in the

processing of clothing for impregnation. Pipes at lower right carry gasresistant solution to impregnator unit.

of a table of basic allowances of training equipment for the center followed

rather than preceded the procurement of the necessary matériel. The task

of procuring what was needed was accomplished only as the result of a great

deal of enterprise on the part of UTC personnel. The various training

facilities were not substantially complete until after the peak of unit training had passed. Their development was not in all cases foreseen or planned

for in advance. Some, such as the sanitation area and the rigging area, were

initiated by individual units and later adopted for general use. Others, like

the jungle course, owed their existence to the perseverance of individual

officers who originated an idea or, having seen it applied elsewhere, insisted

that it be utilized at Camp Sibert. An effective diorama illustrating correct

and incorrect examples of camouflage was devised by the commanding

general of the UTC.
TRAINING OF CHEMICAL UNITS 323

Mobilization Training Programs

The conduct of unit training, like the conduct of replacement training,

hinged upon the mobilization training program. The programs for the

guidance of unit training underwent constant revision during the war. These

revisions were in part a reflection of developing experience gained in training management. They were in part attempts to correct defects which

showed up in operational experience. And they were in part the results of

changes in departmental organization. Some revisions were based on recommendations made by the training center. Others were initiated by the

Military Training Division, ASF, either directly or as a result of War

Department General Staff action.

The earlier chemical unit programs, in both their military and technical

phases, were unilateral productions of the Chemical Warfare Service. After

1943 the CWS prepared only the technical training features, the strictly

military sections being written by the Army Service Forces.40 Thus the later

programs of each technical branch called for identical basic military training

despite wide variations in the types of technical training.

In all, ten mobilization training programs, formally published by the

War Department, were in effect during the war for the direction of chemical

unit training, in addition to a number of tentative or ad interim directives.

These were known as the "dash-two" series of programs.41 Their evolution

may be divided into five stages: programs of eight, thirteen, twenty-six,

seventeen, and six weeks.

The original eight-week program was followed in the training of chemical service units activated at Edgewood Arsenal and elsewhere during the

early stages of hostilities.42

The thirteen-week program, which was in effect when the CWS UTC

was officially established in October 1942, provided a very necessary extension of training time. It included programs to cover the highly specialized

technical instruction of CWS ground and air service units and of smoke

generator units.43

The twenty-six-week program, unlike the earlier programs which assumed

40

 Actually ASF provided a uniform basic training policy in November 1942. 1st Ind, ltr, CG

SOS to C CWS, 18 Nov 42, sub: Uses of Revised MTP 3-2. CWS SPCV 300.7. 41

 The "dash-three" and later the "dash-one" series, under the final scheme of nomenclature,

covered replacement training. 42

 MTP 3-2, 19 Sep 40. 43

 MTP 3-2, 8 Jun 42.
324 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

that units would be filled by replacement center graduates, recognized that

recruit training of the individual soldier would have to be accomplished

within the scope of unit training. The program provided for an initial

thirteen-week period of individual training followed by an additional thirteen weeks devoted to actual unit training.44

The seventeen-week individual training program 45 lengthened by four

weeks the initial thirteen-week cycle of the twenty-six-week program. In so

doing, it allowed more time for basic training of the individual soldier and,

in addition, permitted some expansion of technical training.

Originally the technical instruction of the several types of service companies had tended toward rigid specialization along functional lines, whereas

the need for greater versatility on the part of these troops had become increasingly evident. The seventeen-week program recognized this fact and

made provisions for three stages of technical training: two weeks of elementary technical instruction applicable to all units; six weeks of specialized

technical training in the functions of the particular unit; and, finally, three

weeks of field or applied training. By this arrangement all organizations

were able to acquire some basic knowledge of the functions of all chemical

service units as well as competency in their own specialized functions.

The six-week program was instituted in the summer of 1944, by which

time the activation of new units had slowed to the point that required fillers

could be provided from replacement center trainees.46 It represented another

major change in unit training policy. Given individual soldiers thoroughly

schooled under the exacting replacement training program of 1943, it became

feasible to curtail the period of strictly unit training.

The numerous revisions of training programs made by the War Department considerably complicated the work of training management at Camp

Sibert. Much of the time one group of units would be training under one

program while subsequently activated units would be following a revised

program. The lack of stabilized programing interfered with the systematic

scheduling of unit training as well as with the orderly military administration of the training center. Although there were often sound reasons for

revising programs, the burden of the resulting changes in operating procedures fell heavily on the training center.

44

 MTP 3-2, 15 Mar 43, outlined the individual training program and MTP 3-4, 21 May 43,

prescribed the additional thirteen weeks. 45

 MTP 3-102, n.d. This MTP was in effect for CWS units activated after 25 September 1943. 46

 MTP 3-2, 1 Jul 44.
TRAINING OF CHEMICAL UNITS 325

The revisions were never as radical as mere phraseology of the published

programs would suggest. Changes were introduced gradually and often

were in effect for some time before issuance of the revised program. Under

normal procedure a proposed change would be adopted upon tentative approval, after which a mimeograph issue of a revised program was gotten out

for limited distribution some months before the printed version appeared.

As in the case of many such formal documents, publication of the official

program merely sanctioned a practice already being followed.

It was customary and in fact quite necessary to supplement the formal

mobilization training programs with two types of instructional guides which

became standardized as the subject schedule and the lesson plan. The subject

schedule was a mimeographed sheet, listing the several periods to be devoted

to a single subject under an appropriate program, the subject representing

one "subcourse" of the whole training course. It announced the instructional

objective to be aimed at in this series of periods, and it included general

training notes and a brief description of each training period. The lesson

plan supplemented the subject schedule by providing precise instructions for

the conduct of each scheduled period. It set forth the specific instructional

directive, the text references, training equipment needed, and the training

technique to be followed.

A number of manuals were prepared by the Unit Training Center to

supplement instructional directives and official training literature. These

normally were produced in mimeograph form and sometimes reached considerable proportions. For example, the CWS Soldiers Guide, compiled by

the operations and training office of UTC headquarters and issued to each

trainee as his own copy, was a 260-page pamphlet summarizing both military

and technical instruction.47 Elaborate company guides, comprising one

hundred to two hundred mimeographed pages, were also issued to soldiers

assigned to each type of chemical unit. The need for these unofficial publications lessened as the coverage of official training literature became more

nearly complete.

The Conduct of Instruction

The impressive manner in which units were activated at Camp Sibert

provided the clue to much of the success of later training. The activation

ceremony was staged formally as soon as 90 percent of the organization's

47

 Issue of 10 Oct 43.
326 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

fillers had reached the training center. The exercises were conducted by

the commander of the regiment to which the new company was assigned,

in a park reserved for that purpose. After an invocation by the chaplain, the

activation order was read by the appropriate battalion commander. Then

the colonel of the regiment called up each soldier and presented to him

individually the rifle which symbolized his new status as a member of the

armed forces. This was followed by a brief talk by the commanding general

or, in his absence, by a senior officer designated by him. During the ceremony

suitable music was played by the training center band. After the benediction,

the new unit was marched away to the post theater where its indoctrination

was begun.

A principle impressed upon all new soldiers, even before formal training

began, was that they were primarily fighting men—whether assigned to

service or combat units. This was done in an effort to counteract the natural

tendency of the skilled specialist to assume that his technical ability was

more important to the Army than his combat effectiveness. An illustration

frequently used in this indoctrination was that of the early American who,

when he hoed his corn, had a musket conveniently within reach to repel

attack by hostile Indians; had he not been a competent rifleman, his skill as a

husbandman would have been of little value to him or anyone else. This

theme, the instilling of a fighting spirit in both officers and enlisted men,

was constantly stressed during the entire period of unit training.

The essential tasks of the Unit Training Center were to see that instruction was scheduled in agreement with official training programs and that it

was conducted according to instructional procedures set by the War Department. The center was provided with blueprints to be followed; while these

might be changed from time to time for good and sufficient reasons, they

delineated the bounds of instruction. The management of training operations

was in the hands of the center command and the way this function was

discharged determined, finally, the effectiveness with which units prepared

themselves for active field service.

The officer complement of the CWS Unit Training Center was set at

115; 101 of these were CWS officers and the rest were branch immaterial

officers.48 Assignments to administration and supply duties were limited to

approximately 35 officers; the remaining 80 were employed primarily on

48

 (1) Ltr, AGO to CG, Fourth SC, 18 Nov 42, sub: T/O for CWS UTC. AG SPX 320.2

(10-31-42) PO-M-SPGAO. (2) Branch immaterial officers were officers not assigned to a particular arm or service.
TRAINING OF CHEMICAL UNITS 327

training work. Of these, 28 provided the headquarters training staff and 52

were assigned to the provisional regiments and battalions.

A formal inspection of the center in February 1943 disclosed a number

of difficulties interfering with effective progress in unit training.49 Besides

inclement weather, some uncompleted barracks, and many unfinished ranges,

it was evident that training was being undertaken in too many instances by

inexperienced company officers and that the direction of this training was in

the hands of training center personnel who too often were immature and

uncertain of their duties. Although the full quota of 115 officers was then

available at Camp Sibert, the great majority of these officers were second

lieutenants, mostly recent OCS graduates. The original scheme and functional design of the center were good, but the shortage of experienced

officers was seriously hindering efficient training operations. The dearth of

properly qualified CWS officers in comparison to mounting demands in the

training field showed up more strikingly then than at any other time during

the war. While the assignment of inexperienced company grade officers to

newly activated units was understandable, it was imperative that the center

be provided with mature officers who were capable of assisting and directing

the training work of the companies. This matter was given careful study by

General Porter, who saw to it that a number of additional field grade

officers were shortly assigned to the Unit Training Center. The influence of

better supervisory control was quickly evident. A formal inspection of the

center made in April 1943 showed marked improvement in the conduct of

training and elicited personal commendation from the Director of Military

Training, ASF.50

The rapid and effective handling of the volume of training undertaken

at the CWS Unit Training Center in 1943 required, in addition to competent

directors, a large number of younger officers who were skilled in training

techniques. But the company officers had to know the subject they were to

teach as well as how to teach. Officers with these special qualifications were

extremely scarce. To a considerable degree they had to be developed at the

training center; the device employed was the troop school.

The troop school differed from the service school in that it was an extra

duty project, classes normally being conducted in the evenings. It had the

advantage of imparting instruction that applied to work immediately at

49

 Memo, Col H. M. Woodward, Jr., for Dir of Tng SOS, n.d., sub: Inspection of CWS UTC.

SOS SPTRU 333.1 (CWS). The name indicates the inspection was made 17-19 February 1943. 50

 1st Ind, Memo, Tng Div ASF for C CWS, 24 Apr 43, sub: Inspection of CWS UTC. ASF

SPTRU 333.1 (CWS).
328 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

hand, in contrast to the service school whose instruction was necessarily

more academic. Nevertheless, the troop school system, especially as it had to

be employed at Camp Sibert, exacted a great deal from physically tired

officers whose days were crowded with strenuous duties.

The UTC troop schools were attended by both unit and headquarters

staff officers. They taught what to teach and how to teach. They were conducted principally at the regimental level with classes scheduled five evenings per week. The subject of instructor training, including the use of training aids, was studied by company officers insofar as possible before beginning

mobilization training of the unit. A general refresher program covering the

subjects of basic military training included in the unit training schedules

was then begun, this instruction being pushed to completion in advance of

the unit training to which it pertained. Specialized technical training of

company officers, already discussed, was undertaken while basic military

training of the unit was in progress.

The practice of holding nightly cadre meetings began in August 1943.

These were conducted by the unit commander and attended by company

officers and noncommissioned officers. The meeting began with a critique of

the day's training operations, followed by a discussion of plans and procedures for the next day's work. While this arrangement was found to be

a necessary and important feature of training management, it involved an

excessive amount of overtime duty on the part of trainer personnel.

The Unit Training Center made considerable use of other service schools

for the supplementary instruction of officers and in some cases of enlisted

personnel. Students were sent in increasing numbers to attend courses at

AGF schools as well as the service schools of the several technical branches.

Graduates of such courses were generally employed on staff training duties

at the center.

One phase of training marked by considerable difficulty in the early

stages of unit training at Camp Sibert was getting a suitable proportion of

trainees to qualify in rifle marksmanship. This matter was brought directly

to the attention of the OC CWS by the Army Service Forces when an

analysis of training status reports indicated that as of 1 April 1943 the

percentage of soldiers qualifying as rifle marksmen ranged between a low

of 16 and a high of only 44 percent.51

Weapons training was seriously hampered during 1942 and well into

1943 by uncompleted range construction and by a critical shortage of rifles.

51

 Memo, ASF for C CWS, 19 Apr 43, sub: Rifle Marksmanship Qualification. ASF SPTRU

353.02.
TRAINING OF CHEMICAL UNITS 329

Until 17 December 1942, when the first UTC rifle range was officially

opened, the UTC had to utilize the range facilities of Fort McClellan, thirty

miles away, for this instruction. Gradually the supply of rifles and ammunition improved, although at one time there was no more than forty M1 rifles

available for unit training purposes.

Training in small arms fire as well as all basic military training was

stimulated by the attachment of fifty infantry officers to the CWS Unit

Training Center in March 1943. These young Ft. Benning OCS graduates

soon proved themselves an invaluable addition to the Camp Sibert training

staff. Initially attached for a period of six months, many of them remained

for nine months, during which time UTC standards in rifle and allied

military training steadily improved. By June 1943 the minimum standard

of 80 percent qualification of all men firing the rifle was being consistently

exceeded.

Specialist Training

A principle of unit training recognized in the earliest mobilization training programs was the division of trainees into two categories, basics and

specialists, the latter to be detached during part of the unit training period

for specialized instruction. All units, combat as well as service, placed considerable emphasis on the technical knowledge of the group of specialists

upon whose capability the functioning of the organization as a whole so

largely depended. This development was in fact a concomitant to the growing complexity of modern warfare. Specialists requirements of the several

arms and services were compiled by The Adjutant General from current

tables of organization and were published from time to time as Requirement and Replacement Rates, Military Specialists. Following is a summary

of the distribution per thousand as it stood during 1943:52

52

 Palmer, Wiley, and Keast, Procurement and Training of Ground Combat Troops, Table 1,

p. 8.
330 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Specialist training was limited to the first two categories. The first category

of jobs required training for duties which had no equivalents in American

industry, and the second the adaptation training of men who entered the

Army with occupational experience paralleling jobs listed in CWS tables

of organization. The first of these requirements was the most exacting,

although the number of such jobs in CWS was well below the average for

the Army at large. The second requirement, which involved training for

military assignment of cooks, clerks, truck drivers, laboratory technicians,

and so forth, was slightly above the general Army experience.

In the mobilization training of units it was essential that the initial

requirements of the organization for enlisted specialists be fully satisfied,

although once the unit had passed to operational status it could be expected

to develop many of its own specialist replacements by on-the-job training.

For this reason UTC training of specialists was much heavier in volume

than was specialist training at the Replacement Training Center. The extent

of CWS requirements for specialist training is indicated in Table 13.

Two-thirds of the strength of most chemical service units included men

requiring types of training that were beyond the resources of the newly

organized company. In many cases the soldier brought with him enough

civilian experience to qualify him occupationally under a given specification

serial number, the only training required being in the adaption of his trade

specialty to military duty. It was the partially qualified or the unqualified,

yet likely, trainee who presented the most serious problems to the specialist

schooling system.

Specialist training was concentrated in the weeks devoted to technical

training and was normally completed in time to permit graduates to participate in their units' final training phase of field operations. Some of this

training occupied eight weeks, specifically, the training of clerks, cooks, and

automotive specialists.53 Programs for these courses were prescribed by the

ASF and were uniform for all technical branches.

Specialist training of chemical technicians was left to the discretion of

the CWS and followed programs prepared by the Training Division, OC

CWS. These latter courses of shorter duration were attended during the

final weeks of technical training of the unit. (Table 14) The aim in specialist

training of chemical technicians was primarily to teach the soldier the

military application of skills which he already possessed. In most cases it

53

 The automobile mechanic course of six weeks was normally accompanied by the chauffeur

course of two weeks.
TRAINING OF CHEMICAL UNITS 331

TABLE 13—ENLISTED SPECIALISTS IN EACH CHEMICAL SERVICE TYPE COMPANY,

WORLD WAR II

Source: Tables of Organization, World War II.

was neither possible nor necessary to teach a student a new trade.

In conducting enlisted specialist training, little use was made of the

Chemical Warfare School. Two reasons for this may be adduced. One was

the distance separating Edgewood Arsenal and Camp Sibert. Another and

more compelling reason was the fact that when the Unit Training Center

needed such help most, the Chemical Warfare School had little assistance
332 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

TABLE 14—ENLISTED SPECIALIST SCHOOLING UTILIZED IN CWS UNIT TRAININGa

a

 This list includes only specialist training that was directly relevant to unit training and omits longer courses at Ordnance

and Signal schools to which students were occasionally sent.

Source: Pt. V, Training of Units (Through 30 June 1944), CWS History of Training, App. D.

to offer. The center was therefore obliged to develop its own specialist

school system.

As long as MTP 3-2 provided for eight weeks of unit technical training,

the scheme of accommodating specialist training within this period was

followed. But a gradual slowing down of activations after 1943 permitted a

better solution to the problem, heretofore compromised, of preactivation

training. An outline of the procedure eventually adopted was published in

May 1944.54 The procedure provided for the forecasting of unit activations

well in advance and for the preparing of trained specialists to meet such

anticipated needs. As part of this procedure the Chief, CWS, was directed

to issue regularly to the Unit Training Center, specialist school quotas based

upon predicted activations. Informed as to the number of trainees to attend

designated courses at specified dates, the commanding general of the center

then had the responsibility of selecting suitable specialist trainees to attend

54

 ASF Cir 134, 10 May 44.
TRAINING OF CHEMICAL UNITS 333

the schools, and finally of assigning the graduates to appropriate units as

they were activated.

Within a month after the ASF inaugurated the new procedure, the Chief,

CWS, was directed to revise his unit mobilization program (MTP 3-2) so

that the cycle would be accomplished in six rather than eight weeks.55 The

reduction in time was made possible, the ASF apparently believed, because

of the adoption of the new system of building up groups of specialists in

anticipation of unit needs. In November 1944 a further refinement of the

system was effected when the War Department indicated that specialist

courses would be taken during the last two weeks of basic technical training

of the individual soldier under the replacement training program.56 This

was a final and satisfactory answer to the problem of specialist training, but

it was only put into effect after CWS unit training was substantially completed.

Advanced Training of Units

The CWS UTC was more than a training center—to some extent it was

also a depot at which chemical service companies were held until such time

as operational need for them arose. In normal UTC practice, organizations

were given a standard training course after completion of which they moved

out promptly for assignment to senior tactical organizations. But at Camp

Sibert units were often held for extended periods after completing their

normal unit training schedule—once, in the case of a number of air operations companies, until it was determined that anticipated need for them

would not materialize. During 1943 it was not uncommon for units to spend

more time at Camp Sibert after completing unit training then they had spent

on the unit training cycle. This anomalous situation, brought on largely by

uncertainty over the employment of gas warfare, had evidently not been

foreseen in mobilization planning.

In order to separate regular and advanced unit training, a provisional

advanced training battalion was organized at Camp Sibert in August 1943.

Into this command was transferred companies that had satisfactorily completed prescribed unit training and whose field assignments were deferred.

A special program for the continued training of these organizations was

drawn up in May 1943.57 What the units needed at this particular stage of

55

 Memo, Dir of Mil Tng ASF for C CWS, 3 Jun 44, sub: Revision of Mob Tng Program for

Unit Tng. ASF SPTRR 300.8 (3 Jun 44). 56

 MTP 3-1, 1 Nov 44. 57

 MTP 3-4, 21 May 43, which was revised as MTP 3-10, 1 Oct 44.
334 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

their development was field maneuvering with large commands, yet the time

for such exercises in the zone of interior had largely passed. The advanced

training program was an attempt to fill this need. It included a series of field

problems, any one of which could be terminated when necessary to permit

the units to prepare for overseas duty.

In addition to training at Camp Sibert, a number of organizations were

sent to other stations for practical work while awaiting overseas commitment. The amphibious training of smoke generator companies at Camp

Gordon Johnston, Fla., has already been mentioned; other units were sent

for temporary duty to CWS installations, particularly Edgewood Arsenal,

Md., and Dugway Proving Ground, Utah.

The units benefited from experience gained at stations where technical

work was being conducted. Three types of chemical units were sent from

Camp Sibert to Dugway Proving Ground for what could be called development of operational experience prior to movement overseas. These were

processing, decontamination, and air operations companies. At Dugway

there was considerable work to be done in the field of each, work directly

applicable to the kind of technical training they had recently completed.

The clothing impregnation plant, used for treating clothing worn in connection with vesicant gas shoots, was operated by a processing company

when one was available. There was always work to be done relating to decontamination at the proving ground—not only the clearing of areas gassed

in testing operations, but also the measurement of gas concentrations remaining at various postattack stages. Air operations companies found a great

deal of practical work in connection with the servicing of aircraft which

were being used constantly in staging experimental chemical attacks. There

was also a variety of general work in which all units could participate—

spotting for incendiary bombing, firing of chemical mortars and rockets, the

servicing of all types of chemical material. The atmosphere of Dugway was

charged with realism. Chemical troops spending a brief period there after

completion of unit training gained respect for their missions that was often

lacking in other organizations.

Supervision of Training

All levels of command, from the company to ASF headquarters, were

involved in the supervision of unit training. Formal control measures,

designed to evaluate training and to correct deficiences, were instituted by

UTC headquarters, by the service command, by the OC CWS, and by the
TRAINING OF CHEMICAL UNITS 335

Military Training Division of Army Service Forces. These all were geared

to the attainment of a status of readiness for overseas service that would

satisfy representatives of The Inspector General of the Army who had final

responsibility for determing the adequacy of training.

Reports made by officers assigned to UTC headquarters represented spot

checks of specific periods of instruction. Although these frequent checks

were useful in training management, they were more concerned with technique than with over-all progress of training. For control of the latter there

were involved training tests, training reports, and training inspections. The

training test was a device employed by UTC headquarters to check the training progress of units at three specific stages: upon completion of basic

military training; upon completion of basic technical training; and finally

upon completion of the entire mobilization training program. Tests were

conducted by teams designated by UTC or post headquarters. Phases of

training found to be unsatisfactory by these inspection teams had to be

repeated.

Another management control of considerable importance was the training status report. This report was devised by the ASF primarily to provide

data through which to determine the readiness of the unit for overseas

service or for functional employment in the zone of interior.58 As eventually

developed, the report on each unit was prepared twice monthly and finally

upon movement to a staging area. It contained considerable data, including

strength, status of training, and efficiency rating.

By the end of 1942 it became apparent that the training status report,

while a valuable device, could not be depended upon in Washington for

final decision as to a unit's training readiness for overseas movement. In a

directive dated 5 January 1943, the War Department delegated to The

Inspector General responsibility for determining, among other things, the

state of technical training of organizations alerted for overseas duty.59 This

procedure was followed during the remainder of the war. It insured that all

units moving to theaters of operation were suitably trained and equipped;

at the same time the final IG test provided a concrete objective on which

training controls could be focused.

The final formal inspection of unit training activities was a means by

which training progress was directly measured and difficulties brought to

58

 Ltr, Dir of Mil Tng SOS to Chiefs of Supply Services, et al., 28 Jul 42, sub: Unit Training

With the SOS. CWS 353 (7-28-42). 59

 The reasons dictating this policy are discussed in Palmer, Wiley, and Keast, Procurement

and Training of Ground Combat Troops, p. 584.
336 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

light. Policy as to formal inspections was determined by the Army Service

Forces. Inspection missions were kept to a reasonable minimum, the service

command inspecting military training, the OC CWS inspecting technical

features, and the Military Training Division, ASF, periodically sending

representatives to Camp Sibert to check training operations in general.

Chemical Service Unit Training in Retrospect

No justification is needed for the staff policy of initiating the chemical

service units program in 1942. To have delayed further the activation of

chemical troops would have been dangerous in that it could easily have

encouraged the Axis powers, especially Germany, to initiate gas warfare.

The only postwar question that might be raised is whether there was actual

need of so many units.60

Between 1940 and 1944 chemical service unit training passed through a

complete cycle. It began with a mobilization training program that called

for eight weeks of essentially organizational training. This was steadily extended until, by mid-1943, two successive thirteen-week programs were

being followed, the first for individual and the second for organizational

training. Finally in 1944 unit training was cut back to a single six-week

program from which everything but strictly organizational or group training

was eliminated. Although circumstances did not permit the exhaustive testing of this curtailed procedure, available evidence indicates that six weeks

scarcely allowed sufficient time to permit the rounded development of chemical service units to a state of readiness for active field service. The employment of an eight-week unit training cycle would probably have been advisable—the cycle, in short, which was provided for in the prewar unit

training program.

Although it is thus evident that unit training returned in 1944 to approximately the program that was in effect in 1940, it does not follow that the

various changes made in the program were inappropriate or ill-advised. It

would, in theory, have been preferable to limit unit training exclusively to

the molding of military organizations out of duly prepared components and

eliminated from the procedure all excursions into the field of individual

training. Yet the particular circumstances surrounding the mobilization of

chemical troops, together with factors relating to military unpreparedness in

60

 For a discussion of German preparations for chemical warfare see Ochsner, History of

German Chemical Warfare in World War II.
TRAINING OF CHEMICAL UNITS 337

general, combined to force adoption of the procedure that was actually

followed. And on the whole there were certain advantages to that procedure. The combining of basic military with unit training provided in fact

a good working solution to the problem of developing chemical service

organizations for World War II. Even though the companies were mobilized

at relatively late dates, there was still ample time to complete both types of

training at the Unit Training Center and to do so before their presence in

theaters of operation became really important.

There was no opportunity for the CWS to test the scheme in vogue at

the end of the war, under which chemical units were to receive all basic

military training at an ASF training center before being sent to Edgewood

Arsenal for technical training. To have put the plan into effect at the height

of mobilization would have been unfortunate; when it came into force, CWS

training activities in the zone of interior had almost ceased.

The training of chemical units, though adequate in many phases, had

several weak spots. One practice that caused difficulty at the CWS Unit

Training Center was the activating of units before their components were

adequately prepared. It is impossible for an organization to begin its growth

until its cadre, its specialists, and its fillers have all had requisite training.

Much is lost under a system that requires cadre personnel to learn the subjects in which the organization is being trained while unit training is actually

in progress. That the activation of units was often too precipitate is borne

out by the fact that not infrequently new organizations were obliged to wait

for long periods before full quotas of fillers were received. This resulted in

repeated starts being made on training programs with consequent lost

motion and dulling of zest. The activation of new units by the War Department was an exacting and complicated procedure which generally ran

smoothly, yet there were occasions when time could actually have been

gained by deferring mobilization until preactivation preparations were

further advanced.

The operational requirements for greater functional versatility on the

part of chemical service troops brought about eventual changes in training

programs which in the light of full experience might well have been introduced from the first. Unit training was initially too specialized, so that

organizations even came to resent being called upon to perform functions

that normally pertained to another type of organization. For example, a

processing company might be directed to take over and operate a depot;

reluctance to do so was likely to stem from concepts implanted in early unit

training. Later training, in addition to providing some knowledge of the
338 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

functions of other units, sought to inspire willingness to undertake any type

of chemical service operations.

The amount of administrative or nontraining time needed by a unit was

not always considered by planning agencies. After an organization completed its training program and was ordered out, a lapse of four weeks was

required before another unit could begin training in its place. Not less than

two weeks had to be reserved to insure that all men could take advantage of

furlough policies—the five days of furlough granted had to be supplemented

by five days or more of travel time. After the company was again assembled,

one week was spent in final processing by supply, personnel, and inspection

teams to comply with POM instructions. Once the unit cleared the post,

probably three weeks after finishing its training, its place could be taken by

an untrained company. But a full week was required for receiving and

organizing the new company—time which, if not allowed for, had to be

stolen from training schedules.

The cost of the unit training installation at Camp Sibert was heavy. Only

eighteen months elapsed between the completion of the center in October

1943 and its closing in April 1945. Some conception of the cost factors in

volved in military training may be gained by prorating the cost of the center

against the number of chemical companies that trained them. However, there

was never serious criticism of the zone of interior training of chemical

service companies. This training, although costly, served its purpose.
CHAPTER XIV

The Chemical Warfare School

The role of the Chemical Warfare School, like that of all service schools,

was to present essential instruction which could not be given advantageously

within units or in local schools. The World War II military directive governing the school divided such instruction into two clearly defined categories:

(1) the training of CWS personnel for branch duties, and (2) the instruction of "officers of other arms and services of Army, Navy, Marine Corps,

and Coast Guard in tactics and technique of chemical warfare and in protection against chemical attack.1

The importance of the Chemical Warfare School training of branch

personnel was emphasized by the fact that chemical officers and enlisted men

were, with few exceptions, widely scattered in such small elements as to preclude effective general training at local levels. Excellent schools were conducted at Camp Sibert and at the several CWS arsenals, yet this instruction

was for the most part directly related to tasks immediately at hand. It remained for the Edgewood school to attend to the broader aspects of the

individual's military education.

Before the war the Chemical Warfare School had not been actively

engaged in the training of CWS personnel as such. As a result, when full

mobilization began, the school had not developed and tested a series of

courses for this purpose. More than two years elapsed after the declaration

of war before a clear-cut solution to the problem of school training of CWS

officers was reached. Meanwhile, many courses were instituted, employed

for a time, and then discontinued. In this respect the experience of the

Chemical Warfare School paralleled that of the newly established ground

forces schools which, in contrast to the older schools of the statutory

branches, offered a diversity of special courses.

