The Army you want and the Army you need
I made a couple of gun purchases this summer that were my first dip into the realm of historical arms. An M1903A3 rifle made by Remington Arms and an M1911A1 pistol made by Remington Rand. They were both manufactured during World War II. Being the sort of person that I am, I checked into the history of the manufacturing of those particular weapons.
Springfield Armory (in Massachusetts) was the main manufacturer of the assault rifle of the day – the M1 Garand. From 1937, when the Army bought the rifle, until the war ended in 1945, they made 4.5 million of the rifles.
16.1 million Americans served in the military during the war, about 12 million served outside of the US. 4.5 million Garands weren’t enough to arm them all so Remington Arms (Ilion, New York) and Smith Corona (the typewriter company in Syracuse, NY) helped out by making the World War I era assault rifle – the 1903 – to augment arming troops. Many of the Marines who initially went to fight the Japanese in Pacific were armed with 1903s. Remington and Smith Corona changed the design of the rifle using a sighting system similar to the Garand to facilitate cross-training between the two battle rifles.
The main difference between the two rifles was that the Garand was an eight-shot semi-automatic rifle while the 1903 was a bolt-action with a five shot magazine. Big difference in a firefight. But you go to war with the Army you have, not always the Army that you want.
The military had the same problem with their .45 automatic caliber pistols, the M1911A1. They had to ramp up production of the handgun and Colt, the main manufacturer, couldn’t handle the demand, so the military signed contracts with other folks; Remington Rand (900,000 M1911s produced), Colt (400,000), Ithaca Gun Company (400,000), Union Switch & Signal (50,000), and Singer (500). Remington Rand made typewriters before the war, Singer, of course, made sewing machines. Union Switch & Signal made railroad signaling equipment. All five companies were mainly in the northeastern part of the country – in the good old days, that’s where all of the manufacturing took place. Well, until the Leftists chased all of the manufacturers south with their taxes and over-regulation.
A little more history of my Remington Rand; a gentleman brought it home from the Korean War (remember when you could do that?) and it was stolen from his home in the early 60s. The thief ground off the serial number. Law enforcement eventually caught up with the thief and returned the gun to him with a new ATF-assigned serial number etched into it (we checked out his story with the ATF before we took possession of it). I guess the days of the ATF going through that kind of trouble to return a stolen weapon to a legal gun owner are probably gone, just like the manufacturing capability we had in this country before World War II.
I just wonder if we had an emergency the size of World War Two again if we have the capability to respond as a nation in the way that folks did back then. The capability and the willingness to respond on that scale.
Category: Historical
Why wouldn’t we be able to produce in that way again at facilities capable of machining? I mean, it’s profitable. Stupidly so. It meets a demand, and any intelligent company will work to meet a demand that exists as a way to make a quick buck. Then, consider how many AR’s that are out there right now that are Mil-spec or better.
My bigger worry would be poorly made AR’s by people who don’t really understand machining and are, for better or worse, working the machines they operate by rote memorization. In World War 2, even a FURNITURE factory built a few quality BAR’s. These people had know-how. You don’t find a lot of mechanical know-how these days.
