CHAPTER I.THE ORDNANCE PROBLEM.

To arm the manhood called to defend the Nation in 1917 and 1918, to make civilians into soldiers by giving them the tools of the martial profession—such was the task of the Ordnance Department in the late war.

The off-hand thought may identify ordnance as artillery alone. It may surprise many to know that in the American ordnance catalogue of supplies during the recent war there were over 100,000 separate and distinct items. Thousands of the items of ordnance were distinctly noncommercial, meaning that they had to be designed and produced specially for the uses of war.

While the principles of fighting essentially have changed not one whit since the age when projectiles were stones hurled by catapults, nearly every advance in mechanical science has had its reflection in warfare, until to-day the weapons which man has devised to destroy the military power of his enemy make up an intricate and an imposing list. When America accepted the challenge of Germany in 1917, part of the range of ordnance had already been produced in moderate quantities in the United States, part of it had been developed by the more militaristic nations of the world in the last decade or quarter century, and part of it was purely the offspring of two and one-half years of desperate fighting before America entered the great struggle. Yet all of it, both the strange and the familiar, had to be put in production here on a grand scale and in a minimum of time, that the American millions might go adequately equipped to meet the foe. Let us examine the range of this equipment, seeing in the major items something of the character of the problem which confronted the Ordnance Department at the outset of the great enterprise.

Starting with the artillery, there was first in order of size the baby two-man cannon of 37 millimeters (about an inch and a half) in the diameter of its bore—a European development new to our experience, so light that it could be handled by foot troops in the field, used for annihilating the enemy's machine-gun emplacements.

Then the mobile field guns—the famous 75's, the equivalent in size of our former 3-inch gun, the 155-millimeter howitzer, theFrench 155 millimeter G. P. F. (Grand Puissance Filloux) gun of glorious record in the war, and its American prototypes, the 4.7-inch, 5-inch, and 6-inch guns—all of these employed to shell crossroads and harass the enemy's middle area.

Beyond these were the 8-inch and 9.2-inch howitzers and the terrific 240-millimeter howitzer, for throwing great weights of destruction high in air to descend with a plunge upon the enemy's strongest defenses.

Then there were the 8-inch, 10-inch, 12-inch, and 14-inch guns on railway mounts, for pounding the depots and dumps in the enemy's back areas. These weapons were so tremendous in weight when mounted as to require from 16 to 24 axles on the car to distribute the load and the recoil of firing within the limits of the strength of standard heavy railway track.

All of these guns had to be produced in great numbers, if the future requirements of the American forces were to be met, produced by the thousands in the cases of the smaller ones and by the hundreds and scores in the cases of the larger.

These weapons would be ineffective without adequate supplies of ammunition. In the case of the mobile held guns this meant a requirement of millions of shell or shrapnel for the incessant bombardments and the concentrated barrages which characterized the great war. The entire weight of projectiles fired in such an historic engagement as Gettysburg would supply the artillery only for a few minutes in such intensive bombardments as sowed the soil of Flanders with steel.

The artillery demanded an immense amount of heavy equipment—limbers, caissons, auto ammunition trucks, and tractors to drag the heavy and middle-heavy artillery. Some of them were fitted with self-propelled caterpillar mounts which could climb a 40° grade or make as high as 12 miles an hour on level ground. These, the adaptations to warfare of peaceful farm and construction machine traction, for the first time rendered the greater guns exceedingly mobile, enabling them to go into action instantly upon arrival and to depart to safety just as soon as their mission was accomplished.

Then, too, this artillery equipment must have adequate facilities for maintenance in the field, and this need brought into existence another enormous phase of the ordnance program. There must be mobile ordnance repair shops for each division, consisting of miniature machine shops completely fitted out with power and its transmission equipment and mounted directly on motor trucks. Then there must be semi-heavy repair shops on 5-ton tractors, these to be for the corps what the truck machine shop was to the division. Each army headquarters called for its semipermanent repair shop for artillery and still larger repair shops for its railway artillery.

