Delivery Order 21

Contract No. DACW31-89-D-0059

US Army Corps of Engineers—Baltimore District

May 1997

R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates, Inc.
241 E. Fourth Street
Suite 100
Frederick, Maryland 21701

FINAL REPORT

June 1997

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Historic Context for Department of Defense (DoD) World War II Permanent Construction combines two previous reports: Historic Context for Department of Defense Facilities World War II Permanent Construction (Hirrel et al., draft June 1994) and Methodology for World War II Permanent Construction (Whelan, draft August 1996). This project was designed to meet the following objectives:

• To analyze and synthesize historical data on the military’s permanent construction program during World War II.
• To assist DoD cultural resource managers and other DoD personnel with fulfilling their responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. Section 110 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to identify, evaluate, and nominate to the National Register of Historic Places historic properties under their jurisdiction. Section 110 Guidelines, developed by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, direct federal agencies to establish historic contexts to identify and evaluate historic properties (53FR 4727-46).
• To develop a consistent historic context framework that provides comparative data and background information in a cost-effective manner, which will allow DoD personnel to assess the relative significance of World War II military construction.
• To develop a standardized methodology for the identification and evaluation of World War II permanent construction.

The report is divided into two parts. Part I examines the historical, architectural, and technological development of permanent facilities constructed on behalf of, and by, the military on the home front during World War II. Part II provides a framework for identifying and evaluating DoD permanent facilities constructed during World War II applying the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.

The military’s World War II construction program was a massive effort that expended billions of dollars in the construction of thousands of facilities. While no one facility made the difference in the result of the war of resources, the cumulative effect of the effort was a decisive factor in the allied victory. Preliminary analysis of DoD real property data indicates that approximately 55,000 buildings currently classified as permanent and semi-permanent constructed during the World War II era are included in the DoD real property inventory. World War II-era properties now meet the 50-year age requirement of the National Register of Historic Places. This study describes the reasons for permanent vs. temporary construction and the role of permanent construction in the overall war effort.

This project was designed to assist DoD with the execution of their responsibilities under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and to fulfill the legislative purposes of the Legacy Program. R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., undertook this project on behalf of the Department of Defense, through the Baltimore District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as a demonstration project for the DoD Legacy Resource Management Program.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	iii
LIST OF TABLES	xvii
I. INTRODUCTION	1
Cultural Resources in the Department of Defense	1
Project Description	1
Legislative Background	2
Project Objectives	2
Application of the Historic Context for DoD Facilities World War II Permanent Construction	3
____Information Needed	3
____Identification of Historic Properties	3
____Evaluation of Historic Properties	4
____Treatment of Historic Properties	4
Relationship to Other DoD Context Studies	5
Methodology	5
____Archival Research	5
____Field Survey	6
____Data Synthesis and Analysis	6
Project Background	7
Report Organization	8
II. WORLD WAR II PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION HISTORIC CONTEXT AND ASSOCIATED PROPERTY TYPES	11
Definition of the Historic Context	11
Types of Construction: Permanent vs. Temporary	12
Property Types Associated with World War II Permanent Construction	14
____Construction and Installation Types	14
____Buildings and Structures	15
PART I - Historical Overview
III. BACKGROUND OF THE MILITARY WORLD WAR II PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM	29
The U.S. Military after World War I	29
The Beginnings of War	30
Military Operations	31
____Europe	31
____Asia and the Pacific	32
Organization of the Military Establishment	32
____Army	32
____Navy	33
IV. THE HOME FRONT AND MILITARY CONSTRUCTION	37
World War II on the American Home Front	37
Military Construction and Wartime Logistics	39
V. COMMAND PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION	47
Combat Operations and Coastal Defense	47
____Hawaii	47
____Alaska	48
____United States	52
Navy Yards	52
Navy Bases and Stations	60
Training Installations	64
Army Air Forces Installations	73
Navy and Marine Corps Air Stations	85
Storage and Logistics Functions	92
____War Department	92
____Navy Department	98
Research, Development, and Testing	100
Medical Facilities	111
Strategic Communications	118
VI. INDUSTRIAL PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION	127
Ammunition Production	127
Artillery and Associated Components	134
Tank Production	139
Chemical Warfare Service Facilities	141
Navy Ordnance Production Facilities	142
Aircraft Production and Assembly	146
Social Conditions	147
____New Workers	147
____Living Conditions and Effects on Local Economies	153
Conclusion	154
VII. SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS: THE PENTAGON AND THE MANHATTAN PROJECT	163
The Pentagon	163
The Manhattan Project and the Atomic Bomb	164
VIII. EXPLOSIVES	169
Department of Ordnance Works	169
Propellants	172
High Explosives	177
Production Facilities	178
IX. ASSEMBLY OF LARGE AMMUNITION	183
Development of Ammunition Assembly Plants	183
Projectiles	183
Propellants	186
Production Facilities	189
X. SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION	191
XI. AMMUNITION DEPOTS	199
Ammunition Depot Design	199
Ammunition Depot Facilities	200
XII. MODERN INDUSTRIAL ARCHITECTURE AND THE RISE OF THE WORLD WAR II INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX	209
European Roots of the 1930s Industrial Building	209
American Roots of the 1930s Industrial Building	210
Characteristics of the 1930s Industrial Building	211
Influence of Albert Kahn	212
World War II Military Industrial Facilities	213
Conclusion	227
PART II - Application of the Historic Context
XIII. IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES	235
Background	235
Identification	235
____Objectives	236
____Methodology	236
Evaluation	237
National Register Criteria for Evaluation	237
National Register Categories of Historic Properties	238
Evaluating Properties Within Historic Contexts	239
Issues Related to Evaluating Properties Using the World War II Permanent Construction Historic Context	240
____Historic District vs. Individual Eligibility	240
____Comparing Related Properties	240
____Properties Significant Within More than One Historic Context	241
____Levels of Significance	241
Applying the National Register Criteria for Evaluation	242
____Criterion A: Association with Events	242
____Criterion B: Association with People	242
____Criterion C: Design/Construction	243
____Criterion D: Information Potential	244
Integrity	245
____National Register Aspects of Integrity	245
Integrity Issues Related to World War II Construction	246
____Re-categorization of Temporary Construction as Permanent or Semi-Permanent	246
____Continued Use Over Time	246
____Industrial, Scientific, and Technical Facilities	247
Criteria Considerations	247
____Religious Properties	247
____Moved Properties	247
____Graves and Birthplaces	247
____Cemeteries	247
____Reconstructed Properties	248
____Commemorative Properties	248
____Properties Less than Fifty Years Old	248
National Historic Landmarks	248
XIV. APPLICATION OF THE EVALUATION METHODOLOGY TO WORLD WAR II PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION	251
World War II Properties Previously Listed in the National Register	251
Evaluation Methodology	251
Aircraft Production and Assembly	257
____Significance	257
____Registration Requirements	257
____Examples	257
Airfields and Air Stations	257
____Significance	257
____Registration Requirements	258
____Examples	258
Ammunition Depots	259
____Significance	259
____Registration Requirements	259
____Examples	260
Chemical Warfare Service Facilities	260
____Significance	260
____Registration Requirements	260
____Examples	261
Coastal Defense	261
____Significance	261
____Registration Requirements	261
____Examples	261
Combat Operations	262
____Significance	262
____Registration Requirements	262
____Examples	262
Depots (non-ordnance) and Ports of Embarkation	263
____Significance	263
____Registration Requirements	263
____Examples	264
Industrial Construction Production Facilities	264
____Significance	264
____Registration Requirements	265
____Examples	265
Medical Facilities	266
____Significance	266
____Registration Requirements	266
____Examples	267
Navy Bases and Stations	267
____Significance	267
____Registration Requirements	267
____Examples	268
Navy Yards	268
____Significance	268
____Registration Requirements	268
____Examples	269
Research, Development and Testing	269
____Significance	269
____Registration Requirements	270
____Examples	270
Special Projects	270
____Significance	270
____Registration Requirements	271
____Examples	271
Strategic Communications	271
____Significance	271
____Registration Requirements	272
____Examples	272
Training	272
____Significance	272
____Registration Requirements	273
____Examples	273
XV. CASE STUDIES	275
Indiana Army Ammunition Plant	275
____Location and Current Status	275
____Summary History	276
____Historic Context	276
____Identification	277
____Properties Associated with Administration	277
____Properties Associated with Health Care	277
____Properties Associated with Industrial Functions	277
____Properties Associated with Infrastructure	278
____Properties Associated with Personnel Support	278
____Properties Associated with Research, Development, and Testing	279
____Properties Associated with Residential Use	279
____Properties Associated with Storage	279
____Properties Associated with Transportation	279
____Evaluation	279
____Sources of Information	281
Fort George G. Meade	282
____Location and Current Status	282
____Summary History	282
____Historic Context	282
____Identification	283
____Properties Associated with Administration	283
____Properties Associated with Industrial Functions	283
____Properties Associated with Infrastructure	283
____Properties Associated with Personnel Support	284
____Properties Associated with Storage	284
____Evaluation	285
____Sources of Information	286
McAlester AAP	287
____Location and Current Status	287
____Summary History	287
____Historic Context	287
____Identification	288
____Properties Associated with Administration	288
____Properties Associated with Health Care	288
____Properties Associated with Industrial Functions	288
____Properties Associated with Infrastructure	289
____Properties Associated with Personnel Support	289
____Properties Associated with Research, Development, and Testing	289
____Properties Associated with Residential Use	289
____Properties Associated with Storage	290
____Properties Associated with Transportation	290
____Evaluation	290
____Sources of Information	291
Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake	292
____Location and Current Status	292
____Summary History	292
____Historic Context	293
____Identification	293
____Properties Associated with Administration	293
____Properties Associated with Industrial Functions	293
____Properties Associated with Infrastructure	294
____Properties Associated with Personnel Support	294
____Properties Associated with Research, Development, and Testing	294
____Properties Associated with Residential Use	296
____Properties Associated with Storage	297
____Properties Associated with Transportation	297
____Evaluation	297
____Sources of Information	299
Naval Station Anacostia	300
____Location and Current Status	300
____Summary History	300
____Historic Context	300
____Identification	301
____Properties Associated with Administration	301
____Properties Associated with Industrial Functions	302
____Properties Associated with Infrastructure	302
____Properties Associated with Research	302
____Properties Associated with Residential Use	302
____Properties Associated with Transportation	302
____Evaluation	302
____Sources of Information	303
Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane Division	304
____Location and Current Status	304
____Summary History	304
____Historic Context	305
____Identification	305
____Properties Associated with Administration	305
____Properties Associated with Education	306
____Properties Associated with Health Care	306
____Properties Associated with Industrial Functions	306
____Properties Associated with Infrastructure	306
____Properties Associated with Personnel Support	306
____Properties Associated with Research, Development, and Testing	306
____Properties Associated with Residential Use	306
____Properties Associated with Storage	306
____Properties Associated with Transportation	307
____Evaluation	307
____Sources of Information	308
Ravenna AAP	309
____Location and Current Status	309
____Summary History	309
____Historic Context	310
____Identification	310
____Properties Associated with Administration	310
____Properties Associated with Health Care	311
____Properties Associated with Industrial Functions	311
____Properties Associated with Infrastructure	312
____Properties Associated with Personnel Support	312
____Properties Associated with Residential Use	312
____Properties Associated with Storage	312
____Properties Associated with Transportation	312
____Evaluation	312
____Sources of Information	314
Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant	315
____Location and Current Status	315
____Summary History	315
____Historic Context	316
____Identification	316
____Properties Associated with Administration	316
____Properties Associated with Industrial Functions	316
____Properties Associated with Infrastructure	318
____Properties Associated with Personnel Support	318
____Properties Associated with Research, Development and Testing	318
____Properties Associated with Residential Use	319
____Properties Associated with Storage	319
____Properties Associated with Transportation	320
____Evaluation	320
____Sources of Information	321
Wright-Patterson AFB	322
____Location and Current Status	322
____Summary History	322
____Historic Context	323
____Identification	324
____Properties Associated with Administration	324
____Properties Associated with Communication	324
____Properties Associated with Defense	324
____Properties Associated with Education	324
____Properties Associated with Health Care	324
____Properties Associated with Industrial Functions	325
____Properties Associated with Infrastructure	325
____Properties Associated with Personnel Support	325
____Properties Associated with Research, Development, and Testing	326
____Properties Associated with Storage	327
Properties Associate with Transportation	328
____Evaluation	328
____Sources of Information	330
BIBLIOGRAPHY	333
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	347
APPENDIX I - Time Line of Selected Events Related to World War II (1939 - 1946)
APPENDIX II - DoD Installations with Properties Classified as Permanent and Semi-Permanent Construction Between 1939-1946
APPENDIX III - List of Programmatic Agreements Regarding World War II Historic Properties and Related Documents
APPENDIX IV - Military Properties Associated with World War II Listed in the National Register of Historic Places Between 1993 and April 1997
APPENDIX V - Resumes of Key Project Personnel

INTRODUCTION

Cultural Resources in the Department of Defense

The Department of Defense (DoD) manages 25 million acres within the United States. These lands contain a range of properties associated with the historical development of the military, as well as with many other facets of North American history and prehistory. Cultural resources are non-renewable resources that document the historical development of the nation; they include real property, personal property, records, and community resources.

Military cultural resource programs, including the identification, evaluation, and management of historic properties, are on-going functions within the respective services. Although Federal Preservation Officers for each service provide guidance in cultural resource management, responsibility for the majority of DoD cultural resource management duties falls upon individual installations, activities, and commands.

As installation-based cultural resource programs evolved, DoD recognized the complex historical inter-relationship of properties associated with the military services. Military construction typically was planned and executed as part of a national defense program. As a result, assessment of the historical significance of DoD properties requires comprehensive comparative data on the historical development of DoD construction. Such comparative data provides a basis for developing consistent management strategies for historic properties. Through the development of comprehensive historic context studies, DoD seeks to provide background and comparative information in a practical and cost-effective manner that is in the public interest.

Project Description

The Historic Context for Department of Defense World War II Permanent Construction presents the historic background of World War II permanent and semi-permanent construction and a methodology for identifying and evaluating World War II permanent and semi-permanent construction on Department of Defense (DoD) facilities. This report combines the draft reports Historic Context for Department of Defense Facilities World War II Permanent Construction (Hirrel et al., draft June 1994), which examined the historical, architectural, and technological development of U.S. military permanent construction built from 1940 to 1945 on the home front, and Methodology for World War II Permanent Construction (Whelan, draft August 1996), which provided a methodological framework for identifying and evaluating World War II permanent construction. The integration of this work into a single report will facilitate the distribution and application of the project results.

The military’s World War II construction program was a massive effort that expended billions of dollars in the construction of thousands of facilities. World War II often is characterized as a war of resources, a race to mobilize the men and materiel needed for victory. While no one facility made the difference in the result of the war of resources, the cumulative effect of the effort was a decisive factor in the allied victory. The fiftieth anniversary of World War II has sparked great interest in the physical remnants of wartime construction on the home front. Thus far, historic context studies of World War II construction have focused on the temporary construction program developed to erect temporary facilities to house and train millions of men quickly. The low cost and speedy construction rate of temporary buildings best served the war emergency. However, some specialized facilities necessary to the war effort were not suited to temporary buildings, and thus the military also built permanent construction.

Permanent and semi-permanent construction built by the military during World War II is the subject of this historic context study, which describes the reasons for permanent vs. temporary construction and the role of permanent construction in the overall war effort. Preliminary analysis of DoD real property data indicates that approximately 55,000 buildings currently are classified as permanent and semi-permanent constructed during World War II (Army, 32,909; Navy and Marine Corps, 16,781; Air Force, 5,310).

Buildings originally built from temporary construction mobilization plans that have been renovated and currently are classified as permanent or semi-permanent in DoD real property inventories are not the subject of this study. Historic contexts define properties by their historic rather than current real property classifications. Buildings originally built as temporary mobilization construction should be evaluated within the context of World War II temporary construction; modifications to their original design and materials should be assessed in relationship to the property’s integrity, and its ability to convey its association with its historic context.

Legislative Background

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, established the legislative basis for federal historic preservation programs. The act established the National Register of Historic Places, the national inventory of properties significant in American history, architecture, engineering, archeology, and culture. The National Register is continually updated to include significant properties that represent many facets of American history. Section 110 of NHPA requires federal agencies to identify, evaluate, and nominate to the National Register historic properties under their control or jurisdiction. Section 110 also requires federal agencies to consider the preservation of the cultural and historical values of historic properties under their control or jurisdiction (16 U.S.C. 470h-2).

The Section 110 Guidelines, developed by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, direct federal agencies to establish historic contexts to identify and evaluate historic properties (53FR 4727-46). The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation provide technical guidance about historic preservation activities and methods, including identifying and evaluating historic properties. These standards also recommend developing historic contexts to assist with preservation planning.

Project Objectives

This project to develop a historic context for World War II permanent construction had several objectives:

• To synthesize and analyze historical data on the military’s permanent construction program during World War II.
• To assist DoD cultural resource managers and other DoD personnel with fulfilling their responsibilities under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. Section 110 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to identify, evaluate, and nominate to the National Register of Historic Places historic properties under their jurisdiction. World War II-era properties now meet the 50-year age requirement of the National Register of Historic Places.
• To develop a consistent historic context framework that provides comparative data and background information in a cost-effective manner, allowing DoD personnel at individual installations to assess the relative significance of World War II military construction without conducting extensive historic context development.
• To develop a standardized methodology for the identification and evaluation of World War II permanent construction.

The World War II Permanent Construction Historic Context also may be used in developing treatment strategies for historic properties. The study defines the installation types that possess important and specific associations with the World War II historic context. Through the determination of why a property is significant, a variety of treatment strategies that best preserve the cultural and historical values of the property may be developed. As this documentation indicates, many World War II permanent facilities represent standardized construction techniques. Programmatic Agreements have been developed that allow documentation of some types of installations (see Appendix III). Similar Programmatic Agreements could be formulated to document classes of property types, such as ammunition bunkers.

Relationship to other DoD Context Studies

Many installations were built over a period of years including, but extending beyond, World War II. DoD has sponsored other nationwide historic context studies, including National Historic Context for Department of Defense Installations, 1790 - 1940; World War II and the U.S. Army Mobilization Program: A History of 700 and 800 Series Cantonment Construction; World War II Temporary Military Buildings: A Brief History of the Architecture and Planning of Cantonments and Training Stations in the United States; Support and Utility Structures and Facilities (1917 - 1946) Overview, Inventory, and Treatment Plan; and Navy Cold War Guided Missile Context: Resources Associated with the Navy’s Guided Missile Program, 1946 - 1989. Additional studies related to the Cold War era are underway. To evaluate fully the significance of DoD properties, a holistic approach incorporating guidance from these various context studies is necessary. Understanding an installation may require evaluating several layers of historic development, from establishment in the nineteenth century, through use during World War I and 1930s expansion, to World War II mission, and use during the Cold War. Facilities, including individual buildings and entire installations, may have undergone numerous transformations in response to changing military needs. The significance of various phases of development can be understood only within their relevant historic contexts.

Methodology

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Preservation Planning and technical literature from the National Register Program of the National Park Service were used to develop and implement the research design for this project. Three primary tasks were completed to develop a historic context for World War II-era permanent construction at DoD installations within the fifty states. These tasks were archival research, field investigation, and data synthesis. Data were collected and analyzed to identify the broad patterns of military construction immediately before and during World War II; to develop specific historic themes; and, to develop a method of categorizing property types related to World War II permanent military construction.

Archival Research

A literature search was completed of standard military secondary sources, both published and unpublished. The Technical Services portion of the "U.S. Army in World War II" series (the so-called "Green Books") proved an invaluable source of information. For the Navy Department, the best source of information on administration and logistics was the "Naval Administrative Histories of World War II," a manuscript available at the Navy Department Library, Washington Navy Yard. Building the Navy’s Bases (1947) provided the best source for the Navy’s World War II construction program. Semi-official and official monographs, such as Buford Rowland and William Boyd’s history of the Navy Ordnance Bureau, also provided excellent overviews. Specialized monographs completed the secondary literature overview.

Published primary material that was consulted included memoirs, government documents, and periodicals. Memoirs of such men as Levin H. Campbell (Chief of Ordnance) and Donald M. Nelson (War Production Administration) provided valuable information. Periodicals reviewed included both military journals and trade publications. Some of the most useful magazines included: Architectural Forum, Architectural Record, Engineering News-Record, and Army Ordnance. Government publications varied from military technical manuals to studies by the Labor Department Women’s Bureau.

Unpublished primary source research encompassed both archival works and special research collections. At the National Archives, some of the most valuable Records Groups included RG 71 (Records of the Bureau of Yards and Docks); RG 74 (Records of the Navy Bureau of Ordnance); RG 77 (Records of the Chief of Engineers); and RG 156 (Records of the Chief of Ordnance). Within RG 156, Entry 646 (Histories of Ordnance Installations and Activities) proved to be a lucrative source of information on ammunition production facilities. The files of the National Register of Historic Places, in Washington, D.C., were reviewed to identify World War II properties listed in the National Register.

Research in the Washington area was supplemented by work at some repositories elsewhere in the United States. The Library of the Naval Construction Battalion Engineering Center, Port Hueneme, California, contained the papers of Ben Moreell, head of the Bureau of Yards and Docks during World War II. The U.S. Air Force Historical Research Center, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, contained collections on specific installations and War College papers. At the Armament, Munitions, and Chemical Command (AMCCOM) Historical Office, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, historians examined the collection of documents on microfiche and special studies on AMCCOM installations, which include most of the Army’s World War II-era industrial facilities that remain under DoD control.

Field Survey

Field visits to seven DoD installations with large inventories of World War II permanent construction provided additional information for the historic context. Four criteria were used to select the installations: (1) concentration of World War II facilities; (2) high level of integrity from the World War II period; (3) ability to illustrate a representative type of World War II facility; and, (4) geographic distribution. Installations visited included two former Navy ammunition depots (Crane and McAlester), one ammunition loading plant (Ravenna), one smokeless powder works (Indiana), one small arms ammunition plant (Twin Cities), one Navy research and development center, (China Lake), and one Air Force research and development center (Wright-Patterson AFB). These installations illustrated some of the most important categories of military permanent construction. At each installation, R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., examined historic records and surveyed representative building types. In addition, the Baltimore District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released information on Fort George G. Meade and Naval Station Anacostia for inclusion in this study. The results of these investigations were incorporated into the historic context, evaluation methodology, and case studies.

