Archived Posts ｻ 59,646,491
US Military in the 1930's... need help!!
11/25/2008 12:25:25 PM
I'm doing a research project on the military during the 30's.
I understand that not much was going on with the US military at this time... lack of funding/no war.
I have plenty of info on the "Bonus Army".
What about training?
What about the cavalry ("In Pursuit of Honor") ... McArthur was transitioning the cavalry from horses to mechanization.
Anything will help... please point me in the right direction.
-Thanks!
I understand that not much was going on with the US military at this time... lack of funding/no war.
I have plenty of info on the "Bonus Army".
What about training?
What about the cavalry ("In Pursuit of Honor") ... McArthur was transitioning the cavalry from horses to mechanization.
Anything will help... please point me in the right direction.
-Thanks!
11/25/2008 12:31:45 PM
Can't help with hard data, but, this might get you pointed in the right direction.
11/25/2008 12:46:24 PM
I'd start with Bios of the men who became key figures in WWII.
11/26/2008 2:39:00 AM
Keep the responses coming !
11/26/2008 4:38:23 AM
Originally Posted By UTlonghorns:
Keep the responses coming !
Keep the responses coming !
OK - if you are really serious about research, contact the various professional historians working for the Army - often as museum curators. Thye often have a wealth of primary source documents, and woul know of any previous research. I am not sure anyone has ever tried to look at that era in any serious "big picture" way.
http://www.history.army.mil/Museums/links.htm
12/1/2008 5:00:29 AM
Bio's on some of the General's of WW2 fame may provide some illumination of conditions.
Also any books describing the build-up to WW2, often they address military size, equipment and readiness.
The US Army was still stationed at small forts all over the Western US for example, foreign duty was in Hawaii and the Philipines.
The Army was tiny, smaller than Belgiums, low pay, hard to get promoted, perfect for lifer, misfit toy types.
Check out Christie regarding highy mobile armored vehicles he designed in the 30's, the Soviets adopted his design.
In that era, only the infantry could have "tanks"...the Cavalry was forced to call it's similiar vehicles "Combat Cars". The US Army had horse cavalry formations until 1941.
The USMC garrisoned numerous Pacific bases and had interventions in Central America.
After the mid 30's the Navy began building up...definately the favored service.
The Navy had their air service, what became the US Air Force was then part of the Army...US Army Air Corps.
Also any books describing the build-up to WW2, often they address military size, equipment and readiness.
The US Army was still stationed at small forts all over the Western US for example, foreign duty was in Hawaii and the Philipines.
The Army was tiny, smaller than Belgiums, low pay, hard to get promoted, perfect for lifer, misfit toy types.
Check out Christie regarding highy mobile armored vehicles he designed in the 30's, the Soviets adopted his design.
In that era, only the infantry could have "tanks"...the Cavalry was forced to call it's similiar vehicles "Combat Cars". The US Army had horse cavalry formations until 1941.
The USMC garrisoned numerous Pacific bases and had interventions in Central America.
After the mid 30's the Navy began building up...definately the favored service.
The Navy had their air service, what became the US Air Force was then part of the Army...US Army Air Corps.
12/3/2008 1:50:49 AM
You might want to look at these links. They are just articles, but at the end they have some interesting sources that may be more helpful.
http://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH-V2/AMH%20V2/chapter2.htm
http://www.history.army.mil/books/amh/amh-19.htm
http://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH-V2/AMH%20V2/chapter2.htm
http://www.history.army.mil/books/amh/amh-19.htm
12/6/2008 11:05:34 AM
There was a prototype wheeled division that drove from St. Louis (I think) to Cali, it took them 4 months they built the roads as they went.
It was an experirment to see if it was possible to drive that far.
Officers in charge.
Cap. Eisenhower
Lt. Patton
Lt. Bradly
and a few other well known names.
It was an experirment to see if it was possible to drive that far.
Officers in charge.
Cap. Eisenhower
Lt. Patton
Lt. Bradly
and a few other well known names.
12/7/2008 4:31:38 AM
Originally Posted By SD307:
There was a prototype wheeled division that drove from St. Louis (I think) to Cali, it took them 4 months they built the roads as they went.
It was an experirment to see if it was possible to drive that far.