Administration

After the Army reorganization of March 1942, administrative control

1

 AR 350-1300, 14 Jul 42.
340 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

of technical branch schools passed from the General Staff to the Army

Service Forces. Under long-standing procedure, direct operational control

of these schools was in the hands of the chiefs of branches. This arrangement continued under the provisions of a regulation which exempted the

Chemical Warfare School, among others, from corps area supervision and

control.2 When the service command organization was instituted in July

1942, the ASF adopted the policy of decentralizing all training, including

school training, to those commands, and accordingly directed that the CW

School be conducted under the immediate supervision of the Commanding

General, Third Service Command.3 Because of the technical nature of the

instruction, the CWS contended that this procedure was not feasible. The

matter eventually was clarified in May 1943, when the Chemical Warfare

School was designated a Class IV installation.4 For the remainder of the war

period the school was operated by the Chief, CWS, for the Commanding

General, ASF.

For a few months early in 1942 the school fell under local jurisdiction

of the Troops and Training Department of the Chemical Warfare Center.5

Also included in this department were the Replacement Training Center,

Officers Replacement Pool, and the growing number of chemical troop units

stationed at the center. This organizational device permitted all military administration and training to be centralized under the command of a single

officer (brigadier general).

At this time, as for years past, the Edgewood Arsenal commander was

ex officio commandant of the Chemical Warfare School. It was, accordingly,

customary for the assistant commandant to command the school directly and

to delegate to the school executive the academic functions which would

normally be performed by the assistant commandant. This awkward procedure was relieved in September 1942 when the functions of the school

commandant were in effect separated from those of the arsenal commander.6

In October Brig. Gen. Alexander Wilson became the school commandant,

occupying that position until April 1944. The following month, Col.

Maurice E. Barker was returned from combat duty in Italy for assignment

to the school where he served as commandant until after the end of the war.

2

 AR 350-105, 18 Jun 42. 3

 WD GO 35, 22 Jul 42. 4

 ASF Cir 28, 12 May 43. 5

 The Chemical Warfare Center was officially activated in May 1942 to facilitate management

of the diversity of wartime activities centering at Edgewood Arsenal. See above, Chapter VI. 6

 AR 350-110, 1 Sep 42.
THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SCHOOL 341

The main building of the Chemical Warfare School, reconstruction of

which was completed early in 1942, housed the offices of the commandant

and his staff as well as the Commissioned Officer Division of the school.

Officer candidate instruction centered at first in temporary buildings located

near the school proper. This arrangement served for the first six classes; but

rapid expansion thereafter necessitated transfer to the troop area, by the

summer of 1942, of all OCS training activities. A similar sequence occurred

in connection with the schooling of enlisted personnel. This training was

negligible during 1941, except for seven small classes of Coast Guard

ratings whose instruction proceeded without difficulty in the main school

area. The increasing number of enlisted classes conducted in 1942 compelled

the CW School to transfer this training to the troop area of the arsenal close

to where the students were housed. With the transfer of classroom and field

training of both officer candidates and enlisted personnel to the troop area

(a distance of approximately two miles from the main school building) the

commandant reorganized the school into three academic divisions, namely,

Officers, Officer Candidate, and Enlisted.

The development of training facilities for the several divisions of the

school was always hampered by the space limitations of the Edgewood

Arsenal reservation. Lower Gunpowder Neck contained a number of fairly

adequate fields, but competition for them was keen, and use by the school

was strictly limited. The school was therefore obliged to locate some new

training areas, generally in sections not already pre-empted by research and

development or proving ground activities. The gas obstacle course was an

outstanding example of the type of training facility designed and constructed

by the school for its use during the war. Another was the incendiary training

area, in the northeast section of the reservation, where were staged realistic

night demonstrations of the employment of incendiary munitions. For group

instruction, bleachers were provided near field exercise areas. Indoor classrooms for officer training were adequate; eventually these were also provided

in sufficient number to meet the needs of officer candidate and enlisted

classes. The school operated a well-equipped reproduction plant, insuring

an ample supply of instructional materials and training aids. In spite of

space limitations, the school's location at the Chemical Warfare Center was

never a critical handicap—in fact in some respects the site was ideal. Yet

certainly the accomplishment of the school's mission would have been

facilitated if the school could have had more complete control of its operational areas.

The authorized capacity of the Officers Division of the school, which
342 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

originally provided for 50 students, increased first to 200 and then to 500 in

1942 and again to 600 in 1943. A year later, the capacity fell to 500, and on

5 February 1945 this figure dropped to 400. The capacity for enlisted

students in 1942 was 200.7 These maximum capacity quotas were of value

in stabilizing staff and faculty levels and school facilities. Because of wide

variation in the duration of school courses, capacity maximums bore little

relation to the volume of school training. For example, during the fiscal

year 1943 the school graduated 6,699 students, excluding officers candidates,

although the authorized officers' and enlisted capacity during this period

was no more than 800.

Training of CWS Personnel

The two courses unquestionably needed for the general training of CWS

officers were the Basic Course and the Advanced Course. The first was an

introductory course for junior officers. The second was a refresher course

for older officers, partially as qualification for admission to the Command

and General Staff School and partially in preparation for assignment to field

grade duties in the Chemical Warfare Service. Ideal training management

anticipated that all newly commissioned officers would attend the Basic

Course and that a proportion of these officers would later return to the

school for the Advanced Course. This objective, in time, was partially

realized as far as troop officers were concerned. In the case of officers

commissioned from civilian life for technical or procurement duty such

progressive training was by no means general.

A basic course had been included in the school's curriculum for many

years. At the Chemical Warfare School, the term "basic" was traditionally

associated with the training of the unit gas officers of the combat arms. It

was not until January 1942 that the first class for the basic training of CWS

officers was assembled. The course, then of four-week duration, was intended

to provide introductory training for officers newly called to active service,

something the school had been recommending for more than a year. By

then there were many CWS officers on active duty who had not been given

basic training. Detaching these officers to attend school at that stage was a

difficult problem. In recognition of this fact, a distinction was made in the

original Basic Course between general and field training, the latter being

concentrated in the separate Troop Officers Course. Officers graduating from

7

 For capacities for officer candidate training, see below, Chapter XV.
THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SCHOOL 343

the Basic Course who were on technical or procurement duty returned to

their stations, while officers slated for tactical assignment remained at the

school another four weeks for additional training in chemical tactics and

field operations.

Although this integrated scheme of basic and troop training appeared

logical and despite the fact that these courses were spirited and well conducted, actually fewer than 300 officers attended the Basic Course during

the first half of 1942, while only 183 graduated from the Troop Officers

Course. Clearly, little progress was being made toward meeting the mounting

accumulation of officer training problems.

In midsummer 1942 the scheme of separate basic and troop courses was

dropped, and a Combined Basic and Troop Course instituted. The consolidated course as finally approved provided for six weeks of instruction,

a change which meant a lessening by 25 percent of the total length of the

two replaced courses. During the first three weeks of the Basic Troop Course

all students received identical instruction; for the remainder of the course,

the classes were divided into two groups: (1) troop section and (2) nontroop section. Here a clear distinction was made between the tactical and the

nontactical functions of the Chemical Warfare Service. The nontroop section was trained during the second half of the course in such subjects as

principles of procurement, manufacture of war gases, and field supply of

chemical munitions, areas in which precise knowledge on the part of chemical

officers was often lacking.8

Again, as in the case of the separate basic and troop courses, this

apparently logical approach to officer training produced disappointingly

meager results. Only 375 officers graduated from the four classes conducted

during the late summer and fall of 1942. By the end of October, less than

15 percent of the CWS officers on active duty had received formal basic

schooling. Nevertheless, the school dropped the Basic and Troop Course in

October 1942, and basic training did not reappear on the school agenda until

the spring of 1943. Meanwhile two new courses for training CWS officers

were introduced. A series of four short refresher classes provided instruction

for officers with some field experience to bring them up to date on current

progress in chemical warfare tactics and technique. A three-week Command

and Staff Course began at the same time with the object of preparing company grade officers for chemical staff duty with tactical units. While the aim

8

 Class Record, First Chemical Warfare Combined Basic and Troop Officers Course, 3 Jun 42.

For each course conducted at the Chemical Warfare School there was a printed class record which

contained a class roster and schedule of instruction.
344 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

of both courses was the fulfillment of important training requirements,

neither course substituted for the Basic and Troop Course which they had

replaced on the school program.

The elimination of basic training of chemical officers at the school at

this particular time was to some extent a reaction to the increasing output

of the CWS Officer Candidate School. The Officer Candidate Course was

considered to be in the nature of basic training, so that the Basic Course was,

up to this time, intended primarily for non-OCS-graduates. By the spring of

1943 it was becoming evident that the thirteen-week OCS Course was not

turning out an adequately rounded officer—nor was it in fact intended to.

The function of the Officer Candidate School was to transmute a soldier into

a subaltern who, either by experience or further training, would eventually

develop the special know-how needed in the work of a commissioned officer.

Yet opportunities to learn by experience were relatively few in the case of

the CWS subaltern, and OCS graduates were beginning to draw assignments

for which they were inadequately prepared. The answer was to be found in

additional training for these young officers.

One place where need for such training was apparent was in connection

with OCS graduates slated for duty with Army Air Forces. Special instruction to qualify for air duty had been undertaken in a few OCS classes but

it was impossible to cover this field adequately during officer candidate

training. A better answer was the Air Forces Chemical Course, designed

specifically to acquaint CWS officers with the problems they would encounter in service with air commands. This course was approved in February

19143; nineteen classes, graduating 1,022 students, were held during the

next two years.

In line with the trend toward further training of OCS graduates, a

revised Basic Course was returned to the school program in April 1943.9

Patterned after the Basic and Troop Course of 1942, it accommodated both

OCS graduates and junior officers. By eliminating repetition of work covered

in the OCS program, the new Basic Course was held to a four-week cycle.

The classes assigned to this course were divided into two sections—service

and troop. A common schedule prevailed during the first two weeks, after

which each section followed its own schedule. The emphasis throughout was

tactical, the troop section specializing in chemical weapons and the service

section in field logistics. The theory behind the 1943 Basic Course was sound,

but not enough training hours were allotted for the amount of ground to

be covered. 9

 Class Record, Second CWS Basic Course, 24 May-19 June 1943.
THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SCHOOL 345

Resumption of the mobilization of chemical battalions in May 1943 permitted the school to contribute more directly to the training of battalion

officers than had been possible when the first series of battalions was

organized a year earlier. A four-week Battalion Officers' Course, inaugurated

in the summer of 1943, focused instruction on the functions of mortar company officers. The intent was to co-ordinate classes with the activation of

specific battalions, with the designated battalion commander acting as class

commander and thus acquainting himself in advance with the officers who

were to be assigned to his unit.10 Although it was not possible to follow this

plan exactly for all classes, the establishment of the Battalion Officers'

Course did provide an excellent solution to the requirement for qualified

CWS officers for the new battalions. Between the summer of 1943 and the

summer of 1944 eleven classes, totaling 1,229 students, were graduated.

Conclusion of the series of battalion officers classes in the summer of

1944 coincided with the inauguration of a new course designated as the

Combat and Service Course.11 This supplanted the Basic Course referred to

above, and also, in time, the Air Chemical Course. The Combat and Service

Course represented the accumulated experience, both at the school and in

the field, of two and a half years in the basic school training of younger

CWS officers. It extended the range of instruction from the four weeks then

allotted to the Basic Course, to a new high of ten weeks. It was frankly

designed as an extension of the Officer Candidate Course, graduates of

which were, if possible, immediately assigned to the Combat and Service

Course. Upon completion of the latter, company grade officers were presumably qualified for duty with both combat and service units, with field

supply installations, or for assignment to junior staff positions in the Chemical Warfare Service.

Compared to the training of junior officers, the school instruction of field

grade officers was relatively stabilized. The Advanced Course was not

initiated until April 1943, but thereafter it was conducted continuously and

with little change. Duration was four weeks. Probably the most important

accomplishment of this course was the preparation of CWS officers to pursue

the Command and General Staff School courses at Fort Leavenworth. By

midsummer 1945, the Advanced Course had graduated 544 students in 22

classes.

Although the number of chemical officers who received general training

10

 Class Record, First Battalion Officers' Course, 30 August-25 September 1943. 11

 Class Record, First Combat and Service Course, 24 July-30 September 1944.
346 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

at the Chemical Warfare School was relatively small, the school training of

CWS enlisted men was on a still more modest scale. A total of twenty enlisted courses were presented during the war, yet only one was designed for

the general training of chemical noncommissioned officers.12 Early in 1942

a four-week CWS Enlisted Men's Course was approved. This course intended

for instruction of senior NCO's who were assigned to staff sections of major

tactical units and who needed a broader knowledge of CWS procedures

than could be obtained in local training. The course program included

chemical matériel, tactics, and technique; training; military administration;

and clerical subjects. Seven classes were conducted, each averaging seventy

students, the last class terminating 28 November 1942. Since students were

drawn from a wide cross section of military organizations, the influence of

this training was greater than is suggested by the relatively small numbers

involved.

Of the specialist courses for enlisted men, only two were integrated with

chemical unit training. The seven-week Laboratory Course was highly technical; officers as well as enlisted men were trained for duty with chemical

laboratory companies. The Special Mortar Operations Course trained small

groups of enlisted specialists for assignment to the chemical battalions

mobilized in 1943 and 1944. The remainder of the enlisted courses conducted at the Chemical Warfare School were primarily for the instruction

of those outside the Chemical Warfare Service.

Training of Other Arms and Services

At least one out of every three commissioned officers trained at the

Chemical Warfare School came from another arm or service. The number

of students from naval components was greater than the total sent by either

the Army Ground Forces or the Army Air Forces. In the enlisted classes,

outside students definitely outnumbered those from the Chemical Warfare

Service.

Training of students from other branches was essentially specialist training—instruction in some technical phase of protection against gas attack,

in the handling of chemical agents in bulk, in the operation of flame

throwers, or in the duties of unit gas personnel. Some of the specialist

training and the training of unit gas officers and noncommissioned officers

was, by prewar concepts, a local training responsibility and not one to be

12

 Ten of these courses were given to three classes or less.
THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SCHOOL 347

undertaken at the special service school level. But this training developed

during World War II into a major activity of the Chemical Warfare School.

School administrators regarded the Chemical Warfare Center as the best

place for this, training for two reasons. The first was the authoritative instruction available at the Chemical Warfare School. The second was

psychological in nature. Since gas had not been used, field interest in gas

defense training had declined; nevertheless both the War and Navy Departments, in the light of their information on the possibility of gas warfare,

insisted upon maintenance of high standards of gas discipline. Unit gas

defense training was therefore given added prestige by the elevation of

instructor training to the specialist school level. And the more thorough

training available at that level imbued potential unit instructors with an

attitude of realism toward poison gas which was favorably reflected in gas

discipline.

Despite the advantages which the Chemical Warfare School offered, outside agencies depended less and less on the school as the war period

lengthened. Indications of this development are the action of Army Air

Forces in setting up an air chemical school at Barksdale Field, La. (later

transferred to Buckley Field, Colo.), and the establishment of the naval

chemical warfare school at Dugway Proving Ground. These schools were

closer to the technical viewpoints of their arms than was the Chemical

Warfare School.13

The Unit Gas Officers (UGO) Course was the most active wartime

officers course at the Chemical Warfare School, both in number of classes

and in students graduated. This course had been developed and improved

over a long period of time. Originally one class was conducted each year.

The biweekly scheduling of the class, which began early in 1941, was the

first tangible step taken at the Chemical Warfare School in the transition

from peace to war. Thereafter and until the end of hostilities, UGO classes

were conducted almost continuously at the school. The course thus provided

a direct link between the school's prewar and its wartime training operations.

Although it improved with successive presentations, there was little change

in the content of the course.

In the fall of 1942, a sixty-hour course of instruction was outlined for

training unit gas officers in unit or local schools.14 This course was generally

followed in training at division or corps levels. The 60 hours of instruction

13

 (1) Craven and Cate, Men and Planes pp. 650-59. (2) Bernard Baum, Dugway Proving

Ground, pp. 100-102. MS. 14

 FM 21-40, Basic Field Manual: Defense Against Chemical Attack, 7 Sep 42.
348 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

was in contrast to the 176 hours, or 4 weeks of resident instruction, in the

Chemical Warfare School course. The following tabulation of training hours

allotted to the several subjects indicates the differences between the two

courses:

In all, the Chemical Warfare School conducted 45 Unit Gas Officers

classes between February 1941 and August 1945 from which 3,025 students

were graduated. The school organized separate classes for air and ground

force trainees whenever the student load justified it. Because of the comprehensive degree of instruction presented at Edgewood Arsenal, the graduate

of the Chemical Warfare School course, besides emerging as an exceptionally well-trained unit gas officer, was also qualified to conduct varied

chemical warfare training in regiments and battalions.

Paralleling the UGO Course was one for the training of enlisted personnel in specialized duties relating to gas defense in regiments and subordinate units. This training began at the Chemical Warfare School with

the institution of the Noncommissioned Officers Staff Course in November

1942. The staff course supplanted the Enlisted Men's Course for CWS personnel already mentioned; it actually was aimed at two separate instructional

targets—training of CWS enlisted staff personnel and training of gas NCO's.

The NCO Staff Course was never altogether satisfactory and was soon replaced by the Gas Noncommissioned Officers Course, the first class of the

latter series commencing 13 April 1943. No attempt was made to train CWS

personnel as such in the latter four-week course, although where classes

included sizable numbers of chemical enlisted men, these students were

occasionally kept at the school for a fifth week to receive special branch

instruction. Navy, Marine, and Coast Guard enlisted men came to Edgewood

in considerable numbers to attend the Gas NCO Course and in some cases

they were grouped into special classes which emphasized naval aspects of

gas protection. The school continued gas NCO classes without interruption
THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SCHOOL 349

until after the cessation of hostilities. These represented the most important

training activity of the Enlisted Division of the Chemical Warfare School.

By the end of the war 50 classes were held, and 4,086 students graduated

from the Gas NCO Course.

Allied to the unit gas course, but much more technical in nature, was

the Medical Officers Course. Military physicians had studied the medical

aspects of chemical warfare exhaustively through the 1920's and 1930's.

When war began the Medical Department was, from the standpoint of

scientific data, well prepared to cope with the special problems of gas warfare. But professional knowledge on this subject was by no means general,

since medical practice provided little experience to guide physicians in the

diagnosis and prognosis of gas casualties. Yet, an understanding of the

proper treatment of such cases promised unusually good dividends in terms

of lessened fatalities and early recoveries.

The Surgeon General of the Army requested, during the summer of

1942, that a course be conducted at the Chemical Warfare School for the

instruction of medical officers in the therapy of gassed casualties. The War

Department quickly approved the proposal and the first class began 7

September 1942. Originally a four-week course, the time was cut to two

weeks after seven classes graduated. This reduction was found to be too

drastic, so that the course was finally stabilized at three weeks, a period

which proved to be a satisfactory compromise between the amount of material to be taught and the time which the officer students could be spared

from field assignments.

The Medical Officers Course was a joint CWS-Medical Corps project.

Staff instructors taught such subjects as chemical agents, operations, matériel,

and protection, where these involved medical aspects. Experienced physicians

presented from the school platform all professional medical subject dealing

with gas casualties, e.g., physiopathology, symptoms, treatment, and medical

service. The splendid facilities of the medical research laboratory at the

Chemical Warfare Center were an important factor in this instructional

program. Twenty-seven medical officers' classes were held and 1,973 trainees

graduated. These scientifically trained physicians, who eventually became

scattered through all elements of the armed forces, represented an important

feature of the over-all scheme for defense against enemy gas attack.

The Navy steadily used the Chemical Warfare School facilities throughout the entire war period. Notable in this connection was a consistent trend

to widen the scope of instruction and to increase the number of naval

students. The naval detachment at Edgewood Arsenal was greatly ex-
350 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

paneled during the war years, partially in order to facilitate this training.

The naval detachment was headed by Captain Michael A. Leahy, USN,

Retired, an officer of broad experience whose knowledge of naval procedures

and personalities was invaluable to the school.

There were three all-Navy courses of instruction at the Chemical Warfare School when the war ended.15

 The most important of these was the

four-week Navy and Coast Guard Officers Course. This was an outgrowth

of the semiannual Navy Course which had been a regular feature of the

curriculum for many years prior to the war. It stressed defense of Navy and

Coast Guard units and shore stations against chemical attack, the offensive

use of chemical weapons by naval forces, and the training of instructors in

this field. As finally developed, this course consolidated separate courses

which had previously been presented to Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast

Guard officers.

The Navy Gas Officers and the Navy Gas Enlisted Courses, each of six

days' duration, were not comprehensive. These short courses were limited

to technical training in protection against war gases, with particular attention to naval protective matériel and protective measures and decontamination procedures afloat. Where more extended instruction of this type was

desirable for Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard enlisted personnel, the

students were assigned to the NCO Course after April 1943 instead of the

special four-week classes.

Other Navy instruction included a series of eleven classes conducted in

1942 for training of petty officers in gas mask repair and a Navy Toxic Gas

Handlers Course instituted early in 1943 to permit the practical training of

both officers and enlisted men in handling bulk chemicals. The latter was

eventually consolidated with the Toxic Gas Handlers Course which provided

three weeks of training in this special technique for both Army and Navy

students. In all of this work at the Chemical Warfare School, the object of

naval instruction was to complement and further the Navy's own extensive

training program in the field of chemical warfare.

Like the training of Navy personnel, the instruction at the Chemical

Warfare School for the Army Air Forces had roots extending into the prewar era. The training of unit gas officers for duty with AAF commands was

accomplished principally through the fifteen special UGO (Aviation)

classes conducted between January 1941 and February 1943. Through this

program, the AAF was able to implement its widespread scheme of training

15

 ASF Manual M3, 18 Nov 44 and C1, 14 Apr 45.
THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SCHOOL 351

in defense against enemy gas attack. After the conclusion of this series, the

diminishing number of AAF students were included in the regular UGO

classes. The instruction of air enlisted personnel was limited to the training

of gas NCO's.

Academic Procedures

Variations in the size of classes at the Chemical Warfare School presented

a continuing problem in training management. Difficulties arose especially

from fluctuations in student enrollments for succeeding classes of the same

course. The range of these fluctuations in some cases was great, as is

indicated by the following figures:

One reason for such variations in the size of classes stemmed from the

general policy of leaving service school training optional with units. Where

schooling was undertaken at the specific request of an agency competent to

select and order students to Edgewood, classes were generally uniform in

size. This was true, for example, of the Medical Officers Course and of the

Navy and Coast Guard Course. On the other hand, when school quotas were

distributed subject to acceptance by local commanders, fluctuations were inevitable. Certainly, where the training of unit gas personnel was concerned,

only the unit commander could decide whether attendance at a special

service school was necessary, a situation which of course made almost impossible an even flow of students.

Prewar academic procedures at the Chemical Warfare School had been

adjusted to classes of approximately fifty students. For most indoor instruction, groups much in excess of this number presented a problem because of

classroom limitations. Consequently it was often necessary to divide large

classes into two or even three sections for classroom work, with the sections

uniting for outdoor exercise.

Teaching procedures followed the War Department policy and the

school developed a library of lesson plans to implement that policy.16 These

16

 WD policy was defined in FM 21-5, Basic Field Manual, Military Training, 16 Jul 41, and

TM 21-50, Army Instruction, 19 Apr 43.
352 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

plans as well as the actual methods of instruction were constantly subject

to review and appraisal by the various Army inspectors. The library of

lesson plans developed by the school faculty to supply this policy was a

major factor in enabling the school to expand its training operations rapidly

after the declaration of war.

A criticism repeatedly directed at the school by officers conducting formal

inspections of training was against excessive use of the lecture method in

the explanation phase of instruction. This practice was gradually discontinued until instructors, probably to too great an extent, were avoiding the

use of this useful teaching method. The officially approved conference

method of explanation, involving active student participation, was difficult

to apply in large classes and was scarcely effective for some types of school

instruction. The trend of training procedure was definitely away from the

academic and toward more out-of-door work involving demonstrations and

group performance of practical problems, even though individual preparation for such exercises was not always perfect. Toward the end of the war

an average of 60 percent of a normal fifty-hour training week consisted of

outdoor instruction.

Inspectors noted a lack of uniform supervisory control in all academic

divisions during the period of transition of the school into a three dimensional institution. This situation was probably a consequence of the fact that

the rapid expansion of school capacity, though inevitable, was late. In the

rush to develop instructors, the creation of an appropriate supervisory staff

was neglected; yet, such a staff was necessary to insure the extension to

other divisions of the excellent instructional methods which the Officers

Division of the school had developed. The condition improved with time

although the instructional standards of the Enlisted Division never seemed

to equal those of the other two divisions.

The building block of each course of instruction was the lesson. A group

of lessons composed a subcourse. A group of subcourses in turn constituted

a course.

Lesson planning required, first, a decision as to the scope of the single

lesson within the pattern of the subcourse. The next step was to determine

the method best suited to that particular unit of the instructional process—

lecture, conference, demonstration, or field problem. In the lesson plan such

miscellaneous notes as text references, location of exercise, training aids required, and other data useful to succeeding instructors could then be

included.

Course planning involved a synthesis of subcourses, each modified to
THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SCHOOL 353

conform to the objective and scope of the particular course. The subcourses

included in the curriculum of the Chemical Warfare School were essentially

seven: Agents, Protection, Matériel, Field Operations, Training, Weather,

and General Subjects. These subcourses had been taught at the school for

many years. Occasionally it was necessary to stretch the meaning of words to

accommodate all wartime schooling within this pattern of subcourses although on the whole it served well enough.

The examination step of the instructional procedure was informal when

applied to the separate lesson but formal when applied to the subcourse.

The questioning of individual students from the platform was principally an

interest-sustaining device. Informal quizzes were useful in evaluating instructional procedures as well as the student's progress. Graded problems were

also considered in rating the individual. The formal written examination

was generally used to determine how well the student had assimilated the

instruction pertaining to each subcourse—it was the criterion for graduation.

The Faculty Board met before the graduation of each class to consider

the work of individual students. The board included the commandant or

assistant commandant, director of the appropriate academic division, the

course director, the instructors principally concerned, and the school secretary. Frequently the board was expected to assay the qualifications of CWS

officers for particular types of duty or for more extended military training,

in addition to determining their elegibility for graduation. When records

indicated an average of seventy or above on written work, if the student was

otherwise qualified, he was voted a certificate of satisfactory completion of

the course. If work in any one subcourse fell below the required standard

and the work could not be made up, this subcourse was red-lined from the

certificate. When there was a failure in more than one subcourse, the Faculty

Board determined whether under Army Regulations the student should be

graduated or not.17 This procedure applied both to the Officers Division,

where failures were 3.5 percent of all enrollees, and to the Enlisted Division,

where failures averaged 3 percent.18

Western Chemical Warfare School

The West Coast Chemical Warfare School, as indicated, was established

at Camp Beale, Calif., in December 1943 and was transferred to Rocky

17

 AR 350 no, 1 Sep 42. 18

 The procedure followed in the Officer Candidate Division for determining eligibility for

graduation is described below, Chapter XV.
354 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Mountain Arsenal in May 1944.19 Before the school opened, instructors were

chosen from among former members of the faculty of the Chemical Warfare

School at Edgewood and the recently deactivated War Department Civilian

Protection Schools at Seattle, Palo Alto, and Los Angeles.20 It was fortunate

that the CWS had access to competent instructors, for the press of administrative duties accompanying the opening of the new school left little

time for close supervision of teachers.21 The authorized courses were:

Unit Gas Officers (4 weeks): Identical with the course standardized at

Edgewood Arsenal.

Gas Noncommissioned Officers (4 weeks): Same course as given at

Edgewood Arsenal.

Navy Gas Course (Officers) (6 days): Defense of naval forces and

shore stations against gas attack; offensive use of chemicals by naval forces.

Navy Gas Course (Enlisted) (3 days): Special duties involved in protection of naval units and stations against gas attack.22

CWS Refresher (10 days): To provide a knowledge of recent developments in chemical warfare and to review the principles of defense against

gas attack; intended primarily for instruction of CW-trained company grade

officers,

CWS Familiarization (10 days): To demonstrate to field and general

officers other than CWS the potentialities of chemical warfare in the Pacific

Ocean areas.

Air Raid Protection (6 days): Air raid protection measures applicable

to military installations and co-ordinated with civilian protection agencies.23

The last three courses were obviously of a precautionary nature to be

given only under circumstances which fortunately failed to materialize. The

remaining courses, two for Army and two for Navy personnel, represented

the real working activities of the school. The orientation of this instruction

was definitely toward the war against Japan.

Academic procedures at the western school were identical with those

developed and practiced at the Chemical Warfare School. The original corps

of instructors were all products of the older school, and relieving officers

19

 See above, Chapter VI. 20

 See above, Chapter X. 21

 Memo, C Fld Tng Br OC CWS for CG ASF, 11 Feb 44, sub: Inspection of West Coast

Chemical School, Camp Beale, Calif. CWS 333. 22

 The length of this course was later extended to six days. 23

 (1) ASF Cir 138, 2 Dec 43. (2) Courses at Rocky Mountain Arsenal were a continuation

of those given at Camp Beale.
THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SCHOOL 355

were generally veterans of the Pacific theaters. Eventually, much of the training was in the hands of instructors with combat experience. The total number

of graduates at Camp Beale and Rocky Mountain was as follows:24

Careful plans were made at the Western Chemical Warfare School in

connection with the redeployment training projected for the final struggle

with Japan. Fortunately, it was possible to discard these plans when the

enemy capitulated in August 1945, and the school was inactivated in

September 1945.25

The Western Chemical Warfare School was an experiment in preparedness which would have paid appreciable dividends had operations in the

final stages of World War II taken a different turn. As it was, experience

in the conduct of this school demonstrated that, given a nice combination of

facilities, training know-how, and proper direction, a gratifying satisfactory

end product of instruction will result. The school was small and its immediate training objectives were modest; yet the success with which it accomplished its mission indicated that, if necessary, it could easily have undertaken a more ambitious program.

Other Schools

As the war progressed, the CWS gained fresh knowledge on the performance of gas agents under a variety of climatic conditions and means of

dispersion, based on scientific data accumulated in tests at chemical warfare

experiment stations in Florida, Panama, and Utah. This development and

testing work necessitated some review of logistical data and, equally important, some retraining of personnel. The empirical nature of some of the

data was such that the CWS cautiously considered the radical revision of

its whole training position in the field of offensive gas warfare. Nevertheless, the War Department was convinced that the new information must

be passed on to officers assigned to drawing up gas warfare plans.