Originally posted by Jonn Lilyea I just wonder if we had an emergency the size of World War Two again if we have the capability to respond as a nation in the way that folks did back then. The capability and the willingness to respond on that scale. “Rome didn’t fall until her freedmen gave up the will to fight” I don’t remember who said that, or the exact words, but the concept is close to reality. The Romans lost 10s of thousands of Soldiers in a single battle, but they kept fighting, even when the enemy was on the verge of threatening Rome… or when they actually did get to Rome. Today, if we lose 5 people in a war, the liberal side of the American population scream about how we should just “get out of the war” and “mind our own business” … ironic considering that they insist that the US pull out of a war that it’s winning when they refuse to pull out of an argument they’re losing. 🙄 Heck, liberals were demanding that we “compromise” with the south, and that we should “end the war” during the Civil War. 🙄 There’s actually a federal law on the books that identifies the male members of the non-military population, ages 17 to 44, able bodied, as members of the militia. This is everybody that’s not a member of the military and its reserve component including the retirees, that’s able to pick up arms and respond to threats against the US or its stability. This law was common law during the colonial period, during the American Revolution, and during the Constitution creating period. It became codified shortly after the U.S. formed. This is tied into the Second Amendment of the Constitution. People understood this concept, and were generally ready to act out on it. Any law that attempted to get “guns” out of the hands of the people was a law attempting to “disarm the militia,” a dangerous proposition considering that the people are ultimately responsible for both, self governance and national defense. An armed populace acted as… Read more »
Originally posted by Jonn Lilyea I just wonder if we had an emergency the size of World War Two again if we have the capability to respond as a nation in the way that folks did back then. The capability and the willingness to respond on that scale. “Rome didn’t fall until her freedmen gave up the will to fight” I don’t remember who said that, or the exact words, but the concept is close to reality. The Romans lost 10s of thousands of Soldiers in a single battle, but they kept fighting, even when the enemy was on the verge of threatening Rome… or when they actually did get to Rome. Today, if we lose 5 people in a war, the liberal side of the American population scream about how we should just “get out of the war” and “mind our own business” … ironic considering that they insist that the US pull out of a war that it’s winning when they refuse to pull out of an argument they’re losing. 🙄 Heck, liberals were demanding that we “compromise” with the south, and that we should “end the war” during the Civil War. 🙄 There’s actually a federal law on the books that identifies the male members of the non-military population, ages 17 to 44, able bodied, as members of the militia. This is everybody that’s not a member of the military and its reserve component including the retirees, that’s able to pick up arms and respond to threats against the US or its stability. This law was common law during the colonial period, during the American Revolution, and during the Constitution creating period. It became codified shortly after the U.S. formed. This is tied into the Second Amendment of the Constitution. People understood this concept, and were generally ready to act out on it. Any law that attempted to get “guns” out of the hands of the people was a law attempting to “disarm the militia,” a dangerous proposition considering that the people are ultimately responsible for both, self governance and national defense. An armed populace acted as… Read more »
I dispute your statements about industrial capacity. Used to be, we had steel mills in the Chicago area, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Alabama – there were probably other places but I have seen large-scale shut-down mills and foundries in those states. Most of them are gone now. Most steel is made overseas. So if there is a world-wide conflict and the US wants to have things, then (a) they have to be made overseas and shipped here, (b) the steel has to be made overseas and shipped here where we manufacture the item, or (c) we have to reopen iron mines and train miners, reopen mills and train millwrights, and find and make the tools and train machinists. Both a and b assume that we are not at war with the people creating the materials and weapons and that we can keep the sea lanes open so that they can get raw materials and both of us can get energy and we can receive the steel or manufactured goods. That sea lane issue is also problematic. During WW2, the Germans sank a lot of allied shipping across the Atlantic with submarines who operated without radar. These days, an air-to-surface missile is a lot cheaper to make, it can be delivered via airplane, ship, or submarine, and we have multiple modes of detecting ships. I’m thinking that targeting is better so there will be more strikes. Both the weapons and the targets are high-tech so somewhat delicate and expensive. Seems to me that there will be a lot more expensive systems destroyed so the country with greater manufacturing capacity has a better chance. Any holes in full-spectrum manufacturing may be a significant weakness. We outsourced most of our manufacturing capacity. I’m thinking that a imported iPad won’t stop a bullet from a cheap AK. I am an Army guy but heavy stuff has to come on ships. Outsourcing any significant part of our economy creates a gap in our national security. I work in IT. Are you aware that many computer programmers are Indian and most of them work in India? I… Read more »