Data Synthesis and Analysis

This project required an analysis of the broad trends and patterns of the U.S. military permanent construction program from 1940 to 1945. The reasons for permanent construction and the role that these buildings and structures played in World War II were examined. Permanent construction was selected for buildings used in military operations, training, logistical support, research and development, and industrial production. The various World War II domestic installations all contributed to the Allied victory; construction undertaken to support the war effort was part of a vast system of interdependent installations. The surviving examples of permanent construction are best understood in comparison to similar facilities and their role in the war effort. Thus, the historic context is organized according to the various functions of the installations. While recognizing the differences between the services, this analysis emphasizes the common trends that reflected the role of the armed forces in marshalling the resources required by a global conflict.

Three primary functional categories of military construction were identified: command construction, industrial construction, and construction for special projects. Command construction includes facilities that operated in direct support of military forces. Industrial construction includes facilities that produced explosives, ammunition, weaponry, and associated implements of war; industrial construction was particularly noteworthy because the War and Navy Departments established a munitions industry during the war, using primarily permanent construction. The third category, construction on behalf of special projects, includes the Pentagon and the Manhattan Project; this study provides only a brief summary of these two important projects, which are the subject of several in-depth studies.

The archival research also was analyzed to identify specific themes especially relevant to World War II permanent construction: military, technology, social history, and architecture. The military theme is incorporated into the discussion of the overall military construction program and in the three primary categories of permanent construction. The technology theme is developed through separate analyses that describe the major technological processes housed in the World War II industrial facilities. The basic steps of the process, the design requirements of the technology, and the properties associated with the technology were identified. Industrial production facilities were designed as integrated systems; to evaluate the structures associated with industrial facilities, the processes contained within the buildings must be understood.

The theme of social history was developed in conjunction with the analysis of industrial facilities. The rapid development of enormous production facilities had a tremendous influence on the lives of those who remained on the home front. Two major topics within the theme of social history were identified during archival research: changes in the composition of the labor force, and the "boom town" effects on local economies. To illustrate this theme, examples of major shifts in employment patterns and of the effects of World War II factory construction on a few communities were selected. These examples, by no means exhaustive, provide a basis for further research and analysis of the social history relevant to specific facilities.

The theme of architecture was developed through an analysis of the development of the factory as a twentieth century building type and of the development of modern architecture as a twentieth-century building expression. Examples of World War II production works were examined within the framework of the development of modern factory design.

Project Background

The World War II Permanent Construction Historic Context is a demonstration project of DoD Legacy Cultural Resource Program. The Legacy Program was created by the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1991 (P.L. 101-511). The purpose of the Legacy Program is:

To better integrate the conservation of irreplaceable biological, cultural, and geophysical resources within the dynamic requirements of military missions. To achieve this goal, the Department of Defense will give high priority to inventorying, conserving, and restoring biological, cultural, and geophysical resources in a comprehensive, cost-effective manner in partnership with federal, state, and local agencies and private groups.

The lessons and data derived from demonstration projects are designed to be incorporated into the DoD cultural resource management program, and then applied to the on-going mission of cultural resource stewardship.

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., completed this project on behalf of the Department of Defense, through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District (DACAW31-89-D-0059). This project encompassed research at regional military archival repositories, field visits to selected installations with representative examples of World War II permanent construction, and analysis. The final report is a combined version of two draft reports, Historic Context for Department of Defense Facilities World War II Permanent Construction (D.O. 21) and Methodology for World War II Permanent Construction (D.O. 25).

The project research design was developed in consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, and the DoD Legacy Program. The World War II Permanent Construction Historic Context project was designed to fulfill the Legacy Program legislative objectives and to assist DoD in meeting its responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.

Report Organization

Chapter I describes the purpose, organization, and background of the report. Chapter II summarizes the framework of the historic context developed for World War II permanent construction. Part I provides the historic background for the development of World War II permanent facilities. Part II presents a methodology for identifying and evaluating World War II permanent construction and case studies. Appendix I includes a time-line of events related to World War II. Appendix II contains lists of the number of buildings currently classified as permanent or semi-permanent construction, built between 1939 - 1946, at DoD installations. Programmatic Agreements relevant to World War II historic properties under DoD jurisdiction are included in Appendix III. Appendix IV contains a list of military properties documented as associated with World War II and listed in the National Register of Historic Places between 1993 and April 1997. Appendix V includes the resumes of key project personnel.

NOTES

1. Diane Shaw Wasch, Perry Bush, Keith Landreth, and James Glass, World War II and the U.S. Army Mobilization Program: A History of 700 and 800 Series Cantonment Construction (Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, HABS/HAER, 1993) and John Garner, World War II Temporary Military Buildings: A Brief History of the Architecture and Planning of Cantonments and Training Stations in the United States (Champaign, Illinois: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, 1993).

2. These figures are based on an analysis of the real property inventories of the service branches performed by the U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (Keith Landreth, personnel communication, October 22, 1992). These inventories are included in Appendix II of this report.

3. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "Archeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines," Federal Register 48, no. 190 (29 September 1983).

4. "Archeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines," Federal Register, 44717.

5. Deborah Cannan, et al., "National Historic Context for Department of Defense Installations, 1790-1940" (MS, R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates Inc., 1995; Wasch et al., World War II and the U.S. Army Mobilization Program; Garner, World War II Temporary Military Buildings; Katherine Grandine, et al., "Support and Utility Structures and Facilities (1917-1946) Overview, Inventory, and Treatment Plan" (MS, prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., 1995); Brooke V. Best, et al., "Navy Cold War Guided Missile Context" (MS, prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., 1995).

6. U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Environment, Legacy Resource Management Program, Report to Congress, September 1991, 3.

WORLD WAR II PERMANENT HISTORIC CONTEXT AND ASSOCIATED PROPERTY TYPES

Definition of the Historic Context

Historic contexts are organizational frameworks that assist in interpreting the broad patterns of history by grouping information related to shared time period, geographic area, and theme. The World War II Permanent Construction Historic Context provides an historical framework for assessing the relative significance of Department of Defense (DoD) facilities constructed as part of the domestic war effort between 1940 and 1945.

The three elements of a historic context are time period, geographic area, and theme(s). This historic context was defined as follows:

Time Period: 1940 - 1945

Geographic Area: United States

Theme: World War II Military Permanent and Semi-permanent Construction on the Home Front

The time period defined for this project includes the years 1940 - 1945. For the purposes of this study, World War II-era construction begins with Protective Mobilization in the summer of 1940 and ends with the capitulation of Japan in August 1945.

The geographic area for this project is the United States, including the contiguous 48 states, Alaska, and Hawaii. Construction in overseas territories or other countries is not included in the project.

The theme or subject matter included in this project is the military’s World War II permanent and semi-permanent construction program. For ease of reference, the term "permanent construction" is used to encompass both permanent and semi-permanent construction in this report. The properties related to this theme represent several facets of history. The research design for this project focused on developing four topics within the historic context: (1) military - the home front military construction program’s contribution to the war effort; (2) industry -the development of industrial technology; (3) social history - the effects of the permanent construction program on social groups and local communities; and (4) architecture - the development of modern industrial architecture represented by permanent World War II construction.

The United States expended billions of dollars to construct thousands of World War II facilities to train and arm its military forces. World War II was a war of resources and a race to mobilize rapidly the men and materiel needed to defeat the Axis nations. The domestic construction program associated with military mobilization constituted an unprecedented wave of building activity across the nation. No one facility won the war of resources; however, the cumulative effect of the entire mobilization effort was a decisive factor in the victory of the Allied forces.

Types of Construction: Permanent vs. Temporary

The military employed two general types of construction in the war effort: temporary and permanent. These general types of World War II construction may be further subdivided into four categories: (1) permanent; (2) semi-permanent; (3) temporary; and (4) theater-of-operations. Permanent construction was intended for use after the war; it typically was built of masonry (brick, tile, or concrete) and metal frame. Semi-permanent construction typically consisted of cinderblock construction, wooden-frame construction clad with synthetic siding, or a mixture of wooden frame and masonry. Semi-permanent construction often resulted from ad hoc compromises between the desire for permanent construction and shortages of time and material. Temporary construction consisted of wooden-frame buildings, typically built according to standardized plans, and of modular metal buildings. Temporary construction was not intended for use after the war. Theater-of-operations (T.O.) construction was the least durable type of construction; it typically consisted of wood lath on wall sheathing covered in felt. Few, if any, examples of T.O. construction survive. These different methods of construction are associated with distinct functions and periods during the war effort. For the purposes of evaluating historical significance and integrity, the type of construction is determined by the construction category at the time of construction.

In order to maximize on the scarce resources of time and material, the military built temporary construction wherever possible. Temporary buildings particularly were associated with housing and training during the early mobilization phase of the war. The military built training camps and stations across the nation characterized by row upon row of standardized wooden-frame barracks and supporting facilities. By the end of 1944, the Army could house six million troops, in contrast to the 270,000 soldiers housed in 1939. Separate studies, World War II Temporary Military Buildings: A Brief History of the Architecture and Planning of Cantonments and Training Stations (Garner 1993) and World War II and the U.S. Army Mobilization Program: A History of 700 and 800 Series Cantonment Construction (Wasch 1993), provide historic contexts for temporary construction.

The military did not maintain separate accounts of the costs for temporary and permanent construction. Table 1 presents the overall cost of the domestic construction program. No cost breakdowns differentiating between permanent and temporary construction have been located. However, ratios of permanent and temporary construction may be estimated by comparing the costs of installations dominated by permanent construction with the costs of installations dominated by temporary construction. Rough estimates of these percentages indicate that permanent construction comprised approximately one-third of Army domestic construction and possibly as much as two-thirds of Navy domestic construction during World War II.

Despite the preference for temporary buildings, some wartime construction required permanent facilities. The military used permanent construction materials and designs for selected buildings intended for post-war use. Aside from these miscellaneous buildings, certain types of activities typically could not be accommodated in temporary buildings and required permanent construction. Permanent construction was used for industrial facilities; research and development facilities that required specialized or sterile laboratory conditions; storage facilities for volatile or perishable supplies; coastal fortifications; and, medical facilities.

By far, industrial facilities comprise the bulk of World War II permanent construction. While World War II temporary construction is associated particularly with troop housing, the wartime permanent construction is emblematic of the effort to arm and equip the newly expanded military in the war of resources.

Property Types Associated with World War II Permanent Construction

Property types are groupings of properties that share common physical or associative characteristics. Specific property types are associated with specific historic contexts. Property types link the theoretical construct of a historic context to real property. This study adopts a three-level hierarchy in the analysis of World War II permanent construction. The first level of this hierarchy is construction category (i.e., Command, Industrial, or Special Projects). The second level is installation type (i.e., shipyard, depot, training, etc.). The final level of this hierarchy is building and structure specific.

Construction and Installation Types

The most useful way to group properties associated with World War II permanent construction is by the function they served in support of the war effort. The first broad classification is the definition of construction category. During World War II, there were three construction categories: Command, Industrial, and Special Projects. Command construction included installations that directly supported training, operational and logistical activities. Industrial construction included installations operated to produce war materiel. Special Projects were defined by the War Department.

The second classification of property is the type of installation based on its purpose or military mission. World War II installations generally comprise interrelated individual buildings and structures built to accomplish the mission of the installation. This is particularly true of the industrial facilities built to produce, repair, assemble, and store war materiel. Grouping the properties into broad categories that correspond to installation missions provides the best method of understanding the relationship between the historic context and its associated real property. An analysis of World War II permanent construction identified the following types of installations, which are organized to correspond to their appropriate construction category:

Command Construction

• Air Fields and Air Stations
• Coastal Defense and Combat Operations
• Depots (Non Ordnance) and Embarkation Ports
• Medical Facilities
• Navy Bases and Stations
• Navy Yards
• Research, Development, and Testing
• Strategic Communications
• Training

Tables 2, 2a, 3, 3a, 4, and 4a list specific buildings and structures likely to be found on various types of installations, and also indicate which properties were critical to the installation mission. Some categories of properties were essential to and inextricably linked with the mission of an installation, while others are incidental supporting structures. Identifying the purpose of the installation and understanding how the surviving properties contributed to that purpose are essential in determining which properties represent the historic context. Part II of this report presents a methodology for identifying and evaluating properties within the World War II Permanent Construction Historic Context.

TABLE 2: COMMAND CONSTRUCTION INSTALLATION TYPES AND COMPONENT PROPERTY CATEGORIES

PROPERTY CATEGORIES
INSTALLATION TYPES	ADMINISTRATION	COMMUNICATION	DEFENSE	EDUCATION	HEALTH CARE	INDUSTRIAL
Airfields/ Air Stations	administration building, fire station, gate, guard house operations building	control tower, radio house	n/a	academic building, celestial navigation training building, hangars, parachute training facility	dispensary	aviation maintenance shops/assembly and repair shops, engine test cells, radio repair shop, vehicle maintenance shop, wash rack
Coastal Defenses/ Combat Operations	command post station, fire control station	radar station, switchboard building	anti-submarine net, bunkers, coastal searchlight shelters, gun emplacements, harbor entrance control post, personnel shelters, runways	n/a	dispensary	n/a
Depots (non-ordnance) and Ports of Embarkation	administration building, fire station, gate, guard house	radio house	n/a	n/a	dispensary	engine test building and repair hangar (air depots), maintenance and repair shops
Medical Facilities	administration building, fire station, gate, guard house, post office	n/a	n/a	corpsmen training school	clinics (dental, EENT, laboratory, X-ray, surgery, physiotherapy, etc.), hospital wards, mortuary, sick officers quarters, occupational therapy building, specialized wards	n/a
Navy Bases/Stations	administration building, fire station, gate, guard house	radio station, telephone exchange	n/a	n/a	dispensary	maintenance and repair shops
Navy Yards	administration building, fire station, gate, guard house	radio control building	n/a	shop buildings	dispensary	bulkheads, compressor house, dry docks, galvanizing plant, foundry, piers, pumphouses, shops (electric, forge, layout, machine, ordnance, pattern, pipe, riggers, sheetmetal, shipfitters, shopfitters utility, sub-assembly, turbine blading, utility)
Research, Development, and Testing	administration building, fire station, gate, guard house	radio house	n/a	classroom buildings	dispensary	loading/assembly buildings, maintenance and repair shops, workshops
Strategic Communications	administration building	antenna, helix house, operations building	n/a	n/a	dispensary	maintenance and repair shops
Training	administration building, operations building	radio house	n/a	classroom buildings, drill hall, ranges, operational training facilities and training devices, training towers	hospital	maintenance and repair shops

TABLE 2a: COMMAND CONSTRUCTION INSTALLATION TYPES AND COMPONENT PROPERTY CATEGORIES (CONTINUED)

	PROPERTY CATEGORIES
INSTALLATION TYPES	Infrastructure	Personnel Support	Research, Development, and Testing	Residential	Storage	Transportation
Airfields/ Air Stations	electric substations, sewage pumping station, sewage disposal facility, steam plant, water pumping station, water storage	chapel, enlisted mens lounge, mess hall, officers club, post exchange, post office, PX gas station, recreation building, Red Cross building, swimming pool and bath house, theatre	n/a	bachelor officer quarters, barracks, NCO quarters, officers family quarters, garages	aviation supply, flammable materials (paint, oil, dope) storage, fuel storage, general storage, ordnance storage	hangars (heavier-than-air landplane, lighter-than-air, seaplane), runways, vehicle fueling station
Coastal Defenses	power plant	mess hall	n/a	barracks, officers quarters	magazines, ration storehouse	n/a
Depots (non-ordnance) and Ports	electric substations, heating plant, sewage disposal facility, water distribution and storage	mess hall/cafeteria	n/a	barracks, civilian housing, officers quarters	cold storage, fuel storage, general supply warehouses/ storehouses, heavy materials warehouses, open storage yards, transit sheds	air freight terminal, garages, loading ramps, piers, pier sheds, roads, rail lines
Medical Facilities	electric substations, incinerator, laundry, power house, steam plant, water storage	chapel, libraries, Med. Det. recreation, mess halls, officers and nurses recreation, patient recreation and welfare building, post exchange, Red Cross building, theatre	n/a	corpsmens barracks, guest house, nurses quarters, officers quarters	medical storehouse, storehouses	gas stations
Navy Bases/Stations	electric substations, incinerator, sewage treatment plant, steam plant, water storage	chapel, enlisted personnel club, gymnasium, exchange, mess, officers club mess, post office, recreation building, theatre	n/a	bachelor officers quarters, barracks, receiving barracks, family housing	general storage, warehouses, community storage, specialized storage, ordnance storage	piers, rail lines
Navy Yards	boiler house, electric substations, incinerator, power house, transformer stations, water storage	cafeteria, latrine, laundry, officers mess, post office, recreation building, time clock station, civilian support buildings	n/a	barracks, officers family quarters, bachelor officer quarters	coal storage yards, fuel storage tanks, general storehouses, industrial storehouses, ordnance storage, heavy materials storage, general storage warehouses	crane tracks, rail lines
Research, Development, and Testing	electric substations, power house, steam plant, sewage treatment, water storage	cafeteria, civilian support buildings	laboratories, wind tunnels, firing ranges, test track, observation towers, airfield, test sites	bachelor officer quarters, barracks, single family housing	flammable material storage, general storage, ordnance storage, specialized storage as needed	n/a
Strategic Communications	electric substations, power house/stand-by generator	cafeteria, mess, recreation facilities	laboratories, radar test buildings	barracks, officers quarters	general storage, open storage	n/a
Training	electric substations, sewage pumping station, sewage disposal facility, steam plant, water pumping station, water storage	chapel, bakery, enlisted mens lounge, laundry, mess hall, exchange, officers club, post office, PX gas station, recreation facilities, Red Cross building, swimming pool and bath house, theatre	n/a	bachelor officer quarters, barracks, NCO quarters, officers family quarters	fuel storage, commisionary storage, general storage, ordnance storage	rail lines, gas stations, motor pools, vehicle fueling station

TABLE 3. INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION INSTALLATION TYPES AND COMPONENT PROPERTY CATEGORIES

	PROPERTY CATEGORIES
INSTALLATION TYPES	Administration	Health Care	Industrial	Infrastructure
Aircraft Production	administration building, guard house and gate	flight hospital	assembly plant (large single structure), sub-assembly areas, production buildings	boiler house/power house, electric substations, water storage facilities, water wells
Ammunition Depots	administration building, fire station, guard house and gate	dispensary	maintenance and repair shops, cranes	boiler house/power house, electric substations, sewage treatment plant or pumping station, water treatment plant
Artillery/Artillery Parts Production Plants/Arsenals	administration building, fire station, guard house and gate, sentry boxes	dispensary	assembly buildings, factories, forge shop, machine shop	boiler house/power house, electric substations, water pumping station
Chemical Warfare Service Facilities	administration building, fire station, guard house and gate	dispensary	assembly and loading plants, manufacturing plants, pilot plants	electric substations, power house, sewage pumping station, water treatment plant
Explosive Production Works	administration building, fire station, guard house and gate, radio house	dispensary	acid concentration plants, ammonium oxidation plants, machine maintenance shops, propellant manufacturing lines (dehydrating press house, ether mix house, mixer house, horizontal screening and press house, solvent recovery house, controlled circulation dryer house, blending tower)	electric substations, power plant, sewage pumping station, water treatment plant, water wells, water pumping houses
Large Ammunition Assembly Plants	administration building, fire station, guard house and gate, radio house	dispensary	bag-loading plants, bag sewing buildings, bomb- and mine-filling plants, booster loading buildings, ignition filling houses, loading plants (large caliber, medium caliber), mine assembly plants, rocket motor loading buildings, ammonium nitrate manufacturing buildings	boiler house/power house, electric substations, sewage pumping station, water treatment plant
Small Arms Ammunition Plants	administration building, fire station, guard house and gate, radio house, sentry boxes	hospital	.30 and .50 caliber shops, ballistics building, lead shop, powder canning house, primer chemical distribution house, primer dry houses, primer manufacturing building, primer mixing building, proof houses, salvage building, tool and gauge shop, tracer chemical distribution house, tracer composition manufacturing building	boiler house/power house, electric substations, sewage pumping stations, water treatment plant, well houses
Tank Arsenal	administration building, personnel building, sentry building, telephone exchange	n/a	paint shop, tank assembly plant (single large structure with receiving, manufacturing, and assembly areas), tank repair shop	electric substations, power house, pump house, sewage treatment plant, water storage

TABLE 3a. INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION INSTALLATION TYPES AND COMPONENT PROPERTY CATEGORIES (CONTINUED)

PROPERTY CATEGORIES
INSTALLATION TYPES	Personnel Support	Research, Development, and Testing	Residential	Storage	Transportation
Aircraft Production	cafeteria, commissary	test facilities	barracks, single family detached houses	warehouses	loading platforms, rail lines, roads, runways
Ammunition Depots	change house	n/a	barracks, single family detached houses	high explosives magazines (igloos), inert storehouses, magazines (high-explosive, projectile, smokeless powder), torpedo storehouses	loading platforms, piers, rail lines, roads
Artillery/Artillery Parts Production Plant	n/a	n/a	N/A	storehouses for parts, storehouses for finished production	loading platforms, rail lines, roads
Chemical Warfare Service Facilities	change/shower house, mess hall	laboratories, test facilities, observation bunkers	bachelor officer quarters, barracks, single family detached houses	high explosives magazines (igloos), storehouses, above ground magazines	loading platforms, rail lines, roads
Explosive Production Works	cafeteria, canteen, change house, clock house, search house	n/a	single family detached houses	magazines, storehouses	loading platforms, rail lines, roads
Large Ammunition Assembly Plants	cafeteria, change/shower house, clock house	n/a	barracks, single family detached houses	magazines, storehouses	loading platforms, rail lines, roads
Small Arms Ammunition Plants	cafeteria, commissary kitchen	target houses, tool and gauge laboratories	single family detached houses	magazines, storehouses	loading platforms, rail lines, roads
Tank Arsenal	commissary kitchen	test track	n/a	storehouses	loading platforms, rail lines, roads

Boldface denotes properties essential to the mission of the installation type.

Other properties supported the primary installation mission.

TABLE 4. SPECIAL PROJECTS AND COMPONENT PROPERTY CATEGORIES

PROPERTY CATEGORIES
INSTALLATION TYPES	Administration	Communication	Health Care	Industrial	Infrastructure
Manhattan Engineering District	administration building, fire house, gate house, guard house, offices, police station	post office, telephone exchange	dispensary, hospital	specialized assembly plant, sub-assembly areas, specialized production facilities, electromagnet separation plant, gaseous diffusion plant, plutonium production plant, specialized manufacturing plant, heavy water plant	boiler house/power house, electric substation, sewage treatment plant, water treatment plant, sewage pumping stations
Pentagon	administration building	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a

Boldface denotes properties essential to the mission of the installation type. Other properties supported the primary installation mission.