In September 1943, a group of four Navy officers was sent to Dugway

24

 Tabulation of Graduates, Western CW School, 31 Aug 45. 25

 ASF Cir 331, 1 Sep 45.
356 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Proving Ground (Tooele, Utah) to study field trials in progress at that

station in order to work up instructional material on offensive gas warfare

for use within the Navy. Its work gradually expanded until, in November

1943, the group was officially designated as the "U.S. Navy Chemical Warfare Training Unit," with responsibility to the Navy for research and training

in offensive chemical warfare. This unit had two principal functions: (1)

preparation of training literature, including films, and (2) conduct of a

school for the training of Navy aerologists. By agreement with the War

Department, the Navy conducted this training at Dugway Proving Ground.

The emphasis in this training was originally on micrometeorology—that

is, weather conditions at or within a few feet of the earth's surface, the area

in which the antipersonnel effectiveness of gas warfare is ultimately measured. The excellence of Navy instruction in this field soon attracted the

attention of the Army Air Forces, the military agency primarily concerned

with meteorology. At War Department request, the Navy gladly accepted

air officers as students in these classes.

The Navy Chemical Warfare Training Unit was soon pioneering in a

hitherto somewhat neglected field of scientific study, the behavior of chemical agents in the "micromet" zone. It was also utilizing quite advanced

CWS test data, some of which were still experimental, in its teaching. After

observing the progress of this instruction, the Chief, CWS, requested and

the Navy agreed to institute a micrometeorology course for CWS Officers.

Seven such classes were conducted at irregular periods between October

1944 and September 1945, each running for two weeks. The objective of

the course was officially stated as being to train chemical officers in the

planning of gas offensive operations, with full cognizance of micrometeorological conditions. A total of 186 officers received this training.

The instructional material developed in this course was, after the cessation

of hostilities, transferred to the curriculum of the Chemical Warfare School.

Because of apprehension during the latter stages of the war over the

possibility of enemy employment of biological agents, the War Department

decided in 1944 to improve its defensive position in this field. One measure

was the inauguration of a two-week course of instruction in technical

measures of defense against biological attack. This training was computed

by the CWS at Camp Detrick, Md. Five classes were held between February

and July 1944, the attendance being limited to senior and specially qualified

chemical and medical officers and their naval counterparts. The assignment

of graduates to theaters of operation was a means of insuring that chemical

and medical officers could be properly coached in anti-BW procedures
THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SCHOOL 357

should a need to apply them arise. A total of 217 officers was graduated

from this course.26

Accomplishment of School Training

The training accomplishments of the Chemical Warfare schools can be

summarized in the record of 21,673 graduations from the Chemical Warfare

School at Edgewood during the emergency and war periods (Table 15),

TABLE 15—GRADUATES OF THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SCHOOL,

EDGEWOOD ARSENAL, MARYLANDa

a

 Exclusive of OCS Graduates.

Source: Chemical Corps School records.

2,672 graduations from the Western Chemical Warfare School, 388 from

the course at Dugway Proving Ground, and 217 from the course at Camp

Detrick.

Besides the graduation of students, the development of courses represented a major school accomplishment. Forty-six titles designated the

various courses presented at the Edgewood and Dugway schools between

1941 and 1945. Some of these courses met only a short-term training requirement. Others were eventually modified or merged under new titles. There

26

 Cochrane, Biological Warfare Research in the United States, Vol. II, p. 46.
358 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

still remained during the last months of the war the following approved

courses:27

Chemical Warfare Combat and Service (10 weeks): For basic training

of junior CWS officers.

Advanced (5 weeks): For training captains and field grade officers in

chemical operations, staff procedures, and supply functions.

Air Forces Chemical (4 weeks): To qualify CWS officers to perform the

duties of chemical officers with the AAF.

ASF Depot, Phase II (4 weeks): For training CWS officers in supply,

depot, and toxic gas yard operations supplementing the ASF Depot Course

(Phase I), conducted at the Quartermaster School.

CWS Laboratory (7 weeks): To train CWS officers and enlisted men

to carry out technical functions of field laboratory companies.

Toxic Gas Handlers (Officers) (3 weeks): To train officers in all phases

of handling offensive chemical warfare munitions, naval matériel, and bulk

agents.

Medical Department Officers (3 weeks): To train medical officers in

the identification of chemical warfare agents, decontamination, and the

prevention and care of chemical warfare casualties.

Unit Gas Officers (4 weeks) : To train AGF, AAF, and ASF officers other

than CWS in the duties of unit gas officers.

Flame Thrower (2 weeks): To qualify officers and enlisted men to instruct in and supervise the operation and maintenance of flame throwers.

Navy and Coast Guard (4 weeks): To give Naval and Coast Guard

officers practical and theoretical training in chemical warfare.

Navy Gas (Officer) (6 days): To train Naval officers in methods and

recent developments in protection against chemical agents.

CWS Refresher (10 days): A stand-by course for quick retraining of

CWS officers upon commencement of gas warfare.

CWS Familiarization (10 days): To demonstrate to ranking officers the

potentialities of offensive chemical warfare; a stand-by course to be given

in the event of gas warfare.

CWS Officer Candidate (17 weeks): To qualify candidates for commission as second lieutenants, AUS, for duty in the CWS.

Gas Noncommissioned Officers (4 weeks) : To qualify members of AGF,

AAF, ASF, and of Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and WAC, to fulfill

duties of gas NCO's in their units.

27

 ASF Manual M3, 18 Nov 44 and C1, 16 Apr 45.
THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SCHOOL 359

Navy Gas (EM) (6 days): To train Navy enlisted personnel in duties

relative to defense of naval units and shore stations against chemical attack.

Toxic Gas Handlers (2 weeks): To train military and naval service enlisted personnel in the efficient and safe handling of toxic chemicals.

In view of the fact that MTP specialist schooling was offered elsewhere,

the number of Chemical Warfare School courses conducted during the war

was large, if not excessive, for a school of this size. The diversity of background represented by the students was greater than that found in any other

special service school. Since the training facilities of the school were placed

so generally at the disposal of agencies outside Army Service Forces control,

little was done to regulate the flow of students; consequently, the training

load could seldom be anticipated precisely. These factors all combined to

make operation of the Chemical Warfare School a challenging and rewarding undertaking.

Although most CWS officers who filled tactical assignments during the

war received some training at the Chemical Warfare School, those officers

whose principal wartime duties were performed at CWS installations were

in many cases not so fortunate. At best, the school training of CWS personnel was spotty.

The primary reason why training of CWS officers was not begun earlier

and why it was not given to more individuals was the lack of understanding,

both on the part of the school and the Training Division in the Chief's

Office, of the true training mission of the CWS. The early school administration lacked a comprehensive view of the over-all functions of the Chemical

Warfare Service. Because of the school's preoccupation with the tactics and

technique of chemical warfare and with gas defense instruction, it was inclined to overlook the fact that the CWS was primarily a technical and

supply branch. It therefore failed to move aggressively in extending school

training into the fields of procurement, supply, and related activities; and its

faculty was always short of instructors well grounded in such subjects.

The Chief's Office to a considerable extent shared the school's predilection for tactical rather than logistical instruction. At least, it was slow in

correcting or compensating for this obvious tendency on the part of the

school. It was tardy in presenting to other agencies of the Chemical Warfare

Service the importance of school training in facilitating the nontactical functions of the branch. Because of the late date at which the training of CWS

personnel was actively undertaken at the school, it was difficult if not impossible to recover the ground that had been lost during the period of

partial mobilization. Responsibility for this situation rested more with the
360 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

OC CWS than with the school. The essential job of the school was to teach

the students who were sent to it, according to programs of instruction approved by higher authority; it had no responsibility for the selection of

students and it was only partially involved in the initiation of new courses.

A greater degree of prescience in the period when war was foreshadowed

undoubtedly would have simplified the wartime operations of the Chemical

Warfare School and provided for increased effectiveness. These operations

proved to be much more extensive than had been considered likely for a

major war in which toxic chemical agents were not employed. At the same

time the development of the school was not in fullest measure in the direction of meeting the immediate training requirements of the Chemical Warfare Service. What was lacking at the outset was a clear picture of the school

as an integral part of the larger undertaking of CWS wartime training, a

picture which in fact only developed in complete outline as the war progressed. Consequently, false starts were sometimes made and opportunities

were lost which could not be retrieved. The whole record of the school's

wartime accomplishments, however, is impressive, particularly in the field

of protection against chemical attack. Here the impetus of its work extended

to all elements and echelons of the armed forces.
CHAPTER XV

Officer Candidates

OCS Role in Officer Procurement

During World War I the Chemical Warfare Service obtained its officers

either by transfer from other branches or by the direct commissioning of

specially qualified civilians. Prior to World War II a substantial body of

Reserve and National Guard officers had been developed, a group which,

it was recognized, would have to be reinforced in time of emergency by the

temporary commissioning of some technical specialists. While the need for

officer candidate training was appreciated, there was no expectation that

this training would contribute materially to the officer procurement program

in a major war. Actually the CWS Officer Candidate School in World War

II provided a total of 6,413 second lieutenants, many of whom rose to field

grade before the end of hostilities.1

When war was declared, nearly one thousand CWS officers were on

active duty, 90 percent of whom were nonregulars. After Pearl Harbor the

officer procurement curve began to rise more sharply. The officer strength

of the CWS stood at approximately 1,800 when the first OCS class of 20

second lieutenants was commissioned at Edgewood on 4 April 1942. Most

of the officers then on duty were Reservists or men having other military

background. It became clear by this time that other sources would have to

be tapped to provide the large increase of officers required by the expanding

CWS program.

Compared to the number of officers procured from other sources, the

OCS contribution was negligible even in the late summer of 1942, when

CWS officer strength of three thousand included only two hundred OCS

graduates (Chart 11). The rapid rise in OCS output, which began in the

fall of 1942, brought the two lines into approximate balance so that for

the next nine months the increase in officer strength had an almost direct

1

 CWS OCS class records.
CHART 11—CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE OFFICER STRENGTH AND OCS

GRADUATIONS: MAY 1940-JULY 1945

Source: Annual Reports of the Secretary of War, 1940-1941, Appendix A, CWS-OCS Class Records.
OFFICER CANDIDATES 363

relation to OCS graduations; in other words, during this period the Officer

Candidate School was almost the only source from which the Chemical

Warfare Service derived its new officers. When both lines began to level off

toward the end of 1943, total officer strength still exceeded OCS graduations

by approximately three thousand; yet two out of every three CWS officers

had received their commissions at the Officer Candidate School.2

Capacity Targets

The Army's officer candidate program of World War II got under way

in July 1941 with the opening of ten schools.3 Each was under direct control

of the chief of an arm or service. No school was authorized for the training

of CWS officer candidates at this time although provision was made for

CWS soldiers selected as officer candidates to be trained and commissioned

in other branches.4 In August the Chief, CWS, was advised by the War

Department to be prepared to open a small chemical warfare OCS in

January 1942. The War Department confirmed this decision in November

1941, when it increased the number of officer candidate schools from ten to

thirteen and established a total capacity for 3,595 students, of which the

CWS school was allowed a quota of twenty.5

It soon became standard procedure for the War Department to set

quarterly the capacity of each officer candidate school. Using this figure as

a basis, the branch concerned drew up an allocation of vacancies to senior

commands such as armies, corps areas, and replacement training centers.

This allocation was reported to The Adjutant General, who then handled

the distribution of quotas, including those to overseas commands.6 The War

Department thus retained control over the size of the schools. Such centralized control appeared necessary since capacities of the schools were

dictated by requirements for officers which in turn were computed from a

frequently changing troop basis.

This arrangement held until March 1943, when control over officer

candidate enrollment was delegated to the three major commands of the

2

 Although records as to total CWS officers and of OCS graduates are exact, only a rough

estimate is available of the number of OCS graduates transferred to other branches during the war. 3

1939-41 The locatio . Chart 8n. and type of these schools are indicated in Biennial Rpt of the Chief of Staff,

4

 Ltr, AGO to CofS GHQ et al., 30 Aug 41, sub: Officer Candidate Schools. AG 352 (8-23-41)

MT-C-M. 5

 WD Cir 245, 26 Nov 41. 6

 WD Cir 126, 28 Apr 42.
364 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

War Department. After a year of operation under this arrangement the

War Department in March 1944 resumed control over OCS enrollments,

returning to a procedure essentially similar to that which had been in force

initially.7

The Chief, CWS, was advised informally from time to time by the

General Staff as to major changes in OCS capacity foreseen by variations in

the chemical troop basis. The first of several such notifications came shortly

after the declaration of war when the CWS was directed to plan for the

expansion of its officer candidate school to a capacity of 100 "at the earliest

practicable date," with the understanding that further slight increases might

be necessary.8

The latter proved to be an understatement. Four months later, the Chemical Warfare Service was instructed to expand its officer candidate school

to accommodate a total of 1,150 enrollees, this goal to be reached by 1

September 1942.9 Within a few weeks, and while plans were being made

to accomplish this increase, the CWS studied the current troop basis as then

listed for 1942 and computed the CWS officer requirements for 31 December

1942 to be:10

On the basis of these figures, the Chief, CWS, recommended to the War

Department that capacity of its officer candidate school be increased from

the then authorized figure of 1,150 to a new level of 3,068. This recommendation was formally approved in June 1942.11

 By this time the OCS had

produced, in two classes, a total of 46 second lieutenants.

Although this ambitious new objective, equaling a thousand graduates

a month, was officially adopted, it was never attained. The peak of OCS

production came in December, when 895 graduates received commissions.

7

 The variations in operating procedure may be traced in the several revisions of AR 625—5

issued during the war. 8

 Memo, ACofS G-3 for C CWS, 16 Jan 42, sub: Increase in CWS OCS. 0-3/43276. 9

 Ltr, Dir of Tng SOS to C CWS, 16 May 42, sub: OCS. SOS SPTRS 352. 10

 Memo, C CWS for ACofS G-3, 2 Jun 42, sub: Expansion of Chemical Warfare Officer Candidate School. CWS 353/342. For actual strength figures as of December 1942, see Appendix A. 11

 Memo, Deputy Dir of Tng, SOS for C CWS, 9 Jun 42, sub: Expansion of CW OCS. SOS

SPTRS 352 CWS OCS.
OFFICER CANDIDATES 365

But already the trend of enrollments had begun to decline. The situation had

been correctly appreciated two months earlier by the Training Division, OC

CWS, when an analysis was made of the officer candidate procurement

program. This predicted the following officer requirements as of 1 July

1943:12

The CWS therefore had to plan in October 1942 to more than double

its commissioned officer strength during the next nine months. It expected

to obtain 1,400 officers by direct appointment to the then authorized Army

Specialist Corps. A mere handful of ROTC graduates could be counted on.

The remainder of the new officers needed would have to come from the

Officer Candidate School. The Training Division estimated that classes then

in session or scheduled would meet most of this requirement and that after

1 January 1943 the OCS production rate would be greater than needed. The

Chief of the Training Division, therefore, recommended that the school

capacity be reduced to 1,440 students.13 As it turned out, this was still somewhat beyond CWS requirements. Decreasing demand for officers was strikingly reflected by the cutback in authorized capacity to 100 as of 1 July

1943.14

In March 1944 the Chief, CWS, was advised by The Adjutant General

that because of declining requirements the CWS Officer Candidate School

would be closed with graduation of the 28th Class on 8 July 1944. This

action was viewed with misgivings by the CWS. General Porter immediately

submitted a formal recommendation that the school not be closed; that

instead it continue to operate on a stand-by status to accommodate three

12

 (1) Memo, C CWS for Dir of Tng, SOS, 28 Oct 42, sub: Capacity of Chemical Warfare

Officer Candidate School. CWS SPCW 352/1. (2) CWS officer strength of 1 July 1943 was

8,177 thus making this an uncannily accurate forecast. 13

 Memo, Col E. F. Bullene for C CWS, 9 Oct 42, no sub. CWS 352/1-370.2. 14

 Memo, AGO for C CWS, 8 Jun 43, sub: Capacity for Chemical Warfare Service Officer

Candidate School. AG (5 Jun 43) OB-D-SPGAO.
366 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

classes per year of fifty students each.15 Although the CWS was at this time

somewhat overstrength in officers, two good reasons supported this proposal. The requirement for platoon leaders with chemical mortar battalions

was continuous. And immediate need for additional officers was forecast

should gas warfare materialize—a consideration that always influenced

CWS planning. But in spite of these strong arguments against entirely disbanding the efficient OCS organization that had been developed during the

preceding two years, the War Department decided otherwise and directed

that the school be suspended on 8 July.16

This dictum remained in effect for over two months, during which time

only one class (the 28th) was in session at the school. Shortly before the

graduation of this class the War Department changed its mind and revoked

the suspension order.17 The 29th class was accordingly convened on 17 July

1944, and by October four classes were being accommodated with a total

enrollment exceeding 700 students. No further major changes of capacity

were directed until after the cessation of hostilities.

The wide fluctuations which thus characterized top level direction of

CWS officer candidate training had the inevitable effect of confusing the administrative operation of the school.

Facilities

The first OCS classes conducted at Edgewood Arsenal were housed in

newly built structures provided in connection with the Chemical Warfare

School enlargement program of 1941. This arrangement was satisfactory as

long as the OCS enrollment was small. In order to accommodate the greatly

increased student body projected for the summer of 1942, it became necessary

to provide much more extensive facilities than could be made available in

the immediate vicinity of the Chemical Warfare School. The pending transfer of the Replacement Training Center to Alabama provided an answer

to the problems of increased OCS facilities—in fact, the requirement for

OCS training at Edgewood Arsenal was one of the reasons influencing the

War Department decision to relocate the Chemical Warfare Service RTC.

The inadequacies that hampered the training of replacements at Edgewood Arsenal also hindered the training of officer candidates, once the

vacated RTC area was occupied by the Officer Candidate School in the

15

 Ltr, C CWS to CG ASF, 6 Apr 44, sub: CW Officer Candidate School. CWS 353 ASF. 16

 WD Cir 150, 15 Apr 44. 17

 WD Cir 261, 26 Jun 44.
OFFICER CANDIDATES 367

summer of 1942. Lack of sufficient barracks was temporarily met by housing

several hundred officer candidates in tents; yet need for other facilities was

imperative. New temporary construction, authorized by the War Department to meet OCS requirements, and substantially completed by December

1942, included: 8 school buildings, 2 mess halls, 1 administration building,

1 post exchange, 1 supply building, and 17 barracks.18

Although academic and administration buildings for the accommodation

of officer candidates were eventually provided in adequate measure, field

training facilities at the Chemical Warfare Center were never entirely suitable. This was particularly true of ranges for firing of chemical mortars and

for the reconnaissance and occupation of mortar positions. Because competition between the Chemical Warfare Center and Aberdeen Proving Ground

for the use of the limited range areas on Gunpowder Neck was keen, it was

necessary to reschedule a great deal of officer candidate training.

The final location of the Officer Candidate Division at a distance of some

two miles from the Chemical Warfare School proper had the inescapable

effect of lessening intimate supervisory control of officer candidate training

by the school authorities. This minor difficulty might have been avoided had

more integrated planning of OCS facilities been feasible.

Selection of Candidates

One out of every five candidates who entered the CWS Officer Candidate School failed to complete the course. Important among the several

reasons which explain this waste of training effort were defects in the system

of officer candidate selection.

Until the closing months of the war, final selection of students to attend

the course was made by senior field commanders to whom quota allotments

were made by the OC CWS. Criteria for selection were announced by the

War Department. A direct relationship was evident between the caliber of

selectees and the size of quotas. As long as enrollment was limited, there was

little difficulty in obtaining qualified men to meet the quotas. After the

demand for officers rose rapidly in 1942, a less impressive type of officer

candidate began to appear at the school. This was a consequence of War

Department policy probably as much as it was a result of mistakes by

selection boards at Army installations.

Initially, students were required to attend schools of their own arms and

18

 CWS History of Training, Pt. I, Training of Officer Candidates, p. 9.
368 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

services unless they were found particularly qualified for service in another

branch.19 The acute shortage of officers which developed immediately after

the declaration of war necessitated a reversal of this policy. In February

1942, the War Department announced that "it is essential that all schools

be filled to capacity for each course with the most highly qualified applicants,

irrespective of the arm or service of applicants."

 20

 The enlisted strength of

the Chemical Warfare Service was inadequate to provide enough candidates

to fill the quotas that were being set up in the spring of 1942. The classes,

therefore, became crowded with airmen, infantrymen, and soldiers from

other services, mostly men who for one reason or another were unsuccessful

in obtaining admission to officer candidate schools of their own branches.

The emphasis placed by the CWS officer candidate course on chemical

mortar operations proved extremely difficult for men who lacked basic training with chemical organizations, and this accounted for many turnbacks and

eventual separations.

Another factor which in the view of the school authorities interfered

with the selection of more suitable candidates was lack of appreciation by

selecting officers of the necessary qualifications of an officer candidate.

Organization commanders were under constant pressure to fill OCS quotas.

That many men were sent to the Edgewood Arsenal school who were ineligible for other courses appeared evident to the instructional staff.

Action was finally taken by the War Department toward remedying what

had been a source of irritation for two years—the sending of improperly

selected trainees to officer candidate schools. In September 1944 certain

technical branches, including the CWS, were authorized to make final selection of candidates provisionally selected by local commanders.21

 The controlling factor in this action on the part of branch chiefs was the academic

qualification of the applicant, other qualifications having presumably been

passed by field commanders. This promising departure in selection procedure was carefully observed by the Chemical Warfare Service. A board of

three officers was appointed to study the individual records of applicants as

they came in. Only four classes (Nos. 33-36) were enrolled under the new

procedure, so that experience with it was limited. Data relating to these

four classes are of some significance.22

19

 WD Cir 245, 26 Nov 41. 20

 WD Cir 48, 19 Feb 42. 21

 AR 625-5, 12 Sep 44. 22

 Memo, Lt Col Earl A. Shrader for C CWS, 21 Jun 45, sub: Central Selection of Candidates

for CWS OCS. CWS 314.7 Training File. About one third of the candidates were not chosen

under the central selection system, but came from overseas.
OFFICER CANDIDATES 369

The CWS selection board rejected approximately two out of every three

applications presented to it. The result was to limit enrollment in the four

final classes to a total of 253 candidates (not counting turnbacks); these

classes were the smallest that the school had accommodated since the summer

of 1942. This almost drastic action did have the result of cutting losses,

under the system of central selection, to the comparatively favorable figure

of 15.9 percent. Reduction of losses due to academic failure was particularly

notable. Leadership losses, however, now stood in the order of four to one

over academic failures—a proportion much higher than encountered earlier.23

This merely emphasized a fact already recognized—that it is easier to

eliminate potential failures on the academic level than in the field of

leadership.

A small percentage of the officer candidates were Negroes. The records

of these men were in no way distinguishable from those of white students.

The Chemical Warfare Center made no distinction between candidates on

the basis of race with no segregation whatever in the dormitories or the mess

halls. White and Negro students, of course, sat in the same classes.24

Staff and Faculty

Before 1942 the academic organization of the Chemical Warfare School

was based on the type of subject taught rather than on the type of student.

This division of the faculty into groups of technical specialists was logical

since up to that time commissioned officers were almost the only students

attending the school. The introduction of the officer candidate course into

the school curriculum brought about for the first time the development of a

faculty group for a special category of students.

The first class of twenty officer candidates was taught by instructors

assigned to the various technical divisions of the school, and most of whose

specialties were involved to some extent in the OCS course. From the

graduates of the first class, four second lieutenants were selected for detail

as OCS instructors. Subsequent classes provided many more instructors and

tactical officers to meet the rapidly increasing requirements of late 1942. At

the same time older and more experienced instructors were drawn in lesser

numbers from other departments of the school.

The CWS Officer Candidate School was headed by a field officer, usually

23

 Ibid. 24

 These statements are based on interviews with a number of former OCS candidates.
370 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

a lieutenant colonel, who was officially styled Director of the Officer Candidate Division of the Chemical Warfare School.

Training operations were divided among three sections—academic, field

service, and troop command. The academic section handled all technical

instruction. Tactics and basic military instruction were responsibilities of the

field service section. Infantry drill, physical training, mass athletics, and

guard duty were all conducted by the candidates themselves under supervision of tactical officers who were members of the troop command section.

The latter section was also responsible for the military administration of the

corps of candidates.

The three operating sections accounted for all the scheduled and nonscheduled activities of officer candidate training on a simple, well-defined

basis. The activities of the three sections were in turn co-ordinated by an

assistant director in charge of instruction. This officer also was responsible

for the provision of training aids, the preparation of schedules, and the

maintenance of students' grades and ratings. In 1944, the office of the

assistant director in charge of instruction was reorganized as the plans section of the school on a level with the three operating sections without,

however, changing these designated functions.

Since the officer candidate course aimed at two distinct objectives—the

development of military leadership and training in military techniques—

two somewhat distinct types of faculty members were required: the tactical

officer and the technical instructor. Tactical officers were assigned to the

platoons, companies, and battalions into which the corps of candidates was

organized. It was their special function to observe and report on the manner

in which the candidates carried out the various staff assignments incident to

the command of these units. An important duty of the tactical officer was

to detect those disqualifying defects in bearing and personality which, as

"leadership deficiency," accounted for the relief of at least one out of every

five who failed the course. It was the tactical officer more than anyone else

who was responsible for developing the potential leader into a dependable

platoon commander. Thus in a broad sense the tactical officer was an instructor, although he taught less by precept than by example and suggestion.

Tactical officers were usually recruited from promising graduates of recent

OCS classes, the number assigned being directly proportional to the size

of the student body. The able manner in which these newly commissioned

second lieutenants assumed the role of tactical officer appeared to minimize

need for more formal preparation for this important work.

The academic instruction of candidates was in the hands of officers who
OFFICER CANDIDATES 371

for the most part were somewhat older, more experienced as teachers, or

who were otherwise qualified in specialized subjects. Building up this part

of the faculty on the whole presented more of a problem than did selection

of the tactical officers and supervision of their work. Well-qualified teachers

were difficult to obtain and many of the new instructors did not prove adequate. In an effort to improve the situation the school instituted a teacher

training course in November 1942. This course, which was conducted by

two officers experienced in teacher training, was ten hours in length and

was given over a five-day period. It resulted in considerable improvement

in the instruction at the OCS.25

Although the job of forging a competent OCS faculty proceeded at a

fairly rapid pace, progress along these lines could scarcely keep up with

the accelerated growth of the school during the first year of its existence.

The factor of instructor competence was directly related to the curve of

instructor strength. Between June and October 1942 the strength of the

staff and faculty soared from 31 to 215. This rate of expansion definitely

exceeded the rate at which new instructors could be assimilated into the

school staff. It was not until after the peak had been reached and instructor

strength began to recede in the spring of 1943 that the highest standards of

training effectiveness were reached.

A fair picture of the school at the end of December 1942 is afforded by

the report of a training inspection conducted by an infantry officer, Col.

C. L. Irwin.26 At this time, 1,880 officer candidates were in training, the ratio

of instructors to students being 1 to 15.8. Instructors were reported as being

well qualified in their subjects. However, their presentations were not being

adequately supervised, nor was the instructor training program sufficiently

advanced. These were criticisms aimed more particularly at the Chemical

Warfare School than at the Officer Candidate Division of the school. For

some time the OCS had been separated physically from the administrative

headquarters of the Chemical Warfare School and was naturally inclined to

seek emancipation from the academic control of the commandant's staff.

An improved situation was reported following a training inspection of

the Officer Candidate School in June 1943.27 At that time the student body

was down to 470 officer candidates. Ratio of instructors to students was 1

25

 CWS History of Training, Pt. I, Training of Officer Candidates, p. 43. 26

 Memo, C Schools Br for Dir of Tng SOS, 30 Dec 42, sub: Tng Inspection, CWS OCS. SOS

SPTRS 333.1. 27

 Memo, Lt John O. Richardson for C CWS, 21 Jun 43, sub: Inspection of CWS OCS. CWS

SPCVK 331.
372 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

to 3.3, a fact which indicated that faculty reductions had not kept pace with

the shrinking instructional load of the school. However, the instructorstudent relationship was reported as being very satisfactory, largely because

sufficient instructors were available to permit organizing small classes of

from thirty to thirty-five students. Instructors were found to be well qualified.

Instruction was adequately supervised under the general direction of the

assistant commandant, Chemical Warfare School. Training of the faculty

in instructional procedures was well advanced. The pattern of teaching

methods followed in the course indicated real progress in emphasizing applicatory work, as indicated by the following figures:28

Training Program

The officer candidate course emphasized general military rather than

specialist training. It was by no means a satisfactory substitute for a basic

course of instruction in the duties of a technical branch such as the CWS.

But in 1942 the demand for young officers was urgent and immediate. The

time allotted for OCS training was little more than enough to qualify candidates to meet the responsibilities of platoon commanders in modern warfare. Since there was no assurance that once an OCS graduate left the

Chemical Warfare Center he could ever return for more schooling, the

program for officer candidate training had to be drawn up with this in

mind. About two-thirds of the instruction was directed to the duties of

junior combat commanders, which by and large were well covered. The

remaining third of the program was in the nature of basic training in CWS

subjects, the coverage of which was necessarily sketchy.

The primary objective of CWS officer candidate training was, from the

start, the production of combat rather than staff officers. A steady demand

for lieutenants to serve with chemical mortar battalions quickly absorbed

many graduates of the Second to the Eleventh Classes. Once the first phase

of battalion mobilization was completed, increasing numbers of graduates

28

 Ibid.
OFFICER CANDIDATES 373

went to chemical service-type companies. The stress on qualifications for

combat leadership persisted into 1943 when the mobilization of additional

chemical mortar battalions was begun. The requirements of the Army Air

Forces for junior CWS officers were running so heavy in the last half of

1942 that special emphasis was placed on training in aviation subjects for

the Sixth to the Thirteenth Classes. However, the long-range mission of the

OCS course was "to train officer candidates in the basic military subjects

which will qualify them as combat platoon officers."

