The major dispute between Pershing's staff and the Baker Board developed over the artillery general support weapon. The board's position, presented by future Chief of Staff Charles P Summerall, was that one regiment should be equipped with either the British 3.8- or 4.7-inch howitzer because of their mobility, while Pershing's officers favored a regiment of French 155-mm. howitzers. The need for firepower and the possibility of obtaining 155s from the French undoubtedly influenced the staff, and its view prevailed. For high-angle fire, Baker's group proposed three trench mortar batteries in the division, but settled for one located in the field artillery brigade and six 3-inch Stokes mortars added to each infantry regiment.[1]
The report also recommended changes in cavalry and engineer divisional elements. An army corps, it suggested, needed two three-squadron cavalry regiments to support four divisions. Normally one squadron would be attached to each division, and the army corps would retain two squadrons for training and replacement units. The squadrons withdrawn from the divisions would then be reorganized and retrained. Divisional engineer forces expanded to a two-battalion regiment, which would accommodate the amount of construction work envisioned in trench warfare. Infantrymen would do the simple digging and repairing of trenches under engineer supervision, while the engineer troops would prepare machine gun and trench mortar emplacements and perform major trench work and other construction.[2]
Pershing sought a million men by the end of 1918. He envisioned five army corps, each having four combat divisions, along with a replacement and school division, a base and training division, and pioneer infantry, cavalry, field and antiaircraft artillery, engineer, signal, aviation, medical, supply, and other necessary units. The base and training division was to process incoming personnel into the theater, and the replacement and school division was to provide the army corps with fully trained and equipped soldiers. Because these support divisions did not need to be at full strength, Pershing foresaw some of the soldiers serving as replacements in combat divisions and others as cadre in processing and training units. He also anticipated that some surplus units would be attached to army corps or armies. Furthermore, Pershing wanted a seventh division for each army corps, not counted in his desired force of a million men, which was to be organized and maintained in the United States to train officers before they came to France. To assemble the first army corps, he asked the War Department to send two combat divisions, followed by the replacement and school division, the other two combat divisions, and finally the base and training division. When five army corps arrived in France, Pershing would have twenty combat divisions and ten processing and replacement divisions. Also, five more divisions were to be in training in the United States.[3]
The General Organization Project reached Washington in July, and Bliss noted the shift in divisional philosophy. Instead of a division that could move quickly in and out of trenches, Pershing wanted a unit with sufficient overhead (staff, communications, and supply units) and enough infantry and artillery to permit continuous fighting over extended periods. Because Pershing would com-
- ↑ Ibid., pp. 109–14; Ltr, Maj Gen John J. Pershing to Maj Gen Tasker H. Bliss, 9 Jul 17, no subject, Pershing Papers, LC; James W. Rainey, "Ambivalent Warfare: The Tactical Doctrine of the AEF in World War I," Parameters 13 (Sep 1983): 38; Pershing, My Experiences, 1:106–07.
- ↑ Organization, AEF, pp. 83, 99–100, 105.
- ↑ Ibid., pp. 93–96.