TABLE 4a. SPECIAL PROJECTS AND COMPONENT PROPERTY CATEGORIES

PROPERTY CATEGORIES
INSTALLATION TYPES	Personnel Support	Research, Development, and Testing	Residential	Storage	Transportation
Manhattan Engineering District	cafeteria commissary, theater, commercial areas	laboratories, test sites, workshops	civilian housing, barracks, single family detached houses, family housing, apartments, dormitories	warehouses, specialized storage buildings	vehicle fueling station, loading platforms, rail lines, roads
Pentagon	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a

Boldface denotes properties essential to the mission of the installation type. Other properties supported the primary installation mission.

CHAPTER III

BACKGROUND OF THE MILITARY WORLD WAR II PERMANENT

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

The U.S. Military after World War I

Following World War I, the United States hoped to avoid future world-wide conflicts and public opinion shifted in favor of isolationism. President Woodrow Wilson sought to prevent future conflicts by creating an international organization known as the League of Nations. But the Senate rejected the treaty, largely because of a fear of foreign entanglements. The United States did participate in the Washington and London Naval Disarmament Conferences of the 1920s and early 1930s, at which time limits were placed on ship construction. In 1928, the United States made another gesture towards world peace by signing the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which renounced war as an instrument of national policy.

With the expectation of an enduring peace, interest in the nation’s military establishment declined. New weapons, such as tanks, were not developed to their full capabilities. The Army Air Corps profited from the growth and technological developments of civilian aviation; but the Air Corps remained tied to the ground forces. The Navy and Marine Corps grew irregularly during these years. The Navy did incorporate new types of ships, such as aircraft carriers and submarines, into its inventory. Yet the disarmament conferences of the 1920s and 1930s discouraged ship construction. Another factor limiting military expenditures was the severe economic constraints of the Great Depression, when the United States lacked the funds to invest in military build-up.

Hopes for a permanent peace proved illusory. Benito Mussolini established a fascist dictatorship over Italy in 1922. Germany’s Nazi Party, under Adolf Hitler, seized control of Germany in 1933. Japan fell under the control of militarists who wished to expand into China. As the decade progressed, Germany, Italy, and Japan coalesced into an understanding known as the Axis Powers.

As Americans observed the growing instability in Europe and Asia, the nation was divided between a desire to remain out of foreign conflicts and the recognition of the importance of military preparedness. Advocates of neutrality found a congressional champion in Senator Russell Nye, who conducted a well publicized series of hearings on the munitions industry in World War I. He charged that these so-called "merchants of death" had encouraged American involvement in European affairs in anticipation of increased profits. Between 1935 and 1937, Congress passed three neutrality acts intended to avoid future foreign wars.

Nevertheless, the dangers for Nazi or Japanese expansion were sufficient to stimulate a modest increase in military and naval appropriations. Beginning in 1935, the strength of the armed forces increased steadily. The Army General Staff developed emergency mobilization plans. In 1938, Congress authorized "educational orders," which were small scale contracts designed to familiarize potential contractors with the requirements of manufacturing for the military.

Navy and Marine Corps officers generally recognized that Japan presented the most serious naval threat, and developed their plans accordingly. The Navy began shifting its forces to the Pacific bases of San Diego, Puget Sound, and Pearl Harbor. As the London and Washington Treaties expired in 1936, Congress authorized increased tonnages for the Navy, most notably in the Second Vinson Act of 1938. Marine Corps leaders recognized that any war in the Pacific would require seizure of island bases, and developed the amphibious assault techniques that they would use so effectively in the Pacific.

The Beginnings of War

Germany’s Adolf Hitler proved to be a particularly dangerous menace to world peace. After the Nazi party gained control of Germany in 1933, Hitler initiated a German re-armament program. He then systematically began annexing neighboring countries, beginning with Austria in 1938. Germany continued its expansion unchecked until the invasion of Poland caused Britain and France to declare war on Germany in September 1939.

The German Army soon demonstrated that this time the war would be characterized by rapid movement. Using a combination of infantry, armor, and aircraft, the Germans overran Poland in one month, using "blitzkrieg" tactics. The British sent an expeditionary force to France, which first deployed on the French-Belgian border, then moved to Dyle River in central Belgium. In May 1940, the Nazi Army bypassed the fortifications, forcing the British and French to fall back in confusion. The British narrowly averted a complete disaster by evacuating their forces through the French port of Dunkirk. With the defeat of France almost assured, Italy declared war on France on June 10. France surrendered to Germany on June 22.

A complete German victory seemed imminent. Only Great Britain and her empire presented a credible barrier to Nazi conquests. German plans for a rapid invasion of Britain failed after the Royal Air Force denied the Germans air superiority in the Battle of Britain. Later that year, the Axis tried to defeat Britain by capturing the Suez Canal, which would have separated Britain from its Persian Gulf oil supplies and its Indian empire. The German action opened fighting in North Africa that continued through 1943. In the Atlantic, German submarines attempted to destroy British shipping, but never quite succeeded.

The prospects for an Axis victory led the United States to take its first tentative steps toward direct involvement in the war. In September 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt approved the transfer of 50 destroyers to Britain, in return for a lease on British bases in the Caribbean. That September, the United States initiated a peacetime Selective Service and a partial mobilization of the National Guard. In December 1940, Roosevelt announced the United States would provide military supplies to Britain under a policy termed "lend-lease." The President justified his actions by declaring that the United States must become the "arsenal of democracy." In the summer of 1941, Roosevelt ordered the Navy to escort merchant convoys as far as Iceland. This order resulted in an undeclared war between American destroyers and German submarines, and led to the sinking of the destroyer Reuben James by the Germans on 31 October 1941.

In the summer of 1941, Hitler made one of the greatest blunders of the war by invading the Soviet Union. Although initially successful, the German campaign could not overcome the vast distances of the Soviet Union, the harsh winter, or the fierce resistance they met. The exceptionally brutal fighting on the eastern front destroyed a large portion of the German Army. Following the German invasion, the United States included the Soviet Union in its lend-lease program.

The United States, in addition to the war in Europe, had to contend with the military expansion of Japan in the Pacific region. Japan rapidly emerged as a leading Asian power, following its opening to Western influences in the middle of the nineteenth century. It became a serious threat to Asian stability when a clique of aggressively militaristic officers and politicians gained control of the government during the 1930s. Japan invaded China, resulting in a full scale war by 1937. The Japanese war with China continued longer than the Japanese had expected, as Japan became mired in the vastness of China. The Japanese continued their expansion, and entered French Indochina in 1941.

Reasoning that their expansion made war with the United States inevitable, the Japanese decided to initiate hostilities with a decisive offensive action. On 7 December 1941, they launched an attack upon the United States fleet anchored in Pearl Harbor, sinking four battleships, badly damaging four others, and destroying over 200 aircraft.

The Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor triggered direct American involvement in the war. Immediately after the attack, the United States declared war upon Japan. Three days later, Germany and Italy declared war upon the United States and Congress reciprocated. With American entry into the war, the coalition against the Axis nations coalesced into the Allied powers. Led by the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union, the alliance also included members of the British Commonwealth, China, and exiled governments of occupied nations. During the first year of American involvement in the war, the military lacked the trained personnel and other resources to exert a decisive influence.

Military Operations

Europe

As American combat strength increased through the early stages of the war, American and British forces launched their first offensive actions. In November 1942, the Allies landed in North Africa. By May 1943, the British and Americans had cleared the Germans from North Africa. Next, they began a campaign against Italy, which soon resulted in the surrender of the Italian government. Although German soldiers continued fighting in Italy for the remainder of the war, the Allied victory secured the British lifeline to Asia through the Mediterranean. At approximately the same time, the British and American Navies gained supremacy over German submarines in the Atlantic.

By the spring of 1944, the Allies were strong enough to challenge the Germans in northern Europe. On 6 June 1944, the Allies invaded France through Normandy, and by September they almost reached the German border. Inadequate supplies stalled the Allied offensive, which was delayed further by a German counter offensive that winter in the Ardennes forest. By the spring of 1945, American and British forces reached the German western border while the Soviets reached the German eastern border. Germany surrendered on 7 May 1945.

The scope of the American contribution to the war against Germany and Italy started modestly and grew to enormous proportions. At the beginning of the North African invasion, the United States could provide only one corps. By the close of the war, six numbered American armies operated in western Europe, although the Fifteenth Army was not organized until the end of the war. Americans provided 61 of 91 Allied divisions in the western Europe theater of operations, plus 7 of 18 divisions in Italy. Four of the six Allied tactical air commands were American. Even these figures do not represent the full American contribution to the Allied victory. The United States provided ammunition, equipment, and other essential military supplies to British and Russian forces.

Asia and the Pacific

Japan followed its attack on Pearl Harbor with a successful invasion of the Philippines. By mid 1942, the Japanese had established a defensive perimeter that extended as far as the Solomon Islands and New Guinea. In May and June 1942, the Americans stopped the Japanese offensive with their victories at Coral Sea and Midway. Nevertheless, the Japanese control over the islands of the western Pacific created a formidable barrier to any Allied attempts to reach Japan. The Americans were forced to fight island by island to gain control of the Pacific.

The American counter-offensive advanced along two axes. American forces under General Douglas MacArthur or Admiral William Halsey advanced along a southern route towards the Philippines. Meanwhile, other forces under Admirals Chester Nimitz and Raymond Spruance moved through Micronesia in the central Pacific towards the Mariana Islands. By the middle of 1945, the two axes converged at Okinawa, on Japan’s doorstep. Next the Allies began preparations for a bloody invasion of Japan.

The development of the atomic bomb made the assault upon Japan unnecessary. The United States secretly had developed a new weapon that unleashed tremendous energy through a process of nuclear fission. Production of the first nuclear weapons had required extensive efforts within the United States, and the strictest security measures. By the summer of 1945, the new bomb had been tested successfully, and it was used against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On August 15 the Japanese announced their surrender to the Allies.

Organization of the Military Establishment

During World War II, the military was organized into separate War and Navy Departments. This organization differed significantly from today’s Department of Defense. These differences affected the roles of each defense agency, and their construction activities.

Army

On 9 March 1942, the War Department adopted an organizational structure that remained essentially unchanged for the duration of the war. The War Department General Staff developed overall policies for the Army, including its air component. Theater commanders, such as General Dwight Eisenhower or General Douglas MacArthur, exercised control over all Army elements within their respective commands. Within the continental United States, three major commands executed the policies established by the War Department headquarters. These commands were the Army Ground Forces, the Army Air Forces, and the Army Services Forces.

The Army Ground Forces commander, General Leslie McNair, was responsible for organizing and training ground combat units. These duties included operating training centers, developing combat doctrine, and commanding Army ground forces within the United States. Units or personnel became the responsibility of the theater commander outside of the continental United States.

The commander of the Army Air Forces, General Henry H. (Hap) Arnold, exercised similar authority with respect to the air component. Within the continental United States, the Army Air Forces trained pilots, air crews, plus ground support personnel. These personnel then were organized into units for further training prior to transfer overseas. Once outside of the continental United States, Army Air Forces units became part of their respective theater commands. Unlike the Army Ground Forces, however, the Army Air Forces assumed greater logistical responsibilities, including the design and procurement of aircraft, and Air Corps specific equipment, in addition to responsibility for installation management.

The expansion of the Army Air Forces, as the equal of the Army Ground Forces, reflects the growing importance and independence of the air component, which eventually resulted in the creation of an autonomous Air Force. Throughout World War II, however, the air component was an integral part of the War Department. Senior aviation officers served in key command and staff positions, including command of the Army component of joint commands. Army aviation drew upon the same logistical system that served the Army Ground Forces, especially from the Corps of Engineers, the Ordnance Department, and the Quartermaster Corps.

The Army Service Forces represented a significant change from the peacetime methods of providing logistical support within the War Department. Prior to World War II, Quartermaster, Ordnance, Engineer, Signal, Medical, and Chemical Warfare branches, which were known collectively as the "technical services," operated independently with each branch chief reporting directly to the War Department. To achieve a unified logistical effort, the Army combined the technical services into a single command, under the energetic, if acerbic, leadership of General Brehon Somervell. Originally termed the "Services of Supply," the organization was renamed the "Army Service Forces" to reflect its diverse responsibilities. In addition to the technical services, the Army Service Forces eventually encompassed the offices of the Adjutant General, the Judge Advocate General, and the Provost Marshal General. During the war, the Transportation Corps became a separate branch within the Service Forces. The official history of the Army Service Forces summarized the mission of the organization by noting that "all responsibilities which did not fit into the Ground or Air Forces were dumped into the Service Forces. The ASF thus became a catch-all command . . . . Some of the duties logically belong in it; others were put there because they could not logically be placed anywhere else."

The Army Service Forces was responsible for both supporting the ground and air forces within the United States and for providing materiel to forces overseas. The latter mission required an extensive effort, especially by the Ordnance Department. With its responsibility for weapons and ammunition, the Ordnance Department either contracted for purchases directly from private industry, or supervised production of weapons or ammunition at government facilities. The Department also stored munitions prior to overseas shipment. Other technical services, such as the Quartermaster or Signal Corps, also procured and stored military supplies, but these items did not require the special care required by weapons and explosives.

Military construction was an important and controversial portion of the mission of the Army Service Forces. Until 1940, the Quartermaster General was responsible for cantonment construction, while the Chief of Engineers was responsible for the construction of fortifications and waterway projects. This system worked well during peacetime, when the pace of construction was relatively slow, but the massive pace of wartime construction overwhelmed the Quartermaster General’s office. The Corps of Engineers seemed better suited to manage all construction because of its district offices, which could provide less centralized control. In the spring of 1941, the Corps of Engineers assumed responsibility for air field construction. In November 1941, Congress enacted legislation transferring all Army construction to the Corps of Engineers; President Roosevelt signed the bill on 1 December.

Navy

The Navy Department consisted of both the United States Navy and the Marine Corps, along with the administrative and logistical infrastructure to support both services. The Navy was divided into the numbered fleets directly engaged in combat and the Navy establishment within the United States. The latter consisted of the Navy headquarters, its bureaus, shore bases, and other supporting forces. The Marine Corps was composed of a Fleet Marine Force and its supporting structure. In wartime, the Coast Guard became a part of the Navy Department, while retaining its separate identity. After the war, the Coast Guard reverted to the Treasury Department.

The Navy’s shore establishment evolved from the nineteenth-century bureau system. The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Ernest King, directed a staff that provided overall direction to the service. Most routine support functions were performed by the respective bureaus, which included Naval Personnel, Ordnance, Ships, Yards and Docks, Medicine and Surgery, Supplies and Accounts, and Aeronautics.

The Bureau of Yards and Docks had primary responsibility for Navy construction. It also was responsible for the maintenance and administration of Navy shore installations that were not under the control of a special bureau. As a result, the Bureau of Yards and Docks built and administered most Navy yards and bases. The most notable exceptions consisted of ordnance or aviation installations. The Bureau of Yards and Docks designed and built these installations, but the Bureaus of Ordnance or Aeronautics assumed responsibility for maintenance.

The Bureau of Ordnance also played an important role in the expanded permanent construction program. This bureau was responsible for all tasks related to Navy ordnance. These responsibilities included the production of weapons and ammunition, the development of experimental weapons systems, and the improvement of existing systems. Real property related to these tasks included production facilities, ammunition depots, and experimental stations. Although the Marine Corps obtained the majority of its weapons through the Army Ordnance Department, the Navy Ordnance Bureau provided weapons that could not be obtained from the Army.

The Marine Corps’ fighting forces was designated the "Fleet Marine Force" and consisted of units assigned to support naval operations. The Marine Corps fighting units were composed primarily of infantry, with some support and aviation units. Marine Corps contingents based within the United States supported the Fleet Marine Force by providing trained personnel and equipment. Marine Corps shore installations primarily fulfilled training and logistical functions. The Bureau of Yards and Docks was responsible for construction of Marine Corps installations.

THE HOME FRONT AND MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

World War II on the American Home Front

World War II affected Americans on the home front in ways that varied from the selection of movies to rationing of consumer goods. A crucial element of the home front effort was the mobilization of resources in support of the fighting forces. The tremendous mobilization of resources made the Allied victory possible. Mobilization included the training of personnel, and the production of weapons, ammunition, and equipment. These activities required an extensive domestic construction program to build the facilities necessary to train and equip the Allied forces.

Mobilization of resources within the United States began in earnest after the fall of France in June 1940. Americans were no longer secure behind the combined forces of France and Britain. Britain’s tenuous position forced Americans to consider the possibility that the United States would confront Germany without any allies. In the late summer of 1940, President Roosevelt implemented a partial mobilization program known as the Protective Mobilization Plan.

The most publicized aspects of the Protective Mobilization Plan included the activation of National Guard units, establishment of a peacetime Selective Service for the Army, and strengthening the Navy. The increase in size of both services resulted in the initiation of wartime construction programs, comprising primarily temporary construction. The War Department immediately needed training facilities and hurriedly constructed mobilization cantonments. For the most part, these camps consisted of temporary buildings, constructed according to the so-called "700 series" plans.

The protective mobilization phase spurred other activities within the Army. For the first time since World War I, the Army conducted large-scale field maneuvers. The most notable of these exercises, the "Louisiana Maneuvers," engaged the Third Army against the Second Army during the spring of 1941. These exercises provided invaluable training to senior officers in the management of large formations of soldiers and operational logistics.

A critically important result of the Protective Mobilization Plan, which affected permanent construction, was the beginning of industrial mobilization. The military of the late 1930s lacked the materiel readiness to fight a sustained war, especially using the blitzkrieg tactics of World War II. The requirements for supplying materiel to Britain and the Soviet Union further amplified the challenges of industrial production.

The lack of all types of ammunition was among the most critical shortfalls. Speaking in 1943, the Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, recalled that in 1940 the United States lacked even a one day’s supply of smokeless powder, and supplies of other types of weapons and ammunition also were critically low. Even worse, the capacity for the production of munitions disappeared following the close of World War I. The few existing Army arsenals and the Navy Powder Factory at Indian Head, Maryland, had preserved a knowledge of the processes of ammunition production, but these facilities did not have the capability for mass production of explosives. During the protective mobilization phase, the Army created the foundations of a munitions industry.

Immediately after the fall of France, the Navy also initiated an expansion program. On 19 July 1940, less than a month after the French surrender, Congress authorized the acquisition of 13 battleships, 6 aircraft carriers, 32 cruisers, 39 submarines, and 101 destroyers. The carriers were of the Essex variety, which constituted the backbone of the Pacific fleet in the forthcoming war. The increased number of ships was accompanied by a comparable expansion of shore facilities. In the eighteen months before Pearl Harbor, the Bureau of Ships transferred over $250 million to the Bureau of Yards and Docks to prepare dry docks, maintenance shops, and other facilities for supporting an expanded fleet. Congress also recognized the need for expanded shore facilities and appropriated additional funds for improvement of shore installations.

The threatened war also propelled the Navy toward greater activity in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. In the Atlantic, the Navy escorted convoys of both British and American merchant ships as far as Iceland. In the Pacific, President Roosevelt ordered the fleet to Hawaii in May 1940 as a deterrent to Japanese expansion. The fleet based in Hawaii proved to be vulnerable to a surprise carrier strike, which the Japanese executed on 7 December 1941. The attack upon Pearl Harbor thus ended the Protective Mobilization phase of United States involvement in World War II.

An official Army history of economic mobilization during World War II summarized the importance of mobilization before Pearl Harbor:

Historians of America’s total military and logistic effort in World War II may well agree that the eighteen months of preparations before Pearl Harbor played a crucial, if not decisive, part in the outcome of the war. During this period the Military establishment of the United States was rehabilitated and the foundation laid for America’s tremendous war production achievement. The greatest barrier to military preparedness at the time of the crisis of 1940 was the lack of capital facilities, and these required from several months to two years or even longer to create. To have delayed the construction of such facilities until the United States was actually involved in battle might have lost the war before it began.

After the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor, American energies were concentrated on the defeat of the Axis powers. Though the conversion to wartime production in 1940 and 1941 provided a transition to declared war, even greater efforts were required after the United States entered the war. The industrial mobilization process begun during the protective mobilization phase intensified until the United States could overwhelm the Axis powers with its material resources.

More so than in previous wars, the outcome of World War II depended upon marshalling resources. These resources included trained personnel, weapons, ammunition, food, military clothing, transportation facilities, money, and all the other items needed to sustain the fighting forces. In order to provide the materiel required, the United States government needed to allocate raw materials, especially steel, rubber, petroleum, or cotton. The distribution of raw materials required the establishment of priorities within the military, and provisions for essential civilian needs. The war within the United States was characterized by managed scarcities.

Rather than rely upon the market forces to allocate resources, President Roosevelt formulated new government agencies or restructured existing agencies to control essential elements of the economy. As the war in Europe began, Roosevelt created the National Defense Advisory Council, which was soon followed by the Office of Production Management. The Office of Production Management tried to establish a system of priorities to allocate scarce materials until it was superseded by the Supply, Priorities, and Allocations Board (SPAB). In January 1942, Roosevelt created the last of the wartime administrative offices, the War Production Board, chaired by Donald M. Nelson. Like its predecessors, it attempted to divert scarce materials to defense industries by creating priority systems. With the priority systems, critical materials, such as structural steel, could only go to War or Navy Department projects that were certified as necessary to national defense, and using the minimum amount of resources.

Despite the shortages of raw materials, American industry soon began the transition to wartime production. Automobile factories converted their production lines to military vehicles, and other factories made similar conversions. Where existing facilities were unsuited for munitions production, new factories or shipyards were constructed to meet the production requirements. As the war progressed, the logistical advantages of the United States provided a crucial edge to the Allies. As the Axis powers gradually lost their war production capabilities to Allied bombing, the Allies increased their capabilities until the final defeat of Germany and Japan.

Military Construction and Wartime Logistics

Because the outcome of this war depended so much upon the proper management of resources, military construction received considerable attention. New military facilities universally were recognized as necessary for training, equipping, and maintaining the rapidly expanding forces. Other construction was necessary to create a munitions industry. Yet because all construction also consumed vital resources, even military construction required the strictest economy measures. The story of military construction, therefore, became a balance between the requirements for facilities and the conservation of scarce resources.

To balance these conflicting requirements, the services used temporary construction wherever feasible. Temporary construction conserved three of the most precious resources of the war: time, money, and building materials. These shortages became increasingly acute through the summer of 1942, with corresponding pressures to use temporary construction.