 29

Focusing of OCS training upon the needs of mortar battalions had both

advantages and disadvantages. Although these units were clearly outside of

the operational control of the Chemical Warfare Service, the provision of

officers to command them was a CWS responsibility which the branch

regarded as of primary importance. If the officer candidate could qualify for

mortar company duty, he was presumed to be potentially capable of succeeding in other assignments. The result of this policy was that the CWS

officer candidate who survived to graduation emerged as primarily a combat

leader even though the proportion of CWS officers who attained combat

duty was relatively small. The concentration of OCS training upon a target

which varied from the norm for CWS officers may have been objectionable

in theory, yet in practice it proved successful.

The prewar plan of the Chemical Warfare Service for officer candidate

training had been written in general terms. If an officer candidate school

were to be operated under the Protective Mobilization Plan, it would be

"established and conducted" by the Chemical Warfare School. Classes of

three-month duration would begin at M-30, M-60, and monthly thereafter.

Each class would have about 150 candidates.30

The length of course as here indicated merely conformed to provisions

of Mobilization Regulations 3-1. The schedule for the first course was thus

developed by the Chemical Warfare School to cover thirteen weeks of instruction. This period of training continued in effect until May 1943, when

the War Department extended the length of all OCS courses to seventeen

weeks.31

The lengthening of the officer candidate course paralleled the extension

of replacement training from thirteen to seventeen weeks, a move also

directed by the War Department during the summer of 1943. The selection

29

 Officer Candidate Div, CW School, Instruction Cir 3, 9 Sep 44. 30

 1940 CWS PMP, Annex 8, 10 Sep 40. AG 381, Mob Plan 1940. 31

 WD Memo S350-29-43, 25 May 43, sub: Extension of Courses at OCS.
374 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

of identical time-cycles for both enlisted and officer candidate training was

somewhat coincidental. The proposal to add four weeks to the OCS course

was initiated by Army Service Forces some time before extension of replacement training was taken under consideration.32

 The idea of lengthening the

course, although opposed by Army Ground Forces, was approved by the

War Department for two special reasons. As was true of replacement training, there was clear need for more emphasis on the strictly military training

of officer candidates. Another weighty consideration at the time was the

question of failures and turnbacks at all officer candidate schools, a matter

which had assumed such proportions by the end of 1942 as to require special

study by The Inspector General. A longer training period, it was argued,

would result in fewer rejects and more graduates.

The seventeen-week program went into effect at Edgewood Arsenal with

the Twenty-sixth Class beginning 5 July 1943. Failures were less in this and

succeeding classes than they had been under the thirteen-week program. This

was due in part to the fact that training quotas by then had dropped and

made possible such a high margin of supply over demand that a more

satisfactory type of candidate was being enrolled. The longer course did permit a desirable elaboration of general military training which was principally

represented by applicatory field exercises. (Table 16)

The Problem of Failures

The officer candidate course differed from all other service school courses

in that the OCS student was constantly subjected to searching personal

scrutiny. The candidate had to satisfy the staff and faculty as to his aptitude

for eventual commissioned rank. At best, the initial selection of candidates

had been provisional; it was the responsibility of the school to determine

finally, as a result of close observation over an extended period of time,

those who actually were qualified, both mentally and physically, to assume

the responsibilities of military leadership. In OCS training the function of

separating the fit from the unfit ranked barely second in importance to the

function of pedagogy.

Under War Department policy, no candidate was relieved from an officer

candidate school before completion of one third of the course, except for

disciplinary action or at his own request.33 During the last two thirds of each

32

 Memo, CG ASF for ACofS G-3, 23 Apr 43, sub: Increase in Length of OC Courses. ASF

SPTRS 352.11. 33

 WD Cir 48, 19 Feb 42.
OFFICER CANDIDATES 375

TABLE 16—HOURS OF SCHEDULED INSTRUCTIONS, CWS OCS

Source: CWS OCS Records.
376 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

course, however, there was a constant weeding out of candidates for failure

to meet the exacting standards of the schools. This process at the CWS

school was fair, it was fully understood by the candidates, and it was impartially administered. The school authorities from the start adopted a firm

stand in resisting pressures from any direction that involved discrimination

for or against any candidate. The success of the school in withstanding

such pressures did much to ease the troublesome question of separations.

Candidates who successfully completed the course were convinced, upon

graduation, that they had won commissions through their own efforts.

For purposes of supervisory control, the course of instruction was

divided into two-week "blocks," with each block given a distinctive initial.

The candidate's work was measured in each of these periods, the yardstick

of measurement differing for academic and for nonacademic progress. Often

the two types of instruction merged to such an extent that it was impossible

to draw a clear line between them. In either case, action leading to dismissal

usually grew out of formal reports on the student's work. The report on

graded papers was a reasonably precise, objective evaluation of academic

progress while the report on nonacademic activity often had to be based

upon the observer's opinion.

Failure in academic subjects was relatively easy to determine. The school

devised a scheme of graduated markings under which a discredit point value

was established for all rated papers falling beneath the passing grade of

seventy. This table was published in mimeograph form and a copy furnished

to each candidate upon enrollment. Whenever accumulated discredit points

in any two-week block exceeded designated limits, the student was called

before the school executive and warned that he was being placed on a

probationary status as to academic deficiency. In many cases this action was

sufficient to spur the candidate to better grades. Where deficiency continued,

the candidate was eventually directed to appear before a board of officers

who considered his case personally. When the established limit for relief

had not been exceeded by more than two discredit points and where the candidate was outstanding in leadership or possessed desirable military experience, the board frequently acted to turn him back to a subsequent class or

even, in exceptional cases, to permit him to continue into the next block on

a probationary status. But, in most instances, separation from the school by

reason of academic failure was automatic when the scale of discredit points

for relief was exceeded.

Among failures attributable to leadership deficiency, the largest number

were rooted in lack of force, aggressiveness, or an unimpressive military
OFFICER CANDIDATES 377

bearing. Physical defects, which showed up more sharply in OCS than in

basic training, were also the direct cause of many failures.

Each time a candidate was observed in a supervisory or command

capacity, such as marching a section to class, or commanding a platoon at

infantry drill or calisthenics, he was graded by his commissioned superiors.

At biweekly intervals these and other ratings based upon military deportment were tabulated. Twice during the course, each candidate was required

to grade every other member of his platoon in military leadership so that

the students' own ratings combined with the ratings of the platoon, company,

and battalion commanders provided an index to the relative standing of each

trainee.34 This system of marking while not perfect did afford a useful guide

in indicating which candidates might be below average in qualities essential

to military command.

Demerits assessed for conduct delinquencies were also taken into consideration in determining a candidate's ability to accommodate himself to

the disciplinary requirements of the course. Delinquencies were grouped

into four classes, each carrying appropriate demerit values. These were

published for the information of candidates in an OCS instruction circular.35

Serious offenses were in most cases brought before an Honor Committee

of the student body which recommended to the director of the Officer

Candidate School whether the offense merited dismissal. Misconduct, however, accounted for only a small number of separations; on the whole the

behavior of officer candidates was exemplary.

When the cumulative class record of the candidate, either academic or

nonacademic, definitely fell below the standard set by the school, appearance

before the Status Board was mandatory. This board consisted of three

officers, at least one being of field grade. The board interviewed the individual, considered the records, and, where deficiency in leadership was involved,

discussed the matter with his platoon commander. The personal impression

made by the candidate upon the board obviously carried considerable weight

in the determination of each case. After the hearing, the Status Board recommended to the commandant, Chemical Warfare School, that the candidate

either be relieved from the course, be turned back to a succeeding class, or in

exceptional cases be continued on probationary status. The action of the commandant on these recommendations was final.

34

 2d Ind, Dir CWS OCS, 15 Jan 43, to CG CW Center, to ltr C Tng Div OC CWS to Comdt

CW School, 5 Jan 43, sub: Dismissal of Officer Candidates. CWS SPCVK 351.242 CW School

1-5-43. 35

 Officer Candidate Div, CW School, Instruction Cir 3, 4 Sep 44.
378 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

There was a relationship, as has been indicated, between the type of

selectee sent to the Officer Candidate School and the size of the student

quotas. In the first six CWS classes, enrolling an average of thirty-six

students, losses from all causes were negligible. The problem of failures

began with the Seventh Class, which had 226 students. It became acute late

in 1942 under the simultaneous impact of two adverse factors—an accentuated demand for officer candidates and an overrapid development of

the instructional staff.

The whole problem of failures was closely studied by the school authorities, especially when (with the Fifteenth Class) losses climbed to the

high figure of 33.4 per cent.36 A survey of failures completed by the school

on 4 August 1943, disclosed a number of interesting facts. Of 5,388 enrollees who had entered the school up to and including the Twenty-second

Class, only 1,420 candidates had a background of CWS experience; and

failures ran consistently higher for men whose basic training had been in

other branches.37 It was notable that the number of Medical Department

soldiers sent to the school was disproportionately high, almost equaling the

number of candidates selected from CWS units. From the case histories

studied at this time it was apparent that:

a) Many candidates came to the school under the misapprehension that

the course was primarily scientific rather than tactical in nature.

b) Many listed the CWS school on their applications as a secondary

choice without having serious interest in chemical warfare.

c) Others filed applications largely because their organization commanders were required to fill OCS quotas.

The high rate of failures experienced late in 1942 and early in 1943

began to fall off in the latter year, after which a generally downward trend

was followed until the end of the war. In the thirty-six OCS classes conducted at the Chemical Warfare Center prior to the cessation of hostilities,

a total of 8,068 candidates were enrolled. Of these, 1,660 were relieved

from the school before graduation.38 Academic failures accounted for 696

dismissals. Resignations, unclassified as to cause, totaled 415. Leadership

deficiencies were directly responsible for 352 separations. Other causes were:

miscellaneous (including physical defects), 144; conduct, 53. Of all OCS

36

 CWS OCS class records. 37

 Ibid.

38

 This figure does not include turnbacks, who were either graduated or dropped in later

classes.
OFFICER CANDIDATES 379

students, 8.6 percent failed for academic reasons, 4.3 percent for leadership

deficiencies, and .7 percent for bad conduct. These percentages were somewhat higher than those in AGF officer candidate schools.39

Although the full implications of the recorded causes of failure of CWS

officer candidates may be subject to some question because of uncertainty as

to the real reasons behind separations by resignation, the figures are clear

enough to indicate a definite preponderance of losses due to academic deficiency and lack of leadership.40

 Another serious cause of failure was the

inability of many candidates to master military tactics and techniques, particularly those relating to chemical warfare.

Losses among trainees returned from overseas garrisons to attend OCS

courses ran higher than among other categories of trainees. This was partly

the result of selecting overseas veterans on the basis of their combat records

rather than their intellectual or educational background. The temptation

was also strong for some enlisted men to utilize an OCS assignment as a

pretext to return to the continental United States without serious intention

of completing the course. Although precautionary instructions in this matter

were issued by the War Department in 1943, the high rate of failures among

overseas candidates at the CWS Officer Candidate School continued until

the end of the war.41 It is doubtful if, on the whole, full use was made by

overseas commands of OCS facilities within the United States, or if, in fact,

such use was feasible. Organizations had been carefully combed for CWS

candidates before they moved overseas. Battlefield promotions were frequent; in the Mediterranean area where casualties among chemical mortar

units were high, this means was frankly adopted in preference to officer

candidate training. In the Southwest Pacific an Officer Candidate School was

operated for the benefit of deserving enlisted men of most arms and services,

including the Chemical Warfare Service. The War Department, seemingly

as a matter of equity to forces overseas, regularly allotted OCS quotas to

theater commanders; yet in the experience of the CWS Officer Candidate

School the training of overseas veterans was scarcely rewarding.

In the record of the Officer Candidate School one sees repeated the

pattern so characteristic of other phases of chemical warfare training. The

39

 (1) CWS OCS class records. (2) Training of Officer Candidates in AGF Special Training

Schools, Historical Section, AGF, Study 31, 1946. 40

 Palmer, Wiley, and Keast, Procurement and Training of Ground Combat Troops, p. 344. 41

 Ltr, TAG to CGs, Overseas Theater & Bases, et al., 31 Mar 43, sub: Trainees Relieved at

Own Request. AG 220.63 (3-18-42) PE-A.
380 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

distinct stages of this pattern are: first, the handicap of a deliberately delayed

start; second, the sudden imposition of a heavy and actually excessive training load; third, limited progress while the load is heaviest toward achieving

satisfactory training standards; and fourth, attainment of a highly satisfactory status of training after the critical stage of mobilization has passed.

A criticism raised by officers intimately concerned with operation of the

CWS Officer Candidate School was the lack of planning as a result of which

unexpectedly heavy loads were suddenly thrust upon the school. This situation was unquestionably disconcerting to those responsible for OCS operation. Such radical capacity changes as have been recorded were easy to

decide upon at high levels of authority, yet they were extremely difficult to

carry out at the operating level. It was not feasible for the CWS to plan in

detail very much in advance because of unpredictable variations in War

Department policy regarding chemical warfare, variations which were so

painfully reflected in the efforts of the Officer Candidate School to keep

abreast of the increasing demands placed upon it during 1942. At the same

time it is clear that in some respects CWS planning for the training of officer

candidates was inadequate. For example, in the four months which followed

the War Department's warning order of August 1941 that the CWS would

inaugurate an officer candidate school, it does not appear that active steps

were taken to provide even the modest facilities which the project then

entailed.

Experience of the Chemical Warfare Service OCS indicates that where

officer candidate training is undertaken as branch schooling rather than as

branch immaterial schooling, it is necessary to observe some relationship

between the size of the branch and the output of the school. At the time the

CWS Officer Candidate School was operating at maximum capacity the

branch was able to provide no more than a quarter of the candidates who

were being enrolled. It was, therefore, not accidental that in this period the

peak of student failures was reached.

The effectiveness of OCS training was influenced by another situation

over which the school had no control. There developed in 1943 a sizable

overproduction of CWS officers. Despite careful estimates of officer requirements, second lieutenants began coming off the OCS production line much

faster than they could be absorbed. The expedient adopted was to put the

surplus OCS graduate in an officers' pool until he was needed for an active

assignment. But to do this—which usually meant spending several months

marking time—had a corroding effect; it dulled the keen edge of zest and

enthusiasm which had been built up by OCS training. Some men, after they
OFFICER CANDIDATES 381

finally drew manning table jobs, were able to recover from the frustrations

of pool assignment. Others were not.

One of the problems never entirely solved in World War II was how to

handle the CWS officer candidate who possessed desirable technical qualifications but who nevertheless lacked aptitude for military leadership in the

degree demanded by OCS standards. Such men, through no fault of their

own, measurably swelled the ranks of rejectees. Many of them compared

favorably with officers who entered the CWS directly from civil life, yet

neither they nor the Army profited from their unfortunate tussle with the

Officer Candidate School. This fact was recognized late in the war, when

the practice was begun of rating OCS graduates according to demonstrated

capacity for either combat or service assignment.
CHAPTER XVI

Chemical Warfare Training

of the Army

The training of the U.S. Army in chemical warfare involved more then

purely defensive training to withstand enemy gas attack. It included, as well,

training in the offensive employment of chemical weapons. Under prevailing

political policy, the United States was to use toxic chemical agents (war

gases) only in retaliation, although once gas warfare was begun by the

enemy, U.S. retaliation was to be energetic. As to the other two types of

chemical munitions—smokes and incendiaries—no such limitation was ever

placed upon their use. The Chemical Warfare Service was intimately concerned with instructing in the defensive and offensive techniques relating to

all three groups of chemical weapons.1

Antigas Training of Air and Ground Units

The training of the U.S. Army to defend itself against an enemy gas

attack was certainly not overlooked before the war. Yet, for reasons described

in preceding chapters, the level of this training in December 1941 could not

be rated as uniformly high.

The status of gas defense training in air and ground force commands at

the outset of hostilities affords an interesting contrast. The training in air

units was reasonably good. In ground units it was poor. In each instance, the

status of training reflected the predilection of the high command.

Air policy on chemical warfare training at the time of the Pearl Harbor

attack called for the training of all individuals and all units of the Army Air

Forces in defense against chemical attack, as well as for the tactical readiness

of combat units for offensive action.2 The instructions were comprehensive 1

 Defensive procedures were outlined in FM 21-40, the tactics and technique of offensive employment in FM 3-5. 2

 This policy was outlined in Air Force Combat Command Memo 50-7 (27 Nov 41), which

was superseded by AAF Regulation 135-11 (27 Jul 42), which was in turn superseded by AAF

Regulation 50-25 (31 Aug 44). Chemical warfare training overseas was prescribed in Chapter 14,

Booklet IV, The Air Force In Theaters of Operation, prepared by Management Control, Hqs AAF,

May 1943.
CHEMICAL WARFARE TRAINING OF THE ARMY 383

and exacting and, appearing over General Arnold's name, they were accepted by all AAF elements at face value. The training directives, in short,

were offshoots of a long established air policy of realism toward chemical

warfare; and while it obviously would have been impossible for the several

tactical air forces to carry out the directives in every detail, they did comply

substantially with the spirit of these instructions. The program itself was

adopted and carried forward by AAF headquarters without special prompting by the War Department. The functions of the Chemical Warfare Service

under this program were to train CWS officers for duty with air units and

to provide special schooling for AAF unit gas personnel.

Elements of the Eighth Air Force arriving in England in the summer of

1942 quickly recognized the grim seriousness with which the Royal Air Force

approached the problems of protecting air establishments from gas attack.

AAF defensive preparations were soon permeated by the same sense of

realism, one which continued to influence AAF attitudes during the course

of hostilities. The air command assumed that in the event of gas warfare,

probably as much as 80 percent of the toxic agents employed in retaliation

would be released from aerial bombs; and it seemed logical to suppose that

the brunt of enemy attack would be against air force bases. Doctrine covering chemical defense of air establishments was set forth in considerable

detail by the War Department in May 1942. The AAF followed this doctrine

in developing protective procedures for the bases it occupied in England and

Northern Ireland and, later, for bases in other theaters.3 Despite the magnitude of the training problems confronting the Army Air Forces, both G-3

and CWS were satisfied that preparations for gas defense of air bases overseas were reasonably adequate.

The situation as to training of ground force units was, as just mentioned,

quite different. Here the high command took but a cursory interest in the

subject, an attitude that was quickly reflected at many subordinate command

posts. The standards announced in official Army publications had little meaning unless they were sympathetically approached at unit levels. And of the

factors affecting gas defense training, the attitude of the commanding officer

was the most influential. If the division commander was interested in this

training, it was encouraged in the regiments and battalions; if not, then

little was accomplished. Next to the unit commander, the chemical officer

was in a position to contribute most to the success of the gas defense

program.4 The combination of an interested commanding general and a

3

 WD Tng Cir 31, 16 May 42. 4

 Chemical officers were assigned to armies, corps, and divisions.
384 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

competent and energetic division chemical officer meant a satisfactory

standard of training and consequently, a good state of gas discipline; but

ground force units for the most part lacked such a combination.

Another factor that had a direct effect on the gas defense training

picture was the over-all status of training of the organization. Until a unit

had acquired some proficiency in the use of its own weapons, there was little

time for such specialties as chemical warfare. Only after a commanding

general had been satisfied that his organizations could acquit themselves well

in their primary missions was he inclined to devote attention to antigas

training.

Changes in War Department Policy

The cue as to emphasis to be placed on protection against chemical

attack in the troop training program came ultimately from the War Department General Staff. For the first time in many years, the War Department

annual training directive in force in 1941 omitted reference to gas defense

training. This omission was no doubt a result of General Marshall's insistence that this particular directive be streamlined and condensed; when it

was written, other features of military training were more retarded and

needed more emphasis than the chemical warfare training program. The

reasons for this change were not made known to Chief, CWS, who was

merely advised that chemical warfare training had been carefully considered

and "purposely omitted."

 5 This move, together with the fact that gas warfare situations were deliberately ruled out of early ground force maneuvers,

was taken to indicate a general lack of interest by higher authorities in this

type of training. As a result, the gas defense training situation for ground

units, which had been fairly good in 1939, had deteriorated by the early

months of 1942 to an all-time low. The Chemical Warfare Service had become most anxious about this matter during the summer of 1941 and was

hopeful that with the perfection of their primary training, the divisions,

corps, and armies would soon be able to give more attention to operations

in situations of gas warfare. But the stepped-up mobilization that followed

the Japanese attack seemed to preclude this possibility.

Although the War Department General Staff declined to interpose in the

issue of gas warfare situations in the 1941 army maneuvers, staff policy

began to change immediately after Pearl Harbor. As a result of the January

1942 War Plans Division study of the use of toxic gases, the AGF agreed to

a more realistic approach to antigas training as well as to the use of smokes 5

 Memo, ACofS G-3 for TAG, 16 Mar 40, sub: WD Tng Directive, 1940-1941. G-3/30000.
CHEMICAL WARFARE TRAINING OF THE ARMY 385

and nontoxic chemicals in future maneuvers. These measures were incorporated in a letter-directive, sent out from General McNair's headquarters

in April 1942, which contained the admission that "recent observation of

ground force units indicates the need of added emphasis on the training of

troops in defense against gas attacks."

 6

The training situation as it existed at the beginning of 1942 required an

explicit War Department statement of policy. The Chemical Warfare Service proposed the issuance of such a statement as one of a number of recommendations made with a view to rectifying the entire chemical warfare position of the U.S. Army.7

 On 15 June 1942, the War Department did publish

a definite directive on gas warfare training.8 This directive was broad enough,

yet explicit enough, to serve throughout the remainder of the war as a toplevel statement of objectives. It called for a degree of perfection in unit as

well as individual training that had not been attempted since the period

before mobilization of the wartime Army. It required the introduction of gas

situations in field exercises and directed that increased attention be given in

all service schools to training in principles and methods of gas defense. If

the directive could be substantially fulfilled, the Chemical Warfare Service

felt, the Army need have no undue fear of gas warfare. It became one of

the training responsibilities of the Chemical Warfare Service to see that War

Department policy as thus expressed was carried out in zone of interior

training.

Revival of Antigas Training

The turning point in gas defense training in World War II may be dated

by the issue of the June 1942 War Department directive for chemical warfare training. Before then some soldiers had been taught, in basic training,

how to wear a gas mask. A few had learned the specialized duties of unit

gas personnel. Yet individual training had not been continuous, the numbers

who had been so trained were insignificant, and the training that was given

had atrophied through disuse. Units had not learned to live and fight in

gassed areas and they had not been taught the offensive employment of

chemical weapons. Almost half of the U.S. Army divisions had been

mobilized and trained before the revised War Department policy calling

for balanced chemical warfare instruction began to take effect. The question

6

 Ltr, AGF to CG Second Army et al., 16 Apr 42, sub: Gas Defense Training. AGF 353/979-

GNTRG. 7

 See above. Chapter III. 8

 Ltr, AGO to CGs AGF et al., 15 Jun 42, sub: CW Tng Directive. AG 353 (6-8-42)

MS-C-M. See Appendix I.
386 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

now to be answered was, could an established training trend be arrested in

mid-channel and its direction reversed?

Actually this was feasible to but a limited degree. Units that had completed mobilization training without consideration of the problems of gas

warfare could only with great difficulty retrace their steps for this purpose.

Divisions moving into theaters of operation unprepared for gas warfare

were obliged to attempt such preparation in conjunction with theater orientation training; this was repeatedly undertaken in Hawaii and in England by

units temporarily in those areas. But for divisions mobilized late in 1942 and

in 1943, the General Staff insisted that protection against gas attack be

woven into their unit training from the start.

In 1943 all divisions were devoting many more hours to chemical warfare training than they had in early 1942.9

 Each division ran a chemical

warfare school where instruction was given to selected commissioned and

noncommissioned officers over a period of three to five days. The subjects

covered included agents, munitions, decontamination, and first aid. The

officers who completed this course of instruction were appointed regimental

and battalion gas officers, and the noncommissioned officers were appointed

gas NCO's. In that capacity they trained their respective units in gas defense.

The chemical officer retained responsibility for seeing that such training was

up to the standards set by the War Department. A feature of gas defense

training throughout the ground forces was the requirement that every man

in every unit pass through the gas chamber. This exercise was always closely

supervised by the division chemical officer and his staff.

By mid-1943 the War Department was attacking the problem of gas

warfare on a global basis. For the theaters, it was setting up standards of

readiness; for the zone of interior, it was insisting that troops preparing for

overseas movement should be trained in defense against gas attack, at least

to a point where no more than maintenance training in this specialty would

be required after they arrived overseas. War Department policy was spelled

out in a radio message from the Chief of Staff to theater commanders on 31

July 1943. This message reiterated the President's announcement on this

subject, made 8 June 1943, and stated that, assuming "our enemies may take

the initiative in the use of gas, it is essential that gas training, discipline,

and equipment in your theater be such that in the event of surprise use of

gas by the enemy, casualties may be reduced and initial retaliation will be 9

 This information is based on interviews and communications between the Historical Office

and some twenty-five former chemical officers. Corps and division retired files for the World War

II period as well as AGF and Chief of Staff files were searched, but little information on chemical

warfare training appeared.
WOMEN LEAVING CWS GAS CHAMBER after instruction in use of gas mask.

Part of lesson is to remove mask before leaving chamber and thereby experience effects of tear gas.
388 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

heavy and prompt."

 10

 Reports were required from all theaters on readiness

for chemical warfare as of 1 January 1944, and periodically thereafter.

The key to the readiness of overseas units to engage in gas warfare was

the state of their gas discipline. The radio directive of July 1943 necessarily

implied that some retraining in the theaters would have to be done before

the degree of readiness called for could be attained. Yet obviously the level

of this training would quickly be reduced by the continued shipment from

the zone of interior of troops inadequately trained for chemical warfare.

This matter was brought directly to the attention of AGF by G-3 in a

memorandum which stated: "It is therefore necessary that the training of

individuals and units being sent to theaters must comply strictly with established standards."11

 The War Department General Staff was determined to

exact more complete compliance with the requirements of the 1942 training

directive, not only by direct contact with AGF headquarters but also through

employment of the Chemical Warfare Service to inspect the progress of gas

defense training.

Service-Wide Inspections

During 1943 and 1944, the activities of the Chemical Warfare Service

in the field of antigas training were aimed at helping the ACofS G-3 in

his effort to develop a better state of preparedness for chemical warfare on

the part of ground units still training in the zone of interior. An important

means to this end was the procedure set up on September 1943 which provided for the technical inspection of troops and installations by representatives of technical services in order to determine the suitability of equipment

and technical training.12

The chiefs of the technical services had two distinct fields of responsibility. Each administered an important procurement and supply agency,

supervision of which was delegated by the War Department to Headquarters, Army Service Forces. At the same time each branch chief was a

technical adviser to the Chief of Staff and/or the Secretary of War in his

special field, the Surgeon General in the field of medicine, the Chemical

Officer in the field of chemical warfare, and so forth. In this latter capacity,

the relationship of the technical branch to the War Department was

naturally direct rather than through the commanding general, ASF. It was

the practice of the Chief of Staff, when circumstances demanded, to curtail 10

 CM-OUT 1553 through 1560, 5 Aug 43. 11

 Memo, AofS G-3 for CG AGF, 4 Oct 43, sub: CW Training. WDGCT 353. 12

 WD Memo W265-1-43, 22 Sep 43, sub: Tech Inspection of Troops and Installations by

Representatives of the Chief of Tech Services of the ASF. AG 333, 27 Aug 43, Case 1.
CHEMICAL WARFARE TRAINING OF THE ARMY 389

formality by dealing directly with the technical branches on important technical matters; this procedure was continually employed for determining the

status of antigas training during the latter period of the war.

A system of inspection visits was worked out by the Chemical Warfare

Service which brought about an improvement, probably as great as possible

under the circumstances, in the gas defense training situation. Inspecting

officers were sent out from the Field Training Branch of the Training Division. OC CWS, which was located in Baltimore. In a period of fifteen

months, these inspectors visited approximately one hundred training and

administrative installations of Air, Ground, and Service Forces, including

unit and replacement training centers, air bases, ports of embarkation, and

training and maneuver areas of field forces. Reports of each inspection were

transmitted quickly to G-3, War Department General Staff, affording that

office a timely picture of the state of gas defense training of units remaining

in the United States. This inspection procedure did more than inform the

staff; it enabled the Chemical Warfare Service to get a clear picture of the

strengths and weaknesses of the chemical defense training program of the

Army, for which it was technically responsible. Before inauguration of the

technical inspections procedure, the rigidity of the three-command organization of the War Department precluded technical branches from gaining

intimate knowledge of the status of their specialties within ground and air

establishments; after 1943, this situation was greatly improved. The fact

that AAF, AGF, or ASF headquarters notified the unit or installation that

the CWS inspection team was acting for the War Department was itself a

spur to better training and accounted for much of the improvement that

was later evident.13

The technical inspections resulted in improved administration of chemical warfare training throughout the Army. Chemical officers were assigned

to AGF replacement training centers to insure more effective individual

training of replacements in protection against chemical attack. The Army

Ground Forces made greater use of the Chemical Warfare School to train

combat personnel as instructors in chemical warfare. The Chemical Warfare

Service sent a dozen junior officers on temporary detail to special troop

sections of corps and armies in an effort to correct chronic weakness in antigas training of nondivisional units. Responsibility of post chemical officers

in the training of nondivisional units was clarified in 1944.14

13

 Reports of inspections by CWS and AGF officers on all aspects of training including chemical

warfare are in AGF Cml Sec file, 353.02, Rpt of Visits. 14

 WD Cir 237, 12 Jun 44.
390 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Although these measures were helpful, gas defense training remained

inadequate. In a report to the Deputy Chief of Staff as late as March 1944,

ACofS G-3 (Maj. Gen. Ray E. Porter) stated:

As a result of several reports from overseas theaters indicating a deficiency in

chemical warfare training, the Army Ground Forces were directed to include chemical

phases in all maneuvers of divisions and larger units. ... It is the opinion of this

division that chemical warfare training in the Army has not yet reached a satisfactory

standard. . . . The division will continue to pay particular attention to the progress

of chemical warfare training.15

This judgment was made at a time when full-dress rehearsals were being

staged for the invasion of Europe and when American offensives already

were beginning to roll in the Central and Southwest Pacific. A year later the

situation had scarcely improved. A survey of units formally inspected by The

Inspector General during the second quarter of 1945 showed 30 percent to

be deficient in defense against chemical warfare and 35 percent unqualified

in decontamination procedures.16 This was a discouraging picture, coming

at the end of two years of intensive effort to improve the readiness of the

U.S. Army for gas warfare. Despite explicit directives which eventually

were supported by all the pressure that G-3 could bring to bear, the fact

remained that gas defense training during World War II did not attain a

standard satisfactory to the General Staff. The reasons for this situation are

worth considering, since they bear on future training of this type.

