Maneuver and Firepower: The Evolution of Divisions and Separate Brigades/Chapter 10

by John Banks Wilson

CHAPTER 10

 

The Search for Atomic
Age Divisions

 

Since we cannot equal our potential enemies on a man for man basis, we must give our soldiers the means of increasing their effective firepower and we must create an organization to control it.

Col. Stanley N. Lonning^[1]

 

After the Korean War the Eisenhower administration adopted a military posture that emphasized nuclear capability through air power rather than ground combat. Three considerations dictated this change: limited resources, a worldwide commitment to contain communism, and the desire to reduce defense spending. Given the declining number of ground combat troops, the Army fielded fewer divisions, but because the possibility of nuclear war remained, Army leaders wanted to devise units that could fight and survive on a nuclear as well as on a conventional battlefield. The divisions developed by the Army for the two combat environments were smaller than in the past, and they were authorized weapons and equipment still under development and not yet in the inventory. The newly designed divisions, however, staked out a role for the Army on the atomic battlefield, which justified appeals for funds to develop new weapons.

 

Exploring Alternative Divisions

Some Army planners thought a general war would be too costly to wage by conventional means because the Communist bloc could field more men and resources than the United States and its allies. Firepower appeared to be the answer for overcoming the enemy. Ever since the United States dropped the first atomic bomb in 1945, American military planners had pondered the use of nuclear weapons on the battlefield. The Army, however, was hampered in its effort to understand the effects of tactical nuclear weapons by the lack of data. Studies suggested that nuclear weapons could be used much like conventional artillery. To achieve the aim of increased firepower with decreased manpower, the Army began to take a closer look at that proposition in the early 1950s.^[2]

As had happened between World Wars I and II, the new divisional studies began with the infantry regiment. Army Field Forces initiated the studies in 1952, when it asked the Infantry School to examine both infantry and airborne infantry regiments. Four goals were to guide the effort: elimination of nonfighters; expansion and more effective use of firepower; simplification and improved organization and control; and a reduction in the size of the regiment. Army Field Forces dropped the last goal when it decided austerity should begin in service and support units before being applied to infantry and airborne infantry regiments. Both regiments were to be alike except for the number of antitank weapons.^[3]

The infantry regiment recommended by the Infantry School consisted of three rifle battalions, a headquarters and headquarters company, a service company, an antitank company, and a weapons company armed with .50-caliber machine guns. Removed from the regiment were the medical, heavy mortar, and tank companies. Assets of the tank company were transferred to the division and those of the heavy mortar company to the division artillery; instead of the medical company, medical personnel were assigned directly to the infantry battalions. The study proposed merging the heavy weapons company of each infantry battalion with the battalion headquarters company, except for the heavy .50-caliber machine guns, which were to be integrated into each battalion's three rifle companies. Additional automatic rifles were placed in the battalions, and more communication personnel were assigned throughout the regiment.^[4]

Maj. Gen. Robert N. Young, Commandant of the Infantry School, had many reservations about the proposed changes and believed that thorough field testing was needed to evaluate them. As a result, an underequipped and understrength 325th Infantry, an element of the 82d Airborne Division, began testing the organization in May 1953 and completed the evaluation in September. The results indicated that the proposed regimental organization was less effective than the one then being used in Korea.^[5]

In the meantime, the Tactical Department of the Infantry School had also begun work on a new type of infantry division. The redesign effort also sought to eliminate nonfighters and to increase firepower as well as to simplify the organization and improve control at the divisional level by using task force organizations similar to those in the armored division. A fixed organization such as an infantry regiment, the studies noted, forced the commander to base his operational plans on the organization rather than on the mission. Task force structures would permit him to organize his forces to accomplish a broader variety of missions. The division that evolved consisted of three brigade headquarters, nine infantry battalions, two armored battalions, division artillery, and combat and combat service support. The brigade headquarters elements had no permanently assigned combat or support units. No reduction resulted in the size of the division, which totaled 18,762 officers and enlisted men.^[6]

In April 1954 Army Chief of Staff Ridgway shifted the emphasis of divisional studies. Under pressure from the Defense Department for smaller units, he noted that divisions had increased firepower and capabilities but were larger and less mobile than their World War II counterparts. The possibility existed, he General Ridgwaybelieved, to make divisions more mobile, more flexible, and less vulnerable to atomic attack. To achieve such goals he directed Army Field Forces to explore the following seven objectives: (1) greater combat manpower ratios; (2) greater combat to support unit ratios; (3) greater flexibility and greater mobility in combat units; (4) maximum use of technological improvements; (5) improvements in the Army's capability to sustain land combat; (6) development of tactical doctrine to support the changes; and (7) reorganization of the units by 1 January 1956.^[7]

Although Army Field Forces became the executive agent for the study, the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth did much of the work required to meet the tight schedule. The study centered on infantry and armored divisions because of the similarity between infantry and airborne divisions. Changes in the infantry division would automatically apply to major aspects of the airborne division. By the fall of 1954 Army Field Forces had developed the Atomic Field Army, or "ATFA–1," which it believed could be organized in 1956.^[8]

Under ATFA–1 infantry and armored divisions were as similar as possible (Chart 26). The infantry division included a separate headquarters battalion; signal, engineer, and tank battalions; seven infantry battalions; division artillery; and a support command. Within the division headquarters battalion were aviation and reconnaissance companies, and within its headquarters and service company were three combat command headquarters along with the divisional staff. One 4.2-inch mortar and two 105-mm. howitzer battalions made up the division artillery. The support command, a new organization, comprised a battalion, which included medical, maintenance, supply and transport, and personnel service companies. Divisional elements lost all administrative functions except those needed to maintain unit efficiency. Personnel for administration, mess, and maintenance functions were concentrated in battalion headquarters companies throughout. All staffs were minimal; the divisional G–1 and G–4 functions were reduced to policy, planning, and coordinating activities. Routine administrative and logistical matters were moved to the support command. Infantry divisions, similar to armored divisions, were to use task force organizations as situations required. Combat command headquarters, the combat arms battalions, and the support units were the building

CHART 26—Atomic Field Army Infantry Division, 30 September 1954

blocks. The strength of the division stood at approximately 13,500 officers and enlisted men, a cut of nearly 4,000 from the 1953 division.^[9]

The armored division (Chart 27) retained its task force structure. It consisted of headquarters, signal, engineer, and reconnaissance battalions; three medium and three heavy tank battalions; three armored infantry battalions; division artillery; and a support command. The headquarters battalion was the same as in the infantry division except for the reconnaissance unit, which was a separate battalion. The artillery was also similar to that in the infantry division, but the 105-mm. howitzers were self-propelled rather than towed. A maintenance battalion and a supply and transport battalion were assigned to the support command, but the division had no separate medical or personnel service units, those functions being integrated into the support battalion. The strength of the division was approximately 12,000 officers and enlisted men, a drop of almost 2,700 soldiers.^[10]

Within both divisions the designers of the Atomic Field Army–1 introduced some significant changes. All aircraft were gathered into an aviation company in the headquarters battalion. The signal battalion, rather than maintaining communications along various axes, provided a grid system that encompassed the entire division area. New FM (frequency modulation) radios permitted that change. Antiaircraft guns were placed in the field artillery battalions, and the military police functions were split between the personnel service and the supply and transport units in the support commands. Separate antiaircraft artillery battalions and military police companies disappeared from both divisions. Neither division fielded nuclear weapons, which were instead located at the field army level.^[11]

