Some Interesting Military Data

[Timerover51]

The following example of what might be described as Japanese Combat Magic comes from the Intelligence Bulletin September 1944 issued by the U.S. Military Intelligence Service.

YARUZO!

In an effort to keep Japanese fighting spirit from flagging, the enemy command at Torokina issued this novel order:

To bring certain destruction to U. S. troops, it has been decided that hereafter the following exercise will be performed at morning and evening assembly.

1. Close the eyes, clench one or both fists and raise them to the forehead, and then bellow out, "Chikusho!" ("Damned animal!"). Thus will Yankee courage be sapped.

2. In addition, the ranking officer present will shout, "Yaruzo!" ("Let's do it!"), and all the others will follow in chorus with "Yarimasu!" ("We will do it!").

3. Finally, the ranking officer will take a saber in the right hand, and, assuming a rigid stance of steely determination, pretend to cut straight down between the shoulders of the enemy, shouting, "Sen nin kiri!" ("Kill a thousand men!").

The Torokina mentioned is located on Bougainville Island in the North Solomons. The U.S. 3rd Marine Division landed there on November 1st of 1943. I fear that the Japanese Combat Magic did not quite work as envisioned by the Japanese commander.

 

[Timerover51]

From the same source as the previous quote comes the following interesting tidbit on Japanese artillery guns and ammunition. and a bit of a lack of standardization.

There are 10 different Japanese 75-mm guns, some of which are widely used throughout the Japanese Army. However, the ammunition for these guns differs appreciably. The shell cases vary in length from 7.28 inches to 19.55 inches, and the projectiles vary in weight from 8.34 pounds to 15.43 pounds.

Having been a supply officer, I cannot imagine a situation more conducive to major supply foul-ups, and much abuse of the poor ammunition supply officer. That is on par with the Japanese Army and Navy both having 7.7mm machine guns on the aircraft, but the machine guns used totally different types of ammunition that were not interchangeable. When I see data like this I keep asking myself whether the Japanese Army and Navy ever talked to each other unless absolutely necessary. I also figure them as complete amateurs when it came to logistics.

 

[JimMarn]

From what I have read rivally between the IJN and IJA prevented a separate IJ Air Force from ever forming. Each felt their Air Arm was better than the other's air arm.

Germany apparently had similar, but different, ammo problems as well. Them making use of other nation's captured artillery, some of it 75 mm, also had problems with shell compatibility.

But Japan had no problems flying captured B-17s and using the M-1 Garand against Allied troops and Marines.

 

[Timerover51]

One of their varieties of 7.7mm rounds was identical to the British .303 round and could be used in captured British Enfield rifles.

As for the Germans using a wide range of captured equipment, the following is one of Von Rundstedt reasons for why Germany lost the war. It comes from a post-war Intelligence Bulletin. He is commenting on the batteries along the Atlantic coast.

To make things worse, the coastal batteries included many captured guns, thus hampering the supply situation.

In the interview, he does amazingly admit that he thought that the Normandy landing were only a feint, and that the real landings would come further north. Generally, all mistakes made by the German High Command were made by Hitler, and NEVER, EVER by the generals. Von Rundstedt was a very sore loser.

 

[Condottiere]

Captured equipment was meant to eke out the tight production capacity the Germans were already experiencing; it's also rather important in Hearts of Iron to equip new units, or Lend Lease allies.

Especially if you include Czech equipment.

 

[Timerover51]

The following comes from the Military Intelligence Service publication Tactical and Technical Trends Number 14 from December 17, 1942.

22. BURNS IN THE BRITISH MIDDLE EAST FORCES

a. Causes of Burns

A report has been received which is an interesting analysis of the causes and treatment of burns in British Middle East forces. Significant is the observation that the greater number of burns are of accidental cause and could be prevented.. The ratio of accidental burns to battle-casualty burns in Middle East forces is 2.3 to 1. During a period of 2 months when there was little fighting on the desert, 250 cases of burns were treated at a general hospital at Tobruk among troops of the British Eighth Army. In series of 83 fatal cases, 15 were burned during land fighting, 15 during the bombing of ships, and 13 as a result of airplane crashes, and 40 of the fatal cases were accidentally burned - 48 percent 6f the total.