Shortcomings in Antigas Training

The apathy with which gas defense training was so often regarded by

the ground forces may have been rooted in a basic conviction that gas, like

the incendiary, had become primarily an air weapon and that its future

employment would be principally strategic rather than tactical. Such views

were frankly held by air units and accounted for much of the vitality that

marked AAF training in chemical warfare throughout the war. Perhaps the

principal reason why AGF preparations for chemical warfare did not more

nearly approach the objectives set by the Staff is the fact that many commanders never did take seriously the prospect of gas attack in ground

combat.

This attitude, prevalent in GHQ in the early days, became even more

15

 Memo, ACofS G-3 for DCofS, 6 Mar 44, sub: Chemical Warfare Training. WDGCT 353. 16

 Rpt, Tng Div OC CWS, 19 May 45, sub: Rpt of Inspections and Findings of the Field Br.

CWS 314.7 Tng File. This report contains a detailed analysis of CWS training inspections made

under reference cited in Note 12, above.
CHEMICAL WARFARE TRAINING OF THE ARMY 391

pronounced as the war drew on toward its end. Among the field forces

there continued to persist a widespread belief that such comprehensive

training as the General Staff demanded was not required. According to the

nature and habit of soldiers, this negative attitude, while never openly expressed, still effectively prevented the breath of life from fully entering the

antigas training program.

Actually the gas defense program as set down on paper proved to be

more comprehensive than circumstances demanded. It undertook to cover

more ground than was feasible in view of the psychological factors involved.

Until poison gas was really in the air, it was clear that troops would go so

far and no farther in energizing protective measures. This fact emerges from

an analysis of reports of inspections of gas defense training made by the

Chemical Warfare Service during the latter stages of the war.

Notable was a general lack of carefully prepared standard operating

procedures for defense against chemical attack.17 There was little or no

inclination on the part of units to require the occasional wearing of gas

masks at work, in firing weapons, or in tactical exercises. Frequent deficiences were reported in methods of decontaminating food, water, and

equipment. In the field of collective protection, defects in training showed

up most clearly, and it was here that the unit commander's attitude was most

influential. If unconvinced of the need for chemical warfare training he

assigned chemical officers and unit gas officers to other duties which precluded their attention to gas defense. In half of the units surveyed, gas

officers and NCO's were not well trained so that instruction was poor. In

many instances there were insufficient local schools for training of instructors; where there were schools, however, the training was either excellent

or superior. Finally, the failure of army and corps chemical officers to make

regular inspections of gas defense training in subordinate units, the inspection reports stated, appeared to be a contributing reason for many unsatisfactory ratings since 27 percent of the units inspected reported never having

been visited by CWS staff officers.18

Other weaknesses were disclosed by these reports which pointed to

defects in the program itself. For example, the basic War Department training guide (FM 21-40) had certain objectionable features. This 271-page

manual was too technical for general training use, and failed to differentiate

between what should be taught the instructor and what the average trainee

17

 This standing operating procedure was prescribed in Appendix III, FM 21-40. 18

 See Note 16, above.
392 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

needed to know about chemical warfare.19 The designation of unit gas

officers and noncommissioned officers by regimental, battalion, and company

commanders was called for in the manual but was not prescribed in appropriate tables of organization. Failure of the War Department to provide

more authentic authorization for unit gas personnel led to endless difficulties.

While some failures in antigas training were thus attributable to indifference on the part of local commanders, some were due to improper

supervision, and others grew out of defects in the gas defense program. All

of these defects would probably have been corrected quickly enough in the

event of gas warfare. The antigas training program of World War II

should be judged in the light of what it actually was—a preparatory rather

than a final defensive scheme. As such, it might be rated as satisfactory.

Much of the time employed in this training was at the expense of other types

of military instruction. If at times the degree of preparedness achieved

appeared excessive to local commanders, it was on the other hand a source

of assurance to high echelons—which were much more sensitive to threats

of hostile gas attack.

Three trends in gas defense training of the U.S. Army during the course

of the war were definite enough to deserve notice. These were:

Simplicity: Elimination of technical and nonessential detail from instructional material employed in basic training.

Concentration: Need for more intensive training of selected specialists,

and less chemical warfare training for the Army as a whole.

Differentiation: Frank recognition of the essential distinction between

training needed before the employment of toxic chemicals and that needed

after a gas warfare phase begins.

In the matter of simplifying instruction, a great deal had been accomplished by the end of hostilities. A move toward simplification of gas

defense training was made possible by the introduction of gas detector kits

and other devices for indicating the presence of toxic chemicals.20 These

lessened the importance that had always been placed on nasal identification

of war gases by the individual soldier, a knack which was particularly

difficult to teach. Another perennial obstacle in training was the old

terminology of toxic agents. This terminology was eventually simplified in

line with British practice of grouping casualty agents into three easy

19

 Some of the objections to the wartime edition of FM 21-40 were eliminated in the postwar

issue of this manual (September 1946). 20

 TM 3-290, 27 Mar 44.
CHEMICAL WARFARE TRAINING OF THE ARMY 393

M9 CHEMICAL DETECTOR KIT. Developed at Edgewood Arsenal in 1944,

the M9 kit was one of several devices

used to determine presence and type of

toxic chemicals.

classifications: blister gases, choking gases, and nerve poisons.21

 The

trend toward more simplified antigas training is tangibly indicated by

the publication of a graphic training aid which reduced to postcard

size a summary of protective measures.22

While the trend during the latter stages of the war was toward

curtailing and streamlining basic instruction in chemical warfare, this

tendency was accompanied by a rising emphasis on the specialized

training of both officers and enlisted men designated as unit gas

personnel. The introduction late in

the war of a gas officer at the company level indicated at once the

continued concern of the War Department in the scheme of gas protection and the need for concentrating instruction in this field.23

Less reliance upon local schools and

greater utilization of service schools

for training of antigas specialists

was evident as the war ended.

Flame, Smoke, and Incendiaries

The need for training troops in the employment of flame weapons arose

largely, although not entirely, from the fact that new flame techniques were

introduced in World War IL The flame thrower of World War I had serious

limitations which restricted its use to very special situations. For this reason

the weapon was not regarded seriously by the CWS and its use was seldom

taught at service schools. But the development of thickened fuel from 1940

on, together with mechanical improvements, markedly increased the military

21

 FM 21-40, C 4, 15 Sep 44. 22

 Graphic Training Aid 3-2 . 23

 FM 21-40, C 5, 1 May 45.
394 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

potential of flame projection and did so at a time when tactical operations

in the Pacific demanded a weapon of this type.

Fuel thickened by napalm and other materials was even more widely

used by tactical air than it was by ground forces, once its value as a filler for

fire bombs had been determined. Training in flame warfare was essentially

technical training in the Army Air Forces; yet with ground forces it had to

be both technical and tactical.

Little flame-thrower training of any kind was undertaken in the Army

until mid-1943 when flame throwers began to be manufactured and distributed on an appreciable scale.24

 While responsible only for the supervision of training in the maintenance and operation of the weapon, the

Chemical Warfare Service also became involved in instruction with respect

to its tactical use. In 1943 a ten-hour course was introduced at Camp Sibert

and given to all replacements. This course covered not only maintenance

and operation but also tactical employment of the flame thrower. Many of

the replacements who took the course were later assigned to infantry units

responsible for the employment of the flame thrower in combat.25

Both the Corps of Engineers and Infantry had a responsibility for the

employment of the flame thrower. Engineer responsibility stemmed from its

mission of demobilizing enemy fortifications, a type of operation in which

flame throwers could play an important role. Instruction on the tactical use

of the flame thrower was included in a three-week course, "Attack on

Fortified Areas," given to field grade officers at the Engineer School, Fort

Belvoir.26

Instruction in maintenance and operation of the flame thrower was

offered in infantry and armored divisions where the commanding generals

showed an interest. In these divisions the chemical officers inaugurated

courses of instruction for gas officers or a limited number of enlisted men

from each company. Generally, the division chemical officer carried on this

instruction on his own initiative, but in certain divisions the commanding

officer of the engineer battalion co-operated closely with the chemical

officer.27

All infantry and armored divisions devoted some time to smoke training

24

 CWS Rpt of Production, 1 Jan through 31 Dec 45, p. 13. 25

 Interv, CmlHO with Maj Clifton O. Duty, 11 May 56. Major Duty was in charge of flame

thrower instruction at Camp Sibert from 1943 to 1945. 26

 (1) Course on Attack of Fortified Areas (TES Z-9). Archives Section, Engineer School,

Fort Belvoir. (2) Interv, CmlHO with Col Ellis O. Davis, 11 Apr 56. Colonel Davis was

chemical officer of 6th Armored and 42d Infantry Divisions in World War II. 27

 Ltr, Col Raymond J. Anderson to CmlHO, 10 May 56. Colonel Anderson was chemical

officer of the 75th Infantry Division in World War II.
CHEMICAL WARFARE TRAINING OF THE ARMY 395

MEDIUM TANK EQUIPPED WITH FLAME THROWER firing on entrance to

enemy cave. Picture taken on Okinawa, 1945.

although the amount of time varied greatly as between divisions. In the

early period of the war the shortage of smoke pots and grenades was a factor

in the lack of emphasis placed on smoke training. But the chief factor, as in

other phases of chemical warfare training, continued to be the attitude of

the individual commander. In some divisions little attention was paid to

smoke training at any time during the war, while in others approximately

as much time was given to this type training after mid-1942 as to gas defense

training.

Training of infantry and armored units in smoke operations emphasized,

first of all, the defensive aspects. The chemical officer, in units where smoke

training was stressed, had each company march through a smoke screen in

order that the men might learn the difficulty of keeping direction. Secondly,

the offensive use of smoke was treated. The chemical officer and his staff

instructed units in the use of smoke pots, grenades, and colored smokes for

marking and signaling. Smoke was employed in battalion exercises and in

army maneuvers.

Because of the shortages in the supply of incendiary bombs, particularly
396 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

in the early period of the war, little stress was laid on training in defense

against this type munition. Most divisions limited their activity to mass

demonstrations. In the few divisions where the supply situation was satisfactory, much more time was devoted to defense against incendiaries. In the

Both Infantry Division, for example, the chemical officer set up a procedure

whereby a number of 4-pound thermite bombs were dropped from trees so

that members of his staff could conduct practical training in putting out fires

and otherwise neutralizing the effects of the bombs.28 In at least one division,

the 75th Infantry Division, each man in each company was trained in the

use of incendiary grenades.29

Corps chemical officers were responsible for evaluating the results of

chemical warfare training in the divisions of their respective corps. In addition, they conducted such training for nondivisional troops throughout the

corps. Generally the corps chemical officer conducted this training in the

same manner in which the division chemical officer trained prospective gas

officers.30 A unique practice was introduced by the chemical officer of IV

Corps, Col. Hugh M. Milton II. In March and April 1942, Colonel Milton

established a traveling school which visited training installations throughout

the corps. Courses of instruction were drawn up with the assistance of

division chemical officers, a number of whom acted as instructors. First to

take the courses was the staff of the corps. This was followed by instruction

of division personnel, which took ten days. The purpose behind this type of

school—it was generally referred to as the "circus"—was to impress the

students right at the start of their divisional training with the importance

of chemical warfare.31

Supervision of training in defense against gas warfare remained the

principal mission of the Chemical Warfare Service so far as training the

Army in chemical warfare was concerned. Next came the supervision of

training in the use of smoke. This was followed, in order of priority, by

training in the use of the flame thrower and defense against the employment of incendiaries.

In summary the effectiveness of training against gas warfare is somewhat

difficult to assay, because this type of warfare was not resorted to during

the war. That this training, as late as March 1944, was not satisfactory, was

28

 Interv, CmlHO with Col John N. Miles, 12 Apr 56. Colonel Miles was formerly chemical

officer of the Both Infantry Division, where he put this procedure into effect. 29

 See Note 27, above. 30

 Interv, CmlHO with Col Timothy Murphy, former chemical officer XI Corps, 23 May 56. 31

 Interv, CmlHO with Hon Hugh M. Milton II, Asst Secy of Army (Manpower and Reserve

Forces), 26 Jun 56. Mr. Milton was chemical officer IV Corps in 1942.
CHEMICAL WARFARE TRAINING OF THE ARMY 397

the conviction of the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-3. That his judgment

appears to have been correct is borne out by the reports of CWS inspectors

as late as 1945. One of the chief reasons behind this lack of preparation was

the attitude of certain ground force commanders who were convinced that

gas warfare was not imminent and who therefore failed to emphasize this

type of training. In all instances commanding generals of divisions assigned

additional duties to chemical officers.

While the attitude of those commanders with regard to gas warfare is

understandable, it is more difficult to understand their attitude toward other

types of chemical warfare—smoke, flame, and incendiaries. There certainly

was no question about the probability of the use of those munitions on the

battlefield. Yet throughout the various ground force divisions there was

anything but uniformity in the amount of time and effort devoted to this

type of training. But perhaps it is possible to censure ground force commanders too severely. Under pressure to conduct training programs of all

kinds the commanding generals naturally had to rely upon the advice of

their chemical officers. And in some instances the chemical officers were not

active enough in "selling" chemical warfare to their commanders.

The training of the Army for gas warfare, conceived of as the primary

training mission of the CWS in the prewar years, unexpectedly became a

secondary mission in World War II. What had loomed in peacetime as a

more or less secondary mission—the training of service type units and replacements—actually became the chief training responsibility during the war.

Of great importance too was the training of chemical mortar battalions

which were organized in numbers not contemplated in the peacetime period.

Although the ground forces had jurisdiction over these battalions, the CWS

had a very active interest in their training. Thus did the exigencies of war

and changes in War Department organization and policies make unforeseen

requirements in Chemical Warfare training.

Nor was the distinction between plan and reality confined to the training

activities of the Chemical Warfare Service. After responsibility for the development, procurement, and storage of incendiary bombs was transferred

from the Ordnance Department in the fall of 1941, the CWS undertook a

program for which no peacetime plans had been drawn, a program that

developed into one of the most important wartime efforts. The assignment

of the biological warfare mission to the CWS shortly before the outbreak

of war led to large-scale research and development in this new field of

endeavor.
Appendix A

TOTAL CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTH:a 31 DECEMBER 1941 TO 31 DECEMBER 1945
APPENDI

X A 39

9

a Army Reports of branch strength were compiled on the basis of branch designation of personnel with each command, and not on the basis of duty assignment. Some of the listed

personnel may not, therefore, have been on chemical duty and personnel of other branches or personnel without branch designation may have been assigned chemical duty. Only a portion of the strength shown was under the direct jurisdiction of the Chief, CWS. See footnote c.

b The following breakdown by component was available only for these months:c Includes both staff and unit personnel. Unit personnel include those chemical units assigned to the command for training or for Z of I operations. Personnel under direct jurisdiction

of the Chief, CWS are included under Army Service Forces.

d Includes all personnel detailed to duty with departmental complement of the WD whether for special missions or regular duty.

e Not reported.

Source: Extracts from STM-30, Strength of the Army Report, prepared by Machine Records Branch, TAG, monthly.
Appendix B

CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE PERSONNEL STRENGTH, OVERSEAS: a 30 APRIL 1942 TO 31 DECEMBER 1945
APPENDI

X B 40

1

a Army reports of branch strength were compiled on the basis of branch designation of

personnel with each command, and not on the basis of duty assignment. Some of the listed

personnel may not, therefore, have been on chemical duty and personnel of other branches

or personnel without branch designation may have been assigned chemical duty.

b Includes:

May, June 1942—Personnel listed by location in the Americas.

July 1942 to February 1944—Personnel listed under "North American Theater" and

"Latin American Theater."

March, April 1944—Personnel listed under "American Theater."May 1944 to November 1945—Personnel listed under headings:

(1) Alaskan Department.(2) U.S. Armed Forces in Eastern Canada (combined with (3) below in August 1944;

dropped in September 1945).

(3) U.S. Army Forces in Central Canada.(4) Eastern Defense Command (outside U.S.).

(S) Greenland Base Command (dropped in August 1944).

(6) Caribbean Defense Command.

(7) U.S. Army Forces in South Atlantic (dropped in September 1945).

(8) Northwest Service Command (September 1944 to July 1945).

c North African Theater established 4 February 1943. Prior the March personnel reported

in European Theater totals, but identified as in North Africa. Redesignated Mediterranean

Theater 1 November 1944.

d Theater established 8 June 1942. Prior reports for command, U.S. Army Forces in the

British Isles.

e South Pacific Area forces absorbed by Central Pacific forces 1 August 1944.

f Not reported.

g Central Pacific Area activated 14 August 1943. Prior reports for Hawaiian Department.

Central Pacific forces absorbed by U.S. Army Forces, Pacific Ocean Areas on 1 August 1944.

Redesignated U.S. Army Forces, Middle Pacific, 1 July 1945. Strength reported under

U.S. Army Forces in the Pacific from 1 July 1945.

h Southwest Pacific Area established 18 April 1942. Strength merged under U.S. Army

Forces in the Pacific from 1 July 1945.

i Asiatic Theater became U.S. Army Forces, China-Burma-India Theater on 4 March

1942. China Theater and India-Burma Theater established 24 October 1944, but strength

reports consolidated for entire period.

j Includes:

August 1942 through September 1943—Persian Gulf Service Command, U.S. Army

Forces in Central Africa, U.S. Army Forces in Liberia, Middle Eastern Theater.

September 1943 to March 1945—U.S. Army Forces in the Middle East, Persian Gulf Command (redesignated from Persian Gulf Service Command, 10 December 1943).

March 1945 to 30 November 1945—African Middle East Theater, Persian Gulf Command

(absorbed by theater on 1 October 1945).

k Includes:

Military Attaches and all War Department Missions and Groups on duty outside continental United States; May 1944 to November 1945 also includes all missions and groups

under the jurisdiction of the Commanding Generals, Army Ground Forces, Army Air Forces,

or Army Service Forces.

Source: Extracts from STM-30, Strength of the Army Report, prepared by Machine Records Branch, TAG, Monthly.
Appendix C

CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE NEGRO PERSONNEL STRENGTH,

WORLD-WIDE:a 30 APRIL 1942 TO 31 DECEMBER 1945
APPENDIX C 403

Appendix C—Continued

a

 Army reports of branch strength were compiled on the basis of branch designation of personnel with each command, and not on the

basis of duty assignment. Some of the listed personnel may not, therefore, have been on chemical duty and personnel of other branches or

personnel without branch designation may have been assigned chemical duty. This personnel is included in strengths as shown in Appendixes

A and B. b

 Not reported.

Source: Extracts from STM-30, Strength of the Army Report, prepared by Machine Records Branch, TAG, Monthly.
Appendix D

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF, CWS, OFFICER PERSONNEL STRENGTH

AUGUST 1939 TO DECEMBER 1945
APPENDIX D 405

Appendix D—Continued

a

 Includes National Guard, Officer Reserve Corps, and Army of United States officers. b

 Breakdown by component not made after 20 March 1943.

Source Office of the Comptroller, Department of the Army, Statistics Branch (Squier/Pentagon 2B673) from: (1) Monthly Report of Personnel Activities, WDAGO 73; (2) Monthly Report of Authorizations and Strength for Personnel Operating the Z of I Establishment, WDGS

Control Symbol SM-P2-39; (3) Monthly Report of Personnel Authorizations and Strengths for Establishments in Area of District of Columbia and Arlington County, Va., WDMB Form 114, WDGS SM-P2-40; (4) Photostats of Monthly Strength Reports in Statistical Branch,

PRAD, OCA.
Appendix E

KEY PERSONNEL, OFFICE OF CHIEF,

CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

As of 6 July 1940

Chief, CWS

Executive Officer

Chief, Personnel Division

Chief, Information Division

Chief, Training Division

Chief, Supply Division

Chief, Procurement Division

Chief, Fiscal Division

Chief, Technical Division

Maj. Gen. Walter C. Baker

Lt. Col. Paul X. English

Lt. Col. Geoffrey Marshall

Lt. Col. John C. MacArthur

Lt. Col. Edward C. Wallington

Maj. Norman D. Gillet

Lt. Col. George F. Unmacht

Col. Arthur M. Heritage

Lt. Col. Maurice E. Barker

As of 20 August 1941

Chief, CWS

Executive Officer

Chief, Industrial Service

Chief, Field Service

Chief, Technical Service

Chief, Personnel Division

Chief, Intelligence Division

Chief, Fiscal Division

Chief, Supply Division

Chief, Plans Training Division

Chief, Troops Division

Chief, Incendiaries Branch

Maj. Gen. William N. Porter

Lt. Col. Charles E. Loucks

Col. Paul X. English

Col. Edward Montgomery

Lt. Col. Maurice E. Barker

Lt. Col. Geoffrey Marshall

Capt. Thomas E. Rodgers

Col. Arthur M. Heritage

Maj. Norman D. Gillet

Lt. Col. Crawford M. Kellogg

Lt. Col. Charles S. Shadle

Col. J. Enrique Zanetti

As of 1 May 1942

Chief, CWS

Executive Officer

Chief, Industrial Service

Chief, Field Service

Chief, Technical Service

Chief, Control Division

Chief, Civilian Protection Division

Chief, Personnel Division

Chief, Intelligence Division

Chief, Legal Division

Maj. Gen. William N. Porter

Col. Charles E. Loucks

Brig. Gen. Paul X. English

Brig. Gen. Alexander Wilson

Col. Edward Montgomery

Col. Lowell A. Elliott

Col. George J. B. Fisher

Col. Geoffrey Marshall

Col. John C. MacArthur

Col. John A. Smith
APPENDI

X E 40

7

As of 1 May 1942

Chief, Fiscal and Planning Division

Chief, Public Relations Division

Chief, Manufacturing Division

Chief, Procurement Planning Division

Chief, Inspection Division

Chief, Construction Division

Chief, Supply Division

Chief, Plans Training Division

Col. Arthur M. Heritage

Maj. William O. Brooks

Col. Patrick F. Powers

Col. Hugh W. Rowan

Maj. Elwood H. Snider

Lt. Col. Lester W. Hurd

Col. Norman D. Gillet

Col. Ralph G. Benner

As of 26 August 1943

Chief, CWS

Executive Officer

Assistant Chief, CWS, for Materiel

Assistant Chief, CWS, for Field

Operations

Chief, Control Division

Chief, Personnel Division

Chief, Fiscal Division

Chief, Medical Division

Chief, Industrial Division

Chief, Inspection Division

Chief, Supply Division

Chief, Technical Division

Chief, Field Requirements Division

Chief, Training Division

Chief, War Plans and Theaters

Division

Maj. Gen. William N. Porter

Col. Lowell A. Elliott

Brig. Gen. Rollo C. Ditto

Brig. Gen. Alden H. Waitt

Col. Harry A. Kuhn

Col. Herrold E. Brooks

Col. Arthur M. Heritage

Col. Cornelius P. Rhoads

Brig. Gen, Paul X. English

Col. William M. Creasy

Col. Norman D. Gillet

Brig. Gen. William C. Kabrich

Col. George W. Perkins

Col. George J. B. Fisher

Col. Herbert K. Bear

As of 11 December 1944

Chief, CWS

Deputy Chief, CWS

Executive Officer

Assistant Chief, CWS, for Materiel

Assistant Chief, CWS, for Field

Operations

Chief, Control Division

Chief, Personnel Division

Chief, Fiscal Division

Chief, San Jose Projects Division

Chief, Medical Division

Chief, Industrial Division

Chief, Inspection Division

Chief, Technical Division

Chief, Supply Division

Chief, Field Requirements Division

Chief, Training Division

Chief, War Plans and Theaters

Division

Maj. Gen. William N. Porter

Col. Lowell A. Elliott

Col. Eric Lee

Brig. Gen. Rollo C. Ditto

Brig. Gen. Alden H. Waitt

Col. Harry A. Kuhn

Col. Herrold E. Brooks

Lt. Col. Joseph F. Escude

Brig. Gen. Egbert F. Bullene

Col. Cornelius P. Rhoads

Brig. Gen. Charles E. Loucks

Col. William M. Creasy

Brig. Gen. William C. Kabrich

Col. Norman D. Gillet

Col. Delancey R. King

Lt. Col. Franklin R. Williams

Col. Herbert R. Bear
408 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

As of 30 June 1945

Chief, CWS

Deputy Chief, CWS

Executive Officer

Assistant Chief, CWS, for Matériel

Assistant Chief, CWS, for Field

Operations

Chief, Control Division

Chief, Personnel Division

Chief, Fiscal Division

Chief, San Jose Projects Division

Chief, Medical Division

Chief, Industrial Division

Chief, Inspection Division

Chief, Technical Division

Chief, Supply Division

Chief, Field Requirements Division

Chief, Training Division

Chief, War Plans and Theaters

Division

Chief, Chemical Commodities

Division

Maj. Gen. William N. Porter

Col. Lowell A. Elliott

Col. Eric Lee

Brig. Gen. Rollo C. Ditto

Brig. Gen. Alden H. Waitt

Col. Harry A. Kuhn

Col. Herrold E. Brooks

Lt. Col. Joseph F. Escude

Brig. Gen. Egbert F. Bullene

Col. John R. Wood

Brig. Gen. Charles E. Loucks

Col. John R. Sharp

Brig. Gen. William C. Kabrich

Col. Norman D. Gillet

Col. Delancey R. King

Lt. Col. Franklin R. Williams

Col. John C. MacArthur

Col. Samuel N. Cummings
Appendix F

CHEMICAL WARFARE SCHOOL

EDGEWOOD ARSENAL, MARYLAND

DETAILED PROGRAM

(Par. 3c(1), AR 350-110)

REPLACEMENT CENTER OFFICERS' COURSE

December 15, 1940 to February 15, 1941

December 10, 1940

I. SCOPE

To instruct Chemical Warfare Reserve officers in Replacement Center Training and to

prepare them for assignment to Replacement Center duty.

II DURATION OF COURSE

December 15, 1940 to February 15, 1941.

III. PROGRAM

Approximate

Hours

1. DEPARTMENT OF TECHNIQUE

a. Chemical Warfare Agents.

Properties and characteristics; identification. 15

b. Protection.

Individual; collective; tactical; gas mask drill; inspection and

repair of masks; first aid. 47

c. Chemical Warfare Weapons.

Chemical Warfare Service matériel; chemical weapons of other

arms; technique of releasing agents. 12

d. Meteorology.

Weather elements; instruments; effect on chemical agents; forecasting. 6

2. DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY ART

a. Tactics.

Organization and tactical employment of chemical troops;

chemical troop leading; employment of chemicals by other arms; supply and

logistics; combat orders and solutions of problems; operations of combined

arms. 48

b. Training.

Instruction methods; publications; visual aids; programs and

schedules; applicatory exercises; conduct of gunners' examinations; chemical

staff officers. 79
410 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

3. MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT

a. Administration.

Army regulations; military law; unit administration; procurement and supply. 28

b. General Subjects.

Physical training; map reading; customs of the service; mobilization regulations; interior guard duty; pistol marksmanship; dismounted

drill. 129

Total 364

SUMMARY Hours

Chemical Warfare Agents 15

Protection 47

Chemical Warfare Weapons 12

Meteorology 6

Tactics 48

Training 79

Administration 28

General Subjects 129

Total 364
Appendix G

HEADQUARTERS SIXTH CORPS AREA

U.S. Post Office Building

Chicago, Illinois

TRAINING MEMORANDUM

NO. 13

December 4, 1940

CHEMICAL WARFARE TRAINING

Training Memorandum No. 8, this headquarters, December 28, 1938, is rescinded and this training

memorandum substituted therefor.

This training memorandum applies only to troops under the jurisdiction of the corps area commander and does not apply to units assigned or attached to any of the four armies.

SECTION

I

II

III

IV

V

VI

VII

Training

Gas officers and noncommissioned officers

Organization

Supply

Inspections

Reports

References

Paragraphs

1-2

3-5

6

7-9

10

11-14

15

SECTION I-TRAINING

General

Training requirements

Paragraphs

1

2

1. GENERAL.-a. The objective, scope, methods of instruction and standards of proficiency

for basic chemical warfare training are prescribed in Basic Field Manual 21-40, Defense Against

Chemical Attack.

b. Recruit training will be conducted as prescribed in paragraph 59, B.P.M. 21-40,

and relevant sections of War Department Mobilization Training Programs for the appropriate arm

and service.

c. General information and details on this subject are covered in the appropriate references listed in Section VII of this memorandum.

2. TRAINING REQUIREMENTS.-a. Regular Army. The annual training of units of the

Regular Army under the jurisdiction of the commanding general, Sixth Corps Area, will in- clude the following:
412 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

(1) Individual and unit training to meet the requirements set forth in B.F.M. 21-40.

(2) The training of unit gas officers in the division chemical warfare school (see par.

4b). (3) The operation of troop schools for the qualification of unit gas noncommissioned

officers and their replacements.

(4) Special operations: Particular stress will be placed on the use of chemicals in special

operations under the provisions of W.D. B.P.M., Vol. VII, Military Law, Part Three.

(5) Training of units in the mechanics of defense against chemical attack. In order to

attain the required standards of proficiency in defense against chemical attack, training of tactical

units will include the following: (See paragraphs 60 and 66, B.F.M. 21-40).

(a) Gas mask drill, paragraphs 28 and 79, B.F.M. 21-40.