Officers in charge.
Cap. Eisenhower
Lt. Patton
Lt. Bradly
and a few other well known names.
There was a prototype wheeled division that drove from St. Louis (I think) to Cali, it took them 4 months they built the roads as they went.
It was an experirment to see if it was possible to drive that far.
Officers in charge.
Cap. Eisenhower
Lt. Patton
Lt. Bradly
and a few other well known names.
I recall reading an article about this. I think it was in MHQ a few years ago. Good recall.
12/7/2008 5:10:54 AM
Originally Posted By UTlonghorns:
I'm doing a research project on the military during the 30's.
I understand that not much was going on with the US military at this time... lack of funding/no war.
I have plenty of info on the "Bonus Army".
What about training?
What about the cavalry ("In Pursuit of Honor") ... McArthur was transitioning the cavalry from horses to mechanization.
Anything will help... please point me in the right direction.
-Thanks!
I'm doing a research project on the military during the 30's.
I understand that not much was going on with the US military at this time... lack of funding/no war.
I have plenty of info on the "Bonus Army".
What about training?
What about the cavalry ("In Pursuit of Honor") ... McArthur was transitioning the cavalry from horses to mechanization.
Anything will help... please point me in the right direction.
-Thanks!
Also search banana wars nicauraga dominican republic. While it was not a huge presence the United States (particularly the marines) were engaged. You might also look into the transitions going on: from a Battleship Navy to a Carrier Navy(Billy Mitchell, Ernest King etc), cavalry to mech, armor and the transitioning of MG's from being artillery(Ref In Pursuit of Honor, look at the pants the machine gunners wear. The Red stripe denotes artillery, which is how MG were used in WW1 and into the 30's) to part of the infantry platoon/company It would be late 30's, especially in the US but also look into the development of Airborne. The Russians pioneered the idea but could never pull it off successfully(failure to resupply). The Germans ran with it. Probably the best use of Airborne forces in ww2 was the battle of Eban Emal(1940)
12/7/2008 5:15:49 AM
Originally Posted By Smead:
Bio's on some of the General's of WW2 fame may provide some illumination of conditions.
Also any books describing the build-up to WW2, often they address military size, equipment and readiness.
The US Army was still stationed at small forts all over the Western US for example, foreign duty was in Hawaii and the Philipines.
The Army was tiny, smaller than Belgiums, low pay, hard to get promoted, perfect for lifer, misfit toy types.
Check out Christie regarding highy mobile armored vehicles he designed in the 30's, the Soviets adopted his design.
In that era, only the infantry could have "tanks"...the Cavalry was forced to call it's similiar vehicles "Combat Cars". The US Army had horse cavalry formations until 1941.
The USMC garrisoned numerous Pacific bases and had interventions in Central America.
After the mid 30's the Navy began building up...definately the favored service.
The Navy had their air service, what became the US Air Force was then part of the Army...US Army Air Corps.
Bio's on some of the General's of WW2 fame may provide some illumination of conditions.
Also any books describing the build-up to WW2, often they address military size, equipment and readiness.
The US Army was still stationed at small forts all over the Western US for example, foreign duty was in Hawaii and the Philipines.
The Army was tiny, smaller than Belgiums, low pay, hard to get promoted, perfect for lifer, misfit toy types.
Check out Christie regarding highy mobile armored vehicles he designed in the 30's, the Soviets adopted his design.
In that era, only the infantry could have "tanks"...the Cavalry was forced to call it's similiar vehicles "Combat Cars". The US Army had horse cavalry formations until 1941.
The USMC garrisoned numerous Pacific bases and had interventions in Central America.
After the mid 30's the Navy began building up...definately the favored service.
The Navy had their air service, what became the US Air Force was then part of the Army...US Army Air Corps.
Trivia––Last mounted charge by the United States was the 26th Cavalry in the Phillipines––until the SF did it in Afghanistan.