Originally posted by Richard: I dispute your statements about industrial capacity. And I dispute your statement in response to my statements… not just with what you said about industrial capacity, but with your analysis of what it means for this country. I do this based on 3 decades of studying history related events to include the evolution of our industry/economy, and during the time I worked on my MBA. My concentration was in global logistics. Originally posted by Richard: Used to be, we had steel mills in the Chicago area, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Alabama — there were probably other places but I have seen large-scale shut-down mills and foundries in those states. Most of them are gone now. Most steel is made overseas. Since you focused on steel, a look at the following PDF link shows the steelmaking capacity in the United States. Contrary to what you claim, the Chicago area, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Alabama STILL have still making capacity. They’re not the only locations that have them though. They’re also in other states in the country. The large scale shut down of steel mills in those areas has everything to do with economic evolution, business to business demand trends, economic environment as set up by the laws affecting the areas the steel mills and other “industrial revolution” type industries. With steel, changes in technology, and the companies that utilize that technology, are going to impact older facilities that use older technologies to do the same thing. This ties in to what I mentioned in the post, which you disagreed with. Our economy is evolving, and integrating with neighboring economies. This is all ultimately driven by consumer demand. This is going to cause industrial infrastructure to change in order to meet business to business consumer demand… which is ultimately meeting our collective consumer demands: http://www.steel.org/~/media/Files/AISI/Public%20Policy/Member%20Map/NorthAmerica-Map2013/SteelPlant_NorthAmerica_AISI_version_June252013.pdf This map includes facilities in Canada and Mexico. Seeing this just in terms of the United States is archaic. Realistically, we have to see our economy in terms of our continent instead of just in the US. Our economy has gotten to the point to… Read more »
Originally posted by Richard: So if there is a world-wide conflict and the US wants to have things, then (a) they have to be made overseas and shipped here, (b) the steel has to be made overseas and shipped here where we manufacture the item, or (c) we have to reopen iron mines and train miners, reopen mills and train millwrights, and find and make the tools and train machinists. Both a and b assume that we are not at war with the people creating the materials and weapons and that we can keep the sea lanes open so that they can get raw materials and both of us can get energy and we can receive the steel or manufactured goods. The assumptions in the first part of your statement won’t be a factor, and don’t take in the fact that the United States shares common interests with countries that we import steel from. It also doesn’t take into account the geopolitical undercurrents that come to play that lead countries to conflict. Japan and Germany were motivated a lot by the chance to get natural resources into their hands. The rhetoric was just a way to get the national populace behind the government’s push to expand territory and, through territorial expansion, the acquisition of natural resources to feed each country’s industrial capacities. Nations are driven to defend/pursue their interests. As our economies evolve, and integrate more, the less likely the “member” countries to this economic integration will fight each other in a war. We combat deployed troops into Canada and Mexico at different points in the 19th Century. We have no such plans in our future. Through NAFTA and other initiatives, we could pursue our economic interests in those countries in a way that benefits both sides of the border. No war needed. If a major global war broke out, those two countries would have our back with regards to industrial support. So would our economic partners in CAFTA, and in South America. This is applicable in other parts of the world as well. Now, in order for your “world… Read more »
Originally posted by Richard: That sea lane issue is also problematic. During WW2, the Germans sank a lot of allied shipping across the Atlantic with submarines who operated without radar. These days, an air-to-surface missile is a lot cheaper to make, it can be delivered via airplane, ship, or submarine, and we have multiple modes of detecting ships. I’m thinking that targeting is better so there will be more strikes. Both the weapons and the targets are high-tech so somewhat delicate and expensive. Seems to me that there will be a lot more expensive systems destroyed so the country with greater manufacturing capacity has a better chance. Any holes in full-spectrum manufacturing may be a significant weakness. We outsourced most of our manufacturing capacity. I’m thinking that a imported iPad won’t stop a bullet from a cheap AK. I was in the Navy before I joined the Army. I was an Operations Specialist, one of the MOSs that was involved with detecting and tracking both air and sea platforms. Over the horizon targeting and tracking was one of my main focuses. This isn’t as easy as you make it here. Back