In February 1955 the 3d Infantry Division in Exercise Follow Me and the 1st Armored Division in Exercise Blue Bolt tried out these new organizations. The results of the infantry division test showed that independent infantry battalions and the combat commands added flexibility and that the support command provided an acceptable base from which to improve logistical functions. Generally, however, the division lacked the capability to wage sustained combat operations. It needed more on-the-ground strength to execute normal battlefield missions during an atomic war and larger reconnaissance forces to cover the extended frontages and depths envisaged for the nuclear battlefield. Additional antitank and artillery weapons were also required. Staffs at division, combat command, and battalion levels were too small to be fully effective. Blue Bolt neither proved nor disproved that the 1st Armored Division possessed less vulnerability to atomic attacks. But the use of the same command posts for combat command headquarters and tank battalions increased the division's vulnerability to air attacks, as did the omission of the antiaircraft artillery battalion.^[12]

Following the exercises Army Field Forces revised the two organizations, and the 3d Infantry Division and 1st Armored Division again tested them, this time in Operation Sagebrush, a joint Army and Air Force exercise. Both divisions retained combat commands, but their staffs were increased to allow them to conduct operations from separate command posts. The infantry division had two tank

CHART 27—Atomic Field Army Armored Division, 30 September 1954

battalions and eight four-company infantry battalions, while the armored division had one heavy and three medium tank battalions and four infantry battalions of four companies each. To improve command and control, separate division headquarters, aviation, and administration companies replaced the headquarters battalion. The division's artillery reverted to its traditional structure of a headquarters and headquarters battery, a medical detachment, and one 155-mm. and three 105-mm. howitzer battalions with an antiaircraft artillery battery in each battalion. A reconnaissance battalion, identical to the one in the armored division, improved the "eyes and ears" of the infantry division. Engineer resources were increased in both divisions, and a bridge company was restored to the armored division. The support commands in both organizations were restructured to consist of a headquarters and headquarters company, a band, military police and medical companies, a maintenance battalion, and a supply and transport unit. In the infantry division the supply and transport unit remained a company, while in the tank division it was a battalion. The signal battalion in both divisions continued to furnish an area system of communications. These changes increased the strength of the infantry division from 13,542 to 17,027 troops and the armored division from 11,930 to 13,971.^[13]

Maj. Gen. George E. Lynch, the "Marne" Division commander, and Maj. Gen. Robert L. Howze, commanding "Old Ironsides," reached different conclusions about the revised divisions. Lynch found that the infantry division operated in much the same manner as a conventional division with an improved logistical system. He nevertheless concluded that the Army should return to the traditional division organization with three regimental combat teams, which, he believed, were as flexible as combat commands. Furthermore, Lynch thought regimental organization fostered morale; encouraged teamwork between subordinate and superior commanders, as well as their staffs; provided knowledge about capabilities and weaknesses of units and their leaders; and stimulated cooperative working methods. Lynch's proposed changes raised the divisional strength to 21,678 officers and enlisted men. Howze, on the other hand, found the armored division generally acceptable. He suggested returning all mess and second-echelon maintenance to the company level, converting the medical unit to a battalion, forming headquarters and service companies or batteries for battalions in all the arms, concentrating antiaircraft resources into one battalion, and augmenting maintenance throughout the division. Howze did not specify the strength of his proposed division, but Lt. Gen. John H. Collier, Fourth Army commander, in whose area the operation was conducted, reported on the test and recommended 15,819 of all ranks.^[14]

In 1956 the U.S. Continental Army Command, which had replaced Army Field Forces, distributed revised tables of organization for Atomic Field Army divisions throughout the Army for review and comment. While controversies persisted, the command noted that gains had been made in the infantry division's ability to carry out a variety of missions and to protect itself against atomic attack. The Atomic Field Army studies refrained from making any revolutionary changes in the armored division. Recommended changes incorporated such desirable features as the area system of communications, the administrative services company as a home for special staffs and the replacement section, an aviation company for more flexibility in the use of aircraft, and the new support command for better logistical support.^[15] An image should appear at this position in the text.General Taylor

At this point Chief of Staff General Maxwell D. Taylor called a halt. On 10 April 1956, he decided the Army would not adopt the recommendations of the Atomic Field Army studies. They were not achieving more austere divisions, but, in fact, were recommending units that were larger than the post-World War II ones. He directed the Continental Army Command to terminate all initiatives concerning the Atomic Field Army but to complete reports for future reference.^[16]

The Army's search for austere units that could survive on both conventional and nuclear battlefields thus appeared to have gone nowhere. Those who had tested or commented on the Atomic Field Army divisions either disagreed with or had misunderstood the overall objectives of Ridgway and the Army Staff. Maj. Gen. Garrison H. Davidson, Commandant of the Command and General Staff College, opposed a "lean" division because he thought it would sacrifice training between the combat arms and services. He also thought that such a division was inappropriate for use as a mobilization base. The college, he noted, preferred "a very flexible outfit, which could be beefed up or skinned down as necessary on deployment."^[17]

Furthermore, those who evaluated the divisions paid little heed to use of tactical atomic weapons. Over 250 simulated tests had been conducted in the Sagebrush exercise. Taylor concluded after the exercises that "we in the Army have a long way to go before we understand the problems of using these weapons," noting that "we would have probably destroyed ourselves and all our friends had we tossed atomic weapons about a real battlefield in the way we did in this maneuver."^[18]

 

Pentomic Divisions

In response to Ridgway's directive in November 1954, the Army War College had begun work on a study entitled "Doctrinal and Organizational Concepts for Atomic-Nonatomic Army During the Period 1960–1970," which had the short title of PENTANA. Ridgway wanted the study to outline broad doctrinal and organizational concepts applicable to sustained ground combat on the Eurasian land mass during the period 1960–70. While the study was to make use of the maximum technological developments, including nuclear weapons of all types, Ridgway also desired that the Army retain a capability for conventional warfare.^[19] An image should appear at this position in the text.101st Airborne Division simulates an atomic bomb blast. For Campbell, Kentucky, 1957.