12/8/2008 2:13:07 AM
Originally Posted By paddymurphy:
Also search banana wars nicauraga dominican republic. While it was not a huge presence the United States (particularly the marines) were engaged. You might also look into the transitions going on: from a Battleship Navy to a Carrier Navy(Billy Mitchell, Ernest King etc), cavalry to mech, armor and the transitioning of MG's from being artillery(Ref In Pursuit of Honor, look at the pants the machine gunners wear. The Red stripe denotes artillery, which is how MG were used in WW1 and into the 30's) to part of the infantry platoon/company It would be late 30's, especially in the US but also look into the development of Airborne. The Russians pioneered the idea but could never pull it off successfully(failure to resupply). The Germans ran with it. Probably the best use of Airborne forces in ww2 was the battle of Eban Emal(1940)
Originally Posted By UTlonghorns:
I'm doing a research project on the military during the 30's.
I understand that not much was going on with the US military at this time... lack of funding/no war.
I have plenty of info on the "Bonus Army".
What about training?
What about the cavalry ("In Pursuit of Honor") ... McArthur was transitioning the cavalry from horses to mechanization.
Anything will help... please point me in the right direction.
-Thanks!
I'm doing a research project on the military during the 30's.
I understand that not much was going on with the US military at this time... lack of funding/no war.
I have plenty of info on the "Bonus Army".
What about training?
What about the cavalry ("In Pursuit of Honor") ... McArthur was transitioning the cavalry from horses to mechanization.
Anything will help... please point me in the right direction.
-Thanks!
Also search banana wars nicauraga dominican republic. While it was not a huge presence the United States (particularly the marines) were engaged. You might also look into the transitions going on: from a Battleship Navy to a Carrier Navy(Billy Mitchell, Ernest King etc), cavalry to mech, armor and the transitioning of MG's from being artillery(Ref In Pursuit of Honor, look at the pants the machine gunners wear. The Red stripe denotes artillery, which is how MG were used in WW1 and into the 30's) to part of the infantry platoon/company It would be late 30's, especially in the US but also look into the development of Airborne. The Russians pioneered the idea but could never pull it off successfully(failure to resupply). The Germans ran with it. Probably the best use of Airborne forces in ww2 was the battle of Eban Emal(1940)
And the worst was at Crete...though talk about a challenging resupply/reinforce/relieve effort...put the Germans off of asaulting Malta.
Though IIRC, the Soviets used airborne at the Dneiper Crossing.
12/8/2008 2:17:27 AM
Originally Posted By paddymurphy:
Trivia末Last mounted charge by the United States was the 26th Cavalry in the Phillipines末until the SF did it in Afghanistan.
Originally Posted By Smead:
Bio's on some of the General's of WW2 fame may provide some illumination of conditions.
Also any books describing the build-up to WW2, often they address military size, equipment and readiness.
The US Army was still stationed at small forts all over the Western US for example, foreign duty was in Hawaii and the Philipines.
The Army was tiny, smaller than Belgiums, low pay, hard to get promoted, perfect for lifer, misfit toy types.
Check out Christie regarding highy mobile armored vehicles he designed in the 30's, the Soviets adopted his design.
In that era, only the infantry could have "tanks"...the Cavalry was forced to call it's similiar vehicles "Combat Cars". The US Army had horse cavalry formations until 1941.
The USMC garrisoned numerous Pacific bases and had interventions in Central America.
After the mid 30's the Navy began building up...definately the favored service.
The Navy had their air service, what became the US Air Force was then part of the Army...US Army Air Corps.
Bio's on some of the General's of WW2 fame may provide some illumination of conditions.
Also any books describing the build-up to WW2, often they address military size, equipment and readiness.
The US Army was still stationed at small forts all over the Western US for example, foreign duty was in Hawaii and the Philipines.
The Army was tiny, smaller than Belgiums, low pay, hard to get promoted, perfect for lifer, misfit toy types.
Check out Christie regarding highy mobile armored vehicles he designed in the 30's, the Soviets adopted his design.
In that era, only the infantry could have "tanks"...the Cavalry was forced to call it's similiar vehicles "Combat Cars". The US Army had horse cavalry formations until 1941.
The USMC garrisoned numerous Pacific bases and had interventions in Central America.
After the mid 30's the Navy began building up...definately the favored service.
The Navy had their air service, what became the US Air Force was then part of the Army...US Army Air Corps.
Trivia末Last mounted charge by the United States was the 26th Cavalry in the Phillipines末until the SF did it in Afghanistan.
More trivia; There was a 2nd Cavalry Division.
