Page:John Banks Wilson - Maneuver and Firepower (1998).djvu/112

90 from the board's findings, to Baker. In comments prepared mostly by Col. Fox Conner, Pershing suggested a 16,875-man division having a single infantry brigade of three infantry regiments, an artillery regiment, a cavalry squadron, and combat support and combat service support units, a design that foreshadowed the triangular division the Army adopted for World War II.

Pershing felt the Superior Board undertook its work too soon after the close of hostilities and that its report suffered unduly from the special circumstances on the Western Front. After examining all organizational features, he concluded that no one divisional structure was ideal for all battlefield situations. Factors such as the mobility and flexibility of the division to meet a variety of tasks, the probable theater of operations, and the road or rail network available to support the division had to be weighed. The most likely future theater of war for the Army was still considered to be North America, and he believed that the infantry divisions employed in France were too unwieldy and immobile for that region. Therefore, he recommended a small mobile division.

According to Pershing, specific signposts marked the path to a smaller division, among them putting infrequently used support units at the army corps or army level, organizing the divisional staff to handle needed attached units, making a machine gun company an integral part of the infantry battalion, and providing horse- or mule-drawn vehicles throughout the division because of the poor roads in the United States. Summarizing the requirements for the infantry division, he wrote: "The division should be small enough to permit its being deployed from … a single road in a few hours and, when moving by rail, to permit all of its elements to be assembled on a single railroad line within twenty-four hours; this means that the division must not exceed 20,000 as maximum."

On 18 June representatives from the General Staff and Pershing's headquarters conferred to iron out the differences between the two positions. The conference failed to reach agreement. Therefore, at Baker's direction, a special committee met to solve this organizational issue.

Like the Superior Board, the Special Committee, commonly referred to as the Lassiter Committee, drew upon the talents of former AFT officers. From the General Staff, besides Colonel Lassiter, came Lt. Col. Brunt H. Wells, Maj. John W. Gulick, and Capt. Arthur W. Lane. Majs. Stuart Heintzelman and Campbell King represented the General Staff College; Maj. Hugh A. Drum, the General Services Schools; and Col. Charles S. Farnsworth, the Infantry School. Col. Fox Conner and Capt. George C. Marshall spoke for Pershing. Except for Farnsworth, who had commanded the 37th Division during combat, all had held army corps, army, and General Headquarters staff positions where they had gained firsthand knowledge about the operation of divisions and higher commands in France. In addition, Wells had helped draft the initial proposal for the square division adopted during the war; Conner had been a French interpreter for the General Staff in 1917 when the proposal was prepared; and Heintzelman had edited General Pershing's report of operations in France.