Completed in December 1955, the Army War College study called for a completely air transportable 8,600-man division to replace infantry, airborne, and armored divisions. The new division was to be built around five small, self-sufficient "battle groups" that would include their own artillery. The battle groups were to meet the tactical requirements for dispersion of forces, operations in depth, and increased flexibility and mobility on the atomic battlefield. Organic division artillery, although meager, included the Honest John, a surface-to-surface rocket with a nuclear warhead. The division had minimal logistical and administrative support and lacked tanks, antiaircraft artillery, engineer, and reconnaissance units (Chart 28).^[20]

Not surprisingly, many Army leaders found the PENTANA division unacceptable. When General John E. Dahlquist, commander of the Continental Army Command, forwarded the study to Washington, he noted that the reaction of the arms and services to the division was directly related to the impact of the proposal on their strengths and missions. Those who perceived an increase in responsibility endorsed the idea, those who saw no change acquiesced, and those who discerned a diminution of strengths and responsibilities violently opposed it. The Armor School objected to the lack of divisional tanks, the Artillery School desired more conventional artillery, and the Command and General Staff College questioned the division's staying power. The most damning comment came from Chief of Engineers Lt. Gen. Samuel D. Sturgis, Jr., who considered the concept "completely unacceptable intellectually and scientifically."^[21]

Nevertheless, Chief of Staff Taylor approved the PENTANA study on 1 June 1956 as a goal for future research and development of new weapons, equipment, and organizations. It was not an entirely new idea for him. As the commander of the Eighth Army he had experimented with a division having five subordinate elements in the Korean Army. In the meantime, the Army was to fill the gap

Honest John rocket launcher

between what it had and what it wanted by adopting modified versions of the concept, using new weapons and equipment as they became available. He believed that until the goal of a PENTANA division could be reached, the Army would continue to need infantry, airborne, and armored divisions.^[22]

Before Taylor approved the PENTANA study, he had directed the reorganization of the airborne division using a modification of the concept. He judged the existing airborne division incapable of functioning effectively either in an airborne role or in sustained ground combat. It could neither be divided into balanced task forces nor be airlifted. Taylor suggested a division of 10,000 or 12,000 men organized into five battle groups that fielded nuclear weapons. Including such arms in the division, he believed, would both stimulate their development and assist in developing doctrine for their use.^[23]

On 15 December 1955, the Continental Army Command submitted a proposal for an airborne division that incorporated features of both the PENTANA and ATFA studies. Each one of its five battle groups would consist of four infantry companies; a 4.2-inch mortar battery; and a headquarters and service company comprising engineer, signal, supply, maintenance, reconnaissance, assault weapons, and medical resources. A divisional support group made up of a maintenance battalion and administrative, medical, and supply and transport companies provided logistical services. The divisional command and control battalion assets included the division headquarters, a headquarters and service company, an aviation company, and a reconnaissance troop. A signal battalion furnished a grid communication system, and a small engineer battalion provided the resources needed to construct an airstrip within forty-eight hours. The artillery fielded three

CHART 28—PENTANA Division

105-mm. howitzer batteries (eight pieces each) for direct support and one nuclear weapons battery, equipped with two cumbersome 762-mm. Honest John rockets, for general support. Planners sacrificed the range of the 155-mm. howitzers to gain the air deliverability of the 105-mm. howitzers and their prime movers. No command level intervened between the division headquarters and the battle groups or between the battle groups and company-size units, speeding response time. Staffs for all units were minimal. Because of the lean nature of the division, mess facilities were eliminated except in the medical company and the headquarters company of the support group. Instead, the Continental Army Command recommended the attachment of a food service company in garrison.^[24]

Taylor approved the concept in February 1956 with the following modifications: the addition of a fifth infantry company to each battle group, an increase in the number of 105-mm. howitzer batteries from three to five (while reducing the number of pieces from eight to five), inclusion of a band, and the elimination of the attached food service company. He also wanted the administration company moved from the support group to the command and control battalion and the artillery group redesignated as division artillery.^[25]

Following Taylor's guidance, the command published tables of organization and equipment on 10 August 1956 known as ROTAD (Reorganization of the Airborne Division). The division had 11,486 officers and enlisted men (Chart 29), and, for the first time in its history, all men and equipment, except for the Honest Johns, could be carried on existing aircraft. The designers of the new division thought that it was capable of operating from three to five days independently, but it would need to be reinforced for operations that lasted for a longer period.^[26]

To test what Taylor called the new "pentomic"^[27] division, he selected his former unit, the 101st Airborne Division, then serving as a training division at Fort Jackson. On 31 April 1956, the division moved without its personnel and equipment to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, where it was reorganized, acquiring personnel from the 187th and 508th Regimental Combat Teams and equipment from the 11th Airborne Division that had been left at Fort Campbell after the unit had participated in the Gyroscope program.^[28]

The "Screaming Eagles" conducted a series of individual unit evaluations rather than one divisional exercise. Lt. Gen. Thomas E Hickey, the test director, judged the new division suitable for short-duration airborne assaults, with improved prospects for survival and success during either an atomic or a conventional war. However, he noted major deficiencies in the direct support artillery—its short range and lack of lethality; in logistical resources, which were less effective than in the triangular division; and in the total strength of the division. The division was so austere that it could not undertake garrison duties and maintain combat readiness.^[29]

To remedy these weaknesses, Hickey recommended replacing the 105-mm. howitzers with 155-mm. pieces except for parachute assaults. Instead of five howitzer batteries, he proposed four. The larger howitzer would give the direct support artillery the range he believed that the division required. Also, since the fifth battle

CHART 29—Airborne Division (ROTAD), 10 August 1956

¹Includes the Division band.

group in the division was to be held in reserve, he proposed deleting its direct support artillery battery. Other recommendations included eliminating the support group and reorganizing the logistical resources, except for maintenance organized along functional lines, in a pre-Atomic Field Army configuration. A 10 percent increase in divisional strength was suggested, as well as an enlarged garrison complement wherever a pentomic division was stationed. Hickey wished to move the administration company to the rear because its functions did not require the unit's presence in the forward area; he thought the infantry platoon should be eliminated from the reconnaissance troop because it lacked the mobility of the troop's other elements; and he wanted a military intelligence detachment added to the division's headquarters battalion to help with order of battle, photographic interpretation, and other G–2 duties. Finally, he advocated an increase in the grades of the commanders of the rifle companies, mortar batteries, and howitzer batteries to make their rank commensurate with the responsibilities associated with independent actions required on the "pentomic battlefield."^[30]

The test findings and Hickey's recommendations worked their way through the Continental Army Command. Dahlquist agreed with most of Hickey's proposals except for the artillery and support group. He believed that 105-mm. howitzers should be retained as direct support weapons because they could be airlifted in two helicopter loads or towed by 3/4-ton trucks. Rather than decreasing the number of artillery batteries, he wanted the division to retain five, each with six pieces. He opposed changes in the support group because its structure had not been fully tested, and he felt that Hickey's recommendation to eliminate it was premature.^[31]

The Army Staff agreed with Dahlquist's views regarding the number of artillery batteries but not on increasing the number of pieces in each battery. No change in the support group won approval, and the staff opposed the elimination of the infantry platoon from the reconnaissance troop, the addition of the military intelligence detachment, and alterations in the rank of company and battery commanders. The Continental Army Command published tables of organization for the pentomic airborne division reflecting the views of the Army Staff in June 1958 without a change in unit's overall strength. Both the 82d and 101st Airborne Divisions adopted them by December.^[32]

Shortly after the 101st Airborne Division began testing ROTAD, Taylor directed the Continental Army Command to develop a new infantry division along similar pentagonal lines. It was to have five battle groups (a headquarters and service company, one mortar battery, and four infantry companies each); conventional and nuclear artillery; tank, signal, and engineer battalions; a reconnaissance squadron with ground and air capabilities; and trains. The trains, who commander was responsible for the activities of the service troops in the rear area, were to include a transportation battalion, an aviation company, and an administration company. The transportation battalion was to have sufficient armored personnel carriers to move an entire battle group at one time, and the aviation company was to be placed in the trains for better supervision of its maintenance. Taylor wanted to optimize the span of control in the division by giving each commander the maximum number of subordinate elements that could be controlled effectively. He believed such a division could be organized with 13,500 men of all ranks, a reduction of nearly 4,000 from the 1955 infantry division.^[33]

