Coast Art Journal w History of Ft DuRussey

Volu

me

24, I

ssu

e 4

Th

e Q

uar

terly

Pu

blic

atio

n o

f th

e C

oas

t D

efen

se S

tud

y G

rou

p

N

ove

mb

er 2

01

0

CO

AS

T

DE

FEN

SE

JOU

RN

AL

Volume 24, Issue 4 The Coast Defense Journal November 2010

Plot

ting

room

in c

oast

art

iller

y ba

tter

y. S

igna

l Cor

ps p

hoto

, NAR

A, 1

11-S

C-91

553.

Coast Defense JournalVolume 24 Issue 4 November 2010

ISSN: 1085-9675

CONTENTSArticles

The Formation of the Endicott Board 4Karl Fritz

A Personal Account of the Coast Artillery in the Harbor Defenses of San Francisco during World War Two 18

Col. John Schonher, Ret. Haleiwa Field and the OQ-2A Antiaircraft Target Drone 36

John D. BennettA History of Fort DeRussy 47

William C. Gaines

Book ReviewsThe History of Fort Casey and the Defense of the Pacific Northwest 96

by Terry BuchananThe Chesapeake Bay at War:The Coastal Defenses of the Chesapeake Bay during World War Two 97

by Terrance McGovernRings of Supersonic Steel: An Introduction & Site Guide: Air Defenses of the United States Army 1950-1979 98

by Mark L. Morgan and Mark A. Berhow, illustrated by Lawrence OrmsbyColditz: OFLAG IV-C, by Michael McNally 98

The Fortifications of Ancient Egypt 3000-1780, by Carola Vogel 99Women in the Wild Blue: Target-Towing WASP at Camp Davis, by David A. Stallman 99

The Ligurian Wall - The Defense Line Constructed by the Nazi-Fascist Forces after September 8, 1943, along the Ligurian Coast to Prevent an Allied Landing, by Gabriele Faggioni 100The Guns of Victory 1914-1918, Vol. 3: Coast Artillery and Trench Artillery 101

by General Guy FrancoisEngineering Security: The Corps of Engineers and Third System Defense Policy, 1815-1861 102

by Mark A. Smith

Cover Photos

Front: One of the 14-inch guns of Battery Randolph, Fort DeRussy Rear: Fort DeRussy, 1932

The Coast Defense Journal is published quarterly by the Coast Defense Study Group, Inc., 1560 Somerville Road, Bel Air, Maryland 21015, U.S.A. The purpose of the Coast Defense Journal is to disseminate articles and reviews on coast defense topics. Submission of articles to the Coast Defense Journal is essential for its continued publication. The Journal welcomes additional information on items published. All rights are reserved. All original articles remain copyright property of their authors. Opinions expressed in the Coast Defense Journal are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the CDSG. Comments on all business matters should be addressed directly to the Chairman of the Board of Directors. Volumes 1 though 6 of this publication were published as the CDSG News. Volumes 9 through 14 of this publication were published as the Coast Defense Study Group Journal.

Coast Defense Journal EditorBolling W. Smith5400 Trent Street

Clinton, MD [email protected]

CDSG PublisherMark BerhowPO Box 6124

Peoria, IL [email protected]

CDSG MembershipAlan Hardey

1577 Braeburn RoadAltadena, CA [email protected]

The Coast Defense Study Group is a non-profit corporation formed to promote the study of coast defenses and fortifications, primarily but not exclu-sively those of the United States of America, their history, architecture, technology, and strategic and tactical employment. The purposes of the group include educational research and documentation, preservation of historic sites, site interpretation, and assistance to other organizations interested in the preservation and interpretation of coast defense sites. Membership in the CDSG is open to any person interested in the study of the coast defenses and fortifications of the United States. The CDSG holds an annual conference, publishes this quarterly journal, and a newsletter. Annual dues for 2007 are US $35 for U.S. residents and US $68 for airmail overseas. All memberships expire at the end of the calender year, December 31. Additional information can be obtained from the Membership Committee Chairman, or by visiting our internet web site at: www.cdsg.org.

2010-2011 CDSG Board of Directors Phil Payette, Chairman Thomas Kavanaugh Chis Zeeman 1316 Skyhawk Circle #103 1320 N. Delaware Street, Apt 608 11 Farm Pond Road Virginia Beach, VA 23454 Indianapolis, IN 46202 North Stonington, CT 06359 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

CDSG Committees CDSG Publications CDSG Press Finance Committee Bolling W. Smith, Journal Editor Terry McGovern, Chairman Terry McGovern, Treasurer Mark Berhow, Publisher [email protected] [email protected]

Membership Committee Preservation Committee Representative & Outreach Committee Alan Hardey, Secretary Gordon Bliss, Chairman Andy Grant, Chairman [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Audit Committee Projects & Website Committee Nominations Committee Charlie Robbins, Chairman Mark Berhow, Chairman Charles Bogart, Chairman Glen Williford Chris Zeeman, Webmaster

CDSG Fund Upcoming Conference & Tour Committees Alan Hardey, Trustee 2011 Narragansett Bay, RIChris Zeeman, Chair Terry McGovern, Trustee 2011 Special tour to Nova Scotia, CanadaCharles Bogart, Chair Mark Berhow, Trustee 2012 Great Lakes forts

CDSG Publication Policies

The CDSG publishes two periodicals, the Coast Defense Journal and the CDSG Newsletter. Items of lasting value will be printed in the

Coast Defense Journal; the Newsletter will print organizational news and business, and items of a more temporary nature. The editor has

final authority and responsibility for all items published the Journal. All Journal submissions with accompanying figures and photographs

should sent to the editor.