Temporary construction was most evident in the training camps that the military rapidly constructed throughout the nation. The training camps and stations consisted of wooden frame buildings with few amenities. Barracks often contained exposed 2 x 4 in framing, or ceiling trusses. Structures might be mounted on cinder blocks for support or placed upon a simple concrete floor. Within the War Department, these buildings were called the 700 or 800 series of buildings, because they followed standardized plans numbered from 700 to 799 or 800 to 899. The 700 series plans were drafted by the Quartermaster Corps before the war, while the 800 series reflected minor improvements to the basic design. Within the Navy Department, the Bureau of Yards and Docks constructed standardized wooden frame temporary barracks of 2 x 4 in stud walls clad with either wood siding or asbestos-cement shingles. Temporary construction was designed to last at least five years. For even more short-term construction needs, the military employed theater-of-war construction, which consisted of flimsy wood frame covered with tar paper.

Though temporary construction was preferred, the military could not avoid more substantial construction for some essential purposes. The most numerous examples of permanent construction were industrial facilities, such as ammunition factories or shipyards, where structural requirements precluded temporary construction. Several other types of specialized facilities required permanent construction. Research and development work might require a "clean" environment or special structures unsuitable for temporary construction. Some storage facilities, particularly those for ammunition or perishable subsistence, required permanent buildings. Coastal fortifications and medical facilities might also employ permanent construction. Anticipated use after the war might justify permanent construction during the earliest and the latest stages of the war, when materials shortages were least serious.

War Department construction, both temporary and permanent, was concentrated during the first years of the war. Following the fall of France in 1940, construction programs accelerated under the Protective Mobilization Plan, and reached a spending peak of over $200 million per month in the summer of 1941. These figures seemed enormous by previous standards, but America’s entry into the war soon caused construction to exceed all previous expectations. In July 1942, spending for construction within the United States reached a peak of about $750 million per month, and declined sharply thereafter. By December 1942, 85 per cent of all War Department World War II construction was complete. Within another year, that figure reached 98 per cent.

The problems of building material shortages plagued the military construction program throughout the years of the war, worsening as the pace of building increased. Shortages during the protective mobilization period were serious, but not insurmountable. Following America’s entry into the war, shortages suddenly became the greatest obstacle to timely completion of the needed construction. Not only did the services multiply their construction efforts, but so did civilian defense industries. Civilian defense workers also required housing as they moved to new job locations. Although all materials were in critical supply, steel was of particular concern because it was essential for ships and for shell casings.

Materials shortages were most critical in the middle of 1942, at the same time that construction was reaching its peak. On 20 May 1942, the War Production Board adopted a directive intended to establish tighter priorities for construction. Even defense related construction would receive approval only if:

(1) it was essential for the war effort; (2) postponement of construction would be detrimental to the war effort; (3) it was not practical to rent or convert existing facilities; (4) the construction would not result in the duplication or unnecessary expansion of existing plants or facilities then under construction or about to be constructed; (5) all possible economies had been made in the project in order to delete all nonessential items or parts; and (6) the design for the structure was of the simplest type. All construction should be of the cheapest, temporary character and should use materials which were most plentiful.

In practice, this directive allowed military construction to continue, but limited such construction to the most austere designs feasible. After military construction had passed its peak in the fall of 1942, critical materials shortages became less of a problem. While the need to conserve materials, especially steel and copper, remained, shortages were less likely to delay construction.

With the materials shortages easing, field commanders attempted to initiate new military construction projects. Within the War Department, however, General Somervell opposed most new construction projects as unnecessary wastes of money. Rather than flatly refuse requests for new construction, he used bureaucratic delays to minimize the number of requests. At a service command conference, Somervell spoke quite bluntly to his subordinate commanders: "I have attempted to interpose all the red tape possible—and that is a lot." He went on to explain, "I cannot stand up before the country and before Congress and justify the expenditure of millions of dollars for construction work which is desirable but which does not have anything to do with winning the war; and so I have adopted . . . a policy of delay in the hope that eventually you will get tired of asking for new construction and quit."

Nevertheless, some new construction projects were inevitable during the last years of the war. With the success of medium artillery, especially the 155mm howitzer, the combat forces suddenly increased their demands for this caliber ammunition. Consequently, the War Department hurriedly constructed a new set of ammunition production facilities. With the prospect of a large number of seriously wounded service members returning home, more hospitals became necessary. The new B-29 "Superfortress" bomber required new landing fields and hangars. The still secret Manhattan Project required a substantial expenditure of resources, especially at Clinch River, Tennessee, and Hanford, Washington. Small construction projects and improvements to existing installations continued throughout the war.

The Navy Department experienced a similar change in its construction programs after the initial buildup. Except for an amphibious training facility built in early 1944, new training installations were not required. Instead, Navy Department construction focused upon supporting committed Navy and Marine Corps units, especially in the Pacific. The Navy constructed additions to its depots on the Atlantic Coast and created a major annex to the Oakland Naval Supply Depot. Late in the war, the Bureau of Ordnance improved its ammunition handling facilities. Its later ordnance installations included a new ammunition and new depot at Seal Beach, and another ammunition magazine at Bangor, Washington. With the increasing numbers of Navy and Marine Corps casualties, hospital construction continued to the end of the war.

The Navy also added to its research and development facilities during the later war years. One of its most important new installations was the Naval Ordnance Test Station at Inyokern, California, better known as China Lake. Here scientists and Navy officers tested new rockets. Near Washington, D.C., the Navy constructed a new Naval Ordnance Laboratory at White Oak, Maryland.

From the first projects of the mobilization period to the final efforts at the close of the war, military construction within the United States played an essential role in the Allied victory. Construction work produced the training facilities to instruct service members, the logistical facilities to support the forces, the industrial facilities to manufacture materiel, the research and development facilities to improve existing weapons, the medical facilities to treat sick or wounded service members, plus an assortment of other types of facilities. Given the limitations on both time and building materials, the military’s domestic construction programs of the war were a remarkable achievement. The construction programs aided the marshalling of men and materiel necessary to defeat the Axis nations.

The War and Navy Departments divided their construction programs into command construction, industrial construction, and special construction projects. Command construction, the subject of this chapter, included all installations that operated in direct support of the military forces. Examples included cantonments, air bases, Navy yards and bases, storage and maintenance facilities, ports of embarkation, headquarters, medical facilities, communications installations, and all other types of construction necessary for the actual operation of the forces. Command facilities construction programs were characterized by a wide variety of building types and purposes. In keeping with wartime economy measures, the military used temporary construction wherever possible. Yet some command facilities unavoidably required permanent construction. In other cases, permanent construction presented long range advantages for use after the war, which outweighed its short term disadvantages.

Combat Operations and Coastal Defense

The Japanese threat in the Pacific presented the most pressing need for military construction directly related to combat operations. Even before the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, the defense of American possessions in the Pacific was a vital concern to both the War and Navy Departments. The Hawaiian territories long had been recognized as a key outpost in the Pacific, and both the Navy and Army had established their presence in the islands. After the war commenced, Japanese landings in the Aleutian Islands made Alaska a theater of operations. In fact, Alaska was the only one of the present states to be the scene of ground combat. In the United States, permanent construction related to operations included additions to the coastal defenses, and operating bases for anti-submarine activities.

Hawaii

Ever since the U.S. annexation of the Hawaiian islands, the U.S. military had established outposts on the islands. The Navy held an operating base and shipyard at Pearl Harbor since the beginning of the century, with smaller installations also located on the islands. The Army’s most important posts included Schofield Barracks, an infantry garrison; Fort Kamehameha, a coastal artillery position in defense of Pearl Harbor; and an airfield on Ford Island in the middle of Pearl Harbor.

As the probability of war with Japan rose, both services sharply increased their levels of activity in Hawaii. In 1940, President Roosevelt ordered the Pacific Fleet to remain in Hawaii as a deterrent against Japanese expansion. The Japanese threat induced greater construction activities by the Navy, which built a new air station at Kaneohe and increased its depot activities at Pearl Harbor.

The War Department similarly expanded its Hawaii facilities, including accelerated construction of Hickam Field. During the late 1930s, the Army began construction at Hickam to replace the smaller field in the middle of Pearl Harbor; the first personnel occupied the site in 1937. By the winter of 1940/1941, the new installation was nearing completion. The Hawaiian Air Force headquarters moved to Hickam in July 1941. The new barracks at Hickam Field constituted an especially noteworthy feature. The huge building could house 3,000 enlisted personnel, and contained a mess hall large enough to serve this population. Married officers and senior non-commissioned officers lived in stucco houses with red tile roofs. During 1941, construction of temporary barracks began at Hickam.

Following the Japanese attack of December 7, the services rushed reinforcements to Hawaii. With the influx of new personnel came more construction, both temporary and permanent. Temporary housing sheltered over a million service personnel who arrived in Hawaii, often for further training enroute to the front lines. Storage depots, including steel petroleum tanks and ammunition igloos, often required permanent construction. Both the Army and Navy constructed communications facilities, typically on remote mountain tops.

During the emergency following the Japanese victory at Pearl Harbor, the Army pressed its construction of coastal defenses of the islands. Coastal artillery officers obtained surplus Navy guns, including guns recovered from the sunken battleship Arizona. The batteries for these guns were largely underground, with openings only for the turret. These fortifications were the product of round-the-clock work immediately after Pearl Harbor. New anti-aircraft weapons complemented the coastal artillery positions.

Among the more exotic forms of construction were the extensive underground projects built throughout the island of Oahu. The Army excavated an extensive ordnance storage tunnel near Fort Shafter beneath Alilamanu Crater, but converted it to a joint Army-Navy command post just prior to the attack upon Pearl Harbor. Elsewhere on Oahu, the Army and Navy employed an extensive system of tunnels for storage of both ammunition and petroleum. In early 1941, the Army built five additional bomb-proof and gas-proof shelters for communications equipment. Near Schofield Barracks, in the center of the island of Oahu, the Army created an underground three-story structure. It originally was intended to be an aircraft assembly plant, but the Army instead used it to reproduce maps and charts.

The Navy expanded its operating facilities on Oahu and the outer islands. Pearl Harbor became the base for submarine and surface ships, with the necessary piers, warehouses, shops, and other additions to the installations facilities. The Navy constructed an air station at Barber’s Point on Oahu as an air center and technical school. On the island of Maui, the Navy built another air station as a maintenance installation for carrier aircraft.

Alaska

Alaskans also found themselves in a combat arena. Here the Japanese threat centered on the Aleutian Islands, which stretched from Alaska across the Pacific. Although the unpredictable climate proved a serious obstacle to military operations, the proximity of the Aleutians to both Japan and the United States made the islands a potentially valuable prize for either side.

Alaskan geography dictated that any defense of the territory would require the cooperation of the Navy, Army, and Air Corps. Much of the territory to be defended consisted of islands, and even mainland regions were separated so widely that the only practical transportation was by sea. Inattention to Alaska during the pre-war years further complicated the military situation. During the inter-war years, the Army maintained only a small garrison in Alaska. The Air Corps established Ladd Field, near Fairbanks, in 1939, primarily for the purpose of cold weather research. In 1939, a Navy study, known as the Hepburn Board, recommended reenforcement of Alaska at Sitka, Kodiak Island, and Unalaska Island (Dutch Harbor).

During the protective mobilization period, construction began at these three sites. Naval facilities consisted of airfields, seaplane ramps, base facilities for surface ships and submarines, communications equipment, and quarters for the sailors and marines. The Army built coastal artillery batteries and infantry barracks near each of the three Navy bases. Because the Army had the responsibility of defending these bases, Army installations were co-located with Navy bases. The Army built coastal batteries at Sitka, Fort Greeley near Kodiak (not the present Fort Greeley), and Fort Mears near Dutch Harbor. Army Air Force defenses of Dutch Harbor were located at Cold Harbor and Unak Island, neither of which was within close range of Dutch Harbor. Near Anchorage, the Army completed its important installations with the construction of Fort Richardson and Elmendorf Air Field. Fort Richardson served as the Army headquarters; Kodiak Island, as the Navy Headquarters.

Dutch Harbor was a typical example of wartime construction in Alaska. The installation was located on Unalaska Island, toward the eastern edge of the Aleutian Islands. In January 1941, work began on a naval base, with construction of a seaplane ramp, steel frame hangar, repair shop, ammunition storage facility, petroleum handing facilities, housing, and administrative buildings. During the summer of 1942, the Navy expanded the installation with an anti-submarine net depot, marine railroad with shops, fire station, and warehouses. By January of 1943, the base included an air station, submarine base, radio station, section base, fueling depot, and Marine Corps barracks. The Navy contracted the initial design to the architectural firm of Albert Kahn, which used large, multi-functional buildings to conserve scarce space in the mountainous terrain. The first plans called for reinforced concrete, but the design specifications were changed to steel and later to wood due to materials shortages. To protect the naval facilities, the Army built Fort Mears, using 700-series temporary construction plans, which were modified by the addition of blackout shutters and drying rooms.

The types of military construction in Alaska varied immensely. Much of the construction was temporary, yet some forms of permanent construction were inevitable. The most prominent type of permanent construction was the steel and concrete gun batteries for coastal artillery fortifications. At locations such as Sitka, Kodiak, Amaknak Islands, or Dutch Harbor, the Army built new batteries to protect both Army and Navy installations from air or sea attacks. Elsewhere, a few logistical activities such as a small torpedo assembly plant and ammunition magazines at Dutch Harbor were built from permanent materials.

In May 1942, the Japanese seized the outer islands of Kiska and Attu, marking the only time in the war that what would be one of the fifty states became the scene of ground combat during World War II. The ground attacks were accompanied by carrier-based air attacks upon the Navy and Army facilities at Dutch Harbor on 3 and 4 June, with a loss of 43 American lives. At that time, American forces in Alaska were not strong enough to eject the Japanese; they could merely hold their ground.

American forces continued to move to Alaska, until they were willing to take the offensive. On 11 May 1943, about one year after the Japanese invasion, Americans landed at Attu. For the remainder of the month, the island was the scene of bloody fighting. After defeating the Japanese on Attu, the Americans then landed at Kiska in July, but a Japanese evacuation of that island prevented any serious fighting. For the remainder of the war, the Alaskan theater diminished in importance. The miserable weather precluded use of the Aleutians as a staging area for further advances against Japan.

United States

Within the United States, the Army maintained and improved its coastal artillery fortifications on a less ambitious scale. Ever since the 1790s, the Army stationed heavy artillery units near strategic harbors to defend the nation against foreign invasions. During World War II, the threat of either Japanese or German amphibious attack against the United States itself was not likely. Still, the pressures of war produced an increase in seacoast fortifications.

In July 1940, the War Department decided to increase its fortifications, primarily with the addition of 27 new batteries along both the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts (Table 5). Each battery contained two 16-inch guns protected with overhead cover. The 16-inch guns were to be supplemented with 50 batteries of 6-inch guns, also protected from air attack.

In practice, the competition for scarce resources limited the scope of the coastal defense projects. In July 1941, when only four of the new 16-inch batteries were ready for operation, the War Department decided to limit its efforts to those projects that could be completed by 1944, reducing construction to 23 new batteries. As the war began to turn in favor of the Allies, the pressure for coastal defenses declined. By 1945, only 90mm anti-aircraft batteries were manned fully. The Army supplemented its artillery with underwater mines, anti-submarine nets and other devices. The World War II coastal defenses represented the end of a long tradition of harbor defenses within the U.S. Army. Following the war, the Coastal Artillery Corps was disbanded.

Navy Yards

Navy yards have performed essential work in support of the fleet since the Navy operated its first yards in the late eighteenth century. The Navy constructed its own ships, repaired ships, and provided logistical or administrative support to the fleet from its yards. During World War II, Navy yards performed both construction and repair functions (Table 6). Because the bulk of their work was repair, Navy yards are treated as command construction for the purposes of this study. This study uses the World War II-era term "navy yard," although the Navy currently designates these facilities as "naval shipyards." For example, the Norfolk Navy Yard is now the Norfolk Naval Shipyard.

Following the Washington Naval Disarmament Conferences, the U.S. Navy experienced a period of stagnation. Congress was reluctant to appropriate large sums of money to a Navy, when no war appeared likely. Increasing Japanese expansion in the Pacific, and a desire to create public works projects during the Depression years, however, resulted in a modest increase in the Navy funding during the mid 1930s. Depression-era relief measures such as the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) of 1932 provided $238,000,000 for new naval vessel construction and $30,000,000 for shore facility improvements.

Under these programs, the Navy built a modest number of ships, especially destroyers. These vessels were important to the United States’ military build-up since the country had far fewer destroyers than Japan by the early 1930s. The Norfolk, Charleston, and Mare Island Navy Yards were some of the primary construction yards for these ships.

The construction work carried out at each yard under these New Deal relief measures was based on peacetime expansion plans developed by each facility. Most of the construction funded by these relief measures was permanent construction. Among the most essential construction undertaken at this time was the modernization and improvement of building ways and dry docks. Officials extended the New York Navy Yard building ways to handle battleship construction. Workers also carried out modernization work on dry docks such as replacing Norfolk Navy Yard Dry Dock No. 2’s rotting wood timbers with concrete.

TABLE 5: WORLD WAR II ARMY COASTAL FORTIFICATIONS

WWII Name	Current DoD Name	Location	Date Established
Camp Hero	N/A	NY	1941
Fort Adams	N/A	RI	1799
Fort Andrews	N/A	MA	1901
Fort Armstong	N/A	HI	1907
Fort Babcock	N/A	AK	1942
Fort Baker	N/A	CA	1897
Fort Baldwin	N/A	ME	1905
Fort Banks	N/A	MA	1899
Fort Barrancas	N/A	FL	1839
Fort Barry	N/A	CA	1904
Fort Bulkley	N/A	AK	1942
Fort Brumbeck	N/A	AK	1942
Fort Canby	N/A	WA	1864
Fort Casey	N/A	WA	1890s
Fort Church	N/A	RI	1940
Fort Columbia	N/A	WA	1896
Fort Constitution	N/A	NH	1791
Fort Crockett	N/A	TX	1897
Fort Cronkhite	N/A	CA	1937
Fort (John) Custis	N/A	VA	1942
Fort Dawes	N/A	MA	1940
Fort Dearborn	N/A	NH	1941
Fort Delaware	N/A	DE	1814
Fort DeRussy	Fort DeRussy	HI	1908
Fort DuPont	N/A	DE	1898
Fort Duvall	N/A	MA	1921
Fort Ebey	N/A	WA	1942
Fort Emory	U.S. Naval Communications Station, Imperial Beach	CA	1942
Fort Flagler	N/A	WA	1897
Fort Funston	N/A	CA	1898
Fort Gaines	N/A	AL	1822
Fort Getty	N/A	RI	1900
Fort Glenn	N/A	AK	1942
Fort Greble	N/A	RI	1900
Fort Greely	N/A	AK	1943
Fort Greene	N/A	RI	1940
Fort Hamilton	Fort Hamilton	NY	1825
Fort Hamilton	N/A	RI	ca. 1810
Fort Hancock	N/A	NJ	1813
Fort Haydon	N/A	WA	1941
Fort Heath	N/A	MA	1899
Fort Hunt	N/A	VA	1898
Fort Jay	Governors Island (Coast Guard)	NY	1794
Fort Kamehameha	Fort Kamehameha	HI	1909
Fort (Philip) Kearney	N/A	RI	1909
Fort Lawton	N/A	WA	1899
Fort Levett	N/A	ME	1894
Fort Lyon	N/A	ME	1873
Fort Macon	N/A	NC	1826
Fort Mason	N/A	CA	1864
Fort McArthur	Fort McArthur (subpost of Fort Ord)	CA	1914
Fort McClary	N/A	ME	1776
Fort McGilvray	N/A	AK	1942
Fort McKinley	N/A	ME	1893
Fort McRee	N/A	FL	1834
Fort Mears	N/A	AK	1941
Fort Michie	N/A	NY	1900
Fort Miles	N/A	DE	1941-1942
Fort Miley	N/A	CA	1892
Fort Monroe	Fort Monroe	VA	1818
Fort Morgan	N/A	AL	1819
Fort Morrow	N/A	AK	1942
Fort Mott	N/A	NJ	1872
Fort Moultrie	N/A	SC	1809
Fort Peirce	N/A	AK	1943
Fort Pickens	N/A	FL	1829
Fort Preble	N/A	ME	1808
Fort Randall	N/A	AK	1942
Fort Ray	N/A	AK	1941
Fort Revere	N/A	MA	1901
Fort Rodman	N/A	MA	1898
Fort Rosecrans	Naval Complex, Point Loma	CA	1852
Fort Rousseau	N/A	AK	1942
Fort Ruckman	N/A	MA	1921
Fort Ruger	N/A	HI	1906
Fort San Jacinto	N/A	TX	1898
Fort Saulsbury	N/A	DE	ca. 1918
Fort Schwatka	N/A	AK	1943
Fort Schuyler	N/A	NY	1833
Fort Screven	N/A	GA	1898
Fort Slocum	N/A	NY	1861
Fort Smith	N/A	AK	ca. 1942
Fort (Myles) Standish	N/A	MA	1900
Fort Stark	N/A	NH	1873
Fort Stevens	N/A	OR	1903
Fort Story	Fort Story	VA	1917
Fort Strong	N/A	MA	1899
Fort Sumter	N/A	SC	1828
Fort Taylor	N/A	FL	1845
Fort Terry	N/A	NY	1898
Fort Tidball	N/A	AK	1942
Fort Tilden	N/A	NY	1917
Fort Totten	Fort Totten	NY	1862
Fort Townsend	N/A	WA	1856
Fort Travis	N/A	TX	1898-99
Fort Varnum	N/A (National Guard)	RI	1943
Fort Wadsworth	Fort Wadsworth (subpost of Fort Totten)	NY	1847
Fort Warren	N/A	MA	1837
Fort Washington	N/A	MD	1808
Fort Weaver	N/A	HI	ca. 1920
Fort Wetherill	N/A	RI	1776
Fort Whitman	N/A	WA	1909
Fort Williams	N/A	ME	1872
Fort Winfield Scott	N/A	CA	1905
Fort Wool	N/A	VA	1819
Fort Worden	N/A	WA	1898
Fort Wright (H.G.)	N/A	NY	1898
Presidio of San Francisco	N/A	CA	1776

Sources:

Stetson Conn, Rose C. Engelman, and Byron Fairchild, Guarding the United States and Its Outposts (Washington, D.C.: Office of the Center of Military History, Government Printing Office, 1964), passim.

Emanuel Raymond Lewis, Seacoast Fortifications of the United States (Washington, D.C.: Center for Military History, 1979), passim.

Robert B. Roberts, Encyclopedia of Historic Forts (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1988).