On 15 October 1956 the Continental Army Command forwarded manning charts (Chart 30) for "ROCID" (Reorganization of the Current Infantry Division) to Washington. The planners followed Taylor's general guidance but recommended a division slightly larger than expected. They provided the tank and engineer battalions with five companies each and the division artillery with two battalions—five batteries of 105-mm. howitzers in one and an Honest John rocket, one 8-inch howitzer, and two 155-mm. howitzer batteries in the other. Each 105-mm. howitzer battery fielded six pieces and boasted of its own fire direction center, and each mortar battery in the battle group had assigned liaison, fire direction, forward air controller, and forward observer personnel. In addition to headquarters and headquarters detachment and band, the division trains included medical, ordnance, and transportation battalions and aviation, administrative, and quartermaster companies.^[34]

Taylor hesitated to adopt the pentagonal structure for the armored division because he feared that such a change would make the organization too large. Nevertheless, Lt. Gen. Clyde Eddleman, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Military Operations, instructed the Continental Army Command to modernize the division by adding atomic weapons, increasing target acquisition capabilities, and reducing the number of vehicles. To carry out his wishes, the command added a reconnaissance and surveillance platoon to the reconnaissance battalion, provided aircraft in the aviation company to support it, and replaced the 155-mm. howitzers in one battery of the general support battalion with 8-inch howitzers that could fire nuclear rounds. No significant reduction in the number of vehicles took place because the atomic and conventional battlefields required more transportation resources than authorized in the existing division. A command and control battalion that included administration and aviation companies was added. To offset increases in the divisional elements, the command eliminated the antiaircraft artillery battalion.^[35]

On 5 November 1956 the Army Staff approved the pentomic armored division with some exceptions. The staff directed the formation of separate divisional headquarters, aviation, and administrative companies in place of the suggested command and control battalion and moved the administration company to the trains. The former 155-mm. howitzer battalion was reorganized as a composite unit comprising an Honest John, an 8-inch howitzer, and two 155-mm. howitzer batteries. The Army published the "ROCAD" (Reorganization of the Current Armored Division) tables reflecting these changes in December 1956. They called for a division of 14,617 officers and enlisted men (Chart 31), 34 fewer than included in the 1955 tables. The tank count stood at 360, of which 54 were armed with 75-mm. guns and 306 with 90-mm. guns. All the medium tanks were in four tank battalions.^[36]

CHART 30—Infantry Division (ROCID), 21 December 1956

Reorganization of the Divisions

After the Continental Army Command completed the tables of organization for infantry and armored divisions, Taylor met with Army school commandants on 28 February 1957 to sell them on the pentomic reorganization of the Army. He noted that the doctrine of massive retaliation ruled out nuclear war, but that the chance existed that war might stem from unchecked local aggression or error. The Army had to be prepared to prevent or stop a small war as well as conduct a nuclear conflict. He believed that the new divisions, although controversial, could meet both challenges.^[37]

More important was what Taylor did not say about the pentomic divisions and why the Army was adopting them. The Army's budget called for unglamorous weapons and equipment such as rifles, machine guns, and trucks, which had little appeal for Congress or the nation. Secretary of Defense Charles E. Wilson earlier had returned the Army's budget to Taylor, directing him to substitute "newfangled" equipment that Congress would support.

The Army's literature soon reported on such ideas as "convertiplanes," which combined the advantages of rotary-wing and fixed-wing aircraft; one-man "flying platforms"; and the adoption of pentomic divisions, which fielded nuclear weapons. Later Taylor wrote, "nuclear weapons were the going thing and, by including some in the division armament, the Army staked out its claim to a share of the nuclear arsenal."^[38]

When reorganizing Regular Army infantry and armored divisions in 1957 under the pentomic structure, several major changes were made in the force to accommodate a cut of 100,000 men and changing world conditions. In the Far East, the United States agreed to withdraw all ground combat troops from Japan. Subsequently the 1st Cavalry Division moved to Korea, where it replaced the 24th Infantry Division. While the 7th Infantry Division remained in Korea, the 24th was eventually reorganized in Germany to replace the 11th Airborne Division. Also in Germany, the 3d Infantry Division replaced the 10th Infantry Division, which was returned to Fort Benning as part of Gyroscope. With these changes U.S. Army, Europe, still fielded five divisions, the 3d and 4th Armored Divisions and the 3d, 8th, and 24th Infantry Divisions. The European command also retained an airborne capability by reorganizing two battle groups in the 24th Infantry Division as airborne units. At Fort Benning, Georgia, the 2d Infantry Division, which earlier had been reduced to zero strength, replaced the 10th Infantry Division, which was inactivated. The 5th Infantry Division was also inactivated at Fort Ord; the 1st Armored Division, less its Combat Command A, was reduced to zero strength; and the 25th Infantry Division was cut one battle group. When the game of musical chairs with divisions was over, the Regular Army consisted of fifteen divisions. In most cases only the division names and flags moved, not the personnel and equipment. These changes in the divisional designations reflected the desire of Army leaders to keep divisions with outstand-

CHART 31—Armored Division (ROCAD), 1956

ing histories on the active rolls. Most soldiers, however, did not understand the rationale, and unit morale suffered.^[39]

As the Army reorganized and shuffled divisions around the world, it adopted the Combat Arms Regimental System (CARS) for infantry, artillery, cavalry, and armor. During the ATFA and PENTANA studies a debate arose regarding unit designations. Traditionally regiments were the basic branch element, especially for the infantry, and their long histories had produced deep traditions considered essential to unit esprit de corps. The new divisional structure, replacing infantry regiments with anonymous battle groups, threatened to destroy all these traditions. Secretary of the Army Wilber M. Brucker settled the question on 24 January 1957 when he approved the Combat Arms Regimental System. Although regiments would no longer exist as tactical units except for armored cavalry, certain distinguished regiments were to become "parent" organizations for the combat arms. Under the new concept, the Department of the Army assumed control of regimental headquarters, the repository for a unit's lineage, honors, and traditions, and used elements of the regiments to organize battle groups, battalions, squadrons, companies, batteries, and troops, which shared in the history and honors of their parent units.^[40]

When infantry regiments were eliminated in divisions as tactical units, they were also eliminated as nondivisional organizations. The Army replaced the nondivisional regimental combat teams with separate, flexible combined arms "brigades," shifting the concept of a brigade. Instead of being composed of two or more regiments or battalions of the same arm or service, the concept encompassed a combined arms unit equivalent to a reinforced regiment. Initially only two brigades were formed. First was the 2d Infantry Brigade, activated at Fort Devens on 14 February 1958 to replace the 4th Regimental Combat Team. No tables of organization existed for the unit, which at the time consisted of a headquarters, two battle groups, one artillery battalion, a reconnaissance troop, two engineer and two armor companies, and trains. The last element was an adaptation of the trains of an infantry division and consisted of a headquarters element and administration, ordnance, quartermaster, and medical companies. A miniature division, the 2d Brigade had 4,188 officers and enlisted men commanded by a brigadier general. To support the Infantry School at Fort Benning, the Third United States Army organized the 1st Infantry Brigade on 25 July 1958. It contained two battle groups; one artillery battalion (one Honest John, one 155-mm. howitzer, and two 105-mm. howitzer batteries); armor, transportation, and engineer companies; and signal and chemical platoons, but no trains. A colonel commanded the 3,600 officers and enlisted men assigned to the unit.^[41]