The cause of accidental burns is almost always ignited gasoline, and most frequently accidents occur from using the "desert stove, an improvised gasoline fire in which the fuel is mixed with sand in a can. When the fire burns low, more gasoline is poured on the stove with disastrous results. In bright sunlight it may be difficult to see whether the fire is still burning. In other cases, clothes become soaked with gasoline (it is common to use gasoline in washing clothes), a match is struck, and the clothing is ignited.

As the U.S. troops in North Africa were using the same type of "desert stove" as the British, this would be a warning to commanders to caution their troops to be careful. In Alaska, we had a couple of potentially serious incidents involving gasoline and stoves as well.

 

[Dagrill]

The following comes from the Military Intelligence Service publication Tactical and Technical Trends Number 14 from December 17, 1942.



As the U.S. troops in North Africa were using the same type of "desert stove" as the British, this would be a warning to commanders to caution their troops to be careful. In Alaska, we had a couple of potentially serious incidents involving gasoline and stoves as well.

Presumably as this is during the siege of Tobruk and most of the Troops would have been Australians?

According to most of the stuff (British accounts) I've read the Australians had a very casual attitude towards Health & Safety.

Regards

David

 

[Timerover51]

Presumably as this is during the siege of Tobruk and most of the Troops would have been Australians?

According to most of the stuff (British accounts) I've read the Australians had a very casual attitude towards Health & Safety.

Regards

David

Given that the article mentions a British 8th Army general hospital at Tobruk, and not a divisional hospital, I suspect that the period covered was that prior to the Battle of Gazala in May and June of 1942. The purpose of the Tactical and Technical Trends bulletin was to supply recent combat lessons and technical data to the combat forces.

 

[Timerover51]

I have been doing some research on wounding by projectiles of various types, and came across this interesting tidbit concerning a very odd wounding agent.

Foreign substances derived from persons standing near a wounded man, sometimes fragments of the bodies of other wounded men, have been already named as occasionally lodging. In a severe injury to the face, which occurred in a man of the 1st brigade of the Light Division, in the Crimea, the surgeon was at first puzzled by the strange displacement of a part of the upper jaw. After closer examination, and obtaining a clearer view by the removal of clot, it was found that a piece of the jaw of another man, whose head had been smashed by a round shot by his side in the battery, had been driven into the palate, and was there impacted.

This would not be considered a normal secondary projectile.

This comes from A Treatise on Gunshot Wounds by Thomas Longmore, Esq., DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF HOSPITALS; PROFESSOR OF MILITARY SURGERY AT FORT PITT, CHATHAM, which can be found on Project Gutenberg.

While the copyright is 1862, it does have a lot of useful information in it regarding the difference in wounds from the spherical musket ball and the Minie ball.

 

[Timerover51]

I have been doing some reading on the logistic support of the American Expeditionary Force in France in World War One. If you are more than a bit puzzled why I do this type of reading, read my signature. I was also a U.S. Army supply officer, among other things. The account comes from the volume, The Sinews of War: Army Logistics, 1775-1953, CMH Publication 30-4, published by the U.S. Army Center for Military History, and is in the public domain.

A quartermaster major, Otto H. Goldstein, who had been a wholesale grocer in Chicago, built a plant near Paris for roasting and grinding coffee 90,000 pounds a day; three similar plants were added, and by 1919 they would have been able to provide the entire eoffee requirement for the AEF. Major Goldstein also arranged to rent idle chocolate-making machinery from the French owners, and soon he had nearly a dozen factories turning out 4,000,000 pounds of chocolate a month for the ration component, and another 1,000,000 pounds made into candies forsale to the soldiers. Next Goldstein was called upon to produce hard bread, and he reached a production of 9,000,000 pounds a month. He also devised a mechanical process that turned out 1,500,000 pounds of macaroni a month.