TABLE 6: WORLD WAR II NAVY YARDS

WWII-era Name	Current Name	Location	Date Established
Bayonne Repair Base (Annex of New York Navy Yard)	N/A	NJ	1940
Boston Navy Yard	N/A	MA	1800
Charleston Navy Yard	Charleston Naval Shipyard	SC	1901
Hunters Point Navy Yard	N/A	CA	1940
Mare Island Navy Yard	Mare Island Navy Base	CA	1853
Pearl Harbor Navy Yard	Naval Complex Pearl Harbor	HI	1900
New York Ship Yard	N/A	NY	1800
Norfolk Navy Yard	Norfolk Naval Shipyard	VA	1800
Philadelphia Navy Yard	Philadelphia Naval Shipyard	PA	1872 (League Island)
Portsmouth Navy Yard	Portsmouth Naval Shipyard	NH	1800
Puget Sound Navy Yard	Puget Sound Naval Shipyard	WA	1891
South Boston Annex (Annex to Boston Navy Yard)	N/A	MA	1919
Terminal Island Dry Docks	Naval Shipyard Long Beach	CA	1940
Washington Navy Yard	Washington Navy Yard	DC	1800

Source: United States Navy, Bureau of Yards and Docks, Building the Navy’s Bases in World War II (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1947).

The Axis nations’ military expansions during the late 1930s led the United States to increase its fleet even further. The 1938 Vinson Bill approved a 20 per cent increase in the Navy’s size. Until 1939, the Navy carried out most of the shore construction based on Bureau of Yards and Docks plans. The Bureau’s increasing work load caused the office to ask for and receive Congressional permission to use private architecture and engineering firms for most Navy building design work. Under this arrangement, the Bureau still undertook work of a confidential, specialized, or very repetitive nature. Such buildings normally were permanent. The numerous examples included a four-story shop structure built at Mare Island Navy Yard, new sheet metal, pipe, and electric shops erected at Charleston Navy Yard, a steel turret welding house at New York Navy Yard, and a machine shop erected at Puget Sound Navy Yard. Construction of additional dry docks was a crucial part of this expansion, because the Navy needed additional docks to augment its twenty-five extant structures. Anticipating the possible struggle against Japan, the Navy improved its Pacific bases. During the late 1930s, the Navy began to construct a 435-foot dry dock at the Mare Island Navy Yard to service submarines, small craft, and destroyers. Additionally, work was begun on two large dry docks at Puget Sound in 1938 and 1939 to accommodate the largest battleships planned for the Navy.

With the beginning of the protective mobilization period in 1940, the U.S. Navy entered into a massive fleet and shore establishment buildup. Congress passed a bill calling for the establishment of a "two-ocean" navy and increasing the existing force by 70 per cent. The massive increase in fleet size demanded more shore facilities, while placing severe constraints on the availability of steel and other essential materials. Due to the constraints of time and material shortages, the Bureau ordered that all new naval building construction, except for structures whose function or intended post-war use required permanent construction, consist of temporary construction. As a rule, Ben Moreell, Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, recommended that construction speed was the primary consideration in the construction of naval shore facilities, with cost or architectural planning ranking as secondary factors.

For the planned fleet buildup, the Navy established priorities for construction. In May 1940, the Bureau of Yards and Docks recommended that shipbuilding facilities receive the highest priority within this effort. On 11 June 1940, the passage of the Naval Appropriation Act initiated a massive naval building construction program. Later that year, the Navy convened the Greenslade Board to prepare a shore station master development plan to support the expanding fleet through 1946. The Secretary of the Navy eventually approved the Board’s recommendations and advised all naval shore facilities planning agencies to use the recommendations as a guide in planning new facilities. The board recommended that shipyards on the East and West Coasts should have the capacity to maintain up to sixty per cent of the contemplated fleet. The Board determined that installations on the Eastern Seaboard already possessed the ability to perform this work. The Greenslade plan recommended that no yard use more than twenty per cent of its capacity for ship construction, with the rest being utilized for ship repair in case the United States entered the war. Congress appropriated up to $350,000,000 for these improvements.

Of the structures built during the protective mobilization period, some of the most important were new dry docks to accommodate construction and repair of the Navy’s largest ships. The most valuable of these docks included Pearl Harbor Navy Yard’s 1,000-foot dry dock Number 2, which was capable of handling battleships, and 497-foot Dry Dock Number 3, which was able to dock ships as big as submarines and destroyers. Workers used relatively new underwater concrete pouring methods in the construction of these dry docks. Both of these structures used the tremie concrete-deposition method, named for the tremies or pipes used in the construction process. This method involved pouring concrete through nine, 17-inch pipes at 10-foot intervals into forms supported by steel piles driven into a foundation bed. Once the forms were filled, the concrete cured underwater, then a cofferdam of steel-reinforced concrete was constructed. With the cofferdam in place, water was pumped from the dock and the non-tremie concrete floor and side walls were built in dry conditions. This building method enabled the workers to finish the dry docks in approximately two years as compared to the 10 years required for Dry Dock No. 1 at Pearl Harbor.

Additionally, the Navy began construction on other large dry docks at the Norfolk, Philadelphia, and Mare Island Navy Yards. A 1,092-foot dock constructed at Norfolk and a similar structure built at Philadelphia were the Navy’s first "super docks" capable of handling the service’s largest battleships. The tremie concrete construction methods cut construction time as much as 75 per cent. Other smaller shipbuilding and repair docks started during this time included a 435-foot dry dock built for submarine production and submarine, destroyer, and small ship repair at Portsmouth, New Hampshire. At the Norfolk and New York Navy Yards, massive 350-ton hammerhead cranes dominated the skyline, while smaller cranes were operated at other yards.

Navy dry docks also were constructed using another engineering innovation known as the steel box caisson. This large box sealed the basin for pumping after the ship entered its interior. The Bureau of Yards and Docks first employed caissons in 1940. Other sealing structures for dry dock entrances included miter gates favored for European dry docks and recessed caissons utilized at British dry docks.

Following American entry into the war, the Navy hurriedly finished the dry docks then under construction and began new structures. Most of these dry docks were intended for ship repair. Examples include a 1,092-foot "super" dock and two smaller 420-foot docks built at the Hunter’s Point Repair Facility. Workers used tremie construction methods and also employed pre-cast concrete forms for the Hunter Point docks. Selected shipbuilding and repair dry docks were designed to accommodate specialized ships, including 365-foot docks built at Charleston for destroyer escort work.

By January 1945, the Navy had constructed 30 dry docks. These structures enabled the Navy to build and repair the multitude of ship types in the United States fleet that served during World War II. In addition to new dry docks, the Navy constructed shop and storage buildings at its yards. Examples include a turret shop building, foundry buildings, shipfitters assembly shops, and large machine shops. In May 1940, the Navy further augmented its repair capability with the acquisition of two new repair stations at Hunters Point, California, and Terminal Island, California.

With additional activity at the yards and the resulting increase in personnel, the Navy needed more housing at its facilities. The Navy built a six-story, reinforced-concrete receiving barracks at New York Navy Yard; at Philadelphia Navy Yard, the Navy constructed three-story, permanent, fireproof barracks to house up to 1,575 ships’ crew members and an eight-story, permanent quarters to house 50 officers and 875 enlisted men.

After the United States’ declaration of war, the Navy accelerated its existing fleet expansion program, augmented that work with specialized ship construction, and quickened its shore facility improvement effort. The Navy divided its existing warship construction and repair work between both coasts. Early heavy ship construction focused on launching battleships from East Coast facilities, including the New York and Philadelphia Navy Yards, but later turned to aircraft carriers as naval aviation dominated the fighting within the Pacific theater. By 1944, as Navy and private yards neared completion of new ships needed for the war against Japan,

Navy officials had redirected most of the facilities’ work towards ship repair.

The size of the Navy increased beyond all previous experience. Not only did the number of ships increase, but the types of ships changed. Although battleships remained a vital part of the fleet, aircraft carriers assumed greater prominence. New categories of ships included destroyer escorts (used in anti-submarine warfare), and landing craft (used for amphibious operations). These new vessels were produced in prefabricated sections and assembled at Navy yards.

Navy officials also directed the building of many industrial structures to build and maintain the fleet during the war. These buildings ranged from a galvanizing plant at Portsmouth Navy Yard to a boiler shop and material storage building and a field shop building constructed at Norfolk Navy Yard to a seven-story fireproof general storehouse and a steel-frame shipfitters shop built at Puget Sound.

Living quarters were an important part of permanent building construction at Navy yards during the war years. The increase in naval personnel stationed at these facilities, as well as ship crews located there temporarily while their ship was under repair, led to a need for more housing. For example, a four-story, concrete-frame and brick barrack with a 2,000-man capacity was built at Philadelphia in 1942. The Navy also built family housing for uniformed personnel or defense workers near its installations. These projects were completed in cooperation with federal housing programs and included new housing complexes at Charleston and Mare Island.

The navy yard building construction program reached its peak on the East Coast in early 1943. Building construction continued at a significant pace at West Coast navy yards until the end of the war. The total value of structures built for ship construction and repair purposes between 1 July 1940 and 31 December 1945 was $1,116,258,384.00 or 13.7 per cent of total building construction performed for the Navy shore establishment.

For the Navy, the buildup of its yards during the 1930s, mobilization, and declared war periods played a vital role in the support of the American fleet. The modest construction and modernization work on industrial buildings, dry docks, and building ways during the 1930s allowed the Navy to start a fleet enhancement program that prepared its facilities for even greater ship production and repair work later. During the navy yard emergency building construction work in mid-1940 and the expanded construction program after the Pearl Harbor attack, the Navy produced many of its warships and specialty vessels, such as destroyer escorts and landing craft. This building construction effort also produced a shore establishment capable of carrying out repair and refit work on the two-ocean U.S. fleet and ships from other nations. This massive industrial construction in support of the U.S. fleet was essential to the war effort.

Navy Bases and Stations

The Navy supported the fleet’s vessels and ships crews at naval bases and stations. Naval operational facilities fell into two categories: naval operating bases, and smaller operating bases (Table 7). Naval operating bases provided "safe anchorage for combatant and auxiliary vessels, replenishment of fuel, ammunition, and supplies, facilities for making minor repairs, [and] recreational and hospital facilities for personnel." Examples of this type of installation included Naval Operating Base Norfolk and the Naval Base Pearl Harbor, which were distinct from the yards at those locations. Naval operating bases had administrative control over activities such as Marine Corps barracks, training functions, naval air stations, and supply depots located within the installation’s boundaries. The second type of operational facilities were small operating bases that had the capacity to handle "specific types of vessels [and were] known as destroyer bases, submarine bases,... They are equipped to furnish rapid servicing and repairs for these smaller vessels, and accommodations for their personnel, so that the larger yards will be left free for larger vessels." These facilities included the New London Submarine Base, Connecticut, and the San Diego Destroyer Base, California.

TABLE 7: WORLD WAR II NAVY OPERATING BASES

WWII Name	Current Name	Location	Date Established
Fleet Operating Base Terminal Island	Naval Shipyard Long Beach	CA	1940
Naval Base Dutch Harbor	N/A	AK	1942
Naval Operations Base Kodiak	CG Base Kodiak	AK	1941
Naval Operating Base Norfolk	Naval Base Norfolk	VA	1917
Naval Destroyer Base San Diego/Naval Repair Base San Diego (renamed in 1943)	Naval Station San Diego	CA	1922
New London Submarine Base	Naval Base New London	CT	1915
Pearl Harbor Navy Base	Naval Facility Pearl Harbor	HI	1900

Source: United States Navy, Bureau of Yards and Docks, Building the Navy’s Bases in World War II (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1947).

Like Navy yards, naval operating bases were improved only modestly during the 1930s. Following the fall of France, however, Navy bases played an increasingly important role in American mobilization. The Pacific Fleet transferred to Pearl Harbor in 1940 to discourage further Japanese aggression. The newly created Atlantic Fleet established its headquarters at Naval Operating Base Norfolk. The Norfolk base also played an important role as the staging area for neutrality patrols on the East Coast.

As part of the mobilization efforts, the Navy increased its building construction programs at naval operational facilities. As a general rule, operating bases required fewer permanent buildings than Navy yards. However, in cases where construction was intended to outlast the war, the Navy chose permanent construction. For example, the Navy expanded a brick power plant at the Norfolk naval base to meet the base’s additional requirements for electricity. At the San Diego destroyer base, the Navy built a graving dry dock to repair smaller ships.

Smaller operational installations also received permanent construction during the war. The New London Submarine base, which served as the home for a number of submarines operating in the Atlantic and a training facility for submariners, is a typical example. Among the structures built were "keyport" torpedo warhead storage magazines, a small arms magazine, a pyrotechnic magazine, two fixed-ammunition magazines, and a fuze magazine.

Like Navy yards, naval operational facilities were the site of projects to provide low-cost housing to Navy personnel and civilian workers. The first and most noted of these developments was Ben Moreell Park, in Norfolk, Virginia, which was intended for the families of enlisted Navy personnel. The project consisted of 57 twelve-family apartments, 11 two-family apartments, and 24 fourteen-family apartments. Buildings were steel frame with either stucco or asbestos siding. The first phase of the project was completed in May 1940 with another 300 units ready for residents by October of the next year.

Training Installations

Mobilization of personnel was one critical aspect in preparing for war. Mobilization required expansion of existing training facilities and extensive new construction. Both the War and Navy Departments sought to use temporary construction for operations and training wherever possible, although some permanent construction was unavoidable or else considered desirable. During the early phases of the protective mobilization period, the Army and Navy anticipated a long term expansion of their forces, and constructed permanent buildings. Even temporary mobilization installations required some permanent buildings, while special purpose facilities required permanent structures. Air Corps training installations are included under the section entitled "Army Air Forces Installations."

In June 1940, the United States Army quickened its mobilization activities to train personnel in response to the situation in Europe. In the fall of 1939, Army personnel numbered a little more than 200,000 men. By November 1944, the Army had facilities to house and train six million troops in the continental United States. Most of the troops were billeted in temporary wood-frame construction. Only 270,000 out of the six million troops were housed in permanent buildings. Table 8 provides a list of Army mobilization camps.

Although temporary construction was the norm for mobilization training camps, some installations received permanent construction to support either the camps or long term expansion.

TABLE 8: WORLD WAR II ARMY MOBILIZATION TRAINING CAMPS

WWII Name	Current Name	Location	Date Established
Camp Adair	N/A	OR	1943
Camp Atterbury	N/A	IN	1942
Camp Barkeley	N/A	TX	1941
Camp Beale	N/A	CA	1941
Camp Beauregard	N/A	LA	1917
Camp Blanding	N/A	FL	1939
Fort Belvoir	Fort Belvoir	VA	1912
Fort Benning	Fort Benning	GA	1919
Fort Bliss	Fort Bliss	TX	1890
Camp Bowie	N/A	TX	1917
Fort Brady	N/A	MI	1892
Fort Bragg	Fort Bragg	NC	1918
Camp Branch	N/A	NC	1942
Camp Breckinridge	N/A	KY	1941
Camp Bullis	Fort Sam Houston	TX	1917
Camp Butner	N/A	NC	1942
Camp Callan	N/A	CA	1940
Camp Campbell	Fort Campbell	KY	1942
Camp Carson	Fort Carson	CO	1942
Camp Chaffee	Fort Chaffee	AR	1942
Camp Claiborne	N/A	LA	1940
Fort Clark	N/A	TX	1852
Camp Cooke	N/A	CA	1942
Camp Croft	N/A	SC	1941
Fort Custer	N/A	MI	1917
Camp Davis	N/A	NC	1941
Fort Devens	Fort Devens	MA	1917
Fort Dix	Fort Dix	NJ	1917
Camp Edwards	N/A	MA	1941
Camp Ellis	N/A	IL	1942
Fort Ethan Allen	Fort Ethan Allen	VT	1892
Fort Eustis	Fort Eustis	VA	1918
Camp Forrest	N/A	TN	1941
Camp Funston	Fort Riley	KS	1942
Camp Gillespie	N/A	CA	1942
Camp Gordon	Fort Gordon	GA	1941
Camp Grayling	N/A	MI	1911
Camp Grant	N/A	IL	1918
Camp Gruber	N/A	OK	1942
Camp Guernsey	N/A	WY	1932 ca
Camp Haan	N/A	CA	1941
Fort Benjamin Harrison	Fort Benjamin Harrison	IN	1903
Fort A.P. Hill	Fort A.P. Hill	VA	1941
Camp Hood	Fort Hood	TX	1941
Camp Howze	N/A	TX	1941
Fort Huachuca	Fort Huachuca	AZ	1882
Camp Hulen	N/A	TX	1940
Hunter Liggett Military Reservation	Fort Ord (sub-post)	CA	1941
Indiantown Gap Military Reservation	Fort Indiantown Gap	PA	1931
Camp Irwin	Fort Irwin	CA	1940
Fort Jackson	Fort Jackson	SC	1917
Fort Knox	Fort Knox	KY	1918
Camp Kohler	N/A	CA	1942
Camp Langdon	N/A	NH	1941
Fort Lawton	N/A	WA	1891
Fort Leavenworth	Fort Leavenworth	KS	1827
Camp Lee	Fort Lee	VA	1917
Fort Leonard Wood	Fort Leonard Wood	MO	1940
Fort Lewis	Fort Lewis	WA	1917
Camp Livingston	N/A	LA	1940
Camp Luna	N/A	NM	1942
Fort MacArthur	N/A	CA	1888
Camp MacQuaide	N/A	CA	1940
Madison Barracks	N/A	NY	1815
Camp Maxey	N/A	TX	1942
Camp McCain	N/A	MS	1942
Fort McClellan	Fort McClellan	AL	1917
Camp McCoy	N/A	WI	1909
Fort Meade	Fort Meade	MD	1917
Camp Millard	N/A	OH	1941
Fort Monmouth	Fort Monmouth	NJ	1917
Camp Murphy	N/A	FL	1942
Fort Myer	Fort Myer	VA	1863
Fort Oglethorpe	N/A	GA	1903
Fort Ord	Fort Ord	CA	1917
Camp Phillips	N/A	KS	1942
Camp Pickett	Fort Pickett (subinstallation of Fort Lee)	VA	1942
Camp Pike	Camp Joseph T. Robinson (National Guard)	AR	1917
Camp Pinedale	N/A	CA	1942
Pine Camp	Fort Drum	NY	1908
Camp Plauche	N/A	LA	1942
Camp Polk	Fort Polk	LA	1941
Camp Rapid	N/A	SD	1925
Camp (William C.) Reid	N/A	NM	1942
Camp Reynolds	N/A	PA	1942
Fort Riley	Fort Riley	KS	1852
Camp Ritchie	Fort Ritchie	MD	1926
Camp Roberts	N/A	CA	1941
Camp Rodman	Aberdeen Proving Ground	MD	1941
Camp Rucker	Fort Rucker	AL	1942
Fort Sam Houston	Fort Sam Houston	TX
Camp San Luis Obispo	N/A	CA	1928
Camp Santa Anita	N/A	CA	1942
Camp Savage	N/A	MN	1942
Schofield Barracks	Schofield Barracks	HI	1908
Camp (Thomas A.) Scott	N/A	IN	1942
Camp Seeley	N/A	CA	1942
Camp Shanks	N/A	NJ	1943
Camp Shelby	N/A	MS	1917
Fort Sheridan	Fort Sheridan	IL	1887
Camp Sibert	N/A	AL	1943
Fort Sill	Fort Sill	OK	1869
Fort Snelling	N/A	MN	1819
Camp Stewart	Fort Stewart	GA	1940
Camp Swift	N/A	TX	1942
Camp Sutton	N/A	NC	1942
Camp Toccoa	N/A	GA	1943
Camp Travis	Fort Sam Houston	TX	1917
Camp (Jesse) Turner	N/A	AR	1942
Camp Tyson	N/A	TN	1942
Camp Upton	N/A	NY	1917
Camp Van Dorn	N/A	MS	1942
Camp Wallace	N/A	TX	1941
Camp White	N/A	OR	1942
Camp Whiteside	Fort Riley	KS	1924
Camp Wolters	Fort Wolters	TX	1941
Camp (Charles) Wood	Fort Monmouth	NJ	1942
Camp Young	N/A	CA	1942

Sources: Union Pacific Railroad, "Geographically Correct Map of the United States Issued by Union Pacific Railroad," Missouri Historical Society, St. Louis, 1942.

Robert B. Roberts, Encyclopedia of Historic Forts (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1988).

Typical support facilities that required permanent construction included water or sewage treatment facilities and associated wells, pumps, and collection and distribution infrastructure; electrical distribution infrastructure; heating plants/boiler houses; cold storage; shops; ammunition magazines; and, general and specialized storage facilities. Some specialized projects also were constructed. Fort Knox, for example, was the site of an extensive enlisted family housing project sponsored by the Federal Works Agency; however, the housing at Fort Knox, reflecting the growing war emergency, was built of semi-permanent construction and did not resemble the inter-war housing.

In 1939, the number of Navy personnel was 110,000; by September 1945, personnel numbered 3,009,380. These vast numbers of personnel passed through the Navy’s training stations (Table 9). The Navy entered the war years with four existing recruit training stations: Newport, Rhode Island; Great Lakes, Illinois; Norfolk, Virginia; and, San Diego, California. Norfolk was the largest of the four training stations. At that time, the Norfolk station had facilities for 10,000 men. The demand for new personnel rapidly outstripped the capacity of these stations. After the German invasion of France in May 1940, the authorized number of naval personnel was increased to 172,000. The existing training stations were expanded during the Protective Mobilization phase, with permanent barracks, mess halls, and recreation facilities that were streamlined versions of the inter-war construction built by the Navy. New construction could not keep up with the ever-expanding number of recruits. By the end of 1941, the training stations were severely overcrowded. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, recruits flocked to the Navy. Construction was immediately increased to accommodate the influx of recruits and the Navy planned new training stations built of temporary construction. The criteria for the locations of the new stations were: large areas of cleared, level land; proximity to a body of water; proximity to a city for liberty calls; adequate access to rail and road networks; availability of utilities; and, an adequate labor supply for construction. The three new stations opened in 1942 were: Bainbridge, in Maryland; Farrugut, in Idaho; and, Sampson, in New York. These stations were constructed primarily of temporary construction.

The Navy also constructed specialized training stations in addition to recruit training stations. Specialized training consisted of schools, where individuals received additional training in specific skills, and operational training, where groups of personnel participated in "team" training. During World War II, the Navy operated its schools in a variety of places, including factories, colleges, hotels, private houses, and trade schools, in addition to navy yards and other naval shore facilities. Operational training included a wide variety of activities at disparate installations: Acorn assembly and training at Port Hueneme, California; airship training at Lakehurst, New Jersey; amphibious training at San Diego (Coronado), California, Solomon’s Island, Maryland, Little Creek, Virginia, and Ft. Pierce, Florida; anti-aircraft training at Lido Beach, New York, Pacific Beach, Washington, Point Montara, California, Newport, Rhode Island, Shell Beach, Louisiana, and Dam Neck, Virginia; minecraft training at Little Creek; pre-commissioning training at Treasure Island, California; small craft training at San Pedro, California; and, training in mine warfare at the newly established Mine Warfare School at Yorktown, Virginia. Some specialized training was accommodated at existing installations, while specialized facilities were developed for some kinds of training. Advance base personnel depots were established to provide training to units of men already assembled into functional units. The Navy built additional camps for anti-aircraft and amphibious training. These facilities typically featured temporary construction; however, in some cases specialized training facilities might receive permanent construction if temporary construction would not hold up under intensive use.

