US Army’s COAST ARTILLERY JOURNAL is available on the web at LINK

Here are several preliminary notes:

First, the US Army did have organized Reserve units between the Wars. These are discussed in some detail including reports of their firing exercises. The Reserve units participated along with Guard units in competitions against Active Duty units on occasion.

Second, command influence worked as well then as it does today. The JOURNAL issues in the late 1930′s contain detailed reports from the First Coast Artillery District (New England) and from the Manila Harbor Defense Command and from the AA units on Hawaii, but are silent as to all other CA commands — clearly, the CG’s of those commands told some harassed Lieutenant to make certain that information was provided every other month to the JOURNAL while the CG’s of other commands such as the Honolulu HDC and Panama didn’t see the value of publicity.

Third, there is much discussion of foreign military developments. Quite interesting to me was the coverage of European AA systems and the repeated affirmations both from US and European officers that modern, well equipped, well trained, AA units could minimize or defeat attacking enemy aircraft. Admittedly, the CAJ was the journal for US AA personnel, so extreme despair at the efficacy of air attack would be unlikely, but the upbeat analysis by both US and foreign authorities is most interesting.

Fourth, it is also interesting to note how hungry the CA (AA) was to replace its 3″ guns with the new 90mm guns. Malin Craig during his tenure as Chief of Staff was highly in favor of this and made it a priority weapon but this gun was still under development when he became ill in 1938, and his successor, George C. Marshall, did not accord it equal importance, so even the 200th CA (AA) (TD), sent from Fort Bliss to Luzon in NOV 1941 still had the 3″ guns with their maximum effective range of under 10,000 feet, allowing the Japanese to bomb the Philippines with impunity from above that height.

Fifth, there are several articles by senior Navy officers including ADM Leahy indicating the Navy’s concern over effective harbor and air defenses by the CAC. The USN seems to have approached this on two fronts: on the one hand, they attempted to point out that they felt that such defenses could be overcome by properly configured squadrons (mixtures of heavy bombardment vessels, aircraft carriers, and light vessels including minesweepers) while, at the same time, encouraging the development of sound HD and AA defenses around US ports to allow the USN a safe haven.

Sixth, the pictures are great, albeit many of the issues are not well scanned.

Seventh, there are extensive discussions of the Army Mine Planters. Through World War II, the Army had the mission to lay defensive mines while the Navy had the mission for mine-sweeping. (By 1945, of course, most mines were laid from the air: a chunk of the B-29 missions in preparation for DOWNFALL were mine dispersal runs.)

Eighth, the CAJ clearly loved Fletcher Pratt and gave him a forum which he must have loved to have enjoyed. His articles include ones dedicated to such non-CA officers as Jacob Brown (War of 1812) and “the Sledge of Nashville”, George Thomas, and the CAJ even serialized Pratt’s initial book on Napoleon, ROAD TO EMPIRE. I would love to know the background behind the relationship but have been unable to find one, although most of my biographical information on Pratt comes through science-fiction circles and the fellows who probably could have told us, L Sprague de Camp and Malcolm Jameson and Isaac Asimov, are all now passed into Valhalla.

These journals are fascinating. I would like to find similar runs of the journals put out by the Infantry, Cavalry, and Field Artillery (the CAJ was the successor the THE ARTILLERY JOURNAL, the Field Artillery having established their own publication in 1922.