2nd Cavalry Division
12/8/2008 2:23:51 AM
Link to story about SF cavalary charge in ASTAN or fail
12/8/2008 9:00:49 AM
Originally Posted By MTNmyMag:
Link to story about SF cavalary charge in ASTAN or fail
Link to story about SF cavalary charge in ASTAN or fail
I found this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/571498/posts
U.S. Special Forces Joined Charge On Horseback Against Taliban
Bloomberg.com | November 15, 2001 | Tony Capaccio
Washington 末 U.S. special forces working with the Northern Alliance
in Afghanistan have ridden in cavalry charges against Taliban militia
positions, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said.
``In
Afghanistan, a country we think of in somewhat medieval terms, our
special forces have taken a page from the past, from the history of the
horse cavalry with our soldiers armed with swords and rifles,
maneuvering on horseback,'' Wolfowitz said in a speech last night.
The Pentagon has said in general terms that U.S. special forces are
working with Northern Alliance units to improve their military tactics,
coordinate among their factions and direct strikes by U.S. aircraft
against Taliban targets.
Wolfowitz read excerpts from
declassified field reports that describe some of the experiences of
those special forces in battle.
``I am advising a man on how
best to employ light infantry and horse cavalry in the attack against
Taliban T-55 (tanks), mortars, artillery, personnel carriers and
machine guns 末 a tactic which I think became outdated with the
invention of the Gatling gun,'' wrote one commando in an October 25
report, Wolfowitz said. ``They have done this every day we have been on
the ground.''
``I have observed a gunner who walked 10 plus
miles to get to the fight, who was proud to show me his artificial
right leg from the knee down,'' said the report.
The dispatch
relayed how Northern Alliance horsemen ``bounded from spur to spur to
attack Taliban strong points 末 the last several kilometers under
mortar, artillery fire. They have killed over 125 Taliban while losing
only eight,'' the commando wrote.
``And with that,'' said
Wolfowitz, ``one of our amazing special forces members went off on a
cavalry charge with a Northern Alliance commander.''
Modern Communications
Wolfowitz noted that in addition to attacking with cavalry, U.S.
special forces have used 21st century communications equipment to
``direct close air support and bomber strikes, sometimes from halfway
around the world.''
In one instance, a U.S. soldier described
calling in air strikes to stop an attack by Taliban troops and avoid
being overrun, according to a declassified report Wolfowitz read.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has hinted that the role of special
forces will increase in hunting down Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders as
they retreat from strongholds such as Mazar-e-Sharif and Jalalabad.
Special forces teams are operating on their own in southern Afghanistan
calling in air strikes on retreating Taliban and al- Qaeda forces,
``interdicting'' their retreat, Rumsfeld said yesterday.
No Ramadan Pause
Wolfowitz said the U.S. will continue bombing Taliban and al- Qaeda
forces during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, which starts this
weekend. There has been speculation that the bombing strikes would slow
out of deference to Muslims and because the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces
are in retreat.
``We have made it clear from the beginning
that there are objectives that have got to be pursued regardless of
Ramadan,'' Wolfowitz told Bloomberg News.
``Most Muslims understand that,'' Wolfowitz said. ``Obviously, we're sensitive to the fact that it's the holiest part of the Muslim year and that may have some tactical impact but we have to continue prosecuting this war. Hopefully, we'll have a lot less than we have to do by the time Ramadan comes to an end.''
12/11/2008 8:55:46 PM
Originally Posted By MTNmyMag:
Link to story about SF cavalary charge in ASTAN or fail
Link to story about SF cavalary charge in ASTAN or fail
Robin Moore talked about it in his first book on Sf in the GWOT. IIRC it was entitled the Hunt for Bin Laden but I would have to check when at home.
3/29/2009 3:28:25 PM
If you are in Austin, you need to go across MOPAC to Camp Mabry. They did have a pretty good library there, and the staff may be able to give you some help.
4/10/2009 9:17:50 PM
Originally Posted By MTNmyMag:
Link to story about SF cavalary charge in ASTAN or fail
Link to story about SF cavalary charge in ASTAN or fail
Not about a charge per se, but still interesting reading on the subject:
http://www.geocities.com/futuretanks/ponysoldiers.htm
As to the OPs question, I just read an interesting bio on Patton last week while flying home. The 30s was an interesting period in terms of the decline of the post WW1 military and what they had to go through once they started preparing for the conflict as the decade ended. I'd heard before that officers pretty much went the entire period between the wars with no advancement in rank due to the limited size of the military. That would be unheard of today.