As the emergency turned into a declared war, materials shortages grew more acute and temporary construction became standard for both the War and Navy Departments. The War Department created new installations that were almost all temporary buildings, and added new sections of temporary construction to existing installations. Later, the War Department employed "theater-of-operations" construction, which consisted of tar paper tacked to thin wooden frames. Nevertheless, some functions at the mobilization camps required permanent structures. For example, perishable subsistence required buildings with masonry walls to ensure cold storage. Ammunition was stored in concrete "igloos" to minimize the dangers of explosion. Water, sewerage, or laundry plants were built using permanent construction. Flammable materials, including packaged petroleum products or paint, were sometimes stored in permanent buildings. These support buildings were minor elements of training and operational installments.

TABLE 9. WWII NAVY TRAINING STATIONS AND BASES

WWII-era Name	Current Name	Location	Date Established
Recruit Training
Naval Training Station Bainbridge	N/A	MD	1942
Naval Training Station Farragut	N/A	ID	1942
Naval Training Station Great Lakes	Naval Training Center Great Lakes	IL	1911
Naval Training Station Newport	Naval Education and Training Center Newport	RI	1883
Naval Training Station Norfolk	Naval Base Norfolk	VA	1917
Naval Training Station Sampson	N/A	NY	1942
Naval Training Station San Diego	Naval Station San Diego	CA	1917
Specialized Training *
Advanced Base Personnel Depot San Bruno	N/A	CA	1943
Naval Amphibious Training Base Fort Pierce	N/A	FL	1943
Naval Amphibious Training Base Galveston	N/A	TX	1943
Naval Amphibious Training Base Little Creek	Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek	VA	1942
Naval Amphibious Training Base Morro Bay	N/A	CA	1943
Naval Amphibious Training Base Ocracoke	N/A	NC	1943
Naval Amphibious Training Base Panama City	Panama City Coastal Systems Station	FL	1943
Naval Amphibious Training Base San Diego	Naval Amphibious Base Coronado	CA	1943
Naval Amphibious Training Base Solomon’s Island	N/A	MD	1942
Naval Mine Warfare School Yorktown	N/A (Coast Guard)	VA	1918

• The U.S. Navy conducted specialized and operational training in many places and under various designations during World War II. Other training programs were carried out at other naval facilities, including air stations, operating bases, and shipyards.

Other permanent structures served training functions. Some of these buildings and structures employed unique designs. The 250-foot towers for training airborne units were dramatic examples of permanent training structures. Each tower included four arms that could accommodate an open parachute canopy. Soldiers were placed in the parachute harnesses on the ground and lifted 250 feet off the ground. The descent would simulate a parachute jump. Swimming pools, especially those constructed on Navy or Marine Corps training installations, were used for teaching water survival skills more than for recreation.

Army Air Forces Installations

In the years between World War I and World War II, the Army’s air arm underwent a period of mixed progress and stagnation. Experience during the First World War had established the utility of military aviation and fostered the conviction among a group of Army officers that future wars would be decided by air power. Moreover, Army aviation profited from steadily improving civilian aircraft technology. Yet the growth of military aviation was limited by the general lack of interest in military affairs during the 1920s and early 1930s. With limited appropriations for all its activities, the Army could not afford to take full advantage of the technological improvements in aviation.

Discord between air and ground officers further complicated the development of Army aviation. Led by Billy Mitchell, numerous air officers believed that future wars would be decided by strategic air warfare. In this view long range bombing would replace ground combat. Consequently, they favored the development of heavy bombers at the expense of smaller aircraft. They further argued that the nation’s air component should be independent from the Army, creating a separate Air Force. Mitchell’s argumentative style led to a well publicized court-martial that prompted endless inquiries and boards to study the future of Army aviation. Air power advocates received recognition when the Army Air Service was upgraded to the Air Corps in 1926. In 1935, the Air Corps received a further boost with the creation of a General Headquarters for the Army Air Forces. This headquarters was the command element for air units that could be employed as a strategic force. The Chief of the Air Corps continued to supervise the administration and logistical support of Army air units.

Air Corps installations reflected the uneven growth of Army aviation. Most of the airfields constructed during World War I were closed after the war. Airfield construction received a boost from the 1935 Wilcox Act, which emphasized construction of airfields along the nation’s borders to protect the United States against hostile air attacks. By the close of the inter-war period, the Air Corps operated slightly more than 20 airfields.

With the increasing tensions in Europe and Asia, the Air Corps received its share of new appropriations during the late 1930s. The War and Navy Departments developed a series of contingency plans for fighting multiple enemies, known as the "RAINBOW" plans. The final revision, RAINBOW 5, emphasized the role of the Air Corps in frontier air defenses and air power projection.

McChord Field, near Tacoma, Washington is an excellent example of an air field constructed during the late 1930s after the adoption of RAINBOW 5. In 1938, this area was considered the Northwest Frontier and McChord was built to provide air defense for the Puget Sound Navy Yard and the Boeing aircraft plant in Seattle, and medium bomber support to the Navy. Construction at McChord was extensive and designed to be permanent. The airfield housed a mix of pursuit and medium bomber aircraft. Taking advantage of the freedom in site selection given by the Wilcox Act and funding from a generous Congress, the Air Corps built McChord to be a show place of air power. Contractors built four 350 by 500 ft. steel and concrete hangars, a hospital, power plant, housing, and one of the largest brick barracks in the United States at the time. Although the construction contracts were under Quartermaster Corps control, the Air Corps selected the designs for buildings directly related to aircraft operations.

Other facilities were built around the country to complement the nation’s air defense system (Table 10). These air bases, including Elmendorf in Alaska, Hanscom and Westover in Massachusetts, MacDill in Florida, and McGuire in New Jersey, were all built to bolster the defense of the United States. Operations bases were only part of the overall network of facilities designed to meet national defense requirements. Like other arms of the military, the Air Corps underwent rapid expansion during the protective mobilization period. Pilots, aircrew, and technicians, both officer and enlisted, required suitable technical instruction; therefore, the Air Corps needed to expand its training facilities.

During 1940, the Air Corps surveyed the nation for suitable civilian airports that could be leased for the emergency. Eager to attract defense spending, municipal governments frequently offered to lease airports and adjoining land for one dollar per year. At the same time, the Quartermaster Corps construction division issued contracts to expand existing training facilities at Chanute Air Base, Illinois; Kelly Field, Texas; Lowry Field, Colorado; Maxwell Field, Alabama; and, Randolph Field, Texas. New construction at these fields was a mix of temporary and permanent construction. The expansion of Kelly Field, Texas, included a wide range of construction, from large, reinforced-concrete hangars to tent cities. At Lowry Field, the War Department authorized construction of new buildings, including an 850-man barracks. Construction was incomplete when the Protective Mobilization Plan was announced, and new soldiers were quartered in tents until September 1940. Thereafter, construction at Lowry was primarily temporary. The service members lucky enough to live in the brick barracks called their new home "Buckingham Palace." At other locations, the Army eventually resorted to leased hotels for troop housing.

The mobilization program strained the capacity of the Construction Division of the Quartermaster Corps’ centralized management techniques. The Corps of Engineers seemed better suited for many construction projects because it used a decentralized management system, with district offices. To expedite construction, Congress gave the Secretary of War permission to shift the responsibility of Air Corps construction to the Corps of Engineers in late 1940. The engineers displayed ingenuity and flexibility in meeting the needs of the Air Corps. Utilizing the methods of large contract management gained from major river and harbor projects, the Corps of Engineers quickly took control of Air Corps construction projects.

The transfer of construction responsibility to the Corps of Engineers produced tension between the engineers and Colonel Frank Kennedy, chief of the Air Corps Buildings and Grounds Division. In 1940 and 1941, Colonel Kennedy, as the Air Corps point of contact to the engineers, set himself up as the air field design expert. Engineer officers complained that Kennedy prepared air field layouts from his office in Washington, D.C., without ever having visited the site, and dabbled in design.

TABLE 10: WORLD WAR II ARMY AIRFIELDS NOW ACTIVE DoD INSTALLATIONS

Original Name	Current Name	Location	Date Established
Hurlbert Field	Eglin AFB Auxiliary Field #9	FL	1943
Altus Army Air Field	Altus AFB	OK	1942
Camp Springs Air Base	Andrews AFB	MD	1943
Barksdale Field	Barksdale AFB	LA	1930
Del Valle Airfield	Bergstrom AFB	TX	1942
Blytheville Air Field	Blytheville AFB	AR	1942
Bolling Field	Bolling AFB	DC	1917
Brooks Field	Brooks AFB	TX	1918
Clovis Air Field	Cannon AFB	NM	1942
Tarrant Field	Carswell AFB	TX	1942
Merced Field	Castle AFB	CA	1941
Chanute Field	Chanute AFB	IL	1917
Charleston Field	Charleston AFB	SC	1941
Columbus Field	Columbus AFB	MS	1941
Davis-Monthan Field	Davis-Monthan AFB	AZ	1940
Cobb County Field	Dobbin AFB	GA	1943
Dover Army Air Base	Dover AFB	DE	1941
Abilene Air Base	Dyess AFB	TX	1942
Muroc Army Air Field	Edwards AFB	CA	1933
Eglin Field	Eglin AFB	FL	1935
Mile 26 Satellite Field	Eielson AFB	AK	1943
Rapid City Air Base	Ellsworth AFB	SD	1942
Elmendorf Air Field	Elmendorf AFB	AK	1940
Alexandria Air Base	England AFB	LA	1943
Victorville Air Field	George AFB	CA	1941
San Angelo Flying Field	Goodfellow AFB	TX	1940
Gunter Air Field	Gunter AFB	AL	1940
Bedford Air Field	Hanscom AFB	MA	1942
Hickam Field	Hickam AFB	HI	1935
Alamogordo Air Field	Holloman AFB	NM	1942
Homestead Air Field	Homestead AFB	FL	1942
Biloxi Air Corps School	Keesler AFB	MS	1941
Kelly Field	Kelly AFB	TX	1917
San Antonio Cadet Center	Lackland AFB	TX	1941
Langley Field	Langley AFB	VA	1916
Laughlin Air Field	Laughlin AFB	TX	1942
Lowry Field	Lowry AFB	CO	1937
Litchfield Park Air Base	Luke AFB	AZ	1941
MacDill Field	MacDill AFB	FL	1939
Great Falls Air Field	Malstrom AFB	MT	1942
March Field	March AFB	CA	1918
Mather Field	Mather AFB	CA	1918
Maxwell Field	Maxwell AFB	AL	1918
Yuma Army Air Field	MCAS Yuma	AZ	1941
McChord Field	McChord AFB	WA	1940
Wichita Air Base	McConnell Air Force Base	KS	1942
Fort Dix Air Field	McGuire AFB	NJ	1937
Moody Field	Moody AFB	GA	1941
Mountain Home Air Field	Mountain Home AFB	ID	1942
Myrtle Beach Air Field	Myrtle Beach AFB	SC	1941
Las Vegas Air Field	Nellis AFB	NV	1941
San Bernardino Air Field	Norton AFB	CA	1942
Air Support Command Base	Peterson AFB	CO	1942
Pope Field	Pope AFB	NC	1919
Randolph Field	Randolph AFB	TX	1930
Lubbock Army Air Field	Reese AFB	TX	1941
Napier Army Air Field	Fort Rucker	AL	1940
Scott Field	Scott AFB	IL	1917
Seymore Johnson Field	Seymore Johnson AFB	NC	1942
Shaw Field	Shaw AFB	SC	1941
Shemya Army Air Field	Shemya AFB	AK	1943
Sheppard Field	Sheppard AFB	TX	1941
Fairfield-Suisun Air Base	Travis AFB	CA	1943
Tyndall Field	Tyndall AFB	FL	1941
Enid Army Flying School	Vance AFB	OK	1941
Westover Field	Westover AFB	MA	1939
Wheeler Field	Wheeler AFB	HI	1922
Sedilia Glider Base	Whiteman AFB	MO	1942
Mesa Military Airport	Williams AFB	AZ	1941
Wright Field	Wright-Patterson AFB	OH	1927
Patterson Field	Wright Patterson AFB	OH	1931
Oscoda Army Air Field	Wurtsmith AFB	MI	1924

Source: Robert Mueller, Air Force Bases: Active Air Force Bases Within the United States of America on 17 September 1982 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1989).

By early 1942, however, cooperation between the Air Corps and the Corps of Engineers became the hallmark of construction operations and the Air Corps began to restructure their headquarters for wartime operations. Congress recognized the administrative and operational skills displayed by the Corps of Engineers and, on 16 December 1941, it transferred all construction functions to the Corps of Engineers.

With America’s entry into World War II, the Air Corps suddenly assumed a new mission of anti-submarine warfare. German submarines threatened to sink British ships faster than they could be replaced, and the Allies sought a means to counter this threat. In pre-war planning, however, the Air Corps had not envisioned anti-submarine warfare as part of its operations, and therefore lacked a clearly defined doctrine for that type of operation. Nevertheless, since the Navy lacked the necessary land-based aircraft for coastal patrols, the Air Corps assumed this mission until the Navy could acquire the necessary aircraft.

The Air Corps worked to develop their aircraft to match the mission at hand and utilized coastal air facilities to their fullest extent. On 17 June 1942, the Air Corps established the 1^st Sea-Search Attack Group (1^st SSAG) at Langley Field, Virginia. The technical work of the 1^st SSAG was vital to the success of the combined Army-Navy anti-submarine warfare campaign. Using devices tested by the Group, including the absolute altimeter, the magnetic anomaly detector, and radiosonic buoys, the Air Corps harassed and destroyed German U-boats both night and day. Anti-submarine squadrons operated from long established bases such as Langley, and from newly built air fields, such as Westover, Massachusetts, and Fort Dix Field (now McGuire AFB), New Jersey.

As the Air Corps shifted to a wartime footing operational requirements exceeded the capacity of existing bases. New additions to Air Corps facilities were constructed from less critical materials such as timber, masonry, or concrete, preferably timber. At smaller training fields, the standard four runway configuration was changed to two runways. The Air Corps directed that all construction on private land leased for the duration of the war be limited to temporary buildings, including hangars and control towers, except at tactical anti-submarine bases. The Air Corps Plans and Design Branch designed aircraft hangars based on the criteria that they be easily expandable to accommodate larger aircraft, use the least expensive type of door, have interior shops, and have access from both ends.

As early as 1941, the Air Corps planned to introduce a super heavy bomber into its inventory. The B-29 "Superfortress" could travel greater distances and carry heavier loads than any previous bomber. One of the problems associated with the new bomber was construction of runways that could accommodate the planes’ heavy loads of up to 140,000 pounds. Existing highway construction theory had limited applicability for such demands, therefore the Corps of Engineers had to develop new construction techniques. Working with civilian engineers, especially experts in soil engineering, the Corps of Engineers pioneered new theories on the ability of soil to withstand pressure, and constructed runways with thicker bases of crushed stone. This research not only allowed the United States to employ the B-29 and later bombers, but it also contributed significantly to the growth of civilian aviation after the war.

The final blow to Japan came with the use of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. The specially organized 509^th Composite Group delivered the atomic bomb. To prepare for its mission, the Group initiated a program of secret training using B-29 bombers at Wendover Field, Utah, to practice the delivery of the exceptionally heavy load. The success and secrecy of the operation attested to the successful training program.

From 1938 to 1945, the war cost approximately 350 billion dollars, of which the Air Corps used an estimated 3.2 billion dollars for the construction and leasing of facilities. In cooperation with the Quartermaster Corps Construction Branch, and later the Corps of Engineers, the Air Corps expanded from a handful of facilities in 1939 to a peak of 783 operational facilities by the war’s end. Of these 345 were main bases, 116 were sub-bases, and 322 were auxiliary fields.

Navy and Marine Corps Air Stations

During the inter-war years, naval aviation occupied an important position, but was decidedly secondary to the Navy’s battleships. As late as 1940, a Navy War College study emphasized that 1,200 aircraft were required to carry as much ordnance as one battleship, while downplaying the greater range of carrier-based aviation. The successful Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor, followed by the critical role of naval aviation in the battles of Coral Sea and Midway, suddenly placed naval aviation at the forefront of the war in the Pacific. The expansion of Navy aviation facilities was commensurate with the growth of the Navy’s air arm. In 1939, the Navy operated 11 air stations and 8 reserve bases; by the war’s end, the Navy included nearly 80 air stations and numerous satellite fields. The Navy divided its aviation program into three types: Navy heavier-than-air (HTA); Navy lighter-than-air (LTA); and, Marine Corps heavier-than-air. The Navy HTA program was further divided into seaplanes and landplanes.

During the 1920s and 1930s, the Navy Department operated relatively few aviation facilities. Pensacola Naval Air Station had been the primary naval aviation training station since 1914. The San Diego Naval Air Station complemented Pensacola in training Navy and Marine Corps aviators. Operating air stations for the Navy and Marine Corps included facilities at Norfolk, Anacostia, and Quantico. Lighter-than-air installations at Lakehurst and Moffett Field completed the Navy’s air stations. In keeping with the slow but steady growth of Navy aviation, each of these installations received minor improvements during the pre-war period.

During the late 1930s, the Navy began to improve its aviation installations as part of a general improvement program for its shore facilities. Eight new reserve air stations were added at Squantum, Massachusetts; New York, New York; Miami, Florida; Grosse Isle, Michigan; Glenview, Illinois; Minneapolis, Minnesota; St. Louis, Missouri; and, Oakland, California. These bases required minimal construction; buildings were limited to those that housed planes and personnel. Other West Coast air stations at Seattle, Washington; Alameda, California; and San Pedro, California, served as operational bases. As the probability of war with Japan increased, the Navy added to its aviation facilities in the Pacific, most notably at Kaneohe Bay in Hawaii, and Sitka, Alaska. Existing installations also received additional funding.

With American mobilization in 1940, construction of Navy aviation facilities acquired a new urgency (Table 11). German submarine activity in the Atlantic Ocean prompted the Navy to establish more bases for seaplane patrols of the Atlantic. Stations with landing fields to train carrier pilots were also necessary. New stations built during the mobilization period included installations at Jacksonville and Banana River, Florida; Quonset Point, Rhode Island; Floyd Bennett Field, New York; and, Cape May, New Jersey, plus some smaller fields. The Navy assumed control of British bases in the Caribbean under President Roosevelt’s plan to provide the British with 50 destroyers in exchange for rent-free leases on British bases in North and South America. By the end of June 1941, the Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics reported that the Navy owned 13 East Coast stations, 10 Caribbean stations, 6 West Coast stations, 3 Alaskan stations, and 9 Pacific stations.

Despite significant increases in the number of air stations, America’s entry into the war again required more bases. The Navy established a war time goal of 27,000 thousand aircraft, which required shore facility support, including training stations and bases for anti-submarine patrols.

TABLE 11: WORLD WAR II NAVAL AIR STATIONS

WWII Name	Current Name	Location	Date Established
Beeville Auxiliary Field	Naval Air Station Beeville	TX	1943
Cecil Auxiliary Field	Naval Air Station Cecil Field	FL	1941
Corry Auxiliary Field	Corry Station	FL	1931
Ellyson Auxiliary Field	N/A	FL	1941
Fallon Auxiliary Field	Naval Air Station Fallon	NV	1943
Floyd Bennett Field	N/A	NY	1940
Lee Field	Naval Air Station Jacksonville	FL	1940
Moffett Field*	Naval Air Station Moffett Field	CA	1931
Naval Air Facility Cold Bay	N/A	AK	1942
Naval Air Field Amchitka	N/A	AK	1943
Naval Air Station Akron	N/A	OH	1930
Naval Air Station Alameda	Naval Air Station Alameda	CA	1940
Naval Air Station Anacostia	Naval Station Anacostia	DC	1918
Naval Air Station Astoria (Tongue Point)	N/A	OR	1942
Naval Air Station Atlanta	N/A	GA	1940
Naval Air Station Atlantic City	N/A	NJ	1942
Naval Air Station Banana River	Patrick AFB	FL	1940
Naval Air Station Barbers Point	Naval Air Station Barbers Point	HI	1942
Naval Air Station Brunswick	N/A	GA	1942
Naval Air Station Brunswick	Naval Air Station Brunswick	ME	1942
Naval Air Station Bunker Hill	Grissom AFB	IN	1942
Naval Air Station Cape May	USCG Recruit Training Center	NJ	1942
Naval Air Station Charleston	Naval Base Charleston	SC
Naval Air Station Clinton	N/A	OK	1942
Naval Air Station Corpus Christi	Naval Air Station Corpus Christi	TX	1940
Naval Air Station Daytona Beach	N/A	FL	1942
Naval Air Station DeLand	N/A	FL	1942
Naval Air Station Fort Lauderdale	N/A	FL	1942
Naval Air Station Glenview	Naval Air Station Glenview	IL	1942
Naval Air Station Glynco*	N/A	GA	1943
Naval Air Station Grand Prairie	Naval Air Station Dallas	TX	1940
Naval Air Station Grosse Isle	N/A	MI	1942
Naval Air Station Hitchcock*	N/A	TX	1943
Naval Air Station Houma*	Naval Air Station New Orleans	LA	1943
Naval Air Station Hutchinson	N/A	KS	1942
Naval Air Station Jacksonville	Naval Air Station Jacksonville	FL	1940
Naval Air Station Klamath Falls	N/A	OR	1943
Naval Air Station Kaneohe Bay	MCAS Kaneohe Bay	HI	1939
Naval Air Station Key West	Naval Air Station Key West	FL	1941
Naval Air Station Kingsville	Naval Air Station Kingsville	TX	1943
Naval Air Station Lake City	N/A	FL	1942
Naval Air Station Lakehurst*	Naval Air Warfare Center Lakehurst	NJ	1925
Naval Air Station Los Alamitos	Los Alamitos Reserve Center	CA	1941
Naval Air Station Melbourne	N/A	FL	1942
Naval Air Station Memphis	Naval Air Station Memphis	TN	1942
Naval Air Station Miami	N/A	FL	1940
Naval Air Station Miami	CGAS Operations Locka	FL	1942
Naval Air Station Minneapolis	N/A	MN	1942
Naval Air Station New York	CGAS New York	NY	1941
Naval Air Station New Orleans	Naval Air Station New Orleans	LA	1940
Naval Air Station Norfolk	Naval Air Station Norfolk	VA	1918
Naval Air Station Norman	N/A	OK	1942
Naval Air Station Oakland	N/A	CA	late 1930s (reserve)
Naval Air Station Olathe	NAVAIRRESCEN Olathe	KS	1942
Naval Air Station Ottumwa	N/A	IA	1942
Naval Air Station Pasco	N/A	WA	1942
Naval Air Station Patuxent River	Naval Air Station Patuxent River	MD	1942
Naval Air Station Pensacola	Naval Air Station Pensacola	FL	1914
Naval Air Station Peru	N/A	IN	1942
Naval Air Station Quonset Point	N/A	RI	1940
Naval Air Station Richmond*	N/A	FL	1943
Naval Air Station St. Louis	N/A	MO	1930s
Naval Air Station San Diego	Naval Air Station North Island	CA	1919
Naval Air Station San Pedro (Reeves Field)	N/A	CA	1938
Naval Air Station Santa Ana*	Marine Corps Air Station Tustin	CA	1942
Naval Air Station Seattle (Sand Point)	N/A	WA	1938
Naval Air Station Sitka	N/A	AK	1939
Naval Air Station South Weymouth*	Naval Air Station South Weymouth	MA	1943
Naval Air Station Squantum	N/A	MA	ca. 1935 (reserve)
Naval Air Station Tillamook*	N/A	OR	1943
Naval Air Station Vero Beach	N/A	FL	1942
Naval Air Station Washington	Naval Station Anacostia	DC	1918
Naval Air Station Weeksville*	CGAS Elizabeth City	NC	1942
Naval Air Station Whidbey Island	Naval Air Station Whidbey Island	WA	1941
Naval Air Station Willow Grove	Naval Air Station Willow Grove	PA	1942
Naval Auxiliary Air Station Oceana	Naval Air Station Oceana	VA	1941
Saufley Auxiliary Field	Naval Training Center Saufley	FL	1942
Whiting Auxiliary Field	Naval Air Station Whiting Field	FL	1942

* Indicates lighter-than-air (LTA) facilities

Source: United States Navy, Bureau of Yards and Docks, Building the Navy’s Bases in World War II (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1947).

