Field ArTillery - US Army Center Of Military History

128 THE ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY OF FIELD ARTILLERY
guns. The trench mortar battery would then be transferred to the artillery reserve.
The board also proposed that an ammunition train, for the supply of artillery ammunition
alone, and a mobile ordnance repair shop be added to the divi sional field
artillery brigade. The 155-mm. howitzer was thought to be an excellent weapon, but
too heavy for divisional artillery. Thus, the board suggested that a lighter weapon
be adopted instead and, additionally, that the French 75-mm. gun carriage be improved
to permit high-angle fire and more rapid transport over roads. As a result,
the divisional field artillery brigade would include two 75-mm. gun or 3-inch gun
regiments, one 120-mm. howitzer regiment, one battalion of 3-inch mountain guns,
one artillery ammunition train, and one mobile ordnance repair shop. 6
Regarding corps artil lery, whose function was seen chiefly as the neutralization
of enemy guns (counterbattery fire), the board recommended that the chief of
corps artillery be on the corps headquarters staff and be entirely separate from the
commander of the corps artillery. It suggested that the corps field artillery brigade
consist of three regiments (one 4.7-inch gun, one 6-inch [155-mm.] gun, and one
155-mm. howitzer). The brigade staff was to be organized in a manner similar to the
divisional field artillery brigade staff. The board felt that artillery not in a division
or corps should be organized into a general artil lery reserve and that no organic
army artillery was neces sary. The army artillery staff would then be a small, tactical
one. 7
The Hero board made many other far-reaching recommendations and suggestions
for postwar field artillery. Modifica tions for ordnance, quartermaster, signal,
and motor trans port equip ment were suggested, and the report included a recommendation
that communica tions personnel and equipment be increased. The board
felt that aerial observation would be more effective if the observers were in the field
artillery branch rather than in the Air Service and if an observation squadron were
assigned to each division. It also advocated energetic study and experimentation
toward motoriza tion and training courses in artillery operations for general, field,
and staff officers of the infantry and artillery. 8
In the meantime, the Westervelt board considered the stocks of war materiel on
hand and probable postwar reductions in appropria tions and, relying on the Hero
board’s suggestions, based its recommendations on recent war experiences. It classified
the recommended artillery pieces into two categories: practical types for immediate
development and ideal types for further develop ment. The Army conducted many
experiments with pilot models after the war, but no new weapons (except antiaircraft
artillery) were produced in quantity for about fifteen years because of the large stocks
of war materiel on hand. Instead, more effort was placed on modernizing existing
6 Rpt, Hero Board, 9 Dec 1918, pp. 6, 9, 12, FA School files; Final Rpt, CofArty, AEF, 1919, fldrs
381–86, box 41, Entry 22, RG 120, NARA; Report of the Chief of Field Artillery, 1919, p. 190.
7 Rpt, Hero Board, 9 Dec 1918, pp. 9, 12–13, FA School files; Final Rpt, CofArty, AEF, 1919, fldrs
381–86, box 41, Entry 22, RG 120, NARA; Report of the Chief of Field Artillery, 1919, p. 190.
8 Rpt, Hero Board, 9 Dec 1918, p. 25, FA School files; Final Rpt, CofArty, AEF, 1919, fldrs 381–86,
box 41, Entry 22, RG 120, NARA; War Department Annual Reports, 1919, 1:5228–338.