 

Evaluating ROCID and ROCAD

After completing the pentomic reorganization in the Regular Army, the Continental Army Command conducted further tests of the new organizations. In general, such efforts elicited favorable reports, finding the divisions to be adequate for atomic and conventional warfare. In particular, the command noted the new infantry division's flexibility, unity of command, mobility, and decisive combat power in terms of nuclear firepower. The infantry division, however, suffered from deficiencies in four areas—staying power, ground surveillance, artillery support, and staff organization. To correct these problems, the command made several recommendations: adding a fifth rifle company and a radar section to each battle group; eliminating the 4.2-inch mortar as an artillery weapon (but retaining some in the headquarters company of the battle group); reorganizing the artillery into one divisional composite battalion (one Honest John and two 8-inch howitzer batteries) and five 105/155-mm. howitzer battalions (two self-propelled and three towed); and bolstering the aviation company with an aircraft field maintenance element, an avionics repair team, and approach control teams. More staff officers were essential, particularly for the G–3 operation sections. The transportation battalion's truck company was found to be inadequate, and officers in the field suggested that all companies in the battalion be equipped with armored personnel carriers.^[42]

As in the development of the pentomic airborne division, rank structures also came under scrutiny. Because of the increased command responsibility, the Continental Army Command recommended that the commander of the headquarters company of the battle group be raised from a captain to a major and that commanders of the smaller artillery battalions be reduced from lieutenant colonels to majors. Compared to an infantry regiment, the new battle group lacked billets for majors, a circumstance that would adversely affect the career pattern of infantry officers.^[43]

On 29 December 1958 Deputy Chief of Staff for Military Operations Lt. Gen. James E. Moore approved the recommendations for reorganizing the infantry division with some changes. He rejected changes in the grades of the commanders of artillery battalions and the headquarters company of the battle groups and vetoed additional armored personnel carriers for the transportation battalion. He dropped an 8-inch howitzer battery from the composite artillery battalion, leaving it with only one 8-inch howitzer battery and one Honest John battery, and split the headquarters company of the battle group into two organizations, a headquarters company and a combat support company. All tactical support, including the radar section and the reconnaissance, heavy mortar, and assault weapons platoons, were to be contained in the battle group's combat support company to achieve improved command and control. A separate transportation detachment was added to provide third-echelon aircraft maintenance. With this guidance in hand, the Continental Army Command published new tables of organization for the division, without a change in its overall strength—13,748 of all ranks (Chart 32).^[44]

For the armored division, further tests led to a number of minor adjustments. These included moving the reconnaissance and surveillance platoon in the recon-

CHART 32—Pentomic Infantry Division, 1 February 1960

naissance squadron to the aviation company, providing a transportation aircraft maintenance detachment to support the aviation company, and reorganizing the reconnaissance squadron as in the infantry division. Observers also saw the need for an alternate, or backup, divisional command post, a larger staff for the artillery coordination center, and the establishment of a radiological center to detect radioactive contaminates. Minor alterations were also to be made in the service units to support these new alignments. All changes in the armored division were made without increasing its strength of 14,617.^[45]

In 1959 and 1960 the Army placed Regular Army infantry and armored divisions under the revised tables that resulted from the field tests. Also, to meet a Department of Defense manpower ceiling of 870,000, the Army Staff decided to eliminate the 9th Infantry Division at Fort Carson, Colorado. The Fifth United States Army reduced the division to zero strength and later inactivated it, cutting the number of active Regular Army divisions to fourteen. In Korea the Army continued to resort to the Korean Argumentation to U.S. Army (KATUSA) program, begun during the Korean War, to keep the 1st Cavalry Division and the 7th Infantry Division at full strength; each division was assigned about 4,000 South Koreans.^[46]

The Army Staff had delayed reorganization of the reserves, but in 1959 it decided to realign National Guard and Army Reserve divisions under pentomic structures. A controversy immediately surfaced over the required number of reserve divisions. Secretary of Defense Neil H. McElroy decided on 37 divisions, 27 National Guard and 10 Army Reserve. By 1 September 1959 the twenty-one infantry and six armored divisions in the Guard had reorganized, and one month later ten Army Reserve infantry divisions completed their transition, but at a reduced strength. The eleventh combat division, the 104th, in the Army Reserve was converted to training, for a total of thirteen training divisions, all of which were in the Army Reserve.^[47]

Following the pattern established by the regulars, the states eliminated nondivisional regimental combat teams from the Guard and replaced them with separate combined arms brigades. Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Arizona organized the 29th, 92d, and 258th Infantry Brigades, respectively. These units had varying numbers of combat arms elements but lacked trains needed to support independent operations.^[48]

When reserve units began to adopt pentomic configurations, the Continental Army Command developed separate organizational tables for training divisions. These tables permitted the Army Reserve to retain the existing authorization of three general officers—the commander and two assistant commanders—and ensured standardization of these noncombat divisions. Each training division consisted of a headquarters and headquarters company, five regiments (an advanced individual, a common specialist, and three basic combat training regiments),^[49] a receiving company, and a band (Chart 33). Each division in reserve status had about 3,100 of all ranks and on mobilization would run a replacement training center capable of training 12,000 men. The continental armies reorganized the

CHART 33—Training Division, 1 April 1959

Note 12d Bn (Adv Indiv Tng) includes:
⁠	(AD Arty)	(Adv Indiv Tng)
	(FA)	(Adv Indiv Tng)
	2 (Engr)	(Adv Indiv Tng)
Note 2 3d Bn (Adv Indiv Tng) includes:
	(Cml)	(Adv Indiv Tng)
	(Ord)	(Adv Indiv Tng)
	(Med)	(Adv Indiv Tng)
	(MP)	(Adv Indiv Tng)

training divisions in 1959, and the adjutant general officially redesignated them as "divisions (training)."^[50]

One of the objectives of the pentomic reorganization was to enable the units to absorb new equipment. The M14 rifle, a 7.62-caliber rifle that could fire in semiautomatic or automatic modes, replaced the vintage M1 rifle, the carbine, the submachine gun, and the Browning automatic rifle; the 7.62-caliber M60 machine gun replaced the heavy water-cooled and light air-cooled Browning .30-caliber machine guns. These new weapons simplified production; reduced spare parts, maintenance, and training time; and used standard NATO cartridges, permitting greater compatibility with Western European weapons. The diesel-powered M60 tank, armed with a 105-mm. gun, and the low silhouette, air-transportable M113 armored personnel carrier also entered the Army's inventory. Work began on new antiaircraft weapons, recoilless rifles, and 4.2-inch mortars, but most did not become available for several more years.^[51]

When the Army completed the pentomic reorganization in 1960, it had 51 combat divisions in its three components (14 in the Regular Army, 10 in the Army Reserve, and 27 in the National Guard), 5 infantry brigades (2 in the Regular Army and 3 in the Guard), and 1 Regular Army armored combat command. Although divisions were organized for nuclear warfare, only a few were actually ready for combat. Some Regular Army divisions continued to conduct their own basic training courses to reduce costs and personnel, and Korean nationals served in the divisions in Korea. Guard units ranged between 55 and 71 percent of their authorized strengths, while Army Reserve organizations varied from 45 to 80 percent.^[52]

 

In sum, as the Eisenhower administration reduced the Army's budget from $16 billion to $9.3 billion between 1953 and 1960, the total force dropped to the lowest number of divisions since the beginning of the Korean War. On the surface, changing concepts of warfare during this period led the Army to adopt pentomic divisions, structures that fell outside traditional organizational practices. But whatever the concerns of Army leaders for operating on a nuclear battlefield, Taylor, the primary force behind the new divisions, clearly was using the pentomic concepts to get increases in the military budget from political leaders who were less interested in supporting more conventional military systems. Nevertheless, the fertile ideas of this period resulted in new organizational concepts and new equipment and weapon systems, all of which were to see further development in the next two decades.