Because existing reserve stations provided insufficient facilities, the Navy opened new training stations at such locations as Norman, Oklahoma; Memphis, Tennessee; Corpus Christi, Texas; Pasco, Washington; Peru, Indiana; Olathe, Kansas; Hutchinson, Kansas; Clinton, Oklahoma; and, Ottumuwa, Iowa. Construction at these installations consisted of temporary buildings to the maximum extent possible, often even constructing temporary wooden hangars.

At the outset of the war, Navy aviation consisted of carrier aircraft and seaplanes. The service did not include land-based aircraft suitable for anti-submarine patrols. Consequently, Navy anti-submarine patrols used Catalina seaplanes, despite their operational limitations. For the first years of the war, anti-submarine patrols were a joint effort of the Navy and Army Air Forces, while the Navy rapidly acquired suitable land-based aircraft. In September 1943, the Army Air Forces withdrew from anti-submarine warfare and transferred their radar equipped B-24 bombers to the Navy. The Navy assumed full responsibility for anti-submarine patrols.

The Navy’s lighter-than-air (LTA) program was applied in the anti-submarine mission. The Navy had abandoned its huge rigid airships, known as dirigibles, following a series of accidents during the 1930s. Dirigibles were replaced by smaller airships, called blimps, which were less vulnerable to weather and accidents. The ability of blimps to remain aloft for long periods of time at a slow speed seemed to make them ideal platforms for anti-submarine warfare.

At the beginning of the war, the Navy’s two lighter-than-air stations, Lakehurst Naval Air Station, New Jersey, and Moffett Naval Air Station, California, were expanded with new hangars to accommodate more blimps. In addition, the Navy constructed new lighter-than-air stations at South Weymouth, Massachusetts; Weeksville, North Carolina; Glynco, Georgia; Richmond, Florida; Houma, Louisiana; Hitchcock, Texas; Santa Ana, California; and, Tillamook, Oregon. The stations at South Weymouth and Weeksville contained steel-frame hangars, which could hold six blimps. All other stations used timber hangars because of steel shortages. Like their steel counterparts, these hangars housed six blimps, making them among the largest timber structures built.

In practice, the effectiveness of blimps against submarines was difficult to assess. Critics pointed to the fact that blimps were not credited with sinking a single submarine and complained that their high visibility warned submarines. Naval historian Samuel Elliot Morrison noted that some Navy officers characterized blimps as "worse than useless." Yet supporters of the lighter-than-air program argued that blimps performed an invaluable service by deterring submarine attacks, pointing to the fact that not one ship escorted by blimps was lost to submarines. Assessing the contribution of blimps to anti-submarine operations is complicated by the fact they were not introduced in large numbers until the middle of 1943, after the worst submarine menace had passed. The slow speed of blimps also allowed them to perform search and rescue or mine sweeping operations.

The Marine Corps continued to employ its own aviation in close support of Marine Corps ground forces. The rapid expansion of Marine Corps aviation required a commensurate expansion of its air stations, which were used primarily to train aviators (Table 12). Prior to the war, the Marine Corps maintained air stations at Quantico, Virginia, and Parris Island, South Carolina; these facilities were improved in 1940. In 1941, the Marine Corps initiated construction at a major new facility near Cherry Point, North Carolina. Most of the buildings at Cherry Point were semi-permanent construction, with brick and steel used for the aircraft storehouse. In 1943, the Marine Corps began construction of temporary auxiliary airfields near Cherry Point. In California, the Marine Corps built El Toro, El Centro, and Mojave Air Stations, using wood frame construction.

TABLE 12: WORLD WAR II MARINE CORPS AIR STATIONS

WWII Name	Current Name	Location	Date Established
MCAS Cherry Point	MCAS Cherry Point	NC	1941
MCAS Eagle Mountain Lake	N/A	TX	1942
MCAS Edenton	N/A	NC	1942
MCAS El Centro	Naval Air Station El Centro	CA	1942
MCAS El Toro	MCAS El Toro	CA	1942
MCAS EWA	N/A	HI	1941
MCAS Mojave	N/A	CA	1942
MCAS Quantico	USMC Education and Development Command	VA	1919
MCAS Santa Barbara	N/A	CA	1942
Page Field (Parris Island)	MCRD Parris Island	SC	1919

Source: United States Navy, Bureau of Yards and Docks, Building the Navy’s Bases in World War II (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1947).

Storage and Logistics Functions

Extensive depot systems served both the War and Navy Departments to hold materiel for long term storage, to serve the needs of units within the United States, and to support the movement of materiel overseas. Depots served a variety of purposes, including storage of ammunition, general supplies, communications equipment, and engineering equipment. Both Army and Navy depots can be divided into those depots that stored ammunition or explosives, and those depots that held other supplies. Safety requirements for ammunition storage resulted in distinctive depot plans and building design, which are discussed in Chapter XI.

Unlike ammunition, most military supplies were not hazardous materials and did not require specialized storage facilities or specialized handling. All categories of supplies required storage prior to distribution within the United States or overseas. Both the War and Navy Departments created extensive depot systems to receive, store, and issue supplies exclusive of ammunition. The War Department was also responsible for moving large numbers of troops to and from the front lines through a series of ports of embarkation.

War Department

War Department logistical policy provided for distribution systems that were maintained by each of the technical branches, in addition to general depots. The Ordnance Department, Quartermaster Corps, and Air Corps operated the largest number of depots, while the Signal Corps, Corps of Engineers, and Chemical Warfare Service operated much smaller logistical systems (Table 13).

The Ordnance Department required an extensive distribution system for non-explosive materiel, because of its responsibility for the procurement and distribution of tanks, artillery, small arms and other weapons, plus the repair parts needed to maintain the weapons. The logistical problems became acute after the Ordnance Department acquired responsibility for all types of motor vehicles. Pre-war contingency plans called for the maximum use of leased civilian warehouses but the design of civilian facilities presented additional problems for the Ordnance Department. Multi-story civilian warehouses were ill-suited for the storage of tanks or heavy equipment. Moreover, the Ordnance Department foresaw the need for long term equipment storage after the end of the emergency. While the War Department headquarters agreed to de-emphasize leasing of civilian facilities, authorizations for construction of general storage ordnance depots were not forthcoming. The Ordnance Department, therefore, built general purpose storage facilities at ammunition depots.

In 1941, as shipments of combat equipment increased, funding became available for permanent warehouse construction. The Ordnance Department constructed a depot at Ogden, Utah, which contained 40 general ordnance warehouses. In the Southeast, the Ordnance Department expanded the warehouse capacity at Anniston, Alabama, to support increased Army activities in that region. A large warehouse was constructed at Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, for the storage of general ordnance supplies. Thereafter, as shortages of building materials and money increased, the War Department relaxed specifications for warehouse construction. New ordnance warehouses were constructed using temporary, or even theater-of-operations design and located at existing ammunition depots.

The Quartermaster Corps also faced the problem of storage and transportation of large quantities of supplies. Because nearly all of these supplies were non-explosive, the Quartermaster Corps had greater flexibility in the organization of its depots. Perhaps the most striking difference between Ordnance and Quartermaster depots was the size of the facilities. Quartermaster depots ranged from 100 to 800 acres, while Ordnance depots could be as large as 20,000 acres.

TABLE 13: WORLD WAR II ARMY DEPOTS (NON-ORDNANCE)
Original Name	Current Name	Location	Date Established	Type of Depot
Fairfield Air Depot	Wright-Patterson AFB	OH	1918	Army Air Forces
Galena Field	Fairchild AFB	WA	1942	Army Air Forces
Middletown Air Depot	N/A	PA	N/A	Army Air Forces
Midwest Air Depot	Tinker AFB	OK	1941	Army Air Forces
Sacramento Air Depot	McClellan AFB	CA	1936	Army Air Forces
Rome Air Depot	Griffiss AFB	NY	1942	Army Air Forces
San Antonio Air Depot	Kelly AFB	TX	1921	Army Air Forces
Robins Field	Robins AFB	GA	1941	Army Air Forces
Ogden Air Depot	Hill AFB	UT	1940	Army Air Forces
Atlanta Army Depot	N/A	GA	1941	Army Service Forces
Belle Mead Army Depot	N/A	NJ	1941	Army Service Forces
Columbus Army Depot	Defense Construction Supply Center	OH	1918	Army Service Forces
Memphis Army Depot	Memphis Defense Depot	TN	1941	Army Service Forces
New Cumberland Army Depot	New Cumberland Army Depot	PA	1918	Army Service Forces
Richmond Army Depot	Defense General Supply Center	VA	1941	Army Service Forces
Salt Lake City Army Depot	N/A	UT	1941	Army Service Forces
San Antonio Army Depot	Fort Sam Houston	TX	1876	Army Service Forces
Savannah Army Depot	N/A	GA	unknown	Army Service Forces
Schenectady Army Depot	N/A	NY	1918	Army Service Forces
Seattle Army Depot	N/A	WA	1941	Army Service Forces
Deseret Chemical Warfare Depot	Tooele Army Depot	UT	1942	Chemical Warfare Service
Eastern Chemical Warfare Depot	Edgewood Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground	MD	1940	Chemical Warfare Service
Gulf Chemical Warfare Depot	Redstone Arsenal	AL	1941	Chemical Warfare Service
Northeast Chemical Warfare Depot	N/A	NY	1942	Chemical Warfare Service
Midwest Chemical Warfare Depot	Pine Bluff Arsenal	AR	1941	Chemical Warfare Service
Albany Engineer, Depot	N/A	NY	unknown	Corps of Engineers
Granite City Engineer Depot	N/A	IL	1942	Corps of Engineers
Lathrop Engineer Depot	Sharpe Army Depot	CA	1942	Corps of Engineers
Marion Engineer Depot	N/A	OH	unknown	Corps of Engineers
Pasco Engineer Depot	N/A	WA	unknown	Corps of Engineers
San Bernardino Engineer Depot	N/A	CA	unknown	Corps of Engineers
Sharonsville Engineer Depot	N/A	OH	unknown	Corps of Engineers
Alexandria QM Depot (Cameron Station)	N/A	VA	1942	Quartermaster
Boston QM Depot	N/A	MA	1918	Quartermaster
Charlotte QM Depot	N/A	NC	unknown	Quartermaster
Chicago QM Depot	N/A	IL	unknown	Quartermaster
Fort Holabird QM Depot	U.S. Army Intelligence School	MD	1917	Quartermaster
Fort Reno QM Depot	N/A	OK	1874	Quartermaster
Fort Worth QM Depot	N/A	TX	1940	Quartermaster
Jeffersonville QM Depot	Jeffersonville Depot Activity	IN	1864	Quartermaster
Jersey City QM Depot	N/A	NJ	unknown	Quartermaster
Kansas City QM Depot	N/A	MO	unknown	Quartermaster
Oakland QM Depot	Oakland Army Base	CA	1941	Quartermaster
Philadelphia QM Depot	N/A	PA	unknown	Quartermaster
Washington QM Depot	N/A	DC	unknown	Quartermaster
Chicago Signal Depot	N/A	IL	unknown	Signal Corps
Dayton Signal Depot	N/A	OH	unknown	Signal Corps
Lexington Signal Depot	Lexington Army Depot	KY	unknown	Signal Corps
Ogden Signal Depot	Defense Depot Ogden	UT	1940	Signal Corps
Philadelphia Signal Depot	N/A	PA	unknown	Signal Corps
San Bernadino Signal Depot	N/A	CA	unknown	Signal Corps
Sacramento Signal Depot	Defense Depot Sacramento	CA	1942	Signal Corps

Source: Risch, Erna, The Quartermaster Corps: Organization, Supply, and Services (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1953).

As early as September 1939, the Quartermaster General initiated plans for the expansion of the 12 existing depots. These plans did not achieve real momentum until the protective mobilization efforts of 1940, when the Army made additions to existing depots and constructed new facilities. By December 1941, the Quartermaster Corps increased its covered storage space by 50 per cent over the previous year. Existing storage space proved inadequate once war was declared, and the Quartermaster Corps increased its construction even further. This accelerated construction pace continued until May 1943 when the Army Service Forces terminated all depot construction, except for compelling circumstances.

The design of the Quartermaster depots also reflected the increasing shortage of building materials. During the protective mobilization phase, depots were comprised of single story warehouses with concrete floors and lofty ceilings. Railroad loading platforms spanned one side of the structure, and truck loading doors were located on the opposite building face. Depots constructed after the declaration of war reflected the War Department’s temporary construction policies. The Army relied more upon open sheds to provide minimal protection to durable supplies. Commercial warehouses were leased to supplement depots and ease the burden of constructing new warehouse facilities. Yet the advantages of leasing commercial warehouses for general supplies were limited. Often the best warehouses were occupied, or were so geographically dispersed to preclude efficient operations.

Leased commercial facilities were used more widely to store subsistence supplies. During the mobilization phase, the Quartermaster Corps established regional food purchasing centers, which were responsible for supplying food to troops within their region. The Quartermaster General contracted with civilian warehouses to store food prior to distribution. Despite controversies over prices, the system worked reasonably well for non-perishable subsistence, or foodstuffs that did not require refrigeration. The system was less effective for perishable food, and the Army suffered from a failure to construct more than a handful of depot level cold storage facilities. Leased commercial cold storage warehouses were seldom available in the quantities required by the Army. The problem became especially acute in the New York area, which was responsible for supplying the European theater.

In addition to depots that were dedicated to the Ordnance Department or Quartermaster Corps, the Army Service Forces operated several depots intended for multi-branch use. Ten such depots were operating by December 1941. They were located in Seattle, Washington; Salt Lake City, Utah; San Antonio, Texas; Memphis, Tennessee; Columbus, Ohio; Atlanta and Savannah, Georgia; Richmond, Virginia; Belle Mead, New Jersey; New Cumberland, Pennsylvania; and, Schenectady, New York. Between April and July 1942, the Army Service Forces directly managed these depots, but that management system became unworkable. Overall responsibility for General Depots was assigned to the Office of the Quartermaster General, which served as the "landlord" for the other branches. The technical services, such as Ordnance Department, Quartermaster Corps, Corps of Engineers, and Signal Corps maintained respective storage areas, as well as their own stock record accounts. The Quartermaster Corps established general policies and assigned warehouse space. At the Atlanta General Depot, the Army Service Forces experimented with standardized and consolidated stock record accounts, but eventually abandoned the effort.

As technical services, the Corps of Engineers, Signal Corps, and Chemical Warfare Service maintained smaller depot systems that combined use of the general depots, leased storage facilities, and specially constructed depots. In addition to assigned space in the general depots, the Signal Corps managed its own depots in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Lexington, Kentucky; Dayton, Ohio; Chicago, Illinois; San Bernardino, California; and, Ogden, Utah. The Corps of Engineers operated similar depots at Albany, New York; Marion and Sharonsville, Ohio; Granite City, Illinois; San Bernardino and Lathrop, California; and, Pasco, Washington.

The Chemical Warfare Service initially established depots near its principal arsenals at Edgewood, Maryland; Huntsville, Alabama; and, Pine Bluff, Arkansas. These depots were in the planning stages at the time of Pearl Harbor, and were not placed in service until the fall of 1942. Despite these new depots, the Chemical Warfare Service still required more storage facilities. In early 1942, the service constructed the Deseret [sic] Chemical Warfare Depot in Tooele County, Utah. Late in the war, the Chemical Warfare Service acquired the Lake Ontario Ordnance Works in New York as an additional depot. A leased warehouse in Indianapolis for repair parts completed its depot system.

The Materiel Division of the Army Air Forces maintained the system of separate depots for aviation specific supplies. The Air Corps operated four major supply and maintenance depots in 1939. These depots were located in Middletown, Pennsylvania; San Antonio, Texas; Fairfield, Ohio; and Sacramento, California. The facility in Sacramento, established in 1936, was the newest Air Corps Depot. All four depots stored aircraft and repair parts, plus performed extensive overhaul of engines and equipment. Robins and Tinker Air Force Bases opened in 1941 under the Protective Mobilization Plan. As in the case of the other Army Air Force depots, these facilities served both supply and maintenance functions, that were housed in buildings whose construction combined both permanent and temporary construction.

The history of the Fairfield and San Antonio Depots illustrates typical changes to existing Air Corps facilities during the World War II era. Fairfield Air Depot, at what is now Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, became a key depot for aircraft and repair parts. The depot was expanded through large scale temporary and permanent construction. Some of the most notable permanent structures included a new engine overhaul building and a new base headquarters building. The civilian work force grew so rapidly that a new housing project, Skyway Park, was built to accommodate the workers. San Antonio Depot, at what is now Kelly Air Force Base, became a huge industrial complex. Workers established production lines to overhaul engines, bombsights, guns, and electrical equipment. Like the Fairfield Depot, it enlarged its work force tremendously, largely through the addition of women war workers.

Hill Air Force Base, near Ogden, Utah, is an example of an Air Corps depot that began operations during the World War II era. Authorized in 1939, the depot was planned as part of a general expansion in the nation’s air component. Construction of the Utah depot began in January 1940. Because the installation originated as part of a permanent expansion program, initial construction consisted of brick and other masonry buildings similar to the Army’s building designs of the inter-war years. As the war progressed, temporary buildings were constructed where possible, especially for barracks and administration buildings. Still, some structures required permanent construction because of their function. Examples of permanent construction projects included warehouses, hangars, engine test facilities, and maintenance facilities. The installation contained a new housing complex known as Hillcrest Village.

Missions of the Ogden depot encompassed both supply and maintenance functions. With the first construction just completed by December 1941, the depot contained only a few empty warehouses and stock record paperwork. After the United States entered the war, activity at the Ogden Depot mushroomed. The depot stored aircraft repair parts and Air Corps-specific equipment for units in the United States and overseas. In January 1942, the depot opened an engine test facility to support the engine rebuilding program. The largest single maintenance project began in February 1943 with the complete overhaul of B-24 "Liberator" bombers. The depot established a production line for rebuilding used aircraft from Europe and the Pacific for active service. By the close of 1943, Ogden Depot was repairing one bomber per day.

Another logistical function of the War Department was the transporting of large numbers of troops to the front lines. Army ports of embarkation were located on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to facilitate the movement of personnel and materiel overseas. These activities combined leased civilian structures and temporary military construction, supplemented by permanent construction only when necessary. For example, at the Hampton Roads Port of Embarkation, the principal piers, wharfs, warehouses, and related facilities for moving non-explosive supplies were leased. Ammunition facilities, however, required permanent construction. To accommodate the mass of transient service personnel, the Army constructed Camp Patrick Henry north of the port, using temporary construction.

Navy Department

Similar to the War Department, the Navy Department developed an extensive system of supply depots for the receipt, storage, and issue of general supplies (Table 14). At the beginning of the war, the Navy Department had only two operating supply depots, which were located in Norfolk and San Diego. Their proximity to the major bases on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts enabled these depots to support to the fleet. The expanded operations of World War II, required rapid expansion of the Navy’s supply storage facilities.

In 1940, construction began on two supply depots located near major bases. These facilities were located in Bayonne, New Jersey, and Oakland, California. At the same time, the existing Norfolk and San Diego depots received funding for additional buildings. As the war progressed, the Navy established new supply depots along the coasts, and near the major naval installations. In some cases, such as the New Orleans Depot, civilian warehouses were leased or converted. Other facilities, such as the depot at Newport, Rhode Island, were additions to existing installations.

In 1941, the Navy initiated a new approach to its distribution system, and began to select depot sites that were not adjacent to a specific port or base. The first such depot was located in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, and was positioned to provide back-up support to all Navy installations on the East Coast. The Mechanicsburg Depot was sited near the Army’s New Cumberland Depot to encourage cooperation between the two services. In 1942, the Navy Department established inland supply depots at Clearfield, Utah, and Spokane, Washington, to service bases along the Pacific Coast. Near Barstow, California, the Navy Department created a storage depot for Marine Corps supplies. The Navy built the Scotia Depot near Schenectady, New York, to complement the Mechanicsburg depot in supporting the East Coast ports.

Like other Navy construction projects, the creation of a supply depot system occurred at a time when rapidly changing requirements presented new challenges for orderly development. For example, two weeks after construction began at the Mechanicsburg Depot, the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts requested that the capacity of the depot be doubled. Warehouses were often multi-story buildings , or else masonry and steel single-story buildings. The transportation infrastructure including roads, railroads, and loading docks, was a prerequisite to construction.