And in addition to all these were the base repair shops in France, which were erected on a scale to employ a force three times as large as the combined organizations of all the manufacturing arsenals of the United States in time of peace, having a capacity for relining 1,000 cannon and overhauling and repairing 2,000 motor vehicles, 7,000 machine guns, 50,000 rifles, and 2,000 pistols every month. This equipment of artillery and its maintenance organization implies the flow from American industry of enormous quantities of repair parts and spare parts to keep the artillery in good condition.

Coming next to the more personal equipment of the soldier, we find the necessity confronting the Ordnance Department to manufacture shoulder rifles by the million and cartridges for them by the billion. The great war brought the machine gun into its own, requiring in the United States the manufacture of these complicated and expensive weapons by the tens of thousands, including the one-man automatic rifle, itself an arm of a deadly and effective type.

Simultaneously with the mass employment of machine guns in the field came the development of the modern machine gun barrage, the indirect fire, of which required sighting instruments of the most delicate and accurate sort, and tripods with finely calibrated elevating and traversing devices, so that the gunner might place the deadly hail safely over the heads of his own unseen but advancing lines and with maximum damage to the enemy. These thousands of machine guns required water jackets to keep their barrels cool and specially built carts to carry them.

The personal armament of the soldier also called for an automatic pistol or a revolver for use in the infighting, when squads came in actual contact with soldiers of the enemy. These had to be produced by the hundreds of thousands.

The requirements of the field demanded hundreds of thousands of trench knives, murderous blades backed by the momentum of heavily weighted handles, which in turn were protected by guards embodying the principle of the thug's brass "knucks" armed with sharp points.

Then there were the special weapons, largely born of modern trench warfare. These included mortars, ranging from the small 3-inch Stokes, light enough to go over the top and simple enough to be fired from between the steadying knees of a squatting soldier, to the great 240-millimeter trench mortar of fixed position. The mortars proved to be exceedingly effective against concentrations of troops, and so there was devised for them a great variety of bombs and shell, not only of the high explosive fragmentation type, but also containing poison gas or fuming chemicals. Great quantities both of mortars and their ammunition were required.

From the security of the trenches the soldiers first threw out grenades, which burst in the enemy's trenches opposite and createdhavoc. From the original device were developed grenades of various sorts—gas grenades for cleaning up dugouts, molten-metal grenades for fusing the firing mechanisms of captured enemy cannon and machine guns, paper grenades to kill by concussion. Then there were the rifle grenades, each to be fitted on the muzzle of a rifle and hurled by the lift of gases following the bullet, which passed neatly through the hole provided for it. The production of grenades was no small part of the American ordnance problem.

In addition to these trench weapons were the Livens projectors, which, fired in multiple by electricity, hurled a veritable cloud of gas containers into a selected area of enemy terrain, usually with great demoralization of his forces.

Bayonets for the rifles, bolos, helmets, periscopes for looking safely over the edges of the trenches, panoramic sights, range finders—these are only a few of the ordnance accessories of general application.

Then those innovations of the great war—the tanks—the 3-ton "whippet," built to escort the infantry waves, the 6-ton tanks, most used of all, and the powerful Anglo-American heavy tanks, each mounting a 37-millimeter cannon and four machine guns.

The war in the air put added demands upon ordnance. It required the stripped machine gun firing cartridges so rapidly that their explosions merged into a single continuous roar, yet each shot so nicely timed that it passed between the flying blades of the propeller. There had to be electric heaters for the gun mechanisms to prevent the oil which lubricated them from becoming congealed in the cold of high altitudes. The airplane guns required armor-piercing bullets for use against armored planes, incendiary bullets to ignite the hydrogen of the enemy's balloon or to fire the gasoline escaping through the wound in the hostile airplane's fuel tank, and tracer bullets to direct the aim of the aerial gunner. Other equipment for the airman included shot counters, to tell him instantly what quantity of ammunition he had on hand, and gun sights, ingeniously contrived to correct his aim automatically for the relative speed and direction of the opposing plane. These were all developments in ordnance brought about by the great war, and in each case they involved problems for the production organization to solve.