 

Notes

1. Col Stanley N. Lonning to Acting Assistant Commandant, The Infantry School (TIS), 23 Apt 53, sub: Proposed Reorganization of the Infantry and Airborne Divisions, UA 27.51 15 (4/23/53), Infantry School Library (ISL), Fort Benning, Ga.
2. John J. Midgley, Deadly Illusions: Army Policy for the Nuclear Battlefield (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1986), pp. 2–5.
3. Ltr, OCAFF to CG, Infantry Center, 28 Apr 52, sub: Organization of the Infantry Regiment, 28 Apr 52, ATTNG (Deputy Chief of Staff, G–3–Training)-23 322/6 (Regt) (28 Apr 52), ISL.
4. Report of Board of Officers, to CG, Infantry Center, 11 Aug 52, sub: Report of Board of Officers, ISL.
5. 1st Ind, TIS to OCAFF, 11 Aug 52, sub: Report of Board of Officers, GNKEAD-R 320 (11 Aug 52), and Ltr, Infantry School Representatives, XVII Airborne Corps, to CG, XVII Airborne Corps, 25 Sep 53, sub: Report of Evaluation, Phase III, Operation FALCON, Infantry School Representatives, ABCGC (Airborne Corps General Correspondence) 353 Opn FALCON, ISL: OCAFF, "Summary of Major Events and Problems, FY 1953," ch. 8, pp. 1–12, DAMH-HSR.
6. Ltr, Attack Group, Tactical Department, TIS, 28 Jul 52, sub: Proposed Reorganization of Infantry Units, ISL; Col Lonning to Acting Assistant Commandant, TIS, 23 Apr 53, sub: Proposed Reorganization of the Infantry and Airborne Divisions.
7. Matthew B. Ridgway, Soldier: The Memoirs of Matthew B, Ridgway (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956), pp. 286–87; Ltr, OCofS to OCAFF, 19 Apr 54, sub; Organizational Studies to Improve the Army Combat Potential-to-Manpower Ratio, RG 337, Army Field Forces, NARA.
8. Midgley, Deadly Illusions, pp. 44–45; Ltr, OCofS to OCAFF, 19 Apr 54, sub: Organizational Studies to Improve the Army Combat Potential-to-Manpower Ratio, Ltr, OCAFF to Chief of Information, Department of the Army (CINFO), 13 Sep 54, sub: Fact Sheet, Project ATFA-1 (hereafter cited as Fact Sheet, Project ATFA-1, 13 Sep 54), both ATTIS (OCAFF, Information Section) 320, RG 337, NARA.
9. Fact Sheet, Project ATFA-1, 13 Sep 54; TOE 7 ATFA, Infantry Division, 30 Sep 1954.
10. Fact Sheet, Project ATFA-1, 13 Sep 54; TOE 17 ATFA, Armored Division, 30 Sep 1954.
11. Fact Sheet, Project ATFA-1, 13 Sep 54.
12. Ltr, CONARC to TAG and other addresses, 25 Apr 56, sub: Concept and Technical Review of the Tentative 1956 ATFA Infantry Division, ATTNG-D&R (Office of the CofS, G–3–Research and Development, 322/50 (Div) (25 Apr 56), and Ltr, CONARC to TAG and other addresses, 23 May 56, sub: Concept and Technical Review of the Tentative 1956 ATFA Armored Division, ATTNG-D&R 322/16 (Diy) (23 May 56), both Division General file, DAMH-HSO; Midgley, Deadly Illusions, p.49.
13. Moenk, Large-Scale Army Maneuvers, pp, 205–20; TOE 7, ATFA Infantry Division, 30 Jun 1955; TOE 17, ATFA Armored Division, 30 Jun 1955.
14. 3d Infantry Division, Final Evaluation Report on the ATFA Infantry Division (TOE 77), 15 Jan 56, Command and General Staff College (CGSC) Library, Fort Leavenworth, Kans.; Ltr, CONARC to TAG and other addresses, 25 Apr 56, sub: Concept and Technical Review of the Tentative 1956 ATFA Infantry Division, ATTNG-D&R 322/50 (Div) (25 Apr 56), RG 337, NARA; Ltr, 1st Armd Div to CG, Fourth Army, 1 Jan 56, sub: Final Report on Exercise Blue Bolt II, AKDHD-CG 354.2, and Ltr, Fourth Army to CG, CONARC, 13 Feb 56, Final Report, Exercise Blue Bolt II, AKADC-M-BEG 354.2, both CGSC Library; Ltr, CONARC to TAG and other addresses, 23 May 56, Concept and Technical Review of the Tentative 1956 ATFA Armored Division, ATTNG-D&R 322/16 (Div) (23 May 56), RG 337, NARA.
15. Ltr, CONARC to TAG and other addresses, 23 May 56, sub: Concept and Technical Review of the Tentative 1956 ATFA Armored Division, and Ltr, CONARC to TAG and other addresses, 25 Apr 56, sub: Concept and Technical Review of the Tentative 1956 ATFA Infantry Division.
16. Ltr, TAG to CG, CONARC, 6 Jun 56, sub: The 1956 Army Reorganization, AGAM-P (Office of the Adjutant General, Publications Branch) 320 (5 Jun 56) DCSOPS, Division General file, DAMH-HSO.
17. Ltr, Garrison H, Davidson to Willard G, Wyman, 21 Feb 56, CGSC Library.
18. Moenk, Large-Scale Army Maneuvers, p. 212; Transcript of Address by General Maxwell D. Taylor, Chief of Staff, United States Army, Before the Army School Commandants, Room 2E-715A, The Pentagon, Washington, D.C., Thursday, 28 Feb 57, CS 322 (1 Feb 57), RG 319, NARA.
19. Ltr, G–3 to CG, CONARC, 17 Nov 54, sub: Organization of the Army During the Period FY 1960–1970, RG 319, NARA; Midgley, Deadly Illusions, pp. 58–59.
20. Ltr, CONARC to TAG and other addresses, 28 Oct 55, sub: PENTANA Army (U), ATSWD (Combat Developments)-G–322/4 (Army) (28 Oct 55), 322/4 (Army), RG 319, NARA.
21. Ltr, John E. Dahlquist to Maxwell D. Taylor, 12 Dec 55, 322/19/Army 6–10 Aug 56, RG 319, NARA.
22. Taylor, Swords and Plowshares, pp. 152–53: John M. Taylor, General Maxwell Taylor: The Sword and the Pen (New York: Doubleday, 1989), pp. 198–99; Ltr, Maxwell D. Taylor to CG, CONARC, sub: Army Organization, 1 Jun 56, Division General file, DAMH-HSO.
23. Ltr, CofS to CG, CONARC, sub: Reorganization of the Airborne Division and the Development of Special Airborne Reconnaissance Units, 20 Sep 55, RG 319, NARA.