in the old days, the shipping lanes were known. The vast majority of shipping transited the exact same shipping lanes. A submarine commander that knew these shipping lanes needed to be at the right place and he needed to have patience. It’s not that simple today. The advance in technology that you mention makes it possible to not use the same shipping lane as was used during WWII. Today, these ships could pick their own shipping lanes, so you have to find these ships first. If you don’t follow them out to sea from port, and they slip beyond the horizon, good luck in finding them. Because of our power projection capability, the US military could cover shipping for those that transit a designated military and industrial shipping route. If you do follow them out to sea from port, then you have to use active communication to “spot” for the aircraft coming in. You can’t do that without being… Read more »
Originally posted by Richard: I am an Army guy but heavy stuff has to come on ships. I knew that from both research and experience. There are exceptions though, like oil. We import the vast majority of our oil through pipelines. Originally posted by Richard: Outsourcing any significant part of our economy creates a gap in our national security. I work in IT. Are you aware that many computer programmers are Indian and most of them work in India? I may try to find out where chip fabs are located — I think that most are in the far east. If there are no integrated circuits, then there are no controllers for those fancy weapons. Please tell me why this is the wrong way to look at it. You’re looking at this the wrong way, partly because you’re looking at this from a single dimension. You’re not looking at this the way you should be looking at this… globally. Outsourcing goes both ways. We don’t just have US manufacturing in the US. We also have foreign manufacturing in the US. This foreign manufacturing represents an outsourcing from the home country to the United States. Back in the early 19th Century, a governor wrote a letter to the president. In his letter, he appealed to the President’s sense of being an American. He talked about the American jobs that needed to be protected by the action he was requesting from the president. These American jobs? The men that pushed the long ores along the canals… the men that controlled the horses that worked with these long-ores men… the farmers that grew the hey that feed these horses… the people that built the boats that carried goods across these canals… the people that operated the locks separating the different lakes… etc. This governor “demonized” the “threat” to these American jobs, to include this “contraption’s” moving at breakneck speeds… we didn’t know the long term impact of people traveling at these “breakneck speeds.” This job killing evil that the governor was trying to get killed? The train and the railroad line it needed.… Read more »
We have the production capability. The problem isn’t on anything that Ronald Reagan did, but on what generations of voting for Democrats would do. Massachusetts, like my home state of Minnesota, has this bad habit of consistently voting for Democrats into positions that allow them to create laws that discourage businesses in their localities.
Businesses relocate to make more money, which means relocating out of states like Michigan, Minnesota, Massachusetts, etc., and towards more business friendly states or countries. Don’t thank Ronald Reagan for your state’s demise, blame generations of democrat policies for your state’s demise.
The word “taxachusetts” is a parody of a bigger problem in Massachusetts.
Make that Pennsylvania, same problem as Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan, etc., mentioned above.
So long as there is money to be made, I have no doubt that US industry can meet the challenge. And before we grant sainthood to the US of the war era, recall that there were laws passed to ensure everything from selective service registration to ration-coupon compliance. That is to say, the effort was not met solely through volunteerism but through legal coercion. It’s not popular to remind folks of this, inasmuch as the anointing of the Greatest Generation is now a given, but it was, after all, the Greatest Generation that gave us the Flower Children, Black Panthers, and assorted unwashed of the post-war baby boom.
3D printing-let Joe make his own firearms :D!
Lib’s love to blame Reagan for things that they did to shoot themselves in the foot.
So far the states that have capitalized on the forces that Reagan espoused have done well.
Those that continued to follow the liberal way of thinking have gone the way of the dinosaur, li8ke Detroit, MN and the rest of the high tax states.
Lib’s never take responsibility for their own actions and are in a river of denial…
Just like the crack addicts they represent…
Yeah-U.S. industrial production has increased dramatically over the past 30 years http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=INDPRO
Employment in manufacturing has decreased over time, but that probably says more about emerging technology than it does about policy http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbruner/2011/08/22/u-s-manufacturing-surges-ahead-but-dont-look-for-a-factory-job-infographic/
Anyway-lefties love to talk about industrial jobs because it harkens back to the days of big, overarching government policies of the 1940s and 50s when the idea that the economy could be directed (with them being enlightened technocrats doing the directing) from D.C. was en vogue. A variety of factors have since shown that that is nonsense, but they cling to it anyway.