(b) Fitting, care and minor repair of gas masks, including the gas chamber exercise,

shown in paragraphs 32, 33, 34, B.F.M. 21-40, and Sec. XI, B.F.M. 21-40.

(c) Accustoming men to march, maneuver and carry out their normal duties with gas

masks adjusted.

(d) Characteristics and identification of standard chemical agents.

(e) Physiological effects of chemical warfare agents and first aid treatment of gas

casualties.

(f) Protection of food and water and degassing of areas and equipment.

(g) Methods of projecting chemical agents both from the organic weapons of the

unit and from the air.

(h) Technique in the use of chemical training ammunition.

(i) Effect of weather and terrain on chemical attack.

(j) Construction and maintenance of gasproof shelters.

(k) Alarm devices, procedure to meet a gas attack and procedure during and after

such an attack.

(6) Execution of tactical exercises and combat firing by small units, with all personnel

wearing gas masks. During this phase of chemical warfare training, instruction will be given as prescribed in paragraph 60c, B.F.M. 21-40, and will include the following:

(a} Habituating all personnel to marching, patrolling and operating communications

and weapons in an atmosphere of nontoxic gas and smoke. To accomplish this mission, the following minimum requirements will govern in the operation of weapons and in the use of materiel.

1. Infantry and Cavalry. Twenty percent of the annual ammunition allowances

for combat firing (par. 41b, AR 775-10) will be fired, with gas masks adjusted, by all troops participating in combat firing exercises. In addition, infantry troops will be habituated to using the

bayonet with gas masks adjusted, and will include at least two practice runs per man through the

bayonet qualification course each training year.

2. Field Artillery and Coast Artillery. Twenty percent of the annual allowance of

subcalibre ammunition will be fired under conditions involving the wearing of the gas mask by

all men employed in the battery, except these detachments which would normally operate in gasproof shelters. (F.M. 21-40, 21-45, 100-5, TM 3-205.)

3. Air Corps. All ground troops will be trained to carry on normal ground activities with masks adjusted, including the preparation of airplanes for takeoff. Stress will be

given to decontamination training, not only of ground installations, but also of airplanes. (See

W.D. letter, May 9, 1940, Subject: Air Corps Training, 1940-1941, A.G. 353 (3-4-39) Misc.),

and paragraphs 11, 25, 26 and 27, B.F.M. 21-40.

4. Staff Troops. Detachments of Signal Corps, Ordnance Department, Quartermaster Corps, Finance Department, Medical Corps and Veterinary Corps, on duty at stations of

combat troops, will be trained in the use of gas masks and in gas discipline. Gas masks on hand at

stations will be made available for the training of these detachments. Medical Corps units and de-
APPENDIX G 413

tachments will, in addition, be given thorough practical training in the administration of first aid

to simulated gas cases.

(b) Combat units will be well grounded in the tactical use of smoke, and be

thoroughly informed concerning its powers and limitations. Stress will be placed on the effect of

smoke on aimed fire and on fire control, both in theoretical instruction and by practical demontration, so far as allowances of chemical munitions will permit. To this end, tactical situations involving the use of smoke and nontoxic agents and intensive measures to assure adequate protection against all types of chemical agents and methods of projection will be included in appropriate problems and terrain exercises. Tactical maneuvers will include operations involving the

use of smoke and simulated toxic gas. (See TM 3-305, Use of Smokes and Lachrymators in

Training.)

b. National Guard. (1) The chemical warfare training of the National Guard, prior to induction into Federal Service, will conform to the instructions issued by the National Guard Bureau

and will, insofar as practicable, parallel that of the Regular Army, as herein prescribed. (See paragraphs, 1, 2a, 3 and 4a).

(2) Reserve Militia. Training of Reserve Militia units (State Troops, as authorized,

Public Resolutions 874-76, 76th Congress, approved October 21, 1940), if and when authorized

by the States concerned, will be as per Chapter 3, Volume VII, B.F.M. Military Law, Part Three.

c. Organized Reserves. Inactive status training schedules will include a minimum of two

hours instruction in chemical warfare, in preparation for the active duty period.

d. R.O.T.C. The chemical warfare training for the R.O.T.C. units at colleges will conform to the War Department directive for these units. Camp schedules will include three hours

instruction in chemical warfare, as outlined in paragraph 65, B.F.M. 21-40.

e. Enlisted Replacement Centers. (1) Training at Enlisted Replacement Center (Medical

Corps), at Camp Grant, Illinois, will be conducted as prescribed in Section II, War Department

MTP 8-1, September 9, 1940, and B.F.M. 21-40.

(2) A chemical warfare school will be conducted at Camp Grant for the purpose of

training officers and noncommissioned officers as instructors at the Enlisted Replacement Center,

Medical Corps.

SECTION II—GAS OFFICERS AND NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICERS

Paragraphs

Unit Gas officers and noncommissioned officers 3

Qualification of unit gas officers 4

Qualification of unit gas noncommissioned officers 5

3. UNIT GAS OFFICERS AND NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICERS. a. As provided in

paragraphs 41, 44 and 45, B.F.M. 21-40, each unit under the jurisdiction of the commanding

general, Sixth Corps Area, will have detailed at all times the prescribed number of qualified gas

officers and noncommissioned officers who will function in accordance with the duties therein assigned to them.

b. In order that as many officers and noncommissioned officers as practicable may become

familiar with this phase of training, and to provide within each unit a pool of competent instructors in chemical warfare, commanders concerned will rotate officers and noncommissioned officers

in assignment to these duties.

c. Post gas officers. In addition to the unit gas officers prescribed above, a line officer of

rank commensurate with the duties involved, will be detailed, in addition to his other duties, as

post gas officer at each post under the jurisdiction of the commanding general, Sixth Corps Area,

and will perform the duties prescribed in paragraph 46, B.F.M. 21-40. Each post gas officer will

also function as post property officer for Chemical Warfare Service property at his post.
414 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

d. Report of changes. Changes in post and unit gas officers under the jurisdiction of the

commanding general, Sixth Corps Area, will be promptly reported to this headquarters.

4. QUALIFICATION OF UNIT GAS OFFICERS.-a. Officers will be qualified for appointment as unit gas officers by one of following means:

(1) Satisfactory completion of an appropriate training course at the Chemical Warfare

School, Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland.

(2) Graduation from the 5th Division Chemical Warfare School, Fort Custer, Michigan. (See sub-par. b, below.)

(3) Satisfactory completion of the Army Extension Course, Common Subcourse 10-3,

Defense Against Chemical Warfare; the Chemical Warfare Service Extension Course 40-5; Part

II, The Employment of Chemical Agents in Troop Training, and Special Extension Course, entitled, The Unit Gas Officer, supplemented by ten hours practical instruction for Regular Army

personnel and by six hours practical instruction for National Guard or Reserve personnel, in the

subjects outlined in paragraph 65, B.F.M. 21-40. (Note: Applications for enrollment in Subcourse 10-4 will be submitted through the usual channels. Applications for enrollment in Extension Course 40-5, Part II, and Special Extension Course The Unit Gas Officer will be submitted

through channels to the corps area chemical officer, who will conduct this course.)

b. 5th Division Chemical Warfare School. Subject to approval of commanding general,

Second Army, unit gas officers will, unless otherwise qualified under the provisions of subparagraphs 4 (1), (2) and (3) above, be trained at the Chemical Warfare School, Fort Custer, Michgan, at a period to be announced later. When this time is announced, unit and post commanders

will designate personnel from units under the jurisdiction of the commanding general, Sixth

Corps Area, to receive necessary training, as prescribed by paragraphs 43 and 44, B.F.M. 21-40.

5. QUALIFICATION OF UNIT GAS NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICERS.-a. At each

post under the jurisdiction of the commanding general, Sixth Corps Area, a troop school in

chemical warfare will be conducted annually for the training of noncommissioned officers as unit

gas noncommissioned officers.

b. The schedule of training for this school will include appropriate portions (approximately 20 hours) of the applicable subjects outlined in paragraph 65, B.F.M. 21-40.

c. Instructors for this school will be carefully selected from among officers who possess

the qualifications stated in paragraph 4a above. Full use will be made of all officers who are

graduates of the Chemical Warfare School, Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland.

d. Noncommissioned officers will be required to attend the school in such numbers as

necessary to complete the unit complement of unit gas noncommissioned officers, together with one

substitute for each. In addition thereto, all unqualified company, battery and troop commanders

will be encouraged to attend this school as observers. (Paragraph 44, B.F.M. 21-40.)

SECTION III—ORGANIZATION

Paragraph

Organization 6

6. ORGANIZATION-a. All unit commanders (Regular Army, National Guard and Organized Reserves), under the jurisdiction of the commanding general, Sixth Corps Area, will appoint the appropriate number of gas officers and gas noncommissioned officers, as prescribed in

paragraphs 41, 43, 44 and 45, B.F.M. 21-40.

b. Reserve officers who have been qualified and appointed as unit gas officers will conduct

the chemical warfare instruction of the Organized Reserve units, where practicable.

c. Post and camp commanders under the jurisdiction of the commanding general, Sixth

Corps Area, are responsible that all chemical warfare training under their jurisdiction is conducted by qualified gas officers. They will detail Regular Army officers for the training of the

R.O.T.C., and, where necessary, to conduct the training of the Organized Reserves.
APPENDIX G 415

SECTION IV—SUPPLY

Paragraphs

Gas masks 7

Chemical Warfare Service training materiel 8

Requisitions 9

7. GAS MASKS.-a. The training allowances of gas masks are governed by Tables of

Basic Allowances, 1939, or later revisions.

b. All service type training gas masks, used in normal peacetime training, will be equipped

with the MII-R canister (O.D. body, with two horizontal blue stripes), which gives protection

against DM (irritant smoke).

c. Present plans contemplate the issuing of the M1 training mask as soon as available after

January 1, 1941. When issued, paragraphs 77, 78,79, 80, 81, FM 21-40, will apply as to drill and

inspection: paragraphs 34 and 82, FM 21-40, as to storage; and TR 1120-35 (to be published as

TM 3-205), as to repair procedure.

d. The size of the gas mask, fitted and tested in tear gas, worn by each soldier will be

entered on his service record.

e. Until training masks are issued to each individual, they will be pooled and issued to

units, in turn.

f. Inspection, storage and repair of gas masks is set forth in Circular 39, W.D., 1935,

and in paragraph 34, B.P.M. 21-40. See also TR 1120-35 The Gas Mask (to be published as TM

3-205).

8. CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE TRAINING MATERIEL.-The authorized instructional gas identification sets, and other Chemical Warfare Service training materiel and ammunition, will be requisitioned and used in the training of all components of the Army of the United

States. See AR 775-10 and Tables of Allowances, Camps, Posts and Stations (1938), or later revision.

9. REQUISITIONS.-Requisitions for Chemical Warfare Service supplies and ammunition

will be addressed to the Chief, Chemical Warfare Service, War Department Annex #1, 401-23rd

Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. They will be prepared on W.D.Q.M.C. Form No. 400, and submitted, in quadruplicate, through the command ing general, Sixth Corps Area.

The nomenclature must conform to that shown in the latest annual issue of War Department

Standard Nomenclature and Price List of Chemical Warfare Materiel.

CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE EXTENSION COURSES FOR SCHOOL YEAR 1940-41

Courses used in 1939-40

Titles

Organization of the Army

Organization of the Chemical Warfare Service

Administration

Military Law-Law of Military Offenses

Military Discipline, Court'y. & Cust. of the Serv.

Interior Guard Duty

Map & Aerial Photograph Reading

Military Sanitation and First Aid

Chemical Warfare Agents I

Chemical Warfare Agents II

Supply and Mess Management
416 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

CWS Nos. Titles Lessons Hours

20-5 Chemical Warfare Agents III 10-R 30

20-6 Property, Emergency Procurement and Funds 5—R 12

20-7 Defense Against Chemical Warfare 8-R 19

20-8 Chemical Warfare Weapons 7-R 21

20-9

20-10 Military Law-Courts Martial 7-R 18

20-11 Care and Operation of Motor Vehicles 12-R 28

20-12 Chemical Warfare Agents IV-Manufacture 7-R 25

30-1 Storing & Shipping of C.W. Munitions 4-R 13

30-2 Sig. Com. for all Arms and Services 7-R 11

30-3 Chemical Warfare Troops 7-R 19

30-4 Mobilization 5—R 14

30-5 Organization of the Infantry Division 3 6

30-6 Combat Orders and Solution of Problems 3-R 12

30-7 Training Management (Part I) 6-2R 21

30-8 Tactical Employment of Chem. Agents (In Part) 11-2R 43

30-9 Tech. Divisions, Organization & Operation 5-R 16

30-10 Prod. Divisions, its Organization & Operation 4-R II

30-11 Development Procedure 4-R 15

30-12 Chemical Warfare Service Units of Field Army 4-R 10

40-1 Combat Orders & Solution of Problems 3 24

40-2 Duties of Chem. Off. of Div. & Higher Units 4-R 11

40-3 Tactics & Tech. of Sep. Arms (Parts II & III) 21-3R 83

40-4 Staff & Log. for the Division (In Part) 8 34

40-5 Chem. War. Sup. System; Dep. Org. & Adm. 4-R 10

40-6 Industrial Mobilization 17-2R 51

40-7 Commercial Law-Contracts 0-R 22

40-8 Chemical Warfare Procurement 6-R 14

50-1 Tactics & Tech. of Separate Arms 12-R 106

50-2 Tactical Principles and Decisions 8-R 82

50-3 Troop Lead.; Com. Staff & Log. 5-R 56

50-4 Tactical Principles and Decisions 8-R 78

50-5 Mil. Org., Com. Orders & Est. of Situation 4-R 38

50-6 Troop Lead. & Com., Staff & Log. 5-R 78

50-7 Com. Staff & Log.; Terr. Org.; Mob. Troop. Move. 4-R 56

60-1 Tactical Principles and Decisions 5-R 46

60-2___Special Subjects___________________________ 6-R 66

LEGEND AND NOTES:

1. R - Examination or review lesson or lessons.

2. X - Required for —————————.

3. 20-3 (1940-41) equivalent to 20-4, Pt. II (1939-40).

4. 40-1 (1940-41) equivalent to 40-3, Pt. I (1939—40).

5. 40-3 (1940-41) partly covered in 30-8 (1939-40).

6. 40-5 (1940-41) equivalent to 30—7, Pt. I (1939-40).

7. 50-5, Pts. II & III (1940-41) equivalent to 40-3. Pts. II & III

(1939-40). Part IV is new.

8. When space under Lessons and Examinations is blank, the course

will not be given in 1940—41.
APPENDIX G 417

CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE EXTENSION COURSES FOR SCHOOL YEAR 1940-41

Current Courses

Titles

Organization of the Army

Organization of the Chemical Warfare Service

Defense Against Chemical Warfare

Military Law-Law of Military Offenses

Military Discipline, Court'y. & Cust. of the Serv.

Interior Guard Duty

Map & Aerial Photography

Military Sanitation and First Aid

Chemical Warfare Agents I

Use of Smokes and Lacrimators in Train.

Scouting and Patrolling

Mess Management

Chemical Warfare Agents II

Organization Function & Equip, of Chemical Troops

Care and Operation of Motor Vehicles-General

Chemical Warfare Agents III

Chemical Warfare Weapons

Military Law—Courts Martial

Conduct of Elementary Training

Tactical Protection and Chemical Reconnaissance

Marches and Shelter

Sig. Com. for all Arms and Services

Chemical Warfare Troops

Administration

Com. Orders & Solution of Problems, C.W.S.

Meteorology for Chemical Operations

Advanced Map & Aerial Photograph Reading

Combat Principles, Chemical Platoon

Tech. Divisions, Organization & Operation

As prescribed by Chief, C.W.S.

Tactics & Tech. of Separate Arms-I, Inf.

Combat Orders and Solution of Map Problems

Combat Principles of the Chemical Company

Mobilization

Training Management

Chemical Warfare Service Units of the Field Army

Hasty Field Fortifications

Chem. War. Sup. System; Dep. Org. & Adm.

Storing & Shipping of C.W. Munitions

Prod. Division, its Organization & Operation

Chemical Warfare Agents IV

Development Procedure
418 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Current Courses (cont'd)

Titles

Commercial Law-Contracts

Chemical Warfare Procurement

As prescribed by Chief, C.W.S.

Estimation and Use of Terrain

Organization of the Inf. Div. (Triangular)

Com., Staff & Log. for the Division

Duties of Chem. Off. of Div. & Higher Units

Tac. & Tech. of Sep. Arms, Pts. II, III, IV

Combat Principles of Chemical Battalion

Advanced Military Chemistry I

War Dept. Procurement Planning

As prescribed by Chief, C.W.S.

Combat Principles of the C.W.S.

Advance Military Chemistry II

Mob. of Ind. & Control of Econ. Resources

As prescribed by Chief, C.W.S.

Compiled 11 December 1940, by Extension Department,

Chemical Warfare School

SECTION V—INSPECTION

Inspections

Paragraph

10

10. INSPECTIONS.-Frequent inspections of the methods used and the results obtained in

chemical warfare training will be made by post and unit commanders who are under the jurisdiction of the commanding general Sixth Corps Area. Quarterly inspections of chemical warfare

materiel will be made by such post and unit commanders or their commanders or their representatives (gas officers). The corps area chemical officer will make an annual technical inspection of

chemical warfare materiel, and of the proficiency of unit gas officers and noncommissioned officers.

When practicable, training and tactical inspections will include the use of smoke and nontoxic

gas.

SECTION VI—REPORTS

Paragraph

Monthly activity reports 11

Ammunition expenditure certificates 12

Inventories 13

Service charges 14

11. MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORTS.-Each camp, post and station commander will submit at the end of each month an Activity Report on chemical warfare training of units under the

jurisdiction of the commanding general, Sixth Corps Area. This report will include the following:
APPENDIX G 419

a. Number trained.

b. Synopsis of training given.

c. Amount of time devoted to chemical warfare training.

d. List of munitions or other materiel used.

e. Name and grade of officer who conducted the training.

f. Other pertinent comments not covered above.

This report will reach this headquarters not later than the 5th of the month following.

The corps area chemical officer will incorporate the chemical warfare activities in the monthly report to the Chief of the Chemical Warfare Service, required by paragraph 6, AR 50-5.

12. AMMUNITION EXPENDITURE CERTIFICATES.-Consolidated Chemical Warfare

Service ammunition certificates will be submitted semiannually as of June 30th and December 31st,

on forms furnished by Headquarters Sixth Corps Area. These certificates will be prepared as per

instructions contained in paragraph 2b, AR 35-6620: will show the expenditures made by each

component of the Army of the United States, and will be mailed to arrive at this headquarters

on or before the 15th of the month following the date of the certificate.

13. INVENTORIES.-An inventory of all Chemical Warfare Service property and ammunition on hand as of December 31st each year will be submitted annually to reach this headquarters

not later than January 15th, following the date of the inventory. Forms will be furnished by this

headquarters.

14. SERVICE CHARGES.-Reference is made to the current War Department letter of June

7, 1939, A.G. 400.23 (6-7-39) Misc. M, C.M.T.C. and Organized Reserves, for use of supplies,

equipment and materiel at training camps, to commanding generals of all corps areas, etc. Not

later than fifteen (15) days after the close of R.O.T.C. training camps, camp commanders will

forward, in quadruplicate, separate Service Charge Reports covering the use of gas masks by each

component trained, to the Chief, Chemical Warfare Service, through the corps area commander.

SECTION VII—REFERENCES

Paragraph

References 15

15. REFERENCES.-Appropriate portions of subjects contained in the references listed below should be studied by each unit gas officer in order that he may have a thorough understanding of the whole subject of chemical warfare as pertains to his arm or service. The application of

certain portions of these publications to all types of training should not be overlooked.

a. Army Regulations.

AR 50-5 —Chemical Warfare Service, General Provisions

AR 750-10—Range Regulations for Firing Ammunition in Time of Peace

AR 775-10—Ammunition Allowances (As amended)

b. Training Regulations.

TR 10-5 —Military Training, (paragraphs 9b (7) and 26b)

TR 1370-a—Ammunition, General

c. Technical Manuals.

TM 3-305 —Use of Smokes and Lachrymators in Training

TM 3-205 —(To be published to supersede TR 1120-35)

d. Field Manuals.

BFM, Vol. I, Chapter 2—Personal Hygiene and First Aid (paragraph 17)

BFM, Vol. III, Part One, Chapter 3—Automatic Rifle Marksmanship (paragraph 35)

BFM, Vol. III, Part Three—Machine Gun Company (paragraph 35)
420 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

BFM, Vol. III, Part Four—Howitzer Company (paragraphs 8b and 20d (2))

BFM, Vol. VII, Part Six, Chapter 1—Antiaircraft Marksmanship (paragraph

4c(4))

BFM, Vol. VII, Part Two—Rules of Land Warfare (paragraph 29)

BFM, Vol. VII, Military Law, Part Three

FM 21-40—Defense Against Chemical Attack

FM 23-30—Hand Grenades

FM 30-5 —Combat Intelligence (paragraphs 13b(2), (c)5)

FM 30-35—Military Intelligence (paragraph 10)

FM 3-10—Examination for Gunners

FM 100—5 —Field Service Regulations (paragraphs 88, 89, 263, 268, 443, 514,

617)

FM 101-5 —Staff Officers' Field Manual–The Staff and Combat Orders (paragraph 25)

Cavalry Field Manual, Vol. II, (paragraphs 42, 46 and 114-122)

Cavalry Field Manual, Vol. III, (paragraphs 139, 217 and 247)

CWS Field Manual, Vol. 1—Tactics and Technique

Coast Artillery Field Manual, Vol. I, Part One (paragraphs 180 and 181)

Coast Artillery Field Manual, Vol. II, Antiaircraft Artillery, Part One, Tactics

(paragraph 163)

Engineer Field Manual, Vol. II, Part Two, (paragraph 129)

Field Artillery Field Manual, Vol. II (paragraphs 48, 159 and 200b)

Infantry Field Manual, Vol. II (paragraphs 328, 333f and 395)

Staff Officers' Field Manual, Part One (pages 7, 8, 20, 87, 89, 110, 129, 139, 144)

Staff Officers' Field Manual, Part Two (pages 31-36, 67 and 74)

Staff Officers' Field Manual, Part Three (pages 16 and 57-59)

f. [sic.] Miscellaneous.

General Order 67, War Department, 1920, Extermination of Rodent-Vermin

(also see War Department Circular 1, 1924, as amended by Circular 33, War Department, 1926).

War Department Letter, May 9, 1940, Subject: Air Corps Training, 1940-1941,

A.G. 353 (3-4-39) M-M-C

War Department Mobilization Training Program, W.D., 1940, (Appropriate

Arm or Service)

War Department Training Directive, 1940-1941, letter A.G. 353 (12-17-38)

Misc. M-C, dated March 2, 1940

Chemical Warfare School Textbooks, 1 to 6, inclusive

Chemical Warfare School Pamphlet No. 2, 1938. (Training Guide-Chemical

Warfare)

C.W.S. Pamphlet No. 4, 1936 (Instructions for Using Gas Identification Sets)

C.W.S. Pamphlet No. 5, 1939, (Meteorology)

Standard Nomenclature and Price List

Chemical Warfare Matériel (1940)

C.W.S. Supply Catalog, 1937

Reference Data, Chemical Warfare School (Restricted) (1938)

Circular 15, War Department, 1940—War Department Training Films

TM No. 6, Hq. Sixth Corps Area, October 1, 1938, (Corps Area Training Directive) (As amended)

Tables of Basic Allowances

Circular 39, War Department, 1935, Local Responsibility for Inspection, Storage

and Repair of Gas Masks
APPENDIX G 421

Circular 28, War Department, 1936, Section II, Gas Masks (Acted on by Inspectors and Surveying Officers, Disposition of)

Circular 49, War Department, 1938, Size of Gas Mask-Entry on Service

Record

Circulars 73 and 75, War Department, 1938, Handling Smoke-producing Materiel

By Command of Brigadier General BONESTEEL:

WILLIAM H. WILBUR,

Colonel, General Staff Corps, Chief of Staff.

OFFICIAL:

EDWARD ROTH, JR.,

Colonel, Adjutant General's Department,

Adjutant General.
Appendix H

CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE, UNIT

DATA, WORLD WAR II

This appendix is composed of sixteen tables which list pertinent data on chemical

warfare units in World War II. These units correspond to those listed in Table 9 of the

text.

There is a table for each type of unit in Table 9 except for chemical depot companies and chemical base depot companies which are combined in one table.

Key to Table Format

Column 1. "N" indicates Negro unit.

Column 2. "C" (conversion) or "R" (redesignation) before activation date denotes unit

previously existing in another type or service. Activation information appears in

Columns 11 and 12.

Column 5. All zone of interior stations, except ports of embarkation, are listed as training

stations.

Columns 6 & 7. In some cases where conversion and/or redesignations occurred overseas, the

over-all overseas service dates are given regardless of changes in unit status

since information on specific overseas locations is not available.

Column 8. a. In some cases, the place of inactivation or disbandment, Column 10, is not

located in the theater given in Column 8. In this situation, the given theater

is that in which a unit either performed the major portion of its active service

or where unit activity in a subsequent theater, except for date and place of

inactivation or disbandment, is not clearly documented.

b. Abbreviations:

AD

CDC

CZ

ETO

HD

I-B

MIDPAC

MTO

NATO

PR

SWPA

Alaskan Department

Caribbean Defense Command

Canal Zone

European Theater

Hawaiian Department

India-Burma Theater

Mid-Pacific Area

Mediterranean Theater

North African Theater

Puerto Rico

Southwest Pacific Area
APPENDIX H 423

Columns 9&10. Unless otherwise noted all units were inactivated. "D" indicates disbandment

If a unit were converted or redesignated no information is given in either

column. For units existing in 1946, precise dates of inactivation or disbandment

are not given: "existing in 1946" is entered in Column 9, and last known location is given in Column 10

Column 11. a. "C" or "R" before date indicates unit conversion or redesignation to another

type or service. See Column 2 for original activation.

b. Absence of a symbol ("C" or "R") indicates a date of original activation in

another type or service. In this case, conversion or redesignation information

is entered in Column 1. See explanatory note on Columns 1 and 2.

Column 12. a. When a date appears in Column 11 without any information in Column 12,

see footnotes,

b. Abbreviations:

AAA

Am

Avn

AW

Bn

CA

Cml

Co

Comp

Decon

Det

Engr

FA

Gen

Hq

Lab

Anti Aircraft Artillery

Ammunition

Aviation

Automatic Weapons

Battalion

Coast Artillery

Chemical

Company

Composite

Decontamination

Detachment

Engineer

Field Artillery

General

Headquarters

Laboratory

Maint

Mbl

Mort

Mtz

Opns

Ord

Plat

POA

Proc

QM

Regt

Sep

SG

Sup

Svc

TD

Maintenance

Mobile

Mortar

Motorized

Operations

Ordnance

Platoon

Pacific Ocean Areas

Processing

Quartermaster

Regiment

Separate

Smoke Generator

Supply

Service

Tank Destroyer
















































Appendix I

WAR DEPARTMENT

The Adjutant General's Office

Washington

RESTRICTED

15 June 1942

AG 353 (6-8-42) MS-C-M

SUBJECT: War Department Chemical Warfare Training Directive.

TO: The Commanding Generals,

Army Ground Forces;

Army Air Forces;

Services of Supply;

Defense Commands;

All Armies; Departments; Army Corps;

Divisions; and Corps Areas;

Air Forces, Ports of Embarkation;

The Commandants,

General and Special Service Schools;

The Superintendent,

United States Military Academy;

The Commanding Officer,

Base Commands.

1. General.

The probability of the early use of toxic gas by the enemy in the present war requires imparting to our troops a thorough knowledge of how chemical warfare can be waged by an

enemy against us and the placing of added emphasis upon training in defense against chemical

attack. In short, it is now necessary to review training directives of all commands in the light of

the probable use of chemicals in combat.

2. References.

a. The principles governing offensive and defensive use of chemicals, together with combined operations and security in connection therewith, are found in FM 100-5, Operation; FM

3-5, Tactics of Chemical Warfare (now published as CWS FM VOL. 1); and TM 3-305, Use

of Smoke and Lacrimators in Training.

b. The principles governing defense against chemical attack, together with the object of

training and standards of proficiency for individuals and organizations, are covered in FM 21-40,

Defense against chemical Attack.

3. Objective.

a. Defense Against Chemical Attack. The proficiency of every individual and every

unit in security against chemical attack.
APPENDIX I 473

b. Employment of Smoke. The proficiency of all appropriate units in the employment

of smoke in various types of combat.

c. Employment of Incendiaries. The ability of appropriate units efficiently to employ incendiaries in the destruction of hostile matériel and installations.

d. Employment of Toxic Gas. The training of all appropriate units in the projection of

toxic chemicals to the end that in case it becomes necessary to retaliate in the use of such chemicals,

they can do so promptly and efficiently.

4. Gas Defense.

Proficiency in gas defense requires:

a. The perfection in each unit of gas warning system including gas reconnaissance, and gas

intelligence.

b. The training of every individual in the care and use of the protective equipment issued

to him.

c. The training of every individual in appropriate first aid measures after gas exposure

and of medical personnel in first aid treatment of gas casualties.

d. The ability of each individual to decontaminate the weapon with which armed and the

provision in each unit of special decontaminating squads for the decontamination of ground and

organizational equipment.

e. The training of all units in the collective measures and tactical procedure necessary to

minimize or avoid gas casualties.

f. The introduction of gas situations in various types of field exercises.

5. Employment of Smoke.

a. Properly used, smoke greatly reduces the number of casualties in attacking forces and

contributes to the success of the mission upon which engaged. Improperly used, smoke may interfere with other operations and aid the enemy rather than our own troops.

b. The proper use of smoke requires the training of the firing units in the technique of

firing this agent and the supported units in operations in smoke. Infantry mortar units, chemical

warfare units and appropriate field artillery units will be trained in the technique of firing smoke

to deny hostile observation and to screen the movements of attacking infantry, cavalry, and armored

units. The combined training of these units as essential.