Articles must relate to some aspect of military coastal or harbor defenses. The scope of interest of the organization is primarily but

not exclusively American defenses. The Coast Defense Journal and Newsletter rely on the submission of articles, reviews, site visit reports,

notes, comments, letters, inquiries, etc., from the membership of the CDSG. Authors are encouraged to contact the editor in advance if

there is any question of the appropriateness or relevance of the subject matter. Cover photographs will be determined by the editor.

Authors are expected to include a detailed citation of sources. Where possible, specific data should be identified by source, and the

text should be footnoted where appropriate. In exceptional circumstances, original source documents will be considered for replication if

they possess unusually great reference value, are otherwise unavailable, and are relatively brief. Each author is responsible for the accuracy

of his work and shall credit/acknowledge sources of information. Permission and source citations shall be submitted and published with

copyrighted articles.

The editor would prefer articles be submitted as PC- compatible Word, Rich Text, or ASCII text files on disk or by email, but other

formats may be converted. Some typed articles can be converted to text files. Tabular data should be submitted as separate tabbed-text

files. Line drawings, figures, photographic prints, and slides should accompany the article but each figure must be submitted as a separate

page with the caption attached. Electronic illustrations should be at least 300 dpi in resolution. All footnotes and references should be

included at the end of the article. Footnote numbers in the manuscript should follow at the end of a sentence in the article itself within

parentheses, not as a superscript.

All submissions will be reviewed by the editor for readability, accuracy, suitability, and legality. Authors may be requested to make

corrections before the actual publication in the Journal. Articles will not be printed with changes without the approval of the author, but

the editor may reject articles if the author declines to make the required corrections.

Volume 24, Issue 4 The Coast Defense Journal Page 4

The Formation of the Endicott Board

Karl Fritz

The Creation of the Board

As America moved into the 1880s, the wretched state of her coast defenses brought about by years of neglect was starting to attract the attention it deserved, and a series of military boards and congressional committees began examining the needs of the national defense. First, the Board on Heavy Ordnance and Projectiles of 1881 and then a Senate Select Committee addressed the same subject in 1882. The Gun Foundry Board was formed next, in 1883.

By the summer of 1884 a gradual realization that a more comprehensive study of the countrys future coast defenses was needed began to emerge. The New York Times observed:

There are strong arguments in favor of putting the principal harbors of the country in a state of adequate de-fense, even at very considerable cost. But the work should be done according to a well digested plan, which will give reasonable security that it will answer its purpose. No such plan can be properly considered at the tail end of a long session, and on the eve of a Presidential canvass.(1)

Naturally such cautionary advice was ignored, and several new efforts were immediately launched to study the matter. A Senate Select Committee on Ordnance and Warships was formed under the chairmanship of Senator Hawley on the 3rd of July, to investigate a wide range of issues concerning the nations iron and steel industries as they related to the needs of the army and navy including the manufacture of guns for coast defense.(2) Not to be outdone, the House of Representatives appointed a Commission on Ordnance and Gunnery on July 6, with Rep. Samuel Jackson Randall (D-PA) as chairman.

At the same time, Congress directed Secretary of War Robert Lincoln to appoint an Armament Board to determine the number and kind of guns that would be necessary to provide a proper defense of the countrys harborsa study interpreted to be limited to mortars and guns of high power.(3) Fi-nally, in August, the armys Board of Engineers for Fortifications was directed to estimate the costs to secure the nations largest harbors.

By the end of 1884, the assorted annual reports submitted by the War Department continued their yearly call for something to be done. The newspapers once more published these dire pronouncements, along with their own calls for action. Congress was yet again feeling the pressure to act. Yet, despite the many boards, committees, commissions, and reports that had touched upon the subject in recent years (some of which were still in progress), there were hints that yet another was in the works. As the Duluth Tribune noted:

It is thought that congress will authorize the president to appoint a committee to visit our coast cities and ascer-tain what is needed and to compile estimates of the probable cost of the proposed works. When the past neglect of this important matter is recalled it will be seen that a remarkable change is coming over the country when it seems to be agreed on all sides that the legislation will be passed.(4)

As the new year 1885 dawned, the 48th Congress was drawing to an end. In its waning days, the legislators faced the prospect of having to convene an extra session in order to complete its work. In an effort to avoid that, the final days saw the legislators holding debates late into the night, and, indeed, well into the small hours of the morning. As the San Francisco Chronicle angrily wrote: Within thirty

Noveember 2010 The Coast Defense Journal Page 5

days, bills appropriating millions of dollars have been passed without consideration, and then sent to the Senate within two days of the close of the session.(5) The fortification bill was one of these.