24. Ltr, CONARC to CofS, 15 Dee 55, sub: Reorganization of the Airborne Division (S), ATSWD 322/31 (Div) (15 Dec 55), 101st Abn Div file, DAMH-HSO. During the planning for the pentomic reorganization the Army returned to use troop and squadron for cavalry reconnaissance units.
25. Ltr, DCofS for Military Operations to CG, CONARC, 20 Feb 56, sub: Reorganization of the Airborne Division, OPS OT DC 2, 101st Abn Div file, DAMH-HSO.
26. TOE 57T, ROTAD, Airborne Division, 1956; CONARC, "Summary of Major Events and Problems, 1956," vol. 1, Doctrine and Requirements Division, G3 Section, 1 Jan–30 Jun 56, Reorganization and Test of the Airborne Division (Project ROTAD), pp. 1–4, DAMH-HSR.
27. Taylor coined the Madison Avenue term "pentomic" to describe units organized with pentagonal structures and atomic capabilities. See Taylor, Swords and Plowshares, p. 171.
28. DOD News Release No. 1205–55, 14 Dec 55, Ltr, TAG to CG, Third Army, 4 Jun 56, sub: Reorganization of the 101st Airborne Division, AGAO-O (M) 322 (23 May 56) DCSPER, and Wilber Brucker, Address before AMVETS National Convention, 1 Sep 56, all 101st Abn Div file, DAMH-HSO; "Run Down on the 101," Army 7 (Oct 1956); 51–53.
29. CONARC, "Summary of Major Events and Problems, 1 Jul 56–30 Jun 57," vol. 1, ch. 2, pp. 1–5.
30. Ibid. p. 6–12.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid., p. 13; CONARC, "Summary of Major Events and Problems, 1 Jul 57–30 Jun 58," vol. 3, Organization and Equipment Division, pp. 1–4, DAMH-HSR; TOE 57D, Airborne Division, 1958; Ltr, TAG to CG, Third Army, 19 Nov 58, sub: Reorganization of the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, AGAO-O (M) 322 (20 Oct 58) DCSPER, 10st Abn Div file, DAMH-HSO; "The Army's Month," Army 8 (Apr 1958); 20.
33. Ltr, CofS to CONARC, 23 Aug 56, sub: Reorganization of Current Infantry Division, Division General file, DAMH-HSO.
34. Ltr, CONARC to DCofS for Military Operations and other addresses, 15 Oct 56, sub: Reorganization of Current Infantry Division, ATTNG-D&R 322/53 (Div) (15 Oct 56), and Ltr, CG, CONARC, to CoS, 21 Dec 56, sub: Basic Doctrinal Guidance in Connection with New (ROCID) Division Organization, ATCG (CG, CONARC), both Division General file, DAMH-HSO.
35. Taylor's address, 28 Feb 57; CONARC, "Major Events and Problems, 1 Jul 56–30 Jun 57," vol, 1, Doctrine and Requirements Division, G3 Section, 1 Jan–30 Jun 57, pp. 20–23.
36. CONARC, "Major Events and Problems, 1 Jul 56–30 Jun 57," vol. 3, Organization and Equipment, G3 Section, pp. 3–7; TOE 17T ROCAD, Armored Division, 1956.
37. Taylor's address, 28 Feb 57.
38. Taylor, Swords and Plowshares, p, 171; Glenn Hawkins, "United States Force Structure and Force Design Initiatives, 1939–1989." Ms, pp. 35–36, DAMH-RAD; "Infantry of Tomorrow," Army, 6 (Sep 1955): 47–48; "Let's All Fly on Platforms," Army 6 (Dec 1955): 25.
39. DF, Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations (ODCSOPS) to Sec of the General Staff and other addresses, sub: Reorganization of Divisions, 2 May 57, OPS OT OR 1, Pentomic Divisions, Division General file, Ltr, TAG to CinC, U.S. Army, Pacific (USARPAC), and other addresses, 22 Aug 57, sub: Transfer of the 24th Infantry Division and Reorganization of the 1st Cavalry Division, AGAO-O (M) 322 (16 Aug 57) DCSPER, Ltr, TAG to CinC, USARPAC, and other addresses, 29 Aug 57, same subject, AGAO-O (M) 322 (27 Aug 57) DCSPER, Ltr, TAG to CinC, U.S, Army Europe (USAREUR), and other addresses, 8 Feb 57, sub: Reorganization of the 1st Infantry Division, AGAO-O (M) 322 (5 Feb 57) DCSPER, Ltr, TAG to CinC, USAREUR, 21 Jun 57, sub: Reorganization of the 2d Armored Division, AGAO-O (M) 322 (13 Jun 57) DCSPER, Ltr, TAG to CGs, CONARC, and Third U.S, Army, 17 Mar 58, sub; Change in Status of the 2d and 10th Infantry Divisions, AGAO-O (M) (5 Feb 58) DCSPER, Lir, TAG to CinC, USAREUR, and other addresses, 30 Aug 57, sub: Reorganization of the 3d Armored Division, AGAO-O (M) 322 (26 Aug 57) DCSPER, Ltr, TAG to CinC, USAREUR, 26 Dec 57, sub; Change in Status of Certain Units, 26 Dec 57, AGAO-O (M) 322 (13 Dec 57) DCSPER, Ltr, TAG to CinC, USAREUR, and other addresses, 12 Mar 57, sub: Reorganization of the 4th Armored Division, AGAO-O (M) 322 (6 Feb 57) DCSPER, Ltr, TAG to CG, CONARC, and other addresses, 27 Mar 57, sub: Reorganization of the 4th Infantry Division, AGAO-O (M) 322 (25 Mar 57) DCSPER, Ltr, TAG to CG, U.S. Army Far East, and other addresses, 31 May 57. sub: Reorganization of the 7th Infantry Division, AGAO-O (M) 322 (24 May 57) DCSPER, Ltr, TAG to CinC, USAREUR, 16 Jul 57, sub: Reorganization of the 8th Infantry Division, AGAO-O (M) 322 (10 Jul 57) DCSPER, Ltr, TAG to CinC, USAREUR, and other addresses, 13 Nov 57, sub: Reorganization of the 9th Infantry Division, AGAO-O (M) 322 9th Inf Div (8 Oct 57) DCSPER, Ltr, CinC, USAREUR, and other addresses, 14 Jun 47, sub: Reorganization of the 10th Infantry Division, AGAO-O (M) 322 (31 May 57) DCSPER, Ltr, TAG to CinC, USAREUR, 20 Feb 57, sub: Reorganization of the 11th Airborne Division, AGAO-O (M) 322 (19 Feb 57) DCSPER, Draft letter, undated, sub: Organization of the 24th Infantry Division, Ltr, TAG to CinC, USAREUR, 1 Feb 57, sub; Reorganization of the 1st Armored Division, AGAO-O (M) 322 (5 Feb 57) DCSPER, Lu, TAG to CGs, CONARC and Fourth U.S. Army, 5 Dec 57, sub: Change in Status of Certain Units, AGAQ-O (M) 322 (13 Nov 57) DCSPER, and Ltr, CGs, CONARC and Sixth U.S. Army, 27 May 57, sub; Inactivation of the 5th Infantry Division, AGAO-O (M) 322 (24 May 57) DCSPER, all AG Reference files; and Historical Data Cards, Divisions, DAMH-HSO.