TABLE 14: WORLD WAR II NAVY AND MARINE CORPS GENERAL SUPPLY DEPOTS (NON-ORDNANCE)

Original Name	Current Name	Location	Date Established
Marine Corps Supply Depot Barstow	MARCORSUPDEP Barstow	CA	1942
Marine Corps Supply Depot Philadelphia	N/A	PA	1904
Marine Corps Supply Depot San Francisco	N/A	CA	1923
Naval Supply Depot Bayonne	Naval Supply Center Bayonne	NJ	1939
Naval Supply Depot Clearfield	NSD Clearfield	UT	1942
Naval Supply Depot Mechanicsburg	Naval Supply Center Mechanicsburg	PA	1942
Naval Supply Depot New Orleans	NSD New Orleans	LA	1940
Naval Supply Depot Newport	N/A	RI	1942
Naval Supply Depot Norfolk	FISC Norfolk	VA	1917
Naval Supply Depot Oakland	NSD Oakland	CA	1942
Naval Supply Depot San Diego	NSC San Diego	CA	1922
Naval Supply San Pedro	N/A	CA	1942
Naval Supply Depot Scotia	NSD Scotia	NY	1941
Naval Supply Depot Seattle	N/A	WA	1942
Naval Supply Depot Spokane	N/A	WA	1942

Source: United States Navy, Bureau of Yards and Docks, Building the Navy’s Bases in World War II (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1947).

Research, Development, and Testing

More than in previous conflicts, World War II demonstrated the importance of technological superiority. New or improved weapons were a significant advantage. The extent of the research performed during World War II is indicated by the fact that seventy-five per cent of the ordnance equipment used by the Army either was replaced completely or radically improved. The government undertook complex research and development functions in specially designed buildings at installations across the country. The unique requirements of the various research and development projects resulted in a wide range of permanent construction that cannot be characterized easily. Some construction resulted in general laboratories or office buildings, while other properties associated with research, development and testing were the product of specific designs required for the specialized activities performed at the facilities.

Within the War Department, research and development functions were divided among the various departments, principally the Ordnance Department, the Air Corps, and the Signal Corps, as well as smaller programs operated by other branches. The Ordnance Department undertook research on many types of weapons, including aviation weapons, at its proving grounds. Wright Field served as a principal engineering center for the Air Corps. The Army’s communication laboratory at Fort Monmouth was the Signal Corps’ research and development center.

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, was the Army’s only proving ground from 1917 to World War II. Here, Ordnance Department personnel performed acceptance testing for new weapons with approved designs and development testing for new types of weapons. During the inter-war years, a single proving ground was sufficient to meet the Army’s needs, but one proving ground could not accommodate the wartime expansion of research and development activity. New proving grounds such as Erie Proving Ground, Ohio; Jefferson Proving Ground, Indiana; and, Southwestern Proving Ground, Arkansas performed acceptance testing of weapons and ammunition.

Aberdeen became the primary center for developmental testing of new weapons and equipment. The Army tested new artillery, tanks, rockets, aerial bombs, trucks, and all types of new weapons at Aberdeen. During the second half of 1944, the Arms and Ammunition Division at Aberdeen completed 1,466 test projects and submitted 183 formal reports. Workers there invented such new weapons as a shoulder launched anti-tank rocket, popularly known as the bazooka. Research required new buildings. A recent survey of Aberdeen Proving Ground identified 34 research facilities and 19 test facilities constructed as permanent buildings at Aberdeen between 1940 and 1945.

The Ballistics Research Laboratory at Aberdeen deserves special mention. The laboratory contained the most modern equipment for studying the movement of a projectile both within a gun barrel and while in flight. The three-story, brick R. H. Kent Building, another part of the laboratory, housed two supersonic wind tunnels to study the movement of aerial bombs and artillery shells. Scientists working here refined the design of critical weapons or developed new firing tables. Developing firing tables required extensive mathematical calculations; to simplify the process, scientists produced an elaborate electronic calculating machine. This machine, known as ENIAC, became the forerunner of the modern computer.

Since World War I, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, had been the home of the Signal Corps, and served both training and research purposes. A radio research laboratory existed on the installation, but it was housed in wooden buildings until 1934. In that year, the first brick laboratory building was constructed, which was used for early experiments in radar development. In World War II, the research facilities were expanded with the addition of three more brick buildings in what is known as the "Evans Area," nine miles south of the main post. Here personnel developed a wide range of communications and electronic devices for the Army. In January 1946, Signal Corps personnel achieved a scientific milestone by bouncing radar signals off the moon.

Wilbur Wright Field, part of what is now Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, had served as an aeronautical engineering center for the Air Corps since 1927, under the Air Corps Materiel Division. With the reorganizations of the Air Corps during World War II, the Materiel Division was elevated to a separate command, with its responsibilities redefined to focus upon engineering. The Army constructed new facilities at Wright Field; including a massive new wind tunnel, laboratories, and testing facilities. The wind tunnel had a diameter of 20 feet, making it the largest wind tunnel built to that date. During the course of the war, these new testing facilities accelerated the procurement cycle for aircraft. During peacetime years, the Air Corps had followed extensive testing procedures on prototypes before purchasing quantities of an aircraft model. The demands of war necessitated the purchase of new aircraft models as soon as possible. Production orders frequently were written before a prototype was tested. To make this system work, the Air Corps relied heavily upon testing of models in the wind tunnel and testing of components in the laboratories.

Of the smaller research and development programs, the Army’s Chemical Warfare Service used the facilities of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Columbia University for most of its basic research. In each case, leased laboratories became temporary government facilities. The Army still required a remote location for testing of chemical munitions, so it acquired an extensive proving ground in the Dugway Valley of Utah.

The Quartermaster Corps utilized its depots for the research and development that it conducted during the war. Testing was required for the clothing, footwear, tentage, and personal equipment that soldiers used in climates that varied from extremely cold to tropical. After the war, the Quartermaster General concluded that the Quartermaster Corps might have produced better equipment with a facility devoted exclusively to the research and development of Quartermaster equipment. The Army subsequently persuaded Congress to authorized Natick Laboratories in Massachusetts for this type of research.

The Navy Department also maintained an active research and development program during World War II. Its programs covered all aspects of naval development, including ship design, naval ordnance, aviation, and rocket development. Older installations, such as the Communications Laboratory in Anacostia, District of Columbia, or the Naval Proving Ground at Dahlgren, Virginia, were improved. Important new installations were established during the war including the Naval Ordnance Test Station Inyokern (better known as China Lake), White Oak Naval Ordnance Laboratory, and the David Taylor Model Basin.

Prior to World War II, the Naval Proving Ground at Dahlgren devoted most of its attention to proof-firing new guns. Heavy weapons were manufactured at the Naval Gun Factory in Washington, shipped to Dahlgren by barge, and then test fired to establish the gunnery tables. Workers at the installation also performed limited experiments with new weapons and equipment, and played a key role in developing the Norden Bombsight.

With America’s entry into the war, activity at Dahlgren expanded to a frantic pace, with a commensurate increase in construction activities. The installation tested heavy ships guns, machine guns, ships armor, ammunition, aviation ordnance, and other equipment. The importance of Dahlgren as a testing ground for the variable time fuze, which consisted of a miniature radar, was particularly noteworthy. Equally important, Dahlgren began new laboratories during the war, beginning with an armor and projectile laboratory in 1941. Thereafter, Dahlgren expanded its laboratory work to include studies of gauges and measurements, aviation ordnance, rocketry, and trajectory calculations. The trajectory calculations resulted in the use of new electronic calculating machines that were the precursors of modern computers.

Since World War I, the Washington Navy Yard contained a Naval Ordnance Laboratory that concentrated upon research on underwater mines. With the expansions of World War II, however, the laboratory soon found its facilities inadequate. The Navy constructed an expanded Naval Ordnance Laboratory in White Oak, Maryland, near Washington D.C. Construction began on the 938 acre tract in early 1944; the fifty permanent structures were scheduled for completion in 1947. The installation contained laboratories, a wind tunnel, and associated facilities. Six of the buildings were designed to study magnetic influence mines, which were underwater mines triggered by a ship’s magnetic field. Design specifications required buildings that were entirely free of magnetic properties. The laboratory buildings were constructed using hollow concrete block, instead of red clay tile, which contained iron oxide; copper or bronze was substituted for ferrous metals in the nails, plumbing, and electrical fixtures.

With its increasing reliance upon rockets and aviation weapons, the Navy sought a testing ground for rocket and aviation ordnance that would provide room for large scale testing. In March 1943, Navy officers found a suitable location at the small village of Inyokern in the middle of the California desert. The village contained a landing field and minimal utilities. A vast expanse of desert, including a dry lake bed known as China Lake, surrounded the village. Navy officers experimented with rockets and aircraft in seclusion, and the excellent flying weather guaranteed that the Navy could conduct tests during most of the year. In November 1943, the Navy began construction at the Naval Ordnance Test Station, Inyokern. The reservation covered a land area approximately the size of Rhode Island.

Due to the wartime shortages of materials and demands for speed, the station’s original plans specified considerable temporary construction. The post-war Navy need for an ordnance test station influenced the modification of this program. The station commander and the officer-in-charge-of-construction decided to emphasize permanent construction. They developed a well-planned community in the desert, with space for future expansion. The installation included both laboratory facilities and a complete residential community. At Inyokern, scientists from the Navy and the California Institute of Technology created a first-class research and experimentation facility. In response to requests from combat units, they developed a High Velocity Aircraft Rocket (HVAR), which was commonly known as the "Holy Moses." This weapon proved to be particularly effective at penetrating concrete fortifications. Following the war, the station continued to be a leading center for rocket and missile experimentation.

The Navy had used a model ship basin in the Washington Navy Yard to test new ship designs since the beginning of the twentieth century. To allow more accurate testing of ships’ hulls, Congress authorized an improved model ship basin in 1936. Construction was not completed until the beginning of the World War II era. Located in Carderock, Maryland, just outside Washington, D.C., this facility was named the David W. Taylor Model Basin. The precise experimentation on the resistance of a ship moving through the water required a research facility built to the most exacting specifications. For example, carriages mounted on rails, towed ship models through the basin; specifications required that the 5,000 feet of rail be constructed to a 0.005 inch tolerance in distance from the water in the basin. Achieving such unprecedented accuracy required that the builders adjust their measurements for the curvature of the earth. The engineers and builders met these requirements using a solid rock foundation and innovative construction techniques.

Other Navy ordnance installations combined research with production functions. For example, the Newport Torpedo Station and the Keyport Torpedo Station, both produced or overhauled torpedoes. The facility also tested new models and engineered improvements to existing models.

Medical Facilities

For both the War and Navy Departments, hospital construction required a balance between wartime material shortages and the desire to provide the best possible medical facilities. Not surprisingly, the Surgeons General of both services advocated permanent or semi-permanent construction, citing fire prevention and anticipated future use. The medical departments’ desire for permanent construction met with little support from the Army and Navy leadership, who promoted temporary construction whenever possible.

War Department hospital construction fluctuated between temporary and semi-permanent construction (Table 15). Pre-war plans called for the expansion of existing hospitals, but existing facilities did not easily accommodate expansion. During the protective mobilization phase, the Army constructed hospitals resembling the temporary barracks built during these years. The hospital consisted of one-story wards, connected by extensive corridor systems. Later, the Surgeon General obtained permission to build semi-permanent brick hospitals, but the victory was short-lived. With the entry into the war, the Army Chief of Staff ordered that temporary construction be used for general and station hospitals. The Chief of Staff later imposed even more stringent economy measures on hospital construction, including "theater-of-operations" barracks for hospital personnel. As a further economy measure, the Army leased civilian hotels or other facilities to serve as hospitals.

As the war progressed, permanent and semi-permanent construction again became a possibility. By the summer of 1942, many locations suffered from lumber shortages, while brick and tile were available. Moreover, the Veterans Administration argued that Army hospitals should be designed for long-term care of veterans. Consequently, the Army constructed twenty-two semi-permanent general hospitals. Additionally, McGuire Hospital, Virginia, and Vaughan Hospital, Illinois, were designed in cooperation with the Veterans Administration for its use after the war. Twenty-four Army general hospitals, both temporary and permanent, were transferred to the Veterans Administration at the end of the war. Of the Army general hospitals that opened during World War II, 23 were of semi-permanent construction, 11 were converted civilian facilities, 22 were wooden cantonment hospitals, and 4 were masonry cantonment hospitals. Of the wartime semi-permanent general hospitals, only those near Fort Lewis, Fort Carson, and Camp Atterbury were retained in the Army inventory as of 1951.

Navy hospital construction consisted of a combination of new facilities and additions to existing hospitals (Table 16). Medical facilities at new training installations, such as Sampson, New York, or Farragut, Idaho, consisted entirely of temporary buildings. Other major wartime hospitals, such as St Albans, New York, or Corona, California, consisted entirely, or predominately, of temporary buildings. Existing hospitals were expanded through either permanent or temporary buildings. As in the case of the War Department, the Navy Department also faced pressure from the Veterans Administration to construct hospitals suitable for long term use. The Navy hospital at Dublin, Georgia, a brick, Colonial Revival style complex, was constructed to be transferred to the Veterans Administration after the war.

Some of the most noteworthy hospitals associated with World War II, were planned before the war, and opened during the World War II era. Fitzsimons Army Hospital, in Denver, Colorado, operated as a tuberculosis hospital since 1918. In 1938, the Army began construction on a new main building that opened just four days before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Victims of that battle were among some of its first patients. Brooke General Hospital, at Fort Sam Houston, opened as a permanent general hospital in September 1942. The Bethesda Navy hospital was authorized in the 1939 appropriations act; construction continued through the early war years. The main tower and hospital complex opened in April 1943. In 1942, even before the building was completed, construction began for two additional wards. These three general hospitals followed the precedent of recent civilian hospitals and adopted a centralized, multi-story tower design, rather than the one- to three-story, dispersed ward design of earlier and wartime hospitals.

TABLE 15: WORLD WAR II ARMY GENERAL HOSPITALS

WWII Name	Current DoD Name	Location	Date1
Army and Navy General Hospital	N/A	Hot Springs, AR	1887
Ashburn General Hospital	N/A	McKinney, TX	1943
Ashford General Hospital	N/A	White Sulphur Springs, WV	1942
Barnes General Hospital	N/A	Vancouver, WA	1941
Battey General Hospital	N/A	Rome, GA	1943
Baxter General Hospital	N/A	Spokane, WA	1943
Billings General Hospital	Ft. Benjamin Harrison	Ft. Benjamin Harrison, IN	1941
Birmingham General Hospital	N/A	Van Nuys, CA	1944
Borden General Hospital	N/A	Chickasha, OK	1943
Brooke General Hospital	Ft. Sam Houston	Ft. Sam Houston, TX	1942
Bruns General Hospital	N/A	Santa Fe, NM	1943
Bushnell General Hospital	N/A	Brigham City, UT	1942
Crile General Hospital	N/A	Cleveland, OH	1944
Cushing General Hospital	N/A	Framingham, MA	1944
Darnall General Hospital	N/A	Danville, KY	1942
Deshon General Hospital	N/A	Butler, PA	1942
DeWitt General Hospital	N.A	Auburn, CA	1944
Dibble General Hospital	N/A	Menlo Park, CA	1944
Finney General Hospital	N/A	Thomasville, GA	1943
Fitzsimons General Hospital	Fitzsimons Army Medical Center	Aurora, CO	1918
Fletcher General Hospital	N/A	Cambridge, OH	1943
Foster General Hospital	N/A	Jackson, MS	1943
Gardiner General Hospital	N/A	Chicago, IL	1943
Glennan General Hospital (POW)	N/A	Okmulgee, OK	1943
Halloran General Hospital	N/A	Willowbrook, S.I., NY	1942
Hammond General Hospital	N/A	Modesto, CA	1942
Harmon General Hospital	N/A	Longview, TX	1942
Hoff General Hospital	N/A	Santa Barbara, CA	1941
Kennedy General Hospital	N/A	Memphis, TN	1943
LaGarde General Hospital	N/A	New Orleans, LA	1941
Lawson General Hospital	N/A	Atlanta, GA	1941
Letterman General Hospital	Letterman Army Medical Center	San Francisco, CA	1941
Lovell General Hospital	Ft. Devens	Ft. Devens, MA	1941
Madigan General Hospital	Madigan Army Medical Center	Tacoma, WA	1941
Mason General Hospital	N/A	Brentwood, L.I., NY	1943
Mayo General Hospital	N/A	Galesburg, IL	1944
McCaw General Hospital	N/A	Walla Walla, WA	1943
McCloskey General Hospital	N/A	Temple, TX	1942
McGuire General Hospital	N/A	Richmond, VA	1944
Moore General Hospital	N/A	Swannanoa, NC	1942
Newton D. Baker General Hospital	N/A	Martinsburg, WV	1944
Nichols General Hospital	N/A	Louisville, KY	1942
Northington General Hospital	N/A	Tuscaloosa, AL	1943
Oliver General Hospital	N/A	Augusta, GA	1943
O’Reilly General Hospital	N/A	Springfield, MO	1941
Percy Jones General Hospital	N/A	Battle Creek, MI	1943
POW General Hospital No.2	N/A	Camp Forrest, TN	1944
Rhoads General Hospital	N/A	Utica, NY	1943
Schick General Hospital	N/A	Clinton, IA	1943
Stark General Hospital	N/A	Charleston, SC	1941
Thayer General Hospital	N/A	Nashville, TN	1943
Thomas M. England General Hospital	N/A	Atlantic City, NJ	1943
Tilton General Hospital	Ft. Dix	Ft. Dix, NJ	1941
Torney General Hospital	N/A	Palm Springs, CA	1942
U.S. Army General Hospital, Camp Butner	N/A	Wilkins, NC	1945
U.S. Army General Hospital, Camp Carson	N/A	Colorado Springs, CO	1945
U.S. Army General Hospital, Camp Edwards	N/A	Falmouth, MA	1945
U.S. Army General Hospital, Camp Pickett	Fort Pickett	Blackstone, VA	1945
Valley Forge General Hospital	N/A	Phoenixville, PA	1943
Vaughan General Hospital	N/A	Hines, IL	1944
Wakeman General Hospital	N/A	Camp Atterbury, IN	1944
Walter Reed General Hospital	Walter Reed Army Medical Center	Washington, DC	1909
William Beaumont General Hospital	William Beaumont Army Medical Center	El Paso, TX	1921
Winter General Hospital	N/A	Topeka, KS	1943
Woodrow Wilson General Hospital	N/A	Staunton, VA	1943

1 Date ready for or received first patient.

Source: Clarence McKittrick Smith, The Medical Department: Hospitalization and Evacuation, Zone of the Interior (Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army, 1956): 304-313.

TABLE 16: WORLD WAR II NAVAL HOSPITALS

WWII Name	Current DoD Name	Location	Date1 Established
U.S. Naval Hospital	U.S. Naval Academy Clinic	Annapolis, MD	1907
U.S. Naval Convalescent Hospital2	N/A	Asbury Park, NJ	1945
U.S. Naval Convalescent Hospital	N/A	Asheville, NC	1943
U.S. Naval Hospital	N/A	Astoria, OR	1943
U.S. Naval Hospital	N/A	Bainbridge, MD	1942
U.S. Naval Convalescent Hospital	N/A	Banning, CA	1944
U.S. Naval Convalescent Hospital	N/A	Beaumont, CA	1944
Naval Medical Center	Bethesda Naval Medical Center	Bethesda, MD	1939
U.S. Naval Hospital	N/A	Brooklyn, NY	1942
U.S. Naval Convalescent Hospital (Sea Gate)	N/A	Brooklyn, NY	1944
U.S. Naval Hospital	Charleston Naval Base3	Charleston, SC	1917
U.S. Naval Hospital	N/A	Chelsea, MA	1823
U.S. Naval Hospital	N/A	Corona, CA	1942
U.S. Naval Hospital	Corpus Christi Naval Hospital	Corpus Christi, TX	1940
U.S. Naval Hospital	N/A	Dublin, GA	1943
U.S. Naval Hospital	N/A	Farragut, ID	1942
U.S. Naval Convalescent Hospital	N/A	Glenwood Springs, CO	1943
U.S. Naval Hospital	Great Lakes Naval Hospital	Great Lakes, IL	1904
U.S. Naval Convalescent Hospital	N/A	Harriman, NY	1942
U.S. Naval Hospital	N/A	Houston, TX	1945
U.S. Naval Hospital	Jacksonville Naval Hospital	Jacksonville, FL	1941
U.S. Naval Convalescent Hospital (Sun Valley)	N/A	Ketchum, ID	1943
U.S. Naval Hospital	Key West Naval Regional Medical Clinic	Key West, FL	1941
U.S. Naval Hospital	Long Beach Naval Hospital	Long Beach, CA	1940
U.S. Naval Hospital	Mare Island Naval Shipyard	Mare Island, CA	1854
U.S. Naval Hospital	Memphis Naval Hospital	Memphis, TN	1942
U.S. Naval Hospital (Camp Lejeune)	Camp Lejeune Naval Hospital	New River, NC	1942
U.S. Naval Hospital	N/A	New Orleans, LA	1942
U.S. Naval Hospital	Newport Naval Education and Training Center	Newport, RI	1913
U.S. Naval Hospital (N.O.B.)	Norfolk Naval Base	Norfolk, VA	1942
U.S. Naval Hospital	N/A	Norman, OK	1942
U.S. Naval Hospital	Oakland Naval Medical Center	Oakland, CA	1942
U.S. Naval Hospital (Santa Margarita Ranch)	Camp Pendleton	Oceanside, CA	1942
U.S. Naval Hospital	Parris Island MCRD	Parris Island, SC	1918
U.S. Naval Hospital	Pensacola Naval Hospital	Pensacola, FL	1828
U.S. Naval Hospital	Philadelphia Naval Medical Center	Philadelphia, PA	1935
U.S. Naval Hospital	Portsmouth Naval Shipyard	Portsmouth, NH	1900
U.S. Naval Hospital	Portsmouth Naval Medical Center	Portsmouth, VA	1830
U.S. Naval Hospital	Bremerton Naval Hospital	Puget Sound, WA	1925
U.S. Naval Hospital	Naval Regional Medical Clinic	Quantico, VA	1939
U.S. Naval Hospital	N/A	St. Albans, NY	1942
U.S. Naval Hospital	N/A	Sampson, NY	1942
U.S. Naval Convalescent Hospital (Arrowhead Springs)	N/A	San Bernardino, CA	1944
U.S. Naval Hospital	San Diego Naval Medical Center	San Diego, CA	1922
U.S. Naval Convalescent Hospital	N/A	Santa Cruz, CA	1942
U.S. Naval Hospital	N/A	San Leandro, CA	1942
U.S. Naval Hospital	N/A	Seattle, WA	1942
U.S. Naval Hospital	N/A	Shoemaker, CA	1943
U.S. Naval Convalescent Hospital	N/A	Springfield, MA	1944
U.S. Naval Convalescent Hospital	N/A	Yosemite National Park, CA	1943