H.R. 8279 (the Fortifications Appropriation Bill), was submitted to the House of Representatives on February 26, 1885. In presenting the bill, the Appropriations Committee noted:

They have also decided to recommend the creation of a board to consist of engineer, ordnance, and artil-lery officers of the Army and line officers of the Navy, to consider and determine upon a comprehensive system of defensive works, including the armament thereof, following in so doing the precedents and example of the great military powers of Europe where such boards are now established features of their organizations.(6)

Rep. John Hancock (R-TX), who authored the report that accompanied H.R. 8279, took to the floor of the house to declare:

...I for one believe, and the majority of the Committee on Appropriations agree with me, that it would be better instead of going on making appropriations and spending money in fruitless efforts efforts which amount to nothing as far as the necessary armament of war is concerned to determine upon some plan and ascertain if possible what character of large ordnance can be made here which would be of a character suitable to us in the event of a war, and the like with reference to our seacoast defenses as to what fortifications would be necessary and the manner in which they should be constructed.(7)

Rep. Randall, in deriding the annual scare in behalf of large appropriations, went on to proclaim: I want, for one, before I enter upon a system of seacoast defenses or the construction of new systems of fortifications, to provide that a plan shall be adopted which has been properly matured, so that I can judge of the amount of money required to be expended, and determine whether it is judicious to expend such an amount or not. Until that is done we have no guide.(8)

Rep. Ezekiel John Ellis (D-LA) offered an alternative, stating that he wanted to have on this board the very heads of the engineer, ordnance and torpedo branches of the service:

That for the purpose of aiding the Secretary of War in the expenditure and application of sums hereby appropri-ated a permanent advisory board of five military officers is hereby created, consisting of the general command-ing the division of the Atlantic, the Chief of Ordnance, the Chief of Engineers, the president of the ordnance board, and the commandant of the Willets Point Torpedo School, and two officers of the line of the Navy not below the rank of captain, to be appointed by the Secretary of the Navy...(9)

This alternative composition of the board was rejected by a vote of 35 to 97.After breaking for the weekend, Congress assembled once more the following Monday. The session

was drawing to a close, and they had much work to complete. But for all the importance that Fortifi-cation Appropriation Bill had for the nation, it was not seen as a particularly complex piece of work. Senator Dawes (R-MA), arguing to bring the bill up for consideration, commented I suggest that we can pass this bill in ten minutes. Senator Francis Cockrell (D-MO) further reinforced this claim by stating: We can pass the fortification bill in five minutes. There are only three pages of it.(10)

But a crucial change was now made in the Senate version of the bill. An amendment was put for-ward, striking out the artillery members, and replacing them with civilians. Neither the Congressional Record nor the records of the Appropriations Committees elaborate on who suggested this modifica-tion or the reasons for it. But with this change, the men who would ultimately be responsible for man-ning the new defenses whatever form they might take would be left out of their planning.

The amended version of the bill was passed by the Senate just before they were to take an evening recess. With the clock nearing 11:00 PM, the fortifications bill was delivered to a conference commit-

Volume 24, Issue 4 The Coast Defense Journal Page 6tee to resolve the differences between the two versions. Not until after 1:00 AM did the committee [John Hancock (D-TX), William H. Forney (D-AL), and William D. Washburn (R-MN) represent-ing the House; Henry L. Dawes, Francis M. Cockrell, and Preston B. Plumb (R-KS) representing the Senate] submit their report.(11) Finally, at 2:15 AM, the House agreed to the conference report, and the bill passed and was sent to the President to be signed into law.(12)

And the President of the United States shall appoint a board, of which the Secretary of War shall be a member and president, to be composed of two officers of the Engineer Corps, two from the Ordnance Corps, two of-ficers of the line of the Navy, and two civilians, which board shall examine and report at what ports fortifications or other defenses are most urgently required, the character and kind of defenses best adapted for each, with reference to armament, the utilization of torpedoes, mines or other defensive appliances.

The Selection of the Board Members

The secretary of war as board president was the only member specifically identified by the legislation. Aside from identifying the number of representatives from each service department, the qualifications for the other members were left relatively open.

In regards to the military officers, we have already seen that Rep. Ellis had pushed for the heads of the respective branches to be named, under the assumption that they could provide the greatest expertise in their fields. However, Rep. Randall had countered that he wanted the selection open so that skilled officers may be chosen from the whole Army, that the selection shall not be confined to designated officers.(13)

The documentation regarding how these other members of the proposed board were selected, unfortunately, is spotty. The only written record I have discovered regarding the choice of the army officers for the board can be found in an entry in Col. Henry L. Abbots diary, on the 25th of April. Having just travelled to Washington, he wrote of being told by General Newton, chief of engineers, that he was to be on the board.(14)

The selections of the navy officers are another matter. The benefits of including a naval representa-tion on the board are obvious. Indeed, there is some suggestion that Congress was considering such inclusion on a wide scale. In the papers of the House Appropriations committee dealing with military affairs is a typewritten memo without attribution or date found nestled amongst other papers dated May 1884:

Provided that a Naval Officer shall be designated by the Secretary of the Navy to serve as a member of each Board of Engineers which is now in existence, or which may be hereafter appointed under authority from the Secretary of War, to plan or revise projects of permanent fortifications required for the defense of the territories adjacent to the coast lines of the United States, and works of river and harbor improvement.(15)

The only guidance in the legislation creating the new board was that the two representatives of the navy should be line officers, rather than staff. The two naval officers recommended were named in a May 11 letter from Secretary of the Navy William Whitney to President Grover Cleveland, simply conveying their names, with no elaboration on the reasons for their selection.(16)