40. Memo, See of Army for See of Defense, 31 Jan 57, sub: Combat Arms Regimental System (CARS), and Fact Sheet, undated, sub: Combat Arms Regimental System, both CARS files, and News Release, Historic Traditions of Regiments to be Preserved in Pentomic Army, 7 Feb 57, Division General file, all DAMH-HSO.
41. CONARC, “Summary of Major Events and Problems, 1 Jul 56–30 Jun 57," vol. 4, Doctrine and Requirements Division, G3 Section, 1 Jan–30 Jun 57, pp. 18–19; Information Paper: Separate Combined Arms Brigades in the Reserve Components, 30 Apr 58, Brigade General file, Ltr, TAG lo CGs, CONARC and First U.S. Army, 12 Feb 58, sub; Organization of the 2d Infantry Brigade, AGAO-O (M) 322 (5 Feb 58) DCSPER, and Ltr, TAG to CG, Third Amy, 8 Jul 58, sub; Change in Status of 1st Infantry Brigade and other units, AGAO-O (M) 322 (11 Jun 58), DCSPER, all AG Reference files; and Historical Data Cards, all DAMH-HSO.
42. Ltr, CONARC to DCofS for Military Operations, 28 Aug 58, sub; Evaluation of ROCID, ATTNG-D&R 322/17 (Div) (28 Aug 58). Division General file, DAMH-HSO.
43. Ibid.
44. 1st Ind, ODCSOPS to CG, CONARC, 29 Dec 58, sub: Evaluation of ROCID, OPS OT OR 2, Division General file, DAMH-HSO; TOE 7D, Infantry Division, 1960.
45. John A. Beall, "Revisions of ROCAD," Armor 68 (Mar–Apr 1959); 48–51: TOE 17D, Armored Division, 1960.
46. Ltr, TAG to CG, Fifth U.S, Army, 14 Jul 60, sub; Reorganization of the 9th Infantry Division, AGAO-O (M) 322 (27 Jun 60) DCSPER, and Ltr, TAG to CG, Fifth U.S. Army, 30 Jan 62, sub: Inactivation of 9th Infantry Division and 9th Military Intelligence Detachment, AGAO-O (M) 322 (23 Jan 62) DCSPER, 9th Inf Div file, DAMH-HSO; Historical Data Cards for the 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 24th, and 2Sth Inf Divs, the 2d, 3d, and 4th Armd Divs, and 1st Cav Div, DAMH-HSO; United States Defense Policies in 1959 (Washington, D.C.; Government Printing Office, 1964), p. 32; Annual Report of the Secretary of the Army, July 1, 1959, to June 30, 1960, p. 143; Skaggs, "The KATUSA Experiment," p. 55.
47. John W. Bowen, "Reorganizing the Reserve Components," Army Information Digest (Nov 1959): 11–15; Annual Report of the Chief, National Guard Bureau, FY 1960, p. 33; Fact Sheet on Department of the Army Revised Plan for Reorganization of the United States Army Reserve, undated, Army Reserve file; Ltr, TAG to CG, Sixth U.S. Army, 31 Mar 59, sub; Reorganization of the 63d Infantry Division, AGAO-O (M) 322 (16 Mar 59) RES, Ltr, TAG to CG, First U.S. Army, 7 Apr 59, sub: Reorganization of the 77th Infantry Division, AGAO-O 322 (20 Mar 59) RES, Ltr, TAG to CG, Second U.S, Army, 17 Mar 59, sub; Reorganization of the 79th Infantry Division, AGAO-O (M) 322 (2 Mar 59) RES, Ltr, TAG to CG, Third U.S. Army, 10 Apr 59, sub: Reorganization of the 81st Infantry Division, AGAO-O (M) 322 (26 Mar 59) RES, Ltr, TAG to CG, Second U.S. Army, 19 Mar 59, sub: Reorganization of the 83d Infantry Division AGAO-O (M) 322 (2 Mar 59) RES, Ltr, TAG to CG, Fourth U.S. Army, 19 Mar 59, sub: Reorganization of the 90th Infantry Division, AGAO-O (M) 322 (3 Mar 59) RES, Ltr, TAG to CG, First U.S. Army, 6 Apr 59, sub: Reorganization of the 94th Infantry Division, AGAO-O (M) 322 (16 Mar 59) RES, Ltr, TAG to CG, Sixth U.S. Amy, 29 Apr 59, sub: Reorganization of the 96th Infantry Division, AGAO-O (M) 322 (10 Apr 59) RES, Ltr, TAG to CG, Fifth U.S. Army, 11 May 59, sub: Reorganization of the 102d Infantry Division, AGAO-O (M) 322 (1 May 59) RES, Ltr, TAG to CG, Fifth U.S. Army, 20 Apr 59, sub: Reorganization of the 103d Infantry Division, AGAO-O (M) 322 (10 Apr 59) RES, Ltr, TAG to CG, Sixth U.S, Army, 30 Apr 59, sub: Redesignation and Reorganization of the 104th Infantry Division, AGAO-O (M) 322 (24 Apr 59) RES, all DAMH-HSO.
48. Information Paper, Separate Combined Arms Brigades in the Reserve Components, 30 Apr 85; Lir, NGB to AG, Hawaii, 23 Jan 59, sub: Troop Allotment, Consolidation, Conversion, Redesignation, and Reorganization, Army NG Units, NG-AROTO, Ltr, NGB to AG, Arizona, 4 Feb 59, sub: Reorganization of Army NG 1958–60, NG-AROTO 325.4 Arizona, Ltr, NGB to AG, Puerto Rico. 6 Feb 59, sub: Reorganization of the Army NG 1958–60, NG-AROTO 325.4-Puerto Rico, all National Guard state files, DAMH-HSO.
49. Regiments in training divisions were not tactical units, therefore fell outside the Combat Arms Regimental System.
50. TOE 29–7T, Division Training, 1959; Fact Sheet, Department of the Army Revised Plans for Reorganization of the United States Army Reserve; see notes, Historical Data Cards for the 70th, 76th, 78th, 80th, 84th, 85th, 89th, 91st, 95th, 98th, 100th, 104th, and 108th Divs (Training), DAMH-HSO.
51. Annual Report of the Secretary of Defense, 1959, pp. 169–81.
52. DCSPER, The Troop Program of the Army, Annex 1, Troop Bases Data, Current Actions: Strength, 30 Jun 60, pp. 29–35, ACofS Reserve Components, Reserve Components Control Program of the Army, FY 1960, pp. 53–96, Office, Chief of Army Reserve and Reserve Officer Training Corps, "Summary of Major Events and Problems, 1 Jul 60–30 Jun 61," p. 14, all DAMH-HSR; Annual Report of the Chief, National Guard Bureau, Fiscal Year 1960, p. 33; Donald McGowan, "Army National Guard Today," Army Information Digest 15 (Mar 1960): 17.