Then there were the drop bombs of aerial warfare, of many gradations in weight up to 500 pounds each, these latter experimental ones forecasting the day when bombs weighing 1,600 pounds would be dropped from the sky; then bomb sights to determine the moment when the missile must be dropped in order to hit its target, sights which corrected for the altitude, the wind resistance, and the rate of speed of the airplane; and then mechanisms to suspend the bombs from the plane and to release them at the will of the operator.

The list might be stretched out almost indefinitely—through pyrotechnics, developed by the exigencies in Europe into an elaboratesystem; through helmets and armor, revivals from medieval times to protect the modern soldier from injury; through the assortment of heavy textiles, which gave the troops their belts, their bandoleers, their haversacks, and their holsters; through canteens, cutlery for the mess in the fields, shotguns, and so on, until there might be set down thousands of items of the list which we know as modern ordnance.

It will be noted that the most important articles in this range are articles of a noncommercial type. In other words, they are not the sort of things that the industry of the country builds in time of peace, nor learns how to build. Many other war functions came naturally to a country skilled in handling food supplies for teeming populations, in solving housing problems for whole cities, and in managing transportation for a hundred million people; there was at hand the requisite ability to conduct war enterprises of such character smoothly and efficiently. Yet there was in the country at the outbreak of war little knowledge of the technique of ordnance production.

The declaration of war found an American Ordnance Department whose entire commissioned personnel consisted of 97 officers. Only 10 of this number were experienced in the design of artillery weapons. The projected army of 5,000,000 men required 11,000 trained officers to handle every phase of ordnance service. While a portion of this production would have to do with the manufacture of articles of a commercial type, such as automobiles, trucks, meat cans, mess equipment, and the like, yet the ratio of 97 to 11,000 gives an indication of the amount of ordnance knowledge possessed by the War Department at the outbreak of war as compared to what it would need to equip the first 5,000,000 men for battle.

The Government could obtain commissary officers from the food industry; it could turn bank tellers into paymasters, or convert builders into construction quartermasters; find transportation officers in the great railway systems, Signal Corps officers in the telegraph companies, or medical officers in professional life. But there was no broad field to which ordnance could turn to find specialized skill available. The best it could do was to go into the heavy manufacturing industry for expert engineers who could later be trained in the special problems of ordnance.

Prior to 1914 there were but six Government arsenals and two large private ordnance works which knew anything about the production of heavy weapons. After 1914, war industry sprang up in the United States, yet in 1917 there were only a score or so of firms engaged in the manufacture of artillery ammunition, big guns, rifles, machine guns, and other important ordnance supplies for the allies. When the armistice was signed nearly 8,000 manufacturing plants in the United States were working on ordnance contracts. While many of these contracts entailed production not much dissimilar tocommercial output, yet here is another ratio—the 20 or more original factories compared with the ultimate 8,000—which serves as an indication of the expansion of the industrial knowledge of the special processes incident to ordnance manufacture.

When we found ourselves in the war the first step was to extend our ordnance knowledge as quickly as possible. The war in Europe had developed thousands of new items of ordnance, many of them carefully guarded as military secrets, with which our own officers were familiar only in a general way. As soon as we became a belligerent, however, we at once turned to the allies, and they freely and fully gave us of their store of knowledge—plans, specifications, working models, secret devices, and complete manufacturing processes.

With this knowledge at hand we adopted for our own program certain French types of field guns and howitzers and British types of heavy howitzers. The reproduction of the British types caused no unusual difficulties, but the adoption of French plans brought into the situation a factor the difficulties of which are apt not to be appreciated by the uninitiated.

This new element for consideration was the circumstance that the entire French system of manufacture in metals is radically different from our own in its practices and is not readily adapted to American methods.

The English and the American engineers and shops use inches and feet in their measurements, but the French use the metric system. This fact means that there was not a single standard American drill, reamer, tap, die, or other machine-shop tool that would accurately produce the result called for by a French ordnance drawing in the metric system. Moreover, the French standards for metal stocks, sheets, plates, angles, I-beams, rivet holes, and rivet spacing are far different from American standards.