"What did you do in the War, Grandpa?"
"I ran a candy making factory for the Army."

It was simpler to ship the raw components in bulk to France and produce it there. Personally, I think that the major deserved at least a Legion of Merit for his efforts, but I doubt that he received any recognition in a formal sense.

There are more interesting tidbits in the various supply histories.

As a side note, in reading the various histories, my respect for Black Jack Pershing has increased considerably. He and his staff, sometimes with the help of the War Department, had to develop the European supply system from scratch, with no real prior experience to draw on. The WW2 guys had their own problems, but at least they had the World War One experience to draw on.

 

[wellis]

Do you have any military data that is more contemporary?

 

[whartung]

Do you have any military data that is more contemporary?

Well I guess the big question is why weren't the local commercial suppliers adequate to do the job? Simply demand? Price? Mass market grocery store chocolate (i.e. Hershey's) isn't renowned for being the highest quality chocolate. Perhaps the local chocolatiers weren't up to making the volume, or quality, that was necessary.

Similarly with the coffee.

Today, our modern peace time military has its commercial demands already scaled up.

Then there's the side of the story that might consider this person and his coffee/chocolate business a war profiteer. Could be a fine line there.

 

[Timerover51]

Well I guess the big question is why weren't the local commercial suppliers adequate to do the job? Simply demand? Price? Mass market grocery store chocolate (i.e. Hershey's) isn't renowned for being the highest quality chocolate. Perhaps the local chocolatiers weren't up to making the volume, or quality, that was necessary.

Similarly with the coffee.

As both chocolate candy and coffee were part of the standard U.S. ration, the shipping space for the raw materials could be freed up, and it took less room than shipping ground and roasted coffee and chocolate candy. The French could not afford either the money or the shipping space for either product. The U.S. had coffee roasting companies through World War 2 for the same reason, to save shipping space.

Today, our modern peace time military has its commercial demands already scaled up.

Then there's the side of the story that might consider this person and his coffee/chocolate business a war profiteer. Could be a fine line there.

The individual was a Major in the U.S. Army Quartermaster Corps, and all of the operations were run by the U.S. Army, no war profiteering possible. The only profits were on the sale of chocolates to the canteens, which were controlled by the Army Service of Supply, and went to purchase more canteen items.

 

[Timerover51]

Do you have any military data that is more contemporary?

One, look at my signature.

Two, it depends on what I am reading at the time. I do have the USAF reports on the 1st Gulf War which I could raid, but I cannot comment on. Then there are the reports on the Gulf War and Afghanistan operations available at the Center for Military History.

https://history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/collect/collect.html

I am a military historian, with a wide range of interests and reading, especially when it comes to logistics. There are some interesting comparisons to be made between how things were done during the Civil War and World War One and today.

Three, what eras are you looking for?

 

[BlackBat242]

Well I guess the big question is why weren't the local commercial suppliers adequate to do the job? Simply demand? Price? Mass market grocery store chocolate (i.e. Hershey's) isn't renowned for being the highest quality chocolate. Perhaps the local chocolatiers weren't up to making the volume, or quality, that was necessary.

Similarly with the coffee.

Excuse me?
This was in France - you know, a country that was in a fight for its very survival against an invading power, and which was hanging on by a shoestring WITH the aid of several powerful allies.

There had already been 3 years of continual high-level warfare, which had produced massive casualties, and which had placed an extreme demand on the manpower of the nation....to the point that war-essential industries and food production were suffering from manpower shortages.

To expect luxuries like chocolate & candy to be in production at all, much less in quantities to supply foreign forces is, frankly, unrealistic.

After all, those "local chocolatiers" almost certainly were in the army serving at the front!

