Page:John Banks Wilson - Maneuver and Firepower (1998).djvu/176

 154

Using the protective mobilization plan, in 1941 the Army also proceeded to increase the number of cavalry, armored, and infantry divisions in response to the growing threat of war. The Regular Army organized a second cavalry division against a backdrop of domestic politics. As a result of debates over increasing the size of the Army, Congress had provided "That no Negro because of race, shall be excluded from enlistment in the Army for service with colored military units now organized and to be organized." In the midst of the 1940 presidential campaign prominent black leaders complained bitterly to President Franklin D. Roosevelt about the limited number of black units. Under political pressure the Army activated the 2d Cavalry Division at Fort Riley, Kansas, on 1 April 1941, with one black and one white brigade.

Armored divisions were viewed as far more essential than cavalry divisions. As early as 6 August 1940, Chaffee, commanding the Armored Force, planned more armored divisions, and he directed the 1st and 2d Armored Divisions to maintain a 25 percent overstrength as cadre for additional units. In January 1941 the War Department approved the establishment of two more armored divisions, and on 15 April the Armored Force activated the 3d and 4th at Camp Beauregard, Louisiana, and Pine Camp (later Fort Drum), New York, respectively. Shortly thereafter plans surfaced for two more armored divisions. The 5th Armored Division, added to the rolls in August, became a reality in October, and the 6th joined the force in January 1942.

The European war clearly demonstrated a need to have antitank forces. Marshall had decided that all units had an antitank role, but he also recognized the requirement for specific counter-armor units. He did not want to assign them to an existing arm because their organization, tactical doctrine, and development seemed beyond the scope of any one arm. The problem struck the new Assistant Chief of Staff, G–3, Brig. Gen. Harry L. Twaddle, as similar to that of employing the machine gun during World War I. As an expedient, separate machine gun battalions had been established, although the guns were prevalent in all combat formations. Twaddle believed that antitank units, which would not be a part of any existing arm, should also be organized as an expedient to provide the strongest antitank capability possible; later the Army could sort out whether they were infantry or field artillery weapons.

Twaddle's staff developed plans to provide four antitank battalions for each existing division. One battalion would serve with the division and the three others would be held at higher echelons for employment as needed. For the upcoming maneuvers the War Department authorized the formation of provisional antitank battalions in June 1941, using the antitank guns from field artillery battalions. The following December, after the maneuvers, the battalions were made permanent organizations and redesignated as tank destroyer units to indicate their offensive nature. They were not divisional elements, as recommended by First, Third,