Far better information is available regarding the potential civilian members. When Abbot wrote in his diary that he was to be on the new board, he also noted that he went to see Admiral Simpson (who recently had presided over the Gun Foundry Board on which Abbot had also served) at Newtons suggestion. Abbot then lists several names, without explanation. But the list of names (being handwrit-ten, they are difficult to decipher) suggests that they were recommendations for the civilian appoint-


ments: Brooke, Morgan, Sellers, Franklin, and McClellan.(17) John Brooke was a renowned naval engineer, and Joseph Morgan was chief engineer of the Cambria Iron Works. Sellers could be William Sellers, a prominent mechanical engineer and president of Midvale Steel Co. William B. Franklin and George B. McClellan were both former high-ranking generals and noted engineers indeed, McClel-lan, a former general-in-chief of the army, was considered for the leadership of either the Navy or War Departments, but died on October 29, 1885.(18)

In a letter to Secretary of War Endicott dated the 1st of May, 1885, Newton referred to a discussion with Endicott regarding potential civilian appointments to the board.(19) From this letter, we learn that the secretary of war was interested in men well versed in the subject of iron to fill out the mem-bership. Fortunately, Newtons letter responses to Endicotts directives provide some of the strongest insight into the qualities being considered in the civilian membership.

Newton expressed frustration that he was only able to come up with two potential candidates for Endicott to consider, but suggested that there would be more forthcoming after he went to New York. The two names that Newton forwarded at this point were Joseph P. Morgan, Jr., chief engineer of the Cambria Iron Works, and German H. Hunt, a partner in Poole & Hunt of Baltimore a well known producer of steam engines, boilers, pumps, heating plants, and double-turbine water wheels.

He also gave the names of two men, who may not be classed as experts in the subject of iron, are men of wide general information and are well posted in the subject of the defenses of the country(20): Generals William B. Franklin and Henry W. Slocum, both veterans of the Civil War. Franklin was a noted civil engineer and currently vice-president and general manager of the Colt Firearms Manufac-turing Co., who had recently authored the article National Defense, published in the North Ameri-can Review. Slocum, on the other hand, had just served a term in Congress as a representative of the state of New York.

After reaching New York, Newton forwarded two more names for consideration: Cornelius H. Delamater of the Delamater Iron Works and Edward Cooper of Cooper, Hewitt & Co. While Coo-per was widely regarded as an expert in metallurgical engineering, Delamater was a close friend and business associate of John Ericsson. Indeed, his firm had served as a practical laboratory for Ericsson, and had built the engines for the Monitor. In later years, the Delamater Iron Works would also build numerous gunboats, as well as John Hollands first working submarine.

While I have found no evidence that Chief of Ordnance General Stephen V. Benet was consulted regarding possible civilian members of the board, neither is there any record of his being consulted regarding the representatives to the board from the Ordnance Department. However, since we know that Endicott discussed the possible civilian members in person with Newton, it is not unreasonable to surmise that a similar discussion took place with Benet.

Secretary of the Navy Whitney also voiced an opinion for one of the civilian slots a recommen-dation he readily admitted was unasked for. In the very same letter that gave his choices for the naval officers with virtually no commentary on their qualifications the secretary of the navy expended much ink extolling the credentials of John Brooke. A naval officer who sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War, Brooke had worked on the conversion of the Merrimac into the ironclad Virginia and on the Brooke guns. According to Whitney, Brooke was widely regarded within the navy, and endorsed by many officers.(21)

On the May 12, President Cleveland announced his choices to serve on the new fortification board. Secretary of War Endicott would be joined by the chiefs of ordnance and engineers Brigadier Generals Benet and Newton. The remaining slots from those two departments would be filled by Capt. Charles S. Smith and Lt. Col. Henry L. Abbot. The naval representatives would be Cmdrs. William

Volume 24, Issue 4 The Coast Defense Journal Page 8Sampson and Caspar Goodrich, and the civilians would be Joseph Morgan and Erastus Corning.

Let us take a closer look at each appointee, along with their qualifications.

Secretary of War William Crowninshield Endicott

Selected by President Cleveland to be secretary of war, the 58 year old Endicott was a native of Salem, MA. A graduate of Harvard College, he earned his degree in 1847. Over the next three years he studied law, first under the distinguished attorney Nathaniel J. Lord, and then at Harvard Law school. He also accepted a commission in the 6th Light Infantry, Massachusetts Militia. But by 1850 he had earned his law degree and resigned his commission, with the rank of Captain.(22)

Returning to Salem, the young attorney entered into a partnership with J.W. Perry, forming the firm of Perry and Endicott. He also took a more active role within his hometown, serving several terms as member, and ultimately president, of the Salem Common Council, while also serving as city solici-tor. He joined the Peabody Academy of Science, holding several offices, including that of president. In 1873 he was appointed associate justice on the Massachusetts Supreme Court, a position he held until 1882, when he resigned for health reasons.

Other avenues that Endicott explored proved less successful. He sought the office of attorney general and challenged former general and congressman Benjamin Butler for the 5th Congressional District seat in 1879. But when the 1884 elections came, the Democratic Convention nominated him for the governorship of Massachusetts, with the explanation: This action of the Convention is merited recognition of your life-long devotion to Democratic principles your fidelity to all the public trusts you have assumed, and the dignity, honor, and rectitude that has always marked your intercourse with your fellowmen.(23) Endicott initially refused nomination, but grudgingly accepted it with the un-derstanding that he would not have to actively campaign for the position.