It was discovered that complete French drawings were in numerous cases nonexistent, the French practice relying for small details upon the memory and skill of its artisans. But even when the complete drawings were obtained, then the American ordnance engineer was confronted with the choice of either revolutionizing the machining industry of the United States by changing over its entire equipment to conform to the metric system, or else of doing what was done—namely, translating the French designs into terms of standard American shop practice, a process which in numerous cases required weeks and even months of time on the part of whole staffs of experts working at high tension.

Nor do the French know the American quantity-production methods. The French artisan sees always the finished article, and he is given discretion in the final dimensions of parts and in the fitting andassembling of them. But the American mechanic sees only the part in which he is a specialist in machining, working with strict tolerances and producing pieces which require little or no fitting in the assembling room. Consequently, in the translating of French plans it was necessary to put into them what they never had before, namely, rigid tolerances and exact measurements.

Figure 1.Expenditure of Artillery Ammunition in Modern Battles.Year.Battle.Days' duration.Army.Rounds of artillery ammunition expended.1863Chickamauga2Union▏ 7,3251863Gettysburg3Union▎ 32,7811870St. Privat1German▍ 39,0001904Nan Shan1Japanese▎ 34,0471904Liao Yang9Russian█ 134,4001904Sha Ho9Russian██ 274,3001915Neuve Chapelle[1]3British██ 197,0001915Souches[2]1French███ 300,0001916Somme[3]7British████████████████████████████████████ 40000001917Messines Ridge[3]7British█████████████████████████ 27530001918St. Mihiel[2]4United States██████████ 1098217[1]Artillery preparation lasted 35 minutes.[2]Artillery preparation lasted 4 hours.[3]Artillery preparation intermittent 7 days.One of the most striking developments of the present war has been the great increase in the use of artillery to precede infantry action in battle. This is illustrated by a comparison of the expenditure of artillery ammunition in characteristic battles of recent wars with that in important battles of the present war. The special features of the several battles should be kept in mind. Chickamauga was fought in a heavily wooded region; Gettysburg and St. Privat over open farm land. The latter battles, together with Nan Shan, and all the battles of the present war considered below, involved artillery preparation for assault upon armies in defensive position. The expenditures, therefore, are roughly comparable.The high mark of the use of artillery in offensive battle was reached at the Somme and Messines Ridge, before the effective use of tanks was developed.

[1]Artillery preparation lasted 35 minutes.

[2]Artillery preparation lasted 4 hours.

[3]Artillery preparation intermittent 7 days.

One of the most striking developments of the present war has been the great increase in the use of artillery to precede infantry action in battle. This is illustrated by a comparison of the expenditure of artillery ammunition in characteristic battles of recent wars with that in important battles of the present war. The special features of the several battles should be kept in mind. Chickamauga was fought in a heavily wooded region; Gettysburg and St. Privat over open farm land. The latter battles, together with Nan Shan, and all the battles of the present war considered below, involved artillery preparation for assault upon armies in defensive position. The expenditures, therefore, are roughly comparable.The high mark of the use of artillery in offensive battle was reached at the Somme and Messines Ridge, before the effective use of tanks was developed.

The high mark of the use of artillery in offensive battle was reached at the Somme and Messines Ridge, before the effective use of tanks was developed.

When an army of 100,000 men expands and becomes an army of 3,000,000, it becomes a job just 30 times bigger to feed the 3,000,000 than it was to feed the 100,000. A soldier of a campaigning army eats no more than a soldier of a quiet military post. The same is true approximately in the case of clothing an army. But the army's consumption of ammunition in time of war is far out of proportion to its numerical expansion to meet the war emergency.

For instance, an Army machine gun in time of peace might fire 6,000 rounds in practice during the year. This was the standard quantity of cartridges provided in peace. Yet it is necessary to provide for a single machine gun on the field in such a war as the recent one 288,875 rounds of ammunition during its first year of operation, this figure including the initial stock and the reserve supply as well as the actual number of rounds fired. Thus the machine gun of war increases its appetite, so to speak, for ammunition 4,700 per cent in the first year of fighting.