USMC went into WW2 with the M1903 because they had turned down the M1 in 1940, Cue guadalcanal and suddenly they wanted them, but were now last in priority for them. USMC took on the Johnson Rifle for PAramarines, and at one point had the 03, Garand, and Johnson all in the same platoons.
Col Hurley Fuller who commanded the 23rd Infantry, 2ID at Normandy had his Regiment use the M1903 over the garand, it wasn’t until he was relieved that the regiment started the switch to the M1.
Also the 36th Texas divisions Infantry preferred the 03 up to 1944
MG Maxwell Taylor carried an ’03 at Normandy, Holland and Bastogne he preferred its accuracy
That I prefer my Garand to my ’03 doesn’t mean that my ’03 isn’t still a damn good weapon!
It’s amazing, the stories that vintage weapons come with. My very first rifle was an M1 Garand purchased from Big5 for $400 when I was 14 in 1998. No GI serial numbers, because it was assembled from the ginormous cache of spare parts–I read somewhere that for each of the 4.5 million complete rifles assembled during the war, parts were made for four more. While still pretty (she IS a Garand) she doesn’t have the classic look, with every part having a mismatched finish. But she still shoots beautifully, never malfunctions, and will punch the dots off a dice at 500 yards. That rifle has even gotten me laid! I still have that M1, and she is definitely my favorite rifle. Due to my familiarity with it, accuracy, and reliability, it is my go-to SHTF weapon. And I don’t understand why some people complain about them. I know I’m 6’1″ and 235 pounds, but 10 pounds of rifle is not all that heavy, and I find the recoil to be very comfortable. Plus, if I can see it, I can kill it. I now have two of them, the second has a serial number below 30,000–probably had a gas trap originally. It’s beat-up, but I’m 85% done restoring her. She has the occasional hiccup, but still puts every round through the same hole. Then there’s my M1903A3, which I bought at a gun show from a Korean dude who educated me on how, “Dis lifle was actuary made by Lemington,” and gave me a solid rundown (in perfect Engrish) of the improvements made in the ’03A3 over the original ’03, where they were issued, etc. Language barrier aside, dude knew his guns. I nearly ruined it in a teachable moment regarding the potential dangers of home gunsmithing, but luckily a pro was able to unfuck my mistake. Shoots great, kicks a bit harder than the Garand (gotta love gas operation!), damn good weapon. I think I’ve already told the story of my (step)Grandpa’s Enfield sniper mod that he took home from Korea. Speaking of great rifles. I just recently got… Read more »
Production capability?
Henry Ford invented mass production with the assembly line cranking out Ford cars – any model, any year – by the truckload. Ditto, the assembly lines for tire production. When WWII erupted, those facilities included war production by rapid conversion to manufacturing planes and other war equipment.
Detroit and other northern cities was where the jobs were. People left Appalachia to work in those cities instead of the coal mines.
Caterpillar still builds their own heavy equipment here in the US, just as Boeing and other aviation companies build planes here. Not everything comes from overseas. Some companies like the Swiss-owned company Terex produce equipment where they sell it.
Maybe the sweaters and blouse and jeans that we buy come from garment facatories in China, but that is not heavy industry of the kind needed for wartime production. Furthermore, the fabric-manufacturing, garment production, and furniture manufacturing industries have a long, long history of moving from one general location to another.
You can argue that the parts are manufactured overseas, which may be true to some extent.
It does not mean that everything is made in China, or that it can’t quickly be brought back here.
I have a box of vinyl-coated nails which I use for repairs to my front steps. I checked the label. They’re made in the USA.
Despite the distaste by the lefties for money, they don’t have it if they don’t work, you know. They despise the very thing they need to pay the rent and put food on the table and buy all those cool toys they love so much. But if they don’t work, they don’t have any cash. I see them as essentially the laziest jerks on the planet, and not much else.
I’m not sure if it’s a relevant question anyway. Ever since WWII ended we’ve been operating on the assumption that we might have to fight another world war but history has shown that world wars are an anomaly, requiring a lot of factors that simply don’t exist today and probably won’t again (for example having multiple colonial powers that are roughly equal militarily, non-interconnected economies, etc.)
