The pre-WWII National Guard is a complex institution to look at. On one hand, as this thread points out, there were glaring readiness issues. OTOH, the NG also container some superb combat leaders who cut their teeth on the Western Front & trained their troops in what NOT to do
In addition, this thread just talks about the combat divisions, because that's what's pertinent to the GHQ Maneuvers. But something else happens in 1940: all coast artillery corps regiments are fully activated for federal service, which they'll be on thru the duration of the war
What's the coast artillery, you ask?
Big. Ass. Guns. Like this monster 12" disappearing gun, a staple of the harbor defenses, along with 10" rifles and mortars, and 6" and 3" guns, 155mm mobile guns, AAA guns, and searchlights.
These monsters were merely the protection for the real harbor defenses. The fields of sea mines laid out as obstacles to vessels and subs. The anti-sub nets. The hydrophones (underwater mics) and naval loops (submerged electrical cables that changed current if a ship passed)
Yes, the Army had boats. The mine-planting service is one reason we have warrant officers, because the Army needed subject matter experts to run these boats. The CAC was a highly technical branch, and due to force structure cuts, was mainly composed of National Guard units
In September of 1940, FDR began activating the CAC NG units, ordering them to their duty stations - which for most, weren't far from their armories or where they lived. The CAC homeland defense mission fit perfectly for the NG - hence why it had been given to them
As it turned out, this would send some CAC units VERY far from home. Like New Mexico's 200th Coast Artillery Regiment, that would be sent to the Philippines - and see the war far sooner than any of them expected. Many died in the Bataan Death March.
But for the most part, the CAC units remained in their harbor defenses throughout the war - altho many of the original members of units were pulled to fill artillery or AAA units in the ETO or PTO, precisely because they had the experience.
By 1944, it was evident that the harbor defenses of the US were not going to be tested by enemy battleships, so units and fortifications underwent a redesign. By 1946, the CAC had been inactivated entirely & its units converted to anti-air: the new threat would come from the sky
DAMMIT. 1941, not 1940. I keep getting my years mixed up. From January of 1941 to the end of the year, FDR and the War Dept activated harbor defense CAC units, and anti-aircraft CAC units
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Look, it's April 17, and that means we drink for Rear Admiral David Dixon Porter, ok
I don't make the rules, I just enforce em
Now, you might ask WHY we do such a thing, and I say, we drink for DDP because OTD in '63, the Rebs in Vicksburg, MS had a VERY BAD MORNING INDEED
First up, an apology to the US Navy because an Army guy is gonna talk navy stuff. But only a small apology. Because reasons. With that out of the way:
D Squared Porter. What a dude. Weren't allowed to be in his family unless you were a naval hero. Straight up.
Like, to the point of his dad, Commodore David Porter, adopting a kid named James whose mom had died and that kids changes his name to David, too, joins the Navy and becomes the first full admiral in US Navy history
One thing that is noticeable in the debates over slavery in the US from 1800-1860 is how quickly pro-slavery advocates turned to physical violence against abolitionist rhetoric, from Brooks caning Sumner in Congress to destruction of abolitionist printing presses
This of course is most evident in Bleeding Kansas in the 1850s, with Missouri Border Ruffians attacking Free Soiler farms. But there's evidence of it through the 1830s, as well, especially against those who would dare create newspapers or otherwise spread the abolitionist gospel
The "honorable" southern slavers were so afraid of mere words that they felt that they had to respond with violence
Two COAs diverged in MDMP
And sorry I could not choose them both
But be one decision-maker, long I stood
And looked at one as long as I could
Till it was come my time to brief
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was feasible, distinguishable too,
Tho as for that, the acceptability there
Had worn them really about the same
I shall be telling this with a sigh,
Sometime, many orders and orders hence,
Two COAs diverged and I -
I took the one less travelled by,
The throwaway COA didn't make a difference
Due to my weird-ass self giving up TV for lent in 2003, I have no memories of watching the invasion of Iraq
I do, however, remember seeing B-52s flying over when I visited England in that timeframe
What a strange era. I was so trusting of government.
I began college in the fall of 2004 at a very conservative school. We were told by professors that it was a just war. A necessary war. One professor, in 2006, scoffed at the insurgency, saying it couldn't even manage to get the 18 US troops KIA per day that Vietnam had
We were so disconnected. One of my friends came back from a deployment with his reserve unit. One Sunday at Mass, the mic popped during the priest's sermon and he dove for cover under a pew. He emerged shamefacedly laughing it off. We all thought it was "cool"