Figure 2.Rates of Artillery Fire Per Gun Per Day in Recent Wars.War.Army.Approximate rounds per gun per day.1854-1856, CrimeanBritish and French█████[4]51859, ItalianAustrian▎ .31861-1865, CivilUnion████ 41866, Austro-PrussianAustrian██ 2.2Prussian▉ .81870-71, Franco-PrussianGerman█[5]1.11904-5, Russo-JapaneseRussian████ 41912-13, BalkanBulgarian███████ 7PRESENT WAR.September, 1914French████████[5]8Jan. 1-Oct. 1, 1918Italian████████[5]8Jan. 1-Nov. 11, 1918United States██████████████████████████████[5]30Jan. 1-Nov. 11, 1918French██████████████████████████████████[5]34Jan. 1-Nov. 11, 1918British███████████████████████████████████[5]35[4]Siege of Sebastopol.[5]Field gun ammunition only.The rates are based upon total expenditure and average number of guns in the hands of field armies for the period of the wars.A large part of the heavy expenditure of artillery ammunition in the present as compared with other modern wars can be attributed to the increased rate of fire made possible by improved methods of supply in the field and by the rapid-fire guns now in use. In wars fought before the introduction of quick-firing field guns, four or five rounds per day was the greatest average rate. Even this was reached only in the siege of Sebastopol, where armies were stationary and supply by water was easy, and in the American Civil War, which was characterized by advanced tactical developments. The guns of the allied armies in France fired throughout the year 1918 at a rate about seven times greater than these previously high rates.

[4]Siege of Sebastopol.

[5]Field gun ammunition only.

The rates are based upon total expenditure and average number of guns in the hands of field armies for the period of the wars.A large part of the heavy expenditure of artillery ammunition in the present as compared with other modern wars can be attributed to the increased rate of fire made possible by improved methods of supply in the field and by the rapid-fire guns now in use. In wars fought before the introduction of quick-firing field guns, four or five rounds per day was the greatest average rate. Even this was reached only in the siege of Sebastopol, where armies were stationary and supply by water was easy, and in the American Civil War, which was characterized by advanced tactical developments. The guns of the allied armies in France fired throughout the year 1918 at a rate about seven times greater than these previously high rates.

The rates are based upon total expenditure and average number of guns in the hands of field armies for the period of the wars.

A large part of the heavy expenditure of artillery ammunition in the present as compared with other modern wars can be attributed to the increased rate of fire made possible by improved methods of supply in the field and by the rapid-fire guns now in use. In wars fought before the introduction of quick-firing field guns, four or five rounds per day was the greatest average rate. Even this was reached only in the siege of Sebastopol, where armies were stationary and supply by water was easy, and in the American Civil War, which was characterized by advanced tactical developments. The guns of the allied armies in France fired throughout the year 1918 at a rate about seven times greater than these previously high rates.

In the case of larger weapons the increase in ammunition consumption is even more startling. Prior to 1917 the War Department allotted to each 3-inch field gun 125 rounds of ammunition per yearfor practice firing. Ammunition for the 75-millimeter guns (the 3-inch equivalent) was being produced to meet an estimated supply of 22,750 rounds for each gun in a single year, or an increased consumption of ammunition in war over peace of 18,100 per cent.

Figure 3.Expenditure of Artillery Ammunition in Recent Wars.PAST WARS COMPARED WITH ONE MONTH OF PRESENT WAR.Year.War.Army.Rounds expended during war.1859ItalianAustrian| 15,3261861-1865CivilUnion██████████████ 50000001866Austro-PrussianPrussian▏ 36,199Austrian▎ 96,4721870-71Franco-PrussianGerman██ 8170001904-5Russo-JapaneseRussian███ 9540001912-13BalkanBulgarian██ 7000001918PresentBritish and FrenchIn one month.[6]████████████████████████████████████ 12710000EXPENDITURES FOR ONE YEAR, CIVIL AND PRESENT WARS.1864[7]CivilUnion█ 19500001918[8]PresentUnited States████ 81000001918[8]PresentBritish████████████████████████████████ 714450001918[8]PresentFrench████████████████████████████████████ 81070000[6]Average, year ended Nov. 10, 1918.[7]Year ended June 30, 1864.[8]Year ended Nov. 10, 1918.The industrial effort necessary to maintain modern armies in action may be measured to a certain extent by their expenditure of artillery ammunition. European wars of the past 100 years were for the most part decided before peace-time reserves had been exhausted. The American Civil War, however, required for its decision an industrial mobilization at that time unprecedented, which, like the use in that war of intrenchments by field armies, was more truly indicative of the trend of modern warfare than were the conditions of the more recent European wars.