His willingness to take on what was widely acknowledged as a long-shot of a candidacy, however, did not go unnoticed. The Massachusetts Democrats urged the new President to appoint Judge Endi-cott to head the Navy Department.(24) Reportedly, President Cleveland did offer Endicott his choice of the Navy and War Departments, with Endicott selecting the War Department, which he believed would make less demands on his health.(25) The Army and Navy Journal observed: The object of his appointment, so far as it is political, is said to gratify the independent supporters of Mr. Cleveland, and it is certainly an excellent one for the Army, as it introduces to the War Department a most inde-pendent, upright, and honorable gentleman.(26)


Brig. Gen. Stephen Vincent Benet

Born January 22, 1827, in St. Augustine, FL, Benet received his early schooling at a private school in Alexandria, VA. With a strong academic record, he gained admission to the University of Georgia, although he would soon leave after winning appointment to West Point. He entered the U.S. Military Academy in 1845 - the first such appointment from the new state of Florida. Graduating third of the 43 cadets that made up the class of 1849, he was commissioned in the Ordnance Depart-ment.

For the next ten years, Benet served at a succession of army arsenals, while being promoted to 1st Lieutenant. In 1859 he returned to West Point, becoming assistant professor of geography, history, and ethics. When the southern states seceded from the Union two years later, Benet was retained at the Military Academy, now as instructor of ordnance and science of gunnery. In addition to teaching, he expanded his expertise by participation in the Ordnance Board, and in experimenting with Parrott Guns including experiments regarding the penetration of Parrott rounds into parapets. Then, for the first half of 1864, he was made inspector of cannon and projectiles, and subsequently given the com-mand of Frankford Arsenal, near Philadelphia.

By 1869, Benet became assistant to the chief of ordnance, General Dyer. After General Dyer died in 1874, Benet was named to that office, with the rank of brigadier general.

Capt. Charles S. Smith

Volume 24, Issue 4 The Coast Defense Journal Page 10Charles S. Smith was a native of the northern Vermont town of St. Albans, born the day after

Christmas, 1843. By the time he received an appointment to West Point 19 years later, the Civil War was well underway. While this would place him at the academy during the years that Benet was an instructor, it would appear that Charles Smith did not have him for any class. Smith graduated in 1866 with a class rank of 14th. His first choice was to join the Ordnance Department, but there were no slots available and he ended up in the artillery.

As an officer in the 4th Artillery Regiment, Charles Smith soon found himself on garrison duty in the defenses of Washington. Over the next eight years he did tours at several forts around the country, as well as a year in the Office of the Chief Signal Officer. He served at Fort Delaware during 1869, when tests were conducted there to gauge the effectiveness of cannon fire against armored embrasures.

In 1874, the year Benet was named the new chief of ordnance, the Ordnance Department un-derwent reorganization, and slots were made available for new officers. Smith, who had submitted numerous requests to enter the Ordnance Department since his commissioning, took the required test and scored well. He was finally transferred and assumed the duties of assistant ordnance officer at Fort Monroe Arsenal.

In the spring of 1876 he was assigned to the ordnance agency in New York City and promoted to captain three years later. Ending his tour there in the last days of 1881, Smith once more reported to Washington, D.C., this time as principal assistant to Chief of Ordnance Benet. In addition to his normal duties in this position, Captain Smith devoted time to translating the texts of several European works on the design and construction of heavy ordnance.

Brig. Gen. John Newton

Newton, as chief of engineers, served on the Endicott Board as one of the final accomplishments in a long, distinguished military career. A native of Virginia, he was born on August 24, 1823, in Nor-folk. Newton continued in the military tradition set by his father, Thomas Newton, commander of the militia in Norfolk, by attending the U.S. Military Academy. Graduating second in his class in 1842, he was commissioned in the Corps of Engineers.

Over the next decade he served on various engineering projects along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, including the coastal fortifications, as well as teaching engineering at West Point. His military career progressed through the years leading up to the Civil War, achieving the position of chief engineer of the Department of Pennsylvania. By the First Battle of Manassas, John Newton was a major, and in


the following month he was commissioned brigadier general of volunteers, tasked with readying the defenses of the nations capital. He served throughout the war with distinction, seeing combat as he led his troops in several campaigns. By the end of the conflict, he had been brevetted major general of volunteers.

Mustering out of the volunteer service, Newton was promoted to lieutenant colonel in the Regular Army Corps of Engineers. Stationed in New York, he was deeply involved in developing the defenses of that city. He gained recognition for his other engineering activities, particularly the improvement of the waterways of the region. The clearance of the passage known as the Hell Gate was heralded as one of the most difficult engineering feats of the day. A long-term project (the Corps of Engineers had begun this work in 1851), the current phase of it required sinking some four miles of tunnels in the rocky shallows, allowing the placement of 140 tons of explosive - over 12,000 individual charges.

By the end of the 1870s he was promoted to colonel and in March of 1884 one year before Congress authorized the Endicott Board he was named brigadier general and chief of engineers. He would retire shortly after the board delivered its report in 1886.

Lt. Col. Henry Larcom Abbot

Abbot was born August 13, 1832, in the Massachusetts town of Beverly, across Salem Harbor from the home of William Endicott. He attended Boston Latin School before winning an appointment to West Point. There he joined the class of 1854 in the company of Jeb Stuart and G.W. Custis Lee son of Robert E. Lee, then superintendent of the academy. He graduated second in his class in 1854. Although his high class ranking opened the door to a position in the Corps of Engineers, Abbots initial choice was the artillery. But, after a last minute change of heart, he requested and received a commission into the topographical engineers. For the next seven years he was engaged in railroad and hydrographic surveys of the Pacific coast and Mississippi River delta.