In fact, if you look back at the 20th century you can see that the mass slaughter that started in WWI, continued through the various revolutions and upheavals around the world during the inter-war period (mass starvation and massacre in the USSR, mass slaughter by the Japanese in China and East Asia) and then culminated in 1945, there has been a steady downward trend in the size and scope of conflicts. Korea saw massive fights, but not as large scale as WWII. Vietnam was even smaller scale than that.
By the time you get to the modern GWOT, you are talking about a conflict where most actions are platoon-sized or smaller.
Not to take anything away from the bravery or heroism of todays GIs, but consider that a company-sized firefight in which 10 US soldiers are killed would be splashed all over every news organ in the US, and would lead to much furrowed-brow concern about whether the war is “worth it”, but during Vietnam (much less WWII or Korea) such an incident wouldn’t even make it to the back page of the local newspaper.
In fact, I’d even go so far as to say the notion of large, industrialized nation states fighting wars against each other has become pretty much obsolete just by the inter-connectedness of the world. Once the cold war ended there was really no realistic possibility that we’d ever see that kind of struggle again.
“The capability and the willingness to respond on that scale.”
That single sentence captures all that needs to be said on the matter. I’n not quite ready to concede that we lack the capability. The willingness is doubtful these days though. I’ve never fully understood how 9/11 failed to engender something more akin to Pearl Harbor and WWII.
BTW, nice guns. My only experience with the 03 was on a drill team… Chromed to a fault AND with a chrome bayonet.
“I just wonder if we had an emergency the size of World War Two again if we have the capability to respond as a nation in the way that folks did back then. The capability and the willingness to respond on that scale.”
I hope so. I do believe, given a grave enough challenge America can rise to most anything. My concern is the lack of available plants and manufacturing systems needed to ramp up to needed production quickly. Most plants have become relics in need of demolition and then new, ground up construction for modern methods. Depending on foreign countries, who may not be friendly to our efforts during such a crisis, for steel and so forth is not a good plan. As far as the WWII era of Americans willing to pitch in with metal drives of all kinds, ration coupons for everything, I don’t think so anymore. It would mean the entitled, welfare class also would have to be willing to give up their fair share as well and do their part. They have shown no intention thus far of giving up anything for anyone, especially the betterment of our nation and I highly doubt they would suddenly be flying flags and signing up for the much needed, in demand manufacturing jobs in a crisis such as the one proposed. Just won’t happen in my mind. Long before that I see the illegal alien population clamoring for that work with the stipulation that citizenship comes with the paycheck.
Technically, Henry Ford improved the production line. He most certainly did not invent or figure it out. That accolade belongs to Eli Whitney and his interchangeable parts system.
I’ve talked to very intelligent and highly skilled engineers and OLD school machinists. They all say that the capability to make new barrels for the Iowa class battleships, is lost and almost impossible to restore, given today’s manufacture abilities. I responded in disbelief, that if a 16″ rifled barrel could be made with ease and speed in 1940, using cocktail napkins for design ideas and lined notepaper for the math calculations, that modern computers could do all that in a fraction of the time.
To a man, they said so what? There aren’t any PEOPLE that know how to do it, and the government would not allow such a factory to be built.
Sad.
Just wait, this loss of technology leads to a future with star ships that don’t have any seatbelts or airbags too…
Dreadnoughts are cool, and impressive. However, sadly, they are also obsolete as tools for mastery of the sea. Ponder the fates of the Prince of Wales, Repulse, Arizona, Yamato, and Musashi- all sunk by aircraft.
Thus, it makes a fair bit of sense why the skill of making 16″ naval cannons has gone out of practice. You don’t need the guns for naval operations, and it is waaaaaay to expensive to turn them out just to keep the skills current.
Last night, I was watching something on television, and it mentioned that President Roosevelt approved the Lend Lease program because it had the effect of successfully getting our manufacturing industries prepared for the eventual entry of the United States as a formally declared combatant in the Second World War.