Lessons of Combat (Cont'd)

PRODUCTION

"The changing needs of war come along and show that we do not need any more of a certain weapon, but on the other hand we need far more than we had originally estimated of another weapon. . . ."

In this frank statement from Under Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson, the House Military Affairs Committee learned last week that production of arms is undergoing a vast change, because of the shifting tactical requirements of a worldwide war. Nobody knows better than the War Department's production executive that some weapons outlive their usefulness, that some weapons prove themselves in battle to be valuable beyond expectations, that others turn out to be comparative flops.

This week the War Department named some of its wrong guesses and second thoughts:

> Battle's biggest casualty among weapons is the tank, whose decline has already been noted (TIME, March 29). One plant recently laid off 9,000 workers. The U.S. Army has ordered manufacture of M-3 light tanks to taper off, eventually to stop. Manufacture of the M-7 (light-medium) tank--an Armored Forces bad guess--has already stopped. Production of new M-5 light tanks will be increased, but gradually. Medium tank production is being slowed.

> The high-silhouette Mio tank destroyer, announced with typical fanfare by manufacturers' (General Motors and Ford) publicity men only last month, has failed to stand the test of combat in North Africa. The Army is still seeking a lower, faster t.d.

> Two prewar favorites have gone down the drain: the 37-mm. anti-aircraft gun (replaced for medium altitude firing by the Bofors 40-mm.) and the famed 75-mm. field artillery piece (which gives way to the higher-velocity 3-in. gun that can stop any tank seen thus far). Infantry divisions still get some 37-mm. guns for anti-tank defense but will eventually replace them with six-wheeled 1053.

> Two airplanes will be discontinued. One of them is a secret. The other is the Curtiss P-40 series which has filled a big gap in the Air Forces in spite of its limitations (altitude, speed and rate of climb). Its record in the Pacific indicated that it had all but outlived its usefulness. But the P-40 has already had one reprieve. It was to have been discontinued in February. As a result of its successes in Africa it will now be produced until next fall. (If its successor, a new, secret Curtiss fighter, does not pan out as well as expected, the P-40 may live even longer.)

> Production of mortars--both the 60-mm. and 81-mm. -- will increase rapidly. U.S. mortars have stood the test.

> The Army's newest sensation, the one-man rocket gun--"bazooka"--that can stop a tank (TIME, April 5) may cause a further revision of artillery production.

The Stress. This week Under Secretary Patterson revealed that the lessons of combat were not the only factors which forced production changeovers. The Army could still use plenty of the weapons whose production was now being reduced. But necessity's whip was laid on the Army's back last year by the War Production Board, which ordered a cut in 1943's armed-forces production schedule from $93 billions to $75 billions.

Faced with a 20% drop in what it considered necessary production, the Army was also faced with a dilemma: Where to make the cut? Airplane production could not take it. Therefore the ground forces must. Result: a 25% cut in ground forces equipment schedule, particularly in items 1) whose production is already fairly well in hand, like some explosives and ammunition, 2) whose combat value has not been proved 100%.

The Pinch. Thus far, U.S. ground troops in combat have not felt the pinch because of this 25% reduction in the proposed program. But troops in training have, are now at best only 50% equipped. And prospects for improvement are dim under WPB's rules and industry's performance. Battle is eating up ground force weapons and the draft is pouring in millions more men who must be equipped. But production of ground-force weapons rose only 3% in February, 8% in March, and an estimated 5% in April.

Still more serious from the Army point of view was last winter's reduction in Army priorities for 100-octane gasoline expansion (in favor of synthetic rubber). Overseas air operations are not yet curtailed because of it. The program at home (project: 88,000 pilots this year plus crews) which turns out airmen for 1944 combat is already suffering for lack of fuel.

Says Bob Patterson: "The idea that the cutback in production is the result of an abundance of certain weapons is wholly false. We probably never will have an abundance because of the heavy drain of battle attrition.

"It was Bernard Baruch, I think, who said in the last war: 'The maw of war is insatiable.' It is even truer today."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.