With the outbreak of the Civil War, Abbot found himself serving on the staffs of Generals Mc-Dowell and Tyler. Seeing combat in the earliest campaigns, he was wounded at the First Battle of Bull Run. Rising through the ranks, his engineering skills would be put to use in numerous capaci-ties, including construction of the defenses of the nations capital and the Potomac River, service in the Siege of Yorktown and the Peninsular Campaign, the Seven Days Battles, and the New Orleans Expedition. As the war grew longer, Abbots experience in attacking fortified positions also grew, and

Volume 24, Issue 4 The Coast Defense Journal Page 12he commanded siege artillery operations, first against Fort Fisher and then later against the defenses of Richmond and Petersburg. By the conclusion of the war, Henry L. Abbot had been brevetted seven times, and was a brigadier general of Volunteers, while holding a rank of major in the Regular Army.

The post-war years saw Abbot building upon the lessons he had learned. Assigned to the com-mand the engineer battalion at Willets Point, NY, he also supervised construction of the fort there, as well as Fort Schuyler opposite it. He created the armys Engineer School of Application and served as member of the Board on the Use of Iron in Permanent Defenses, the Board of Engineers for Fortifica-tions, and the Gun Foundry Board. He also traveled across the Atlantic to investigate European tor-pedo systems. Abbots influence can be seen in many facets of the coast defense system that the United States was developing at the time the Endicott Board was formed.

Cmdr. William Thomas Sampson

Sampson was born February 9, 1840, in Palmyra, NY. He gained an appointment to the Naval Academy in 1857, where he developed an interest in ordnance. After ranking first in his class for three years running, Sampson graduated and was promoted to master in the spring of 1861, coinciding with the outbreak of the Civil War.

His first assignment was to the Washington Navy Yard, under Cmdr. John A. Dahlgren, but the newly commissioned Lieutenant Sampson soon returned to the Naval Academy temporarily quar-tered at Newport, RI as an instructor. There, he continued to develop his interests in ordnance, as well as in armor and steam engines.

As the war dragged on and naval operations against the lengthy Confederate coastline grew in scope, Sampson was assigned as executive officer of the ironclad monitor Patapsco. Assigned to the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron, the monitor was tasked with clearing submarine torpedoes in the area of Charleston Harbor. While Sampson was piloting the ship on the January 15, 1865, the Pa-tapsco struck a torpedo and sank, with great loss of life amongst officers and crew. However, Sampson, who was standing on the turret at the time, was blown into the water and survived.

In the decades following the conclusion of the Civil War, Sampson alternated between assignments afloat and ashore. In the immediate aftermath of the conflict, he served aboard the USS Colorado with the European Squadron. During this tour of duty he advanced to lieutenant commander, effective July 1866. After teaching once more at the Naval Academy 1868-71, he returned to sea aboard the USS


Congress. Promoted to commander, he returned to the Naval Academy for his third tour there, this time heading the Physics Department.

In 1879, he was given command of the sloop USS Swatara, with the Asiatic Squadron. After com-pleting this assignment, Sampson served as assistant superintendent of the Naval Observatory, until he was given command of the naval torpedo station at Newport in 1884, where he was serving at the time of his appointment to the Endicott Board.

Cmdr. Caspar Frederick Goodrich

Goodrich was considered as one of the brightest naval officers of his day. Born in Philadelphia, PA, on January 7, 1847, he won entrance to the Naval Academy during the war years (while Sampson was an instructor), beginning in December of 1861. Graduating first in his class in November 1864, he was assigned to the New York Navy Yard for the duration of the War. Afterwards, he served on several ships in assignments ranging from the South Atlantic to the Far East. With the new decade, Goodrich returned once more to the Naval Academy, serving as instructor of physics and chemistry from De-cember 1871 through June 1874.

In 1878 he was sent to the U.S. Naval Torpedo Station, founded nearly a decade before on Goat Island, outside of Newport, RI. For two years, Goodrich served as executive officer as well as instructor, overseeing the testing and evaluation of the many designs for automobile torpedoes being developed by private inventors.

In 1882, while on an overseas tour of duty, Goodrich had the good fortune to be assigned as naval attach to General Sir Garnet Wolsey of the Royal Navy, when the allied powers of Europe launched the Tel-el-Kebir campaign. Thus, he was well positioned to observe the attack from the sea on the har-bor of Alexandria one of the few such engagements since the American Civil War. His account would come to be recognized as the standard history of that bombardment.

In 1884, with Sampson and Commodore Stephen B. Luce, he served on the board that recom-mended formation of the Naval War College. In the summer of that year, Goodrich served as inspector of ordnance at the Washington Navy Yard.

In an open letter published in the May 1885 issue of The Century, Goodrich cautioned against leaving the future direction of the nations coast defenses solely in the hands of a single person, or even a single branch of the military. Rather, he wrote I urge, as of pressing moment, the forming, under act

Volume 24, Issue 4 The Coast Defense Journal Page 14of Congress, of a commission to inquire into our wants and to suggest the remedy. This commission should be composed of distinguished citizens and officers of the army and navy.(27)

Joseph Morgan

Joseph Morgan was born in Philadelphia on July 27, 1842. His early schooling gave special at-tention to math, physics, chemistry, and drawing, laying a solid groundwork for his future career as an engineer. In October of 1861, at the age of 19, as the Civil War settled into what looked to be a protracted struggle, he entered the navy as third assistant engineer.