6. Employment of Incendiaries.

The employment of incendiaries is primarily a function of the Army Air Forces. However, infantry, cavalry, field artillery, tank destroyer, parachute, engineer, armored, and chemical

warfare units also will be trained to use appropriate incendiaries in the destruction of hostile

materiel and installations.

7. The Employment of Toxic Gases.

The field forces must be prepared to use chemicals promptly, efficiently, and on a large

scale if forced to do so by enemy action. Therefore, thorough training is required by appropriate

chemical warfare, Army Air Forces, field artillery, and engineer units. This training will be initiated

without delay by all commanders concerned.

8. Training Methods.

To the maximum extent possible, all instruction will be practical rather than theoretical.

Simulated materials available locally will be used to supplement the training munitions and supplies authorized by AR 775-10., Tables of Allowances, and Tables of Basic Allowances.

9. Instruction at Service Schools.

It is directed that increased attention be given all service schools to the training of students

in the principles and methods of gas defense. Attention will also be directed to the training of
474 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

appropriate personnel of the infantry, cavalry, armored force, field artillery, engineers, chemical

warfare, and air forces in the tactics and technique of the offensive employment of chemical

agents.

10. Responsibility.

Immediate action will be taken by all commanders to initiate the program of training outlined herein. Special attention will be given to the basic requirements of security against chemical

attack to the end that every individual and every unit will be able to take proper protective measures in case of subjection to a surprise gas attack. Both offensive and defensive chemical warfare

will be included in training and tactical inspections by appropriate commanders.

By order of the Secretary of War:

J. A. ULIO

Major General,

The Adjutant General

COPIES FURNISHED

Chiefs of Supply Services

The Divisions of the War Department

General Staff
Bibliographical Note

World War I

There are several published volumes which discuss the origin and activities of the Chemical Warfare Service in World War I. These include

Benedict Crowell, America's Munitions, 1917-1918 (Washington: GPO,

1919); Amos A. Fries and Clarence J. West, Chemical Warfare (New

York: McGraw Hill, 1921); and Medical Aspects of Gas Warfare, Volume

XIV of the series MEDICAL DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES

IN THE WORLD WAR (Washington: GPO, 1926). Volumes XV and

XVI of the series UNITED STATES ARMY IN THE WORLD WAR

(Washington: GPO, 1948), prepared by the Historical Division, Special

Staff United States Army, contain data on the Chemical Warfare Service,

American Expeditionary Forces (AEF). More valuable as a source of

information is the official history of the Chemical Warfare Service, American

Expeditionary Forces, a copy of which is on file in the Chemical Corps Historical Office. Especially useful in this history are the appendixes which are

copies of pertinent directives. On the organizational development of the

Chemical Warfare Service in the zone of interior, the most fruitful sources

of information are M. T. Bogert's and W. H. Walker's History of the Chemical Service Section, on file at the Technical Library, Army Chemical Center,

Maryland, and the annual reports of the CWS for the years 1918, 1919, and

1920. The retired CWS files in the National Archives contain some important documents.

Peacetime

A brief account of the development of the Chemical Warfare Service

from World War I up through the end of World War II appears in a

volume entitled The Chemical Warfare Service in World War II: A Report

of Accomplishments, published in 1948. This volume was prepared by the

Historical Office for the Chief of the Chemical Corps and was published by

the Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York City, for the Chemical

Corps Association. The brief survey of the CWS in the peacetime period

which appears in this volume is the only such account in print. The sources

for this period include annual reports of the Chemical Warfare Service, the

annual reports of the Secretary of War, War Department general orders
476 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

and other directives dealing with chemical warfare activities, and correspondence and reports in the retired files of the War Department General

Staff, The Adjutant General, and the Chemical Warfare Service. Copies of

much of the correspondence between the War Department and the Chemical

Warfare Service on policy matters were kept on file in the Office of the

Chief, CWS, in a loose-leaf notebook, known as the "black book." After

World War II, Miss Helen McCormick, secretary to successive chiefs of the

CWS, graciously turned over this notebook to the Historical Office. Military

and civilian personnel data for the peacetime period and the World War II

period were obtained from the files of the Civilian Personnel Division,

Office of the Secretary of War, and from working files maintained in the

Office of the Comptroller of the Army and in the Office of the Deputy Chief

of Staff for Personnel.

The Emergency

On the period from the emergency through World War II, several

volumes in the series UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR II

make reference to CWS administration or training activities. These include

The Organization and Role of the Army Service Forces by John D. Millett,

The Women's Army Corps by Mattie E. Treadwell, The Procurement and

Training of Ground Force Troops by Robert R. Palmer, Bell I. Wiley, and

William R. Keast, and The Organization of Ground Combat Troops by

Kent R. Greenfield, Robert R. Palmer, and Bell I. Wiley.

In June 1943 the Chemical Corps Historical Office was established as

part of the War Department historical program. This office prepared a

number of monographs on various phases of CWS activities, including administration, military training, research, procurement, and supply. These

studies were written on the basis of research in a limited number of sources

available in the Office of the Chief, CWS, and at certain CWS installations.

In addition to the monographs, the Historical Office initiated and supervised

an historical program throughout the Chemical Warfare Service, which

resulted in the compilation of historical monographs by the CWS installations. These various monographs proved useful in the compilation of the

present volume. Copies of these histories are on file in the Chemical Corps

Historical Office and the Office of the Chief of Military History. The Historical Office also collected a number of valuable records.

World War II

With the increase of CWS activities from the period of the national
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 477

emergency on, came a concomitant expansion of the volume of records,

reports, and pieces of correspondence which these activities entailed. The

bulk of CWS retired files for the World War II period, now located in the

Technical Services Records Section, Military Records Branch, Region 3, General Services Administration (formerly the Departmental Records Branch,

The Adjutant General's Office), is many times that of the World War I and

peacetime periods combined. The voluminousness of these files is not necessarily an indication of their value to the historian. They contain much

material that is not useful for historical purposes, and they lack data on

some of the more important developments in the Chemical Warfare Service.

To fill in gaps in the history of CWS administration, research was conducted

with the following sources: records of the United States Chemical Warfare

Committee on file in the Historical Office; the retired files of the Chief of

Staff, of the Assistant Chiefs of Staff, G-1, G-2, G-3 and G-4, the War

Plans Division (WPD), and its successor the Operations Division (OPD),

all sections of the War Department General Staff; the central file maintained by The Adjutant General's Office (AG); and the files of Headquarters,

Army Service Forces. All of the foregoing were located in the Departmental

Records Branch, The Adjutant General's Office, at the time this volume was

compiled. Footnote citations throughout the volume which give file numbers

preceded by the abbreviation "CWS" indicate documents currently filed in

the Technical Services Records Section. Other records, such as those of the

Assistant Chief of Staff, G-1, are indicated by the appropriate organizational

abbreviation.

To supplement the data in these files, the author of Part I of this volume

corresponded with and interviewed key soldiers of all ranks as well as

civilians who participated in the events described. These letters and interviews proved extremely valuable because many times the reasons behind

administrative actions were not made a matter of record. At the time of

writing, these letters and interviews were on file in the Chemical Corps

Historical Office. Copies of these documents will be retired to Technical

Service Records Section under file reference 314.7, Interviews and Correspondence.

The sources described above were researched for material for both parts

of the volume. In the writing of Part II extensive use was also made of the

collection of Chemical Warfare Service records on military training located

in the Chemical Corps Historical Office. This collection includes blocks of

records pertaining to the following Chemical Warfare Service training areas:

unit training, replacement training both at Edgewood Arsenal and Camp
478 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Sibert, the Chemical Warfare Schools (including class records for most

courses), Officers Candidate School, War Department Civil Defense Schools

(conducted by the CWS), the administration of training, training literature,

and the chemical warfare training of other services and arms. Also researched were the training records among the retired CWS files in the Technical Services Records Section, and the historical data cards and orders on

chemical units furnished by the Organization and Directory Section, Operations Branch, Administrative Services Division, The Adjutant General's

Office.
Glossary

THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

GLOSSARY

AAB

AAF

AC

ACmlC

ACofS

Actg

Adm

Adm O

AEF

AGF

AGO

ANMB

APG

App.

Aprt

AR

ARCADIA

ASC

ASF

ASFTC

ASGS

ASW

AUS

AV

BCWPD

Bd

BFM

Bn

Br

Bull

BW

Army Air Base

Army Air Forces

Hydrogen cyanide (war gas); Assistant Chief

Army Chemical Center, Md.

Assistant Chief of Staff

Acting

Administration; Administrative

Administrative Order

American Expeditionary Forces

Army Ground Forces

Adjutant General's Office

Army and Navy Munitions Board

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.

Appendix

Airport

Army Regulation

U.S.-British conference held in Washington, December 1941—

January 1942

Army Specialist Corps

Army Service Forces

Army Service Forces Training Center

Assistant Secretary, General Staff

Assistant Secretary of War

Army of the United States

Antivapor

Boston Chemical Warfare Procurement District

Board

Basic Field Manual

Battalion

Branch

Bulletin

Biological Warfare
480 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

CA

Ca.

CC

CC (CK)

CCS

CCW

CCWC

CCWS

CD

CDC

CG

Ch.

CinC

CINCSWPA

Cir

C Log Gp

Cml

Cml C

CmlHO

Cml O

CNO

CO

Co

CofEngrs

CofOrd

CofS

Com

Comd

Comdr

Comdt

COMINCH

Comm

Comp

Conf

Cong

Contl

Co-ord

Corres

CRL

Cp.

Chief

Corps Area

About; approximately

Chemical Corps

Cyanogen chloride

Combined Chiefs of Staff

Publications symbol for the British Inter-Service Committee on

Chemical Warfare

Combined Chemical Warfare Committee

Chief, Chemical Warfare Service

Civilian Defense

Caribbean Defense Command

Commanding General; Phosgene (war gas)

Chapter

Commander-in-Chief

Commander-in-Chief, Southwest Pacific Area

Circular

Chief Logistics Group

Chemical

Chemical Corps

Chemical Corps Historical Office

Chemical Corps Office

Chief of Naval Operations

Commanding Officer

Company

Chief of Engineers

Chief of Ordnance

Chief of Staff

Committee

Command

Commander

Commandant

Commander-in-Chief

Commission

Composite

Conference

Congress

Control

Co-ordination

Correspondence

Chemical Corps Chemical and Radiological Laboratories

Camp
GLOSSARY 481

CPS

CsofS

Ctr

CWP

CWPD

CWS

D

DA

DANC

DC

DCofS

DCWPD

Decon

Dep

Det

DF

Dir

Div

DM

DRB

dtd

EA

EM

Engr

ERC

ETO

ETOUSA

Ex

Ex O

Fld

FM

FS

Ft.

FY

G-1

G-2

G-3

G-4

Gen

GHQ

GO

GP

Combined Staff Planners

Chiefs of Staff

Center

Chemical Warfare Program

Chemical Warfare Procurement District

Chemical Warfare Service

Dive [bombardment company]

Department of the Army

Decontaminating Agent, Noncorrosive

Deputy Chief

Deputy Chief of Staff

Dallas Chemical Warfare Procurement District

Decontamination

Depot

Detachment

Disposition form

Director

Division

Irritant Smoke

Departmental Records Branch, The Adjutant General's Office

Dated

Edgewood Arsenal

Enlisted men

Engineer

Enlisted Reserve Corps

European Theater of Operations

European Theater of Operations, U.S. Army

Executive

Executive Officer

Field

Field Manual

Solution of sulfur trioxide in chlorosulfonic acid (smoke)

Fort

Fiscal year

Personnel Division, War Department General Staff

Intelligence Division, War Department General Staff

Operations & Training Division, War Department General Staff

Supply Division, War Department General Staff

General

General Headquarters

General Orders

General Purpose
482 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Gp

GPI

GSC

GTA

HA

HE

Hist

HO

Hon

Hq

IGD

Impreg

Incl

Ind

Insp

Intel

Interv

IOM

IPF

ISCCW

JB

JCS

JLC

JLPC

JPS

Jt

L

Lab

Lib

Log

M&H

M-Day

Maint

Mfg

Mil

Min

MIT

Mob

Mob Plan

Mob Reg

Mort

MS

Group

Granite Peak Installation

General Staff Corps (British)

Graphic Training Aid

Huntsville Arsenal

High explosive

History

Historical Office

Honorable

Headquarters

Inspector General's Department

Impregnation

Inclosure

Indorsement; Industrial

Inspection

Intelligence

Interview

Interoffice memo

Initial Protective Force

Inter-Service Committee on Chemical Warfare (British)

Joint Board

Joint Chiefs of Staff

Joint Logistics Committee [of the Combined Chiefs of Staff]

Joint Logistics Plans Committee

Joint Staff Planners [of the Combined Chiefs of Staff]

Joint

Light [bombardment company]

Laboratory

Library

Logistics

Medium or heavy [bombardment company]

Mobilization Day

Maintenance

Manufacturing

Military

Minutes

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Mobilization

Mobilization Plan

Mobilization Regulation

Mortar

Manuscript
GLOSSARY 483

Mtg

MTP

Mtz

NA

NCO

n.d.

NDD

NDRC

NG

NOB

NRC

NYCWPD

OASW

O/C

OCA

OC CWS

OCD

OCMH

OCofS

OCS

Off

Off O

OLYMPIC

OPD

Opns

ORC

Ord

OSRD

OSS

OSW

OUSW

Par

PBA

Pers

P.G.

Plng

PMP

POM

POW

PRAD

Proc

Prof

Meeting

Mobilization Training Program

Motorized

National Army; National Archives of the United States

Non-commissioned officer

No date

New Developments Division

National Defense Research Committee

National Guard

Naval Operating Base

National Research Council

New York Chemical Warfare Procurement District

Office of the Assistant Secretary of War

Officer in Charge

Office of the Comptroller of the Army

Office of the Chief, Chemical Warfare Service

Office of Civilian Defense

Office, Chief of Military History

Office of the Chief of Staff

Officer Candidate School

Office

Office Order

Plan for March 1946 invasion of Kyushu, Japan

Operations Division, War Department General Staff

Operations

Officers' Reserve Corps

Ordnance

Office of Scientific Research and Development

Office of Strategic Services

Office of the Secretary of War

Office of the Under Secretary of War

Paragraph

Pine Bluff Arsenal

Personnel

Proving Ground

Planning

Protective Mobilization Plan

Preparation for Overseas Movement [Section]

Prisoner of War

Progress Review and Analysis Division

Procurement; Processing

Professor
484 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

Proj

Pt.

QM

QMG

R.

RA

Rad

RAF

R&D

Rcd

Reqmts

Res

Ret.

RMA

ROTC

Rpt

RTC

Sec

Secy

Sep

Serv

SFCWPD

SGO

SGS

SJP

Smk Gen

SN

SO

SOS

S&P

SPD

SPHINX

SS

SSN

SSUSA

Stat

Sub

Subcom

SW

SWPA

TAG

Project

Part

Quartermaster

Quartermaster General

Republican

Regular Army

Radio

Royal Air Force

Research and Development

Record

Requirements

Reserve; resolution

Retired

Rocky Mountain Arsenal

Reserve Officers Training Corps

Report

Replacement Training Center

Section

Secretary [of State]

Separate

Service

San Francisco Chemical Warfare Procurement District

Surgeon General's Office

Secretary, General Staff

San Jose Project

Smoke Generator

Secretary of the Navy

Special Orders

Services of Supply

Strategy & Policy

Special Project Division

An over-all Army project concerned with testing of equipment and

tactics for detecting and reducing Japanese field fortifications.

Selective Service

Specification serial number

Special Staff United States Army

Statute; Statistics

Subject

Subcommittee

Secretary of War

Southwest Pacific Area

The Adjutant General
GLOSSARY 485

TB

T/BA

TC

Tech

TIG

TM

Tng

T/O

T/O&E

TQMG

TSG

Trans

TWX

UGO

UN

USA

USAFFE

USASOS

USBWC

USCWC

USES

USSR

USMC

USN

USW

UTC

VCNO

WAAC

Waac

WAC

Wac

WBC

WD

WDCP

WDGS

WDMB

WDSS

WP

WPD

WRS

Z of I

Technical Bulletin

Table of Basic Allowances

Training Center

Technical

The Inspector General

Technical Manual

Training

Table of Organization

Table of Organization & Equipment

The Quartermaster General

The Surgeon General

Translator

Teletype message

Unit Gas Officer

United Nations

United States Army

United States Army Forces Far East

United States Army Services of Supply

United States Biological Warfare Committee

United States Chemical Warfare Committee

U.S. Employment Service

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

United States Marine Corps

United States Navy

Under Secretary of War

Unit Training Center

Vice Chief of Naval Operations

Women's Army Auxiliary Corps

A member of the WAAC

Women's Army Corps

A member of the WAC

Reversal of initials for Committee on Biological Warfare

War Department

War Department Civilian Protection

War Department General Staff

War Department Manpower Board

War Department Special Staff

White phosphorus

War Plans Division, War Department General Staff

War Research Service

Zone of Interior

UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR II

The following volumes have been published or are in press:

The War Department

Chief of Staff: Prewar Plans and Preparations

Washington Command Post: The Operations Division

Strategic Planning for Coalition Warfare: 1941-1942

Strategic Planning for Coalition Warfare: 1943-1944

Global Logistics and Strategy: 1940-1943

Global Logistics and Strategy: 1943-1945

The Army and Economic Mobilization

The Army and Industrial Manpower

The Army Ground Forces

The Organization of Ground Combat Troops

The Procurement and Training of Ground Combat Troops

The Army Service Forces

The Organization and Role of the Army Service Forces

The Western Hemisphere

The Framework of Hemisphere Defense

Guarding the United States and Its Outposts

The War in the Pacific

The Fall of the Philippines

Guadalcanal: The First Offensive

Victory in Papua

CARTWHEEL: The Reduction of Rabaul

Seizure of the Gilberts and Marshalls

Campaign in the Marianas

The Approach to the Philippines

Leyte: The Return to the Philippines

Triumph in the Philippines

Okinawa: The Last Battle

Strategy and Command: The First Two Years

The Mediterranean Theater of Operations

Northwest Africa: Seizing the Initiative in the West

Sicily and the Surrender of Italy

Salerno to Cassino

Cassino to the Alps

The European Theater of Operations

Cross-Channel Attack

Breakout and Pursuit

The Lorraine Campaign

The Siegfried Line Campaign

The Ardennes: Battle of the Bulge

The Last Offensive
488 THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE

The Supreme Command

Logistical Support of the Armies, Volume I

Logistical Support of the Armies, Volume II

The Middle East Theater

The Persian Corridor and Aid to Russia

The China-Burma-India Theater

Stilwell's Mission to China

Stilwell's Command Problems

Time Runs Out in CBI

The Technical Services

The Chemical Warfare Service: Organizing for War

The Chemical Warfare Service: From Laboratory to Field

The Chemical Warfare Service: Chemicals in Combat

The Corps of Engineers: Troops and Equipment

The Corps of Engineers: The War Against Japan

The Corps of Engineers: The War Against Germany

The Corps of Engineers: Military Construction in the United States

The Medical Department: Hospitalization and Evacuation; Zone of Interior

The Medical Department: Medical Service in the Mediterranean and Minor

Theaters

The Ordnance Department: Planning Munitions for War

The Ordnance Department: Procurement and Supply

The Ordnance Department: On Beachhead and Battlefront

The Quartermaster Corps: Organization, Supply, and Services, Volume I

The Quartermaster Corps: Organization, Supply, and Services, Volume II

The Quartermaster Corps: Operations in the War Against Japan

The Quartermaster Corps: Operations in the War Against Germany

The Signal Corps: The Emergency

The Signal Corps: The Test

The Signal Corps: The Outcome

The Transportation Corps: Responsibilities, Organization, and Operations

The Transportation Corps: Movements, Training, and Supply

The Transportation Corps: Operations Overseas

Special Studies

Chronology: 1941-1945

Military Relations Between the United States and Canada: 1939-1945

Rearming the French

Three Battles: Arnaville, Altuzzo, and Schmidt

The Women's Army Corps

Civil Affairs: Soldiers Become Governors

Buying Aircraft: Materiel Procurement for the Army Air Forces

The Employment of Negro Troops

Manhattan: The U.S. Army and the Atomic Bomb

Pictorial Record

The War Against Germany and Italy: Mediterranean and Adjacent Areas

The War Against Germany: Europe and Adjacent Areas

The War Against Japan
Index

Abel, Col. Raymond L., 111, 113

Aberdeen Proving Ground, 367

ACTION OVERHEAD, 246-47

Adams, Roger, 106

Adjutant General, The, 363

Advisory Committee, CWS, 28

Advisory Committee on Effectiveness of Gas Warfare in Tropics, 78, 106

Air service units, CWS, 310-12

Alley, Col. Charles R., 229, 232

Allotment Board, 146-48

American Chemical Society, 28

American University Experiment Station, 10, 12

Amherst College, 241

Apprentice training, 155-56

Appropriations (CWS), June 1940, 36-37

Army Air Force, 50-51

Army Air Forces (AAF)

air chemical school, 347

assignments to Navy CW Training Unit, 356

gas training at CW School, 350-51

responsibility for unit training, 297-98

trainees detailed to CWS RTC, 281

Army Air Forces Chemical Units, 209-10

Army Air Forces Gas Training, 222-24

Army Ground Forces (AGF)

activates 4.2-inch mortar battalions, 298

and gas defense training, 384-85

responsibility for chemical mortar battalions, 267

responsibility for unit training, 297-98

trains chemical battalion replacements, 290

trains mortar battalions, 280

Army Service Forces (ASF), 51n, 92, 99, 131

checks unit training, 336

Director of Military Training, 284

influence on CWS Installations, 141

Military Personnel Division, 284

Military Training Division, 323

plans for CWS supplies, 81

policy on decentralization of operations, 98

prescribes basic training, 274-76

responsibility for unit training, 297-98

responsible for branch schools, 340

supervises training of service units, 310

wage administration system, 158

Army Specialist Corps, 144-45

Arnold, Gen. Henry H., 83, 88, 383

Arsenal Operations, Chemical Warfare Center, 120

Arsenals, CWS, 120-22

employee relations at, 172-73

employee training, 174-75

manpower utilization, civilian, 179-80

Assignment Review Board, WD, 148

Assistant Chief, CWS, for Field Operations, 101

Assistant Chief, CWS, for Matériel, 101

Assistant Secretary of War, 156

Atkisson, Maj. Earl J., 14

Atlanta Procurement District, 110-11

Atlanta University, 166

Avery, Brig. Gen. Ray L., 119

Bacon, Col. Raymond F., 9

Bacon, Col. William S., 123n, 138, 169-70

Baker, Newton D., 16

Baker, Maj. Gen. Walter C., 28, 38, 39, 43, 132n,

202, 232

Baldwin, Ira L., 107

Baltimore Suboffice, OCCWS, 98

Baltimore, University of, 175

Barker, Lt. Col. Maurice E., 38, 43, 303, 340

Behrenberg, Maj. William C., 123n

Biological Division, OCCWS, 96

Biological warfare, 43, 46-48, 397

courses in, Camp Detrick, 356-57

held impracticable by CW School, 195

installations, 138-41

Special Projects Division, OCCWS, 107-09

Birmingham, Alabama, 110

Black, Col. Henry M., 163

Blanchard, Col. Edward B., 123n

Bleach, 72

Board of Civilian Protection, 248

Bogert, Lt. Col. Marston T., 11

Boll weevil project, 31

Boothby, Capt. Walter M., 6, 7

Borden, Brig. Gen. William A., 86, 87

Boston Procurement District, 32, 111, 114, 117, 176

Bottomly, Air Marshal N. H., 69

Brett, Lt. Gen. George H., 136

Brigham, Maj. Gen. Claude E., 28

British Air Commission, 75

British ISCCW, 89

British Special Brigade, 14

Brooks, Col. Herrold E., 159

Brown, Francis J., 241

Brunskill, Maj. Gen. G., 69

Bryden, Maj. Gen. William, 236

Bullene, Brig. Gen. Egbert F., 106, 129, 136-37, 138

Bundy, Harvey H., 47, 60

Bureau of Mines, 3, 5

Burn, Walter P., 233-34

Burns, Col. John R., 135

Burrell, Col. George A., 12

Bush, Vannevar, 47, 59-60
490 ORGANIZING FOR WAR

Bushnell, Florida, mobile laboratory unit, 105

Butler, Nicholas Murray, 134

California State Department of Education, 176

Camp American University, 14

Camp Beale, 131, 353

Camp Detrick, 107, 108, 138-39

BW course at, 356-57

medical laboratory set up, 105

selection of site, 107

WAAC personnel at, 153

Camp Gordon (Ga.), 301

Camp Gordon Johnston (Fla.), 300, 334

Camp Kendrick, 12-13

Camp Lee, 291

Camp Pickett, 301

Camp Rucker, 301

Camp Sibert, 141, 152, 394. See also Replacement

Training Center, CWS.

activation of units, 325-26

advanced training battalions, 333-34

change in character, 289-90

construction initiated, 270-72

CWS proposals for utilization, 290-91

deactivated, 291

designated Class I activity, 287

medical laboratory set up, 105

officer pool established, 283

organizational developments, 125-30

retention of units at, 333

training facilities, 272-73

Unit Training Center activated, 312

Unit Training Center constructed, 319-20

Caribbean Defense Command, 137

Chamberlain, Gen. George E., 16

Chemical Battalions. See Mortar Battalions, 4.2-inch.

Chemical Company, 1st Separate, 200

Chemical Mortar. See Mortar, 4.2-inch, Chemical.

Chemical officer, 191

Chemical Regiment, 2d, 200, 299

Chemical Service Section, National Army, 9, 10-11

Chemical service units, 265-66

Chemical supply problems, AEF, 7-8

Chemical troop units, proposed basis of activation,

World War II, 56

Chemical Warfare Amphibious Project, 300-301

Chemical Warfare Board, 28, 253-54, 256, 260

Chemical Warfare Center (CWC), 117-20. See also

Edgewood Arsenal.

medical research laboratory, 349

Training Aids Section, 254

Troops and Training Department controls CW

School, 340

WAAC personnel at, 153

Chemical Warfare School, 33, 148-49, 193, 194-96,

241, 250, 253, 331, 367

Advanced Course, 342, 345

Air Forces Chemical Course, 344, 345

Air Forces gas defense course at, 222

approved courses, 1945, 358-59

Basic Course, 196, 342-45

Battalion Officers' Course, 345

cadremen detailed to, 281

CWS Enlisted Men's Course, 346

civilian courses on incendiaries, 235-40

Combat and Service Course, 345

Command and Staff Course, 343

designated Class IV installation, 340

emergency period, 224-25

enlisted men's courses, prewar, 190-91

extension course, prewar, 190

facilities, 341

Field Officers' Course, 196

gas NCO training, 348-49

graduations, 357

instruction for Navy officers, 35

Laboratory Course, 346

Line and Staff Course, 196

made separate command, 340

Medical Officers Course, 349, 351

mission, 339

Navy Courses, 196, 350, 351

NCO Staff Course, 348

officer and NCO gas training, AAF, 350-51

officer training for mortar battalions, 306

operations and methods, 351-53

preparation of texts, 259, 260

proposed enlargement, 57

responsibility for Training Aids, 255

shortcomings, 359-60

size, 341-42

Special Mortar Operations Course, 346

students, 195

subcourses, 353

Toxic Gas Handlers Course, 350

trains CW instructors, 389

trains incoming officers, 189

Troop Officers Course, 342-43

unit gas officer training, 346-48

Unit Gas Officers' classes at, 223, 348

Unit Gas Officers' (UGO) Course, 347

Chemical Warfare School Reproduction Plant, 262

Chemical Warfare Service, National Army, establishment, 12-13

Chemical Warfare Service mission

emergency period

combat 202-05

training 38-39

gas warfare mission in World War II, 59-62

peacetime period

procurement and supply, 31

research and development, 30

training, 33

post-World War I, 15-17, 22-24

supply mission defined, 24

training mission defined, 24
INDEX 491

Chemical Warfare Service mission—Continued

relaxation of restrictions, 1934-36, 32-33

Chemical Warfare Service Soldiers Guide, 325

Chemical Warfare Service Technical Committee,

28, 34

Chemicals procurement, 37

Chicago Procurement District, 32, 111

Chief of Naval Operations, 35n

Chittick, Col. Martin B., 108, 138-39

Church, Col. James R., 6

Churchill, Winston S., 10, 63

Citizens' Defense Corps, 247

Civil Defense Branch, G-3, 247

Civil Defense Section, SOS, 247

Civilian defense

courses on West Coast, 240

CWS prewar interest in, 229-32

demonstrations in Mexico, 246

training at Edgewood Arsenal, 235-40

War Plans Division plan for, 232

Civilian employee pool, 161

Civilian personnel, CWS

at arsenals, 162-68

at depots, 168-70

employee relations, OCCWS, 161-62

in procurement districts, 170-72

peak enrollment, 154

personnel organizations at CWS arsenals, 167-68

ratio to military, 142

training, 173-76

training, OCCWS, 161

utilization, 177-81

wage rate problems, 156-58

Civilian Protection Branch, OCCWS, 243, 244

Civilians, direct commissioning of, 144

Coast Artillery Corps, 143

Cochran, Maj. James H., 123n

Colorado, University of, 174

Columbia University, 132

Columbia University Laboratory, 133-34

Combined Chemical Warfare Committee (CCWC),

67, 68-69

Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCS), 64, 65

Directive 106/2, 14 Nov 42, 63n, 65, 71, 80

policy on gas warfare logistics, 82

Combined Staff Planners (CPS), 64

Command and General Staff School, 194

Commission on Colleges and Civilian Defense, 241

Committee on Medical Research, 38

Committee on Treatment of Gas Casualties, 104

Compton, Karl T., 133

Conant, James Bryant, 38, 59-60, 106, 132n

Control Division, OCCWS, 114

activation, 95

functions, 95

manpower utilization, 178

plans work measurement at depots, 180

supervises arsenal personnel utilization, 179

Control Division, OCCWS—Continued

survey on organization, 101

Corps chemical officers, training activities, 396

Crawford, Maj. Robert W., 8

Croneis, Carey, 135

Crowell, Benedict, 16

Crowell, Col. Clarence W., 111, 111n

Dallas Procurement District, 110-11, 176

Decontamination Company, 1st Chemical, 150, 209

Decontamination Company, 2d Chemical, 209

Defandorf, Lt. Col. James H., 107

Defense Against Chemical Warfare (subcourse), 190

Demobilization after World War I, 14-15

Denver, Colorado, 167

Denver, University of, 174

Depot Company, 3d Chemical, 209

Depot Company, 190th Chemical, 169

Depot Company, 412th Chemical, 200, 206, 309

Depots, CWS, 122-23

civilian personnel at, 168-70

employee training, 175-76

work measurement program, 180

Depots for gas warfare, AEF, 8

Deschenes, Maj. Homer J., 123n

Deseret Chemical Warfare Depot, 122, 168-70, 176

Dewey, Col. Bradley, 12, 132

Dick, 1st Lt. John N., 236

Dill, Sir John, 68

Distribution priorities for CW matériel established,

57

Ditto, Brig. Gen. Rollo C., 103, 111n, 121, 121n

Dorsey, Col. Frank M., 12

Douhet, Giulio, 223

Dugway Proving Ground, 135

advanced unit training at, 334

medical laboratory set up, 105

studies in naval gas warfare, 355-56

WAAC personnel at, 153

Durfee School, Fall River, 176

Eastern Chemical Warfare Depot (Edgewood), 123,

125, 176

civilian personnel organization, 170

labor needs, 168

Edgewood Arsenal, 10, 12, 37, 43. See also Chemical

Warfare Center (CWC).

activated by Ordnance, 1917, 4

advanced unit training at, 334

apprentice training at, 156

basic training at, 213

cadre training company, 279-80

civilian defense training at, 235-40

demonstration of incendiaries at, 235

depot storage, post-World War I, 32

employee relations at, 172-73

employee training, 173, 175

limitations on CWS School capacity, 195
492 ORGANIZING FOR WAR

Edgewood Arsenal—Continued

Naval Unit at, 34-35

new research center, 1940, 38

OCS location at, 366

officer pool established, 283

organization, post-World War I, 28-30

pilot mustard plant, 37

preparation and review of training manuals, 253

proposed expansion of site, 1942, 56-57

rehabilitation program, 32-33

replacement training center, 39, 268-70

ROTC training, prewar, 190

restriction to defensive items between the wars,

31-32

Service Division, 180

shortage of civilian workers, 162-64

technical training of replacements at, 291

trains gas mask inspectors, 155

trains inspectors, 176

use of WAAC personnel, 154

wage problems, 156-58

Edgewood Chemical Warfare Depot, 123. See also

Eastern Chemical Warfare Depot (Edgewood).