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

As a side note, in reading the various histories, my respect for Black Jack Pershing has increased considerably. He and his staff, sometimes with the help of the War Department, had to develop the European supply system from scratch, with no real prior experience to draw on. The WW2 guys had their own problems, but at least they had the World War One experience to draw on.

its worth noting that, unless I am mistaken, the 1st world war was pretty much the only major war which the US took part in where it was the junior partner of the alliance. in every war since it has been the senior member, but in ww1 the AEF was definitely the not the largest, most experienced and most powerful army on the allied side, despite the future potential it had if the war had dragged on into 1919.

Thus, "Black Jack" Pershing is pretty much the only US commander who had to fight a colaliton war form the junior member position, rather than the senior. he was a lot more beholden to the wishes and needs of his allies than Eisenhower ever was, and required a different approach to doing things. He was treading a very fine line while managing the sometimes incompatible demands of his allies and his bosses back in Washington (for example, the allied requests he put units into line, under allied control, as soon as possible to relieve the pressure on them vs the demand form Washington that the AEF doesn't go into action expect under a all American chain of command).

 

[whartung]

The individual was a Major in the U.S. Army Quartermaster Corps, and all of the operations were run by the U.S. Army, no war profiteering possible.

I missed that this was a government operation.

Excuse me?
This was in France - you know, a country that was in a fight for its very survival against an invading power, and which was hanging on by a shoestring WITH the aid of several powerful allies.

This coffee and chocolate factory was part of the US war machine, France had its own war machine. Clearly the US was able to build, supply, maintain, and operate this large chocolate and coffee production facility, apparently, in war torn France.

If coffee and chocolate were important to an contemporary war machine, I would expect that France would also be able to scale up production just like it no doubt scaled up other kinds of production. If nothing else, it could have secured raw materials from a partner like the US.

Perhaps there was a labor shortage, but, again, folks in the rear supporting the tail to the teeth are as important as the teeth of the force. The teeth get dull quickly and tail keeps it sharp.

WWI was still a very "front" loaded war, vs WWII where air forces were bombarding and disrupting manufacturing and production behind the lines.

I do not take the scale and speed that a country the size of France can move and react lightly, and building up a chocolate factory and coffee roaster doesn't seem out of line, and, in fact, a minor facility, assuming they can get the resources (which clearly the US was able to import which suggests they could have bought it from the US if they wanted).

 

[Condottiere]

Slack and efficiency.

First you need the industrial capacity, and once that's filled, experience should make the cogs function better.

Labour shortages can be covered by importing foreign workers; giving someone a gun whose loyalty can't be taken for granted, and point them to the frontline, is a tad risky.

 

[Timerover51]

Slack and efficiency.

First you need the industrial capacity, and once that's filled, experience should make the cogs function better.

Labour shortages can be covered by importing foreign workers; giving someone a gun whose loyalty can't be taken for granted, and point them to the frontline, is a tad risky.

The French imported a lot of Chinese laborers during World War One to do things like trench digging and ship unloading. I suspect that the Spanish Flu virus actually came from Asia, based on the fact that it appeared in Hawaii in June of 1918 before first appearing in Spain/Europe in October.

The Portuguese troops that were put in line during World War One did not exactly distinguish themselves. They had no motive to be there.

 

[Timerover51]

its worth noting that, unless I am mistaken, the 1st world war was pretty much the only major war which the US took part in where it was the junior partner of the alliance. in every war since it has been the senior member, but in ww1 the AEF was definitely the not the largest, most experienced and most powerful army on the allied side, despite the future potential it had if the war had dragged on into 1919.

Thus, "Black Jack" Pershing is pretty much the only US commander who had to fight a colaliton war form the junior member position, rather than the senior. he was a lot more beholden to the wishes and needs of his allies than Eisenhower ever was, and required a different approach to doing things. He was treading a very fine line while managing the sometimes incompatible demands of his allies and his bosses back in Washington (for example, the allied requests he put units into line, under allied control, as soon as possible to relieve the pressure on them vs the demand form Washington that the AEF doesn't go into action expect under a all American chain of command).

Your are correct in this. Pershing fought a continual battle to keep the American troops from basically being used for cannon fodder by the French and the English.