[6]Average, year ended Nov. 10, 1918.

[7]Year ended June 30, 1864.

[8]Year ended Nov. 10, 1918.

The industrial effort necessary to maintain modern armies in action may be measured to a certain extent by their expenditure of artillery ammunition. European wars of the past 100 years were for the most part decided before peace-time reserves had been exhausted. The American Civil War, however, required for its decision an industrial mobilization at that time unprecedented, which, like the use in that war of intrenchments by field armies, was more truly indicative of the trend of modern warfare than were the conditions of the more recent European wars.

Thus when a peace army of 100,000 becomes a war army of 3,000,000 its ammunition consumption becomes not 30 times greater, but anywhere from 48 to 182 times 30 times greater—an increase far out of proportion to its increase in the consumption of food, clothing, or other standard supplies. Modern invention has made possible and modern practice has put into effect a greatly augmented use of ammunition. Figures 1, 2, and 3 show graphically how ammunition expenditure has increased in modern times.

Another circumstance that complicated the ordnance problem was the increasing tendency throughout the great war to use more and more the mechanical or machine methods of fighting as opposed to the older and simpler forms in which the human or animal factor entered to a greater extent.

At the time the United States entered the war the regulations prescribed 50 machine guns as the equipment for an infantry division. When the armistice was signed the standard equipment of a division called for 260 heavy machine guns and 768 light automatic rifles. Of the heavy machine guns with a division, only 168 were supposed to be in active service, the remainder being in reserve or in use for antiaircraft work. However, the comparison in the two standards of equipment shows the tendency toward machine methods in the wholesale killing of modern warfare and indicates the fresh demands made upon the ordnance organization to procure this additional machinery of death. Moreover, when the fighting came to an end the A. E. F. was on the point of adding to its regimental and divisional equipment a further large number of automatic rifles.

The day of the horse was passing in the great war as far as his connection with the mobile artillery was concerned, and the gasoline motor was taking his place, this tendency being accelerated particularly by America, the greatest nation of all in automotivity. Trucks and tractors to pull the guns, motor ammunition trucks displacing the old horse-drawn caissons and limbers, even self-propelling platforms for the larger field guns, with track laying or caterpillar mounts supplying not only mobility for the gun but aiming facilities as well; these were the fresh developments. Some of these improvements were produced and put in the field, the others were under development at the signing of the armistice. The whole tendency toward motorization served to complicate ordnance production in this country, not only in the supply of the weapons and traction devices themselves, but in the production of increased supplies of ammunition, since these improvements also tended to increase the rapidity with which bullets and shell were consumed.

The total cost of the ordnance alone required to equip the first 5,000,000 Americans called to arms was estimated to be between $12,000,000,000 and $13,000,000,000. This was equal to about half of all the money appropriated by Congresses of the United States from the first Continental Congress down to our declaration of war against Germany, out of which appropriations had been paid the cost of every war we ever had, including the Civil War, and the whole enormous expenses of the Government in every official activity of 140 years. To equip with ordnance an army of this size in theperiod projected meant the expenditure of money at a rate which would build a Panama Canal complete every 30 days.

Above are sketched some of the difficulties of the situation. In our favor we had the greatest industrial organization in the world, engineering skill to rank with any, a race of people traditionally versatile in applying the forces of machinery to the needs of mankind, inventive genius which could match its accomplishments with those of the rest of the world added together, a capacity for organization that proved to be astonishingly effective in such an effort as the nation made in 1917 and 1918, enormous stores of raw materials, the country being more nearly self-sufficient in this respect than any other nation of the globe, magnificent facilities of inland transportation, a vast body of skilled mechanics, and a selective-service law designed to take for the Army men nonessential to the Nation's industrial efforts for war and to leave in the workshops the men whose skill could not be withdrawn without subtracting somewhat from the national store of industrial ability.