Assigned to the steam sloop Brooklyn, Morgan was on deck manning the bells in April of the fol-lowing spring during Farraguts passage of Forts Jackson and St. Philip and his capture of New Orleans. His performance garnered recognition as Brooklyns chief engineer cited him by name in his report after the battle.(28)

Promoted to second assistant engineer in August 1863, his next assignment was USS Roanoke, as that vessel was rebuilt into an ironclad warship. Morgans final tour of duty was with the steam sloop USS Chattanooga. The war having ended, he resigned his commission in the first month of 1866, en-tering private industry.

Having earned both a bachelor of arts and a master of arts degree to supplement his naval engineer-ing experience, Morgan was well situated to find a place in Americas growing iron and steel trade.(29) Over the next two decades he would work first for Phoenix Iron Works, then Edgemoor Iron Works, and finally Cambria Iron Works where, by the time of the formation of the Endicott Board, he would be employed as chief engineer and superintendent of the mechanical department. He solidified his professional standing with membership in the American Institute of Mining Engineers, the Ameri-can Society of Mechanical Engineers, and the U.S. Naval Institute. His recognized industrial expertise was tapped when he was called upon to testify before the Gun Foundry Board for which he prepared himself by touring the major iron works of Europe. More recently, he spoke before the Senate Select Committee on Ordnance and Warships. Not only did Mr. Morgan have the recommendation of the chief of engineers, but also that of several Philadelphia congressmen.(30)


Erastus Corning

A lifelong resident of Albany, NY, Corning was born June 16, 1827, the eldest son of a family well established in American industry and politics. His father and namesake, Erastus Corning, Sr., was a nationally recognized figure in iron manufacturing and railroads, who had also won election to a wide range of political offices from mayor of Albany, to the state Senate, and finally to Congress.

Mr. Corning appears to have been the only member of the new board that had no military experi-ence. He pursued his education at College Hill in Poughkeepsie, and later at Union College in Sche-nectady. From there he joined his father in business, becoming a partner in Corning & Co., as well as Albany Iron Works. With the death of his father in 1872, the younger Corning took over management of these businesses. Three years later, he would be named president of the newly formed Albany and Rensselaer Iron and Steel Co. created by merging Erastus Corning & Co. with John A. Griswold and Co. At the time it was reorganized in late 1885 as Troy Iron and Steel Co., its capital stock was valued at two and a half million dollars.

While the younger Corning followed in his fathers business success, he never held political office, but he did maintain strong business and social contacts. A founder of the prestigious Fort Orange Club in Albany, he was also a close personal friend of the new President, Grover Cleveland who, while oc-cupying the governors mansion in Albany, frequently visited the Corning home.

Summary

As we can see, the assembled military and civilian members of the Endicott Board certainly brought an impressive set of credentials to the table. While we may wonder how the boards work would have differed if any of the other highly experienced potential candidates had been members, it would be hard to suggest that the individuals who were selected were lacking in qualifications. Perhaps the great-est opportunity missed, however, came during the conference committee negotiations on the differing House and Senate bills. The inclusion of two civilian board members was sound, for both practical and political reasons. But the loss of the two representatives of the artillery the branch which would ulti-mately be responsible for manning the new fortifications was certainly regrettable. One wonders why the conference committee chose not to include both the artillery and civilians, and thereby reap the benefit of both perspectives. Without a written record to explain their thinking, we can only speculate.

Volume 24, Issue 4 The Coast Defense Journal Page 16Endnotes

1. National Defense, The New York Times, Jul. 1, 1884, p. 4.

2. Report of the Select Committee on Ordnance and Warships with Appendix, GPO, 1886, p. xiii.

3. Ex. Doc. No. 5, U.S. Senate, 48th Cong., 2nd Sess., Dec. 5, 1884.

4. Coast Defenses, Duluth Tribune, Dec. 5, 1884, p. 1.

5. Congressional Proceedings, The San Francisco Chronicle, March 4, 1885, p. 3.

6. Report to Accompany the Fortification Appropriation Bill, Report No. 2638, House of Representatives, 48th Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 2., Feb. 26, 1885.

7. Congressional Record, 48th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1885, p. 2307.

8. Ibid., p. 2316.

9. Ibid., p. 2318.

10. Ibid., p. 2455.

11. Forty-Eighth Congress, Decatur Daily Republican, Mar. 4, 1885, p. 2.

12. House, Los Angeles Times, Mar. 4, 1885, p. 1.

13. Congressional Record, 48th Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 2319.

14. Henry Larcom Abbot, personal papers, 1831-1927, diaries, April 25, 1885, bMS Am 1447 55M-261, Harvard University Archives.

15. Records of the United States House of Representatives, 48th Cong., Committee on Appropriation, War Depart-ment, RG 233, NARA.

16. Secretary of the Navy Whitney to President Cleveland, May 11, 1885, Letters Sent by the Secretary of the Navy to the President and Executive Agencies, 1821-1886, RG 45, NARA.

17. Abbot, personal papers.

18. Concerning the Cabinet, The Atlanta Constitution, Jan 2, 1885, p. 1.

19. Chief of engineers to secretary of war, May 1, 1885, Letters Sent 1871-1888, RG 77, NARA.

20. Ibid.

21. Secretary of the Navy Whitney to President Cleveland, May 11, 1885, Letters Sent by the Secretary of the Navy to the President and Executive Agencies, 1821-1886, RG 45, NARA.