5/14/2009 11:46:34 PM
Here's a good run down of how America looked at the use of Armor in a Division.
Toward Combined Arms Warfare: A Survey of 20th Century Tactics, Doctrine, and Organization
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/csi/CSIResearchSurveys.asp#title
5/24/2009 10:57:56 AM
Currently on Chapter 2 of "Men on Iron Ponies", which traces the development of mechanised cavalry. Give me a few days, I'll get back to you. Or just buy the book.
NTM
NTM
5/26/2009 10:07:37 PM
Well, sure enough, it seems to be a case of Institutional Inertia. Ft Knox was advocating horsed cavalry as a necessary (not just viable) component in the modern military well into WWII, and was rather peeved at the fact that their point of view was not shared at higher Army levels. There were great attempts made to keep the horse viable, to include towing them in horse trailers to gain operational mobility.
Interestingly, though Knox did see the merit in armoured vehicles, they saw them primarily as recon units, but expected the main cavalry combat capability to be the mounted (on a horse) cavalry unit.
NTM
Interestingly, though Knox did see the merit in armoured vehicles, they saw them primarily as recon units, but expected the main cavalry combat capability to be the mounted (on a horse) cavalry unit.
NTM
6/2/2009 3:18:30 PM
If you mean all of the military, they were also building the Yorktown Class of aircraft carriers, then they began the Essex class in the late 1930s, after Japan abandoned the naval treaty.
7/13/2009 11:18:42 PM
A dear friend of mine brought his saber to my 9th grade class the year I taught in high school. He said that he remembered when the U.S. Army took the saber away from his unit in 1934. I think that he served on into WWII. He died a few years ago, but it seemed as if I spoke to a piece of the past that seemed surreal to me at the time.
As to the last cavalry charges, I recall the last recorded charge by actual U.S. Army horse mounted cavalary took place in late 1942 in the Philippines. They had to kill the horses and eat them afterward. The Special Forces may have operated from horseback in Afghanistan, but they were not operating as horse mounted cavalry.
As a former Infantry Officer that served in the 1st Cavalry Division, I am still somewhat sensetive to the fact that the 2nd Brigade consisted of three battalions, two Armor and One Infantry. History is history, and I want deny it in spite of the eternal enmity between Infantry and Armor.
QUEEN OF BATTLE!
As to the last cavalry charges, I recall the last recorded charge by actual U.S. Army horse mounted cavalary took place in late 1942 in the Philippines. They had to kill the horses and eat them afterward. The Special Forces may have operated from horseback in Afghanistan, but they were not operating as horse mounted cavalry.
As a former Infantry Officer that served in the 1st Cavalry Division, I am still somewhat sensetive to the fact that the 2nd Brigade consisted of three battalions, two Armor and One Infantry. History is history, and I want deny it in spite of the eternal enmity between Infantry and Armor.
QUEEN OF BATTLE!
7/26/2009 2:20:52 PM
Springfield arsenal spent about the entire decade developing the M1 rifle. Aircraft and ships were designed, procured, and feilded. Tanks and other military vehicles were explored, obtained and more or less brought into service. Other warfare oriented research work was done on a myriad of topics ranging from rocketry to nuclear physics goverment funded or otherwise. despite the depression and general lack of funding from Uncle Sam, much work was accomplished by the US armed forces, and civilian businesses, inventors, and other enterpises too.
The allies didn't refer to the US as the "Arsenal of democracy" for no reason. American industry was experiencing a revival supplying gear to the world, which was gearing up for WWII, during the late 1930's. The US military/Armed forces benifited substantialy from this....despite not having much funding to partake in any huge build-up themselves.
The allies didn't refer to the US as the "Arsenal of democracy" for no reason. American industry was experiencing a revival supplying gear to the world, which was gearing up for WWII, during the late 1930's. The US military/Armed forces benifited substantialy from this....despite not having much funding to partake in any huge build-up themselves.