It only remains to sketch in swift outlines something of the accomplishments of the American ordnance effort. In general it may be said that those projects of the ordnance program to which were assigned the shorter time limits were most successful. There never was a time when the production of smokeless powder and high explosives was not sufficient for our own requirements, with large quantities left over for both France and England.

America in 19 months of development built over 2,500,000 shoulder rifles, a quantity greater than that produced either by England or by France in the same period, although both those countries in April, 1917, at the time when we started, had their rifle production already in a high stage of development. (See fig. 4.) However, the Franco-British production of rifles dropped in rate in 1918 because there was no longer need for original rifle equipment for new troops.

In the 19 months of war American factories produced over 2,879,000,000 rounds of rifle and machine-gun ammunition. This was somewhat less than the production in Great Britain during the same period and somewhat less than that of France; but America began the effort from a standing start, and in the latter part of the war was turning out ammunition at a monthly rate twice that of France and somewhat higher than that of Great Britain. (See fig. 4.)

Between April 6, 1917, and November 11, 1918, America produced as many machine guns and automatic rifles as Great Britain did in the same period and 81 per cent of the number produced by France; while at the end of the effort America was building machine guns and machine rifles nearly three times as rapidly as Great Britain and more than twice as fast as France. (Fig. 4.) When it is consideredthat a long time must elapse before machine-gun factories can be equipped with the necessary machine tools and fixtures, the effort of America in this respect may be fairly appreciated.

Figure 4.Production of Rifles, Machine Guns, and Ammunition, France and United States Compared with Great Britain.AVERAGE MONTHLY RATE, JULY, AUGUST, AND SEPTEMBER, 1918.Machine guns and machine rifles:Per cent of rate for Great Britain.Great Britain10,947██████████████ 100France12,126████████████████ 111United States27,270████████████████████████████████████ 249Rifles:Great Britain112,821██████████████ 100France40,522█████ 36United States233,562██████████████████████████████ 207Rifle and machine-gun ammunition:Great Britain259,769,000██████████████ 100France139,845,000████████ 54United States277,894,000███████████████ 107TOTAL PRODUCTION, APRIL 6, 1917, TO NOVEMBER 11, 1918Machine guns and machine rifles:Per cent of rate for Great Britain.Great Britain181,404██████████████ 100France229,288██████████████████ 126United States181,662██████████████ 100Rifles:Great Britain1,971,764██████████████ 100France1,416,056██████████ 72United States2,506,742██████████████████ 127Rifle and machine-gun ammunition:Great Britain3,486,127,000██████████████ 100France2,983,675,000████████████ 86United States2,879,148,000████████████ 83British and French production of rifles during 1918 was at a lower rate than had been attained because there was no longer need for original equipment of troops.

British and French production of rifles during 1918 was at a lower rate than had been attained because there was no longer need for original equipment of troops.

Prior to November 11, 1918, America produced in the 75-millimeter size alone about 4,250,000 high-explosive shell, over 500,000 gas shell, and over 7,250,000 shrapnel. Of the high-explosive shell produced 2,735,000 were shipped to France up to November 15, 1918. In all 8,500,000 rounds of shell of this caliber were floated—nearly two-thirds of it being shrapnel. American troops on the line expended a total of 6,250,000 rounds of 75-millimeter ammunition, largely high-explosive shell of French manufacture drawn from the Franco-American ammunition pool. American high-explosive shell were tested in France by the French ordnance experts and approved for use by the French artillery just before the armistice.

THE MUNITIONS BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D. C.The Lincoln Memorial and the Potomac River in the background.

THE MUNITIONS BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D. C.

The Lincoln Memorial and the Potomac River in the background.

A PARK OF AMERICAN-BUILT 155-MILLIMETER HOWITZERS AT ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND.

