TABLE 7—Continued
| Division | Returned to U.S. | Demobilized | Camp/Location |
| 89th | May 1919 | July 1919 | Funston, Kans |
| 90th | June 1919 | June 1919 | Bowie, Tex. |
| 91st | April 1919 | May 1919 | Presidio of San Francisco, Calif. |
| 92d | February 1919 | February 1919 | Meade, Md. |
| 93d@ | |||
| 95th | # | December 1919 | Sherman, Ohio |
| 96th | # | January 1919 | Wadsworth, N.Y. |
| 97th | # | December 1918 | Cody, N.Mex. |
| 98th | # | November 1918 | McClellan, Ala. |
| 99th | # | November 1918 | Wheeler, Ga. |
| 100th | # | November 1918 | Bowie, Tex. |
| 101st | # | November 1918 | Shelby, Miss. |
| 102d | # | November 1918 | Dix, N.J. |
| Notes: | * | Only part of the division overseas. |
| # | Did not go overseas. | |
| @ | Provisional division, headquarters demobilized in France in May 1918. |
The AEF Evaluates World War I Divisional Organizations
Although rapid demobilization destroyed the Army's combat effectiveness, military and congressional leaders wanted to avoid what they considered the major mistake made after every earlier war—the loss of well-trained, experienced, combat soldiers. Notwithstanding that World War I was to have been "the war to end all wars," perceived international realities required that the nation be prepared for war. Both Congress and the War Department had been considering changes in the National Defense Act, and Brig. Gen. Lytle Brown, Chief of the War Plans Division, suggested that March obtain the AEF's views on the new Army establishment. He suspected that division, corps, and army organizations used in the "Great War" might not meet future battlefield requirements because they were tied so closely to trench warfare, a type of warfare he thought unlikely to recur.[1]
Under War Department orders, Pershing set up boards in France to examine the AEF experiences with the arms and services and to draw appropriate lessons for the future. At his staff's suggestion, he also convened the Superior Board to review the other boards' findings. In April Pershing relieved Dickman as the commander of Third Army and appointed him and other senior officers to the review board. All its members had close professional ties to Pershing and had witnessed from various positions the "success" of the heavy infantry division during the war. The board's primary mission was an examination of that infantry division. After a two-month investigation, the Superior Board tendered its recommendation, basically endorsing the World War I square division with modifications. Changes centered on improvements in combat and service support, firepower, and command and control.[2]
- ↑ March, The Nation at War, pp. 330–33, 336–41; Memo, WPD for Cots, 24 Feb 19, sub: Tactical organization of the division and higher tactical units, WPD 8481–116, RG 165, NARA; John McA. Palmer, "The Military Policy of the United States as Settled by Recent Law and Executive Order," lecture at the AWC, published in WD Bull 19, 1921.
- ↑ Memo, G–5, AEF, to General Nolon, sub: Board of Review, 16 Mar 19, RG 120, NARA; Special Orders (SO) 98, AEF, 8 Apr 19, and Rpt of the Superior Board, AEF, on Organization and Tactics, AGO 320 (6–21–20), Bulky Files, RG 407, NARA. Unless otherwise indicated, the following discussion of the infantry and cavalry divisions is based on the board report. Also see reports of the various postwar AEF boards on the arms and services, which are included in the same file. See John B. Wilson, "Mobility Versus Firepower: The Post-World War I Infantry Division," Parameters 13 (Sep 1983): 48, for biographical data about the board members.