Educational Orders Program, 36

Eisenhower, Maj. Gen. Dwight D., 54

Elliott, Col. Lowell A., 95

Embick, Brig. Gen. Stanley D., 32-33

Employee Relations Branch, OCCWS, 162

Engineer Regiment, 30th (Gas and Flame). See 1st

Gas Regiment.

Engineer School, 394

Engineers, Corps of, 4n, 16

gas warfare responsibilities, World War I, 4-5

responsibility in flame warfare, 394

Engle, Maj. Eldon B., 123n

English, Maj. Gen. Paul X., 43, 132n, 162

Enlisted personnel, procurement of, 149-50

Essman, Col. Graydon C., 135

Facilities expansion in emergency period, 1940-41,

37

Far Eastern Technical Unit, 78

Field Manual (FM), 21-40, 391-92

Field Manuals, 256-57

Field Requirements Division, OCCWS, 101

Field Service, OCCWS, 43, 96, 99

1st Gas Regiment (formerly gas and flame regiment), 6, 14

Fisher, Col. George J. B., 132, 236, 240

Fitzgerald, Lt. Col. Philip J., 94

Flame, training for, 393-94

Flame-throwers, 394

Forest Products Laboratory, 175

Fort Belvoir, 394

Fort Bliss, 301

Fort D. A. Russell, 301

Fort Eustis, 150

Fort Hoyle, 43, 212

Fort McClellan, 329

Foster, Russell, 136-37

Foulkes, Maj. Gen. C. H., 14

Fourth Service Command, 129-30, 289

Fox, Maj. Leon A., 46

Fred, Edwin Brown, 47

Fries, Maj. Gen. Amos A., 5-8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 23,

27-28

FS smoke mixture, standardization of, 31

Fumigation of ships, 31

G-3, War Department General Staff (WDGS), and

RTC's, 284

Gadsen, Alabama, 125

Gas bombs, U.S.-British co-ordination on supply, 72

Gas chamber in divisional training, 386

Gas Defense Production Division, CWS, 132

Gas Defense Service (Medical Department), 4n

Gas defense training, 396-97

in the Army Air Forces, 382-83

basic Field Manual standards, 192

CWS inspection of, 388-90

as of December 1941, 382

emergency period, 217-19

in ground units, 383-84

policy, 384-85

prewar, 191-94

revival of, World War II, 385-86

shortcomings, 390-92

in theaters of operation, 386-88

trends, 392-93

in unit training, 386

WD CW directive published, 1942, 385

Gas detector kits, 392

Gas mask

fully molded facepiece for, 31

procurement, 37

Gas mask repair plant, AEF, 8

Gas officer, 191-92

Gas Regiment, 1st. See 1st Gas Regiment.

Gas Service, AEF, 6-8, 12

Gas schools in the AEF, 6-7

Gas warfare, 310, 336

advisory committee on effectiveness in tropics,

78, 106

AEF organization for, 5-8

Air Force policy, 1941, 382-83

Army-Navy joint policy statement, 1934, 21

conference on U.S. capabilities, 1942, 61

in CW school curriculum, 194-95

CWS recommendations, World War II, 54-57, 59

dominates prewar training, 187-88

intelligence estimates, prewar, 197

logistical basis, 80-86

Navy training for, 355-56

OPD study on initiation, 87

policy, 382

proposed use vs. Japan, 86-88, 90
INDEX 493

Gas warfare—Continued

readiness reports, 79-80

stockpiling toxic agents, 82

training in, prewar, 196-98

U.N. policy on, 63

U.N. requirements, 52-54

U.S. capabilities, World War II, 50-51, 60-62

U.S. policy, prewar, 194

U.S. policy after World War I, 18-22, 24

World War I, 3

Gasser, Maj. Gen. Lorenzo D., 236

Gasser Board, 181

General Headquarters (GHQ), Army, 219-22

Geneva Gas Protocol, 20-21, 49, 50

GHQ, Army. See General Headquarters (GHQ),

Army.

Gibson, Col. Adelno, 233

Gilchrist, Maj. Gen. Harry L., 6, 28, 34, 104

Gillet, Col. Norman D., 125

Granite Peak (BW Installation), 108, 140

Graphic Training Aids, 257

Ground Chemical Officer, AGF, 304-05

Ground Service Units, CWS, 308-10

Gulf Chemical Warfare Depot (Huntsville), 123,

168, 176

Gullans, Lt. Col. Oscar, 123n

Hague Peace Conference of 1899, 18-19

Hanlon, Lt. Joseph T., 9

Hanlon Field, 9

Hart, Capt. Helen H., 154

Harvard School of Business Administration, 189

Hay, John, 18-19

Heiss, Maj. Herbert P., 111, 111n

Hinyard, Lt. Col. James N., 308

Hitler, Adolf, 197

Hobby, Col. Oveta Culp, 153-54

Hoover, Herbert, 21

Horn Island (BW testing grounds), 108, 139-40

Housing shortages, 172

Howe, H. E., 132n

Huebner, Brig. Gen. Clarence R., 285

Hulett, George A., 5

Hull, Cordell, 49

Huntsville Arsenal, 37, 120, 121, 173, 174

civilian employees, 164-67

civilian personnel organizations, 167-68

employee relations at, 172-73

WAC personnel at, 153

Huntsville Chemical Warfare Depot, 123. See also

Gulf Chemical Warfare Depot.

Hurd, Col. Lester W., 111, 111n, 117

Impregnating Company, 1st Chemical, 209

Impregnite, 31

Incendiaries, 121

in CW School curriculum, 195

training in defense against, 395-96

Incendiary bombs, responsibility, 43, 45, 46, 397

Incendiary Branch, OCCWS, 96-97, 134

Incendiary grenades, 396

Indianapolis Chemical Warfare Depot, 123, 168-69,

176

Industrial Division, OCCWS, 101, 109

Plant Protection, Safety and Labor Branch, 182-

83

supervises arsenal personnel utilization, 179

supervises POW activities, 181

Industrial Liaison Branch, Industrial Division,

OCCWS, 104

Industrial mobilization, emergency period, 36-37

Industrial Mobilization Plan of 1939, 113

Industrial Service, OCCWS, 43, 96, 99

Infantry Divisions

45th, 301

75th, 396

80th, 396

Initial Protective Force (IPF), 199

Inspection Division, OCCWS, 101, 115-17

Inspector General, The, 335, 390

Inspectors at gas mask plants, 155

Instructor training at CWS Unit Training Center,

327-28

Intelligence Branch, OCCWS, 183

Inter-Allied Commission for Chemical Warfare

Supply, 10

Inter-Allied gas conferences, World War I, 9-10

Inter-Service Committee on Chemical Warfare

(ISCCW), 64

Irwin, Col. C. L., 371

Javits, Lt. Col. Jacob K., 69

JCS 825/4, 84, 85

Jennings, Col. Maurice E., 131

Jewett, Frank B., 47

Job training programs ("J" series), 173-74, 175

Johnston, Ivan M., 136n

Johnston, Col. Thomas J., 128, 129

Johnston, Lt. Col. Willard A., 236

Joint Army and Navy Board, 32, 33n, 35

Joint Chemical Spray Project Subcommittee,

USCWC, 74-75

Joint Chief of Staff (JCS), 85, 90

Joint Intelligence Committee, 85

Joint Logistics Committee (JLC), 83-85

Joint Staff Planners (JPS), 83-84, 85

Jungle Warfare experimental company, 308

Kahn, Julius, 16

Kellogg, Frank B., 21

Kellogg-Briand Pact, 24

King, Admiral Ernest J., 87

Kohler, Elmer P., 9-10

Kuhn, Col. Harry A., 94, 95, 111n

Laboratory Company, 1st, 149, 209

Laboratory Company, 3d, 209
494 ORGANIZING FOR WAR

LaGuardia, Fiorello H., 229

Lake Ontario Ordnance Works, 123, 169

Lakehurst, N. J., Proving Ground, 12

Landis, James M., 246

Leahy, Capt. Michael A., USN, Ret., 350

Leahy, Admiral William D., 88

Lebkicher, Col. Harry R., 111n

Legal Division, OCCWS, 96, 97

Leland Stanford Jr. University, 241

Lend-lease, CWS procurement for, 1941, 37

Lewis, Warren K., 9-10, 132n

Linsert, Lt. Col. Henry, 212

Locality wage survey boards, 158

Loucks, Brig. Gen. Charles E., 100-101, 121n, 178

Loyola University (New Orleans), 242

Lyon, Col. James W., 111n

Lyster, Col. William J. L., 13

Maintenance Company, 3d, 209

Maintenance Company, 10th, 208

Maneuvers, Army, mortar battalions in, 1942-43,

300, 301

Manning, Van H., 3

Manpower conservation, 177-81

Manpower Utilization Committee, OCCWS, 178

March, Gen. Peyton C., 16

Marks, Arthur H., 12n

Marshall, Col. Geoffrey, 121n, 159

Marshall, Gen. George C., 45, 48, 51, 52, 57, 59, 60,

62, 64, 68, 80, 87, 178

and gas defense training, 384

directs study on stockage of toxic agents, 85

on WAC status, 154n

proposes training changes, 275

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 33, 143, 189

CWS laboratory, 38, 132-33

ROTC unit, 190

McCloy, John J., 52, 53, 62

McElligott, John J., 232

McLeod, Col. Robert D., Jr., 135-36, 138

McNair, Lt. Gen. Lesley J., 51, 219-20, 222, 298, 385

Medical Department gas warfare responsibilities in

World War I, 3, 4

Medical Division, OCCWS, 104-06

Medical Laboratories, CWS, 105

Medical Research Division, Edgewood Arsenal, 34

Merck, George W., 107, 108

Merrill, Maj. Henry B., 123n

Meuse-Argonne offensive of 1918, 14

Micrometeorology, 356

Midwest Chemical Warfare Depot (Pine Bluff), 123,

168, 176

Miles, Col. Sherman, 231

Milton, Col. Hugh M., II, 396

Mitchell, James P., 164, 178

Mobilization Training Program (MTP)

MTP 1-1, 223

MTP 3-1, 214

Mobilization Training Program (MTP)—Continued

MTP 6-1, 220

MTP 20-1, 216

unit training programs, 323-25

Moffat, Col. Fraser, 107

Montgomery, Col. Edward, 43

Moore, Maj. Gen. Richard C., 46

Mortar, 4.2-inch, Chemical, 31, 202, 205

HE mission for, 302-04

in North Africa, 303

procurement, 37

Mortar, 81-mm., 202, 204-05

Mortar battalions, 4.2-inch, 266, 267

cadres trained for, 280

HE mission proposed, 299

OCS training for, 372-73

proposed by CWS, 45

responsibility for training, 298

training, 299-302, 304-07

Unit Training Program published, 300

1st Separate Chemical Battalion, 200

2d Separate Chemical Battalion, 306

Company A, 215

fires HE in training, 300

in Army maneuvers, 300

joins 45th Infantry Division, 301

moves to Ft. Bragg, 299

as of September 1939, 200

3d Separate (motorized) Chemical Battalion, 306

activated, 1942, 299

in Army maneuvers, 300

81st, 301-02

82d, 301-02

83d, 301-02, 306

84th, 301-02

85th, 304

86th, 304

87th, 304

88th, 304

Mortar units, 4.2-inch Chemical, activations of,

55-56

Munitions Program of 30 June 1940, 36

Mussolini, Benito, 197

Mustard gas, first use of, World War I, 2

Napalm, 394

National Board of Fire Underwriters, 235

National Defense Act of 1920, 17, 143, 187-88

National Defense Research Committee (NDRC), 38,

78, 133, 135

National Research Council (NRC), 3, 104

Navy

courses at CW School, 350, 351

courses at Western CW School, 354

naval CW school, 347

naval detachment at Edgewood Arsenal, 349-50

Navy CW Training Unit, 355-56

represented at CW School, 196
INDEX 495

Navy—Continued

use of CWS equipment, 74

Navy Department, 31

CWS liaison with, 34-35, 35-36

Negro troops, 150-52, 289, 316

Negro units, 151, 309

Negroes

civilian defense students, 245

at CWS arsenals, 164-66, 172-73

at CWS depots, 168

at CWS OCS, 369

New Developments Division, WDGS, 86

New Mexico, recruiting for Deseret Depot, 169-70

New York Procurement District, 32, 111, 117

Norman, Lt. Col. Robert T., 111, 111n

North African Theater of Operations and 4.2-inch

mortar, 303

Northeast Chemical Warfare Depot, 123, 168-69

Northeastern University, 176

Noyes, W. A., Jr., 106

Occidental College, 242

Office of Chief, Chemical Warfare Service (OCCWS)

Baltimore suboffice, 98

Biological Division, 96

civilian personnel, 159-61

Civilian Protection Branch, 243, 244

Control Division, 95, 114, 178

decentralization, 98

decentralization of operations, 114

employee relations, 161-62

Field Requirements Division, 101

Field Service, 43, 96, 99

Incendiary Branch, 96-97, 134

Industrial Division, 101, 109, 181, 182-83

Industrial Liaison Branch, 104

Industrial Service, 43, 96

Inspection Division, 101, 115-17

Intelligence Branch, 183

Legal Division, 96, 97

Medical Division, 104-06

moved to Gravelly Point, 160

organization

1917-18, 12-13

after World War I, 25-27

early wartime, 94-97

emergency period, 39-42, 43

reorganization of May 1943, 101-04

shortcomings, 98-101

Personnel Division, 157-58, 159-60

co-ordinates officer pools, 283-84

Personnel Office, 142

San José Division, 106

San José Project Division, 138

Special Assignments Branch, 107

Special Projects Division, 107-09

supervises arsenal personnel utilization, 179

Supply Division, 109, 122, 125, 175

Office of Chief, Chemical Warfare Service

(OCCWS)—Continued

Technical Division, 101, 109, 119

Technical Service, 43, 96, 99

Training Division, 101, 389

analyzes OCS program, 365

controls service unit training, 310

co-ordinates officer pools, 283-84

role in mortar battalion training, 304-05

specialist training, 330

supervises RTC, 284-85

WAC officers in, 153

War Plans and Theaters Division, 101

work measurement at depots, 180

Office of Civilian Defense (OCD), 229, 233-34, 236,

237, 240, 241, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248,

249, 250

Office of Gas Service, 8-9

Office of Scientific Research and Development

(OSRD), 38, 104-05, 108

Officer assignment policy, peacetime, 143

Officer Candidate School, CWS, 145, 149, 267, 344

authorized, 363

capacity and quotas, 363-65

case studies of failures, 378-79

CWS screening of selectees, 368-69

closure ordered and revoked, 365-66

conduct deficiencies, 377

contribution to CWS, 361-62

facilities, 366-67

faculty, 370-71

failures at, 374-79, 380

grades, 376-77

Honor Committee, 377

leadership deficiency, 376-77

length of course, 373-74

Medical Department soldiers at, 378

Negro students, 151-52, 369

organization, 369-70

overseas veterans at, 379

problems, 380-81

problems of selection for, 367-69

proposed expansion, 57

Status Board, 377

teacher training course, 371

teaching methods, 372

training objectives, 372-74

Officer Candidate School, Southwest Pacific Area,

379

Officer malassignment, 148-49

Officer pools, 282-84, 380-81

Officer procurement sources, 1940-42, 143-46

Officers, CWS

duty strength, 1939, 188

training of, prewar, 189-90

Operations and Training Division, WDGS, 256

Operations Division, WDGS (OPD), 67-68. See also

War Plans Division, WDGS (WPD).
496 ORGANIZING FOR WAR

Operations Division, WDGS (OPD)—Continued

confers on gas warfare, 1942, 61

recommendations on chemical battalions, 57

study on initiating gas warfare, 87-88

Ordnance Department, 121, 397

gas warfare responsibilities, World War I, 4

Overseas Division, CWS, 13-14

Paget, Lt. Col. Humphrey, 67

Panama, Republic of, 106

Passive Defense Against Air Attack, 231

Patterson, Robert P., 53, 120, 178

on industrial manpower, 179

Patton, Maj. Gen. George S., 303

Peacetime organization, OCCWS, 25-27

Pershing, Gen. John J., 5, 9, 11, 13, 16, 19-20

Personnel Division, OCCWS, 157-58, 159-60, 283-84

Personnel Office, OCCWS, 142

Personnel Utilization Board, OCCWS, 178

Pine Bluff Arsenal, 37, 120, 121, 173, 174

civilian employees, 164-66

civilian personnel organization, 168

employee relations at, 172-73

WAAC personnel at, 152-53

Pine Bluff Chemical Warfare Depot, 123 See also

Midwest Chemical Warfare Depot.

Pittsburgh Procurement District, 32, 111, 113-14.

117

Plants, CWS, 172

Porter, Maj. Gen. Ray E., 390

Porter, Maj. Gen. William N., 43, 45, 46, 47-48, 53,

59, 60, 61, 62, 67, 68, 79, 95, 97, 100-101, 103,

109, 113, 114, 129, 131, 133, 135, 141, 162, 205,

236, 237, 240, 241, 299

activates San José Projects Division, 138, 141

acts to improve RTC, 286

appoints Advisory Committee on Gas Warfare in

Tropics, 106

appoints Allotment Board, 146

appoints Manpower Utilization Committee, 178

appoints Personnel Utilization Board, 178

appoints Promotion and Decorations Board, 146

asks assignment of civilian personnel functions,

159

assigns CWS officers, 146

assigns officers to UTC, 327

career, 91

directs use of POW's, 181

heads USCWC, 66

influence on CWS administration, 91-94

opposes closing of OCS, 365-66

on reclassification of Camp Sibert, 130

recommendations for chemical warfare, 55-57

recommends activation of new procurement districts, 110

recommends building Rocky Mountain Arsenal,

120

studies Tropical Test Site, 136

Porter, Maj. Gen. William N.—Continued

study of OCCWS organization, 101

urges HE mission for mortar, 303

on utilization of WAAC, 153-54

Ports of Embarkation, personnel administration

chemical sections, 171-72

Potsdam Conference, 88

Potter, Col. Charles L., 8, 10, 12n

Powers, Col. Patrick F., 111n

Prairie View (Texas) Normal and Industrial

College, 245

Pre-Assignment Development Unit, 161

Prentiss, Brig. Gen. Augustin M., 121n

Prisoners of war, utilization of, 181-82

at Indianapolis Depot, 169

at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, 167

Procurement Districts

activation, 32

activation of Atlanta and Dallas districts, 110-11

background of commanding officers, 111

civilian personnel at, 170-72

civilian personnel organization, 171

employee training, 176

organization within, emergency period, 39-42

organizational developments, 113-15

standardization of organization, 114-15

work measurement programs, 180-81

Procurement Planning, 32

Project Co-ordination Staff, 78, 106

Promotion and Decorations Board, 146-48

Protection Against Gas Attack, 233

Protective Mobilization Plan (PMP), 199, 201, 206

Publications Division, AGO, 253

Purdue University, 241

Puteaux (site of AEF laboratory), 9

Replacement Center, CWS, 39, 209, 210-13. See also

Replacement Training Center, CWS.

Replacement Center NCO Course, 216

Replacement Center Officers Course, 212

Replacement Training. See Replacement Training

Center, CWS.

Replacement Training Center, CWS, 149, 151, 292-

93, 366. See also Replacement Center, CWS.

activated at Edgewood Arsenal, 39

administration, 128-29

AAF trainees instructed, 281

cadres, training of, 279-81, 292-93

expansion after Pearl Harbor, 268

improvements, 286-87

inadequacies, 285-86

instructors, 281-82

operations at Edgewood, 268-70

reduction of capacity, 289-91

relocation in Alabama, 57, 270-72

shipment of trainees from, 288

status, 7 December 1941, 265

supply of trainees, 287-88
INDEX 497

Replacement Training Center, CWS—Continued

training policies, 274-77

training procedures, Camp Sibert, 279-82

trend toward generalized training, 277-79

Research and Development

additional wartime facilities, 132-41

American-British co-ordination, 77-78

interchange of information among U.S., Britain,

and Canada, 89

policy on, 1937-39, 37-38

projects undertaken between the wars, 30-31

testing facilities, 134-38

Research on toxic agents, World War I, 5

Reserve CWS Regiments, 203-04

Reserve Officer Training, CWS, 33

emergency period, 225-28

prewar, 189-90

Reserve Officers, CWS, 144

components, prewar, 189

effect of rank on organization, 97

Thomason Act officers, 227

Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC)

courses, 33

prewar, 190

units, 203

Rhoads, Cornelius P., 105

Rockwood, Col. Alfred L., 111, 111n

Rocky Mountain Arsenal, 120, 121

civilian employees, 164-67

civilian personnel organization, 168

divided responsibility for maintenance at, 180

employee relations at, 172-73

employee training, 173, 174-75

recruits sugar mill workers, 167

utilization of prisoners of war, 167

WAC personnel at, 153

Western Chemical Warfare School, 353-54

Rodent control, 31

Roosevelt, Franklin D., 36, 63, 85, 87, 88, 107, 108

gas warfare policy, prewar, 197

proclamation of national emergency, 3 September

1939, 199

vetoes designation of CWS as Chemical Corps, 22

Rothschild, Capt. Jacquard H., 133

Safety, civilian training in, 173-74, 182

San Francisco Procurement District, 32, 111, 176

San José Division, OCCWS, 106, 138

San José Island, 106

San José Project, 135-38

Sawders, Col. James C., 182

Sears, Col. Joseph D., 139, 246

Security, 183

Selective Service, 149

Service Commands, maintenance services at arsenals,

179-80

Service Units Board, 39, 208

Services of Supply. See Army Service Forces (ASF).

Shekerjian, Brig. Gen. Haig, 128, 129, 270, 274

Sibert, Maj. Gen. William L., 11-12, 12n, 16, 27

Signal Corps

Army Pictorial Division, 138

gas warfare responsibilities, World War I, 5

Sims, Rear Admiral William S., 34

"Situation Room," OCCWS, 94

Smoke, 121

in CW School curriculum, 194-95

in landing operations, 300

training with, 394-95

Smoke generator, M1, 308

Smoke generator, M2, 263

Smoke generator companies

classified as service, 307

first organized, 307

Smoke Generator Company, 71st Chemical, 169

Smoke pots, 71-72

Somervell, Gen. Brehon B., 92, 129, 130, 141

directs activation of Control Division, 94-95

on manpower conservation, 177-78

suggests title of USCWC, 68

urges use of POW's, 181

Spaatz, Brig. Gen. Carl A., 46

Special Assignments Branch, OCCWS, 107

Special Projects Division, OCCWS, 107-09

SPHINX, 87

Stilwell, Gen. Joseph W., 86, 87

Stimson, Henry L., 47, 49, 50, 59-60, 62, 107, 108

Styer, Maj. Gen. Wilhelm D., 101

Subcommittee on Operations, USCWC, 81

Supply, U.S.-British co-ordination, 71-72

Supply Division, OCCWS, 109, 122, 125

depot employee training, 175

plans work measurement at depots, 180

Surgeon General, The, 47, 105, 349. See also Medical

Department gas warfare responsibilities in

World War I.

Talmadge, Lt. Col. Ralph H., 134

Technical Bulletin, 257

Technical Division, OCCWS, 101, 109, 119

Technical Manuals, 256-57

Technical Service, OCCWS, 43, 96, 99

Terre Haute, Indiana, 140

Terre Haute BW Plant, 108

Texas Agricultural and Mechanical College, 33, 190,

241, 242

Tooele, Utah, 135, 140

Toxic agents, 120-21

stockpiling, 82, 85

suspension of work on, post-World War I, 24

World War I research on, 5

Training, CWS mission, 187-88

Training Aids Section, CWC, 254

Training Battalion, 2d, 271

Training Circulars, 257

Training Directive, WD, 1940-41, 384
498 ORGANIZING FOR WAR

Training Division, OCCWS, 101, 283-84, 284-85, 310

inspection of gas defense training, 389

mortar training, 304-05

preparation of Training Manuals, 253, 255

specialist training, 330

Tactical Doctrine Branch, 255-56, 258

Training Manuals, preparation of, 253-56, 258-61

Training of civilian workers, 173-76

Transportation Corps, 164

Troop basis, CWS

increased, 58

as of May 1942, 267

Troop schools at CWS Unit Training Center, 327-28

Troop units, CWS, increase in, 1941-43, 265

Truman, Harry S., 87

Twaddle, Brig. Gen. Harry L., 48

Tyner, Brig. Gen. George P., 204

Unit Training, CWS, 336-38

aims of, 296

gas defense, prewar, 193-94

in mortar battalions, 304-05

responsibility for, 297-98

supervision of, 334-36

Unit Training Center, CWS, 272-73

activation, 312

administration, 128-29

advanced unit training, 333-34

basic training of replacements in, 295-96

facilities, 319-22

military organization, 316-19

operates officer pool, 283

operations, 326-29

problems, 337-38

specialist training, 329-33

staff organization and functions, 313-16

supervisory activities, 335

training programs, 324-25

trains smoke generator companies, 308

troop schools, 327-28

weapons training, 328-29

United States Biological Warfare Committee

(USBWC), 108

United States Chemical Warfare Committee

(USCWC)

appointed by Commanding General, ASF, 66

composition of committee, 66

co-ordinates research and development, 77-78

co-ordination of supply, 70-75

name suggested by General Somervell, 68

preparation of Readiness Reports, 79-80

promotes interchangeability of matériel, 75-76

subcommittee on operations, 81

subcommittees, 70

United States Employment Service, 157

United States Office of Education, 175

United States Public Health Service, 31

Units, CWS

basic training of replacements in, 295-96

total activated, 294

University of Florida, 241, 242

University of Maryland, 241, 242, 246

University of Washington, 241

Van Domelen, Floyd, 158

Vedder, Lt. Col. Edward B., 34

Vigo Plant, 140-41

Wage Administration Agency, 158

Wage rates, Edgewood Arsenal, 156-58

Waitt, Brig. Gen. Alden H., 69, 103

Walker, Lt. Col. William H., 9, 11, 12, 12n

Walmsley, Col. Harold, 132

War Manpower Commission, Industry Agency of,

173

War Plans and Theaters Division, OCCWS, 101

War Plans Division, WDGS (WPD). See also

Operations Division, WDGS (OPD).

gas warfare study, 50-51

study on toxic agents, 384

War Research Service (WRS), 107

Washington Arms Conference of 1921, 19-20, 24

WBC (Committee on Biological Warfare), 47, 107

Weed, Lewis H., 47

Weedon, Lt. Col. Sidney L., 183

West Coast Chemical School, 130-32. See also

Western Chemical Warfare School.

Western Chemical Warfare School, 132

courses, 354

established at Camp Beale, 353

inactivated, 355

transferred to Rocky Mountain Arsenal, 353-54

Whipple, Dorothy A., 162

Whitesides, Col. Sterling E., Jr., 111n

Willett, Col. Maurice S., 123n

Wilson, Brig. Gen. Alexander, 121n, 148, 340

Wisconsin, University of, 143

Women

employed at CWS arsenals, 164-66

employed at CWS depots, 168

employed by procurement districts, 171

recruited as inspectors, 176

Women's Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC), 135, 150,

152-54

Wood, Col. John R., 105

Work measurement, 177, 178, 179, 180-81

Work simplification, 177, 178, 179

World War I preparations for gas warfare. See Gas

Warfare, World War I.

Worthley, Col. H. N., 108

Ypres, gas attack in 1915, 19

Zanetti, Col. J. Enrique, 45, 108, 133-34, 239

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1989 242-456/00002