AMERICAN-BUILT G. P. F. 155-MILLIMETER GUNS STORED AT ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND.

GUNS OF VARIOUS SORTS AND SIZES RETURNED FROM FRANCE BY AMERICAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCES JUST AS THEY WERE UNLOADED FROM TRAIN AT ABERDEEN.

AMERICAN-BUILT ORDNANCE MATERIAL, PARKED ON ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND.

AMERICAN-BUILT ORDNANCE STORES AT ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND.

A PARK OF AMERICAN-BUILT CAISSONS, BACK FROM FRANCE, AT ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND.

CHARGING FLOOR OF AN OPEN-HEARTH FURNACE.The charging floor of an "open-hearth" furnace building, showing two furnaces on the side into which the raw materials are "charged." Each of these furnaces is 75 feet long and 15 feet wide, and the melted steel lies in a shallow bath inside the three doors, into one of which the man is looking. The pool or "bath," as it is termed, is 33 feet long by 12 feet wide and approximately 2½ feet deep, weighs approximately 60 tons, and is composed of pig iron and well-selected scrap steel from previous operations, which are placed in the furnace through the three doors shown, the furnace being all the time at a temperature so high that the naked eye may not look within the furnace, but must be protected with blue glass or smoked glass, exactly as when looking at the noonday sun. The eye can see nothing in the atmosphere of the bath in which the steel is being melted and refined, due to the exceedingly high temperature, which gives a light as white as that of the sun.

CHARGING FLOOR OF AN OPEN-HEARTH FURNACE.

The charging floor of an "open-hearth" furnace building, showing two furnaces on the side into which the raw materials are "charged." Each of these furnaces is 75 feet long and 15 feet wide, and the melted steel lies in a shallow bath inside the three doors, into one of which the man is looking. The pool or "bath," as it is termed, is 33 feet long by 12 feet wide and approximately 2½ feet deep, weighs approximately 60 tons, and is composed of pig iron and well-selected scrap steel from previous operations, which are placed in the furnace through the three doors shown, the furnace being all the time at a temperature so high that the naked eye may not look within the furnace, but must be protected with blue glass or smoked glass, exactly as when looking at the noonday sun. The eye can see nothing in the atmosphere of the bath in which the steel is being melted and refined, due to the exceedingly high temperature, which gives a light as white as that of the sun.

Figure 5.Production of Artillery Ammunition, France and United States Compared with Great Britain.[Types for use in A. E. F.]MONTHLY RATE AT END OF WAR.Unfilled rounds:Per cent of rate for Great Britain.Great Britain7,748,000█████████████████████████████ 100France6,661,000█████████████████████████ 86United States7,044,000███████████████████████████ 91Complete rounds:Great Britain7,347,000█████████████████████████████ 100France7,638,000██████████████████████████████ 104United States2,712,000███████████ 37TOTAL PRODUCTION, APRIL 1, 1917, TO NOVEMBER 11, 1918.Unfilled rounds:Per cent of rate for Great Britain.Great Britain138,357,000█████████████████████████████ 100France156,170,000█████████████████████████████████ 113United States38,623,000████████ 28Complete rounds:Great Britain121,739,000█████████████████████████████ 100France149,827,000████████████████████████████████████ 123United States17,260,000████ 14

In artillery ammunition rounds of all calibers America at the end of the war was turning out unfilled shell faster than the French and nearly as fast as the British; but, due to the shortage in adapters and boosters, a shortage rapidly being overcome at the end of the war, the rate of production of completed rounds was only about one-third that of either Great Britain or France. In total production during her 19 months of belligerency America turned out more than one-quarter as many unfilled rounds as Great Britain did in the same time and about one-quarter as many as came from the French munition plants. In completed rounds alone did America lag far behind the records of the two principal allies during 1917 and 1918. (Fig. 5.)

The production of completed rounds of artillery ammunition was gaining rapidly, beginning with the early summer of 1918, and in the month of October was approaching half the rate of manufacture inGreat Britain or in France. Figure 6 shows graphically the rate at which the artillery ammunition deliveries were expanding.

Back to Index Next