22. Joseph Hodges Choate, Memoir of William Crowninshield Endicott (Cambridge: John Wilson and Son, 1904) p. 11.

23. Charles Francis Adams, Memoir of William C. Endicott, LL.D., (Cambridge: John Wilson and Son, 1902), p. 11.

24. Latest Cabinet Talk, Chester Times, Feb. 28, 1885, p. 4.

25. President Clevelands Cabinet, St. Joseph Traveler Herald, Mar. 21, 1885, p. 2.

26. The Secretary of War, The Army and Navy Journal, Mar. 7, 1885, p. 624.

27. Caspar Goodrich, Our National Defenses, The Century (Vol. 30-1, May 1885), pp. 172-74.

28. U.S. Naval War Records Office, Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion, Series I, Vol. 18, West Gulf Blockading Squadron (GPO, 1904), pp. 192-93.

29. Henry Wilson Storey, History of Cambria County Pennsylvania, Vol. III (New York: Lewis Pub. Co., 1907), p. 86.

30. Untitled, The Army and Navy Journal, May 16, 1885, p. 848.


Other Sources

Cullum, Bvt. Maj. Gen. George W. Biographical Register of the Officers and Graduates of the U.S. Military Academy. New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1891-1910.

Death of Erastus Corning. The New York Times, August 31, 1897, p. 7.

Gen. John Newton Dead. The New York Times, May 2, 1895, p. 3.

Hamersly, Lewis Randolph. The Records of Living Officers of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. New York: L.R. Hamersly & Co., 1898.

Joseph Morgan, Jr., Dies Unexpectedly of Heart Failure. The Johnston (PA) Tribune, Vol. 44, December 10, 1917, p. 20.

Stephen, Leslie. Dictionary of National Biography. New York: MacMillan and Co.

The National Cyclopedia of American Biography. New York: James T. White & Co.

Twenty-Sixth Annual Reunion of the Association of Graduates of the United States Military Academy at West Point. Saginaw, MI: Seemann & Peters, 1895.

Wilson, James Grant and John Fiske, ed. Appletons Cyclopedia of American Biography. New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1887-99.

William C. Endicott. The Landmark (Statesville, NC), Mar. 13, 1885, p. 1.

Records of Charles S. Smith, Appointment, Commission and Personal Branch, RG 94, NARA.


A Personal Account of the Coast Artillery in the Harbor Defenses of San Francisco during World War Two

Col. John Schonher, Ret.

This account is based on an interview conducted October 25, 1995, in Sacramento, CA, by Steve Haller, park historian, and John Martini, curator of military history, National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area. It has been edited and re-written, while keeping it in the first person. Editorial insertions are in brackets.

Readers are reminded that this interview took place more than 50 years after the events discussed, while Colonel Schonher was 86 years old. As such, it represents a veterans recollections of events long passed, and should be interpreted as such. Bolling W. Smith

John Schonher. Harbor Defenses of San Francisco: 1941, The Army and Navy Pub. Co.

I was born September 5, 1909, in Seattle, WA. I came to California in October of 1924 and com-pleted high school in San Francisco, joining junior ROTC and later the National Guard. I obtained a scholarship to the University of California in 1927, and continued in ROTC, being commissioned a second lieutenant in the Army Reserve in December 1930, prior to my graduation in 1931. I asked to be attached to the 6th Coast Artillery as a Reserve officer, as it was the only nearby coast artillery unit, which is what I had been trained in.

November 2010 The Coast Defense Journal Page 19

I had a special interest in coast artillery because I belonged to the 250th Coast Artillery in the National Guard, a tractor-drawn, 155 mm regiment. I joined underage, as many did. I got a lot of hands-on training, from the very basic part of the artillery preparation and manipulation of the data to transfer to the guns for firing. I think the first summer of active duty, I was just operating one of the azimuth instruments that tracked the target. The next year, I plotted on the firing board.(1)

After I was commissioned, I was in the 2nd Battalion of the 6th Coast Artillery. We were supposed to be the antiaircraft battalion; of course, it didnt materialize quite that way. All they had were .50-cali-ber machine guns. They had no 90 mm antiaircraft guns, no 3-inch guns, nothing. Very skeletonized. But we could go through the maneuvers; you know, move and go wherever wed be needed.

In 1940, the Fourth Army held maneuvers in the state of Washington, and I went on a four-week active-duty tour. We spent the first week up there just getting in the trucks and moving, reconnoitering all the territory so we knew what the ground was like. Of course, it turned out a lot of it was wasted, but we didnt know what was coming. Finally, I think the maneuvers lasted three days, if I remember correctly. We really didnt know what was really going on very much. They had umpires galore all over, too, but I never saw one. So I guess we never got very much involved in the maneuvers at all. But it was a big one. It was very interesting. Youd go up a highway and come to a crossroads, and heres a reconnaissance unit with a horse and a .30-caliber machine gun. We saw the trains coming in for that maneuver on the Milwaukee Route in the northern part. I never saw so many trains and coaches that they brought out from everywhere just to pull these people in. Because it took, I think, men from Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and California. I guess what was used to be called the 9th Corps Area before they divorced the tactical up to the maintenance people.

Feeling it was only a matter of time until I was called to active duty, I volunteered to go on ex-tended active duty in November of 1940. I thought maybe it might be a little advantageous to be on there first. But it didnt seem to make a great deal of difference, because pretty much every reserve of-ficer assigned to 6th Coast Artillery was on active duty. We had a huge mobilization.

I went on active duty in November of 1940. They put the captains and the junior officers all in a class. We got instruction on battery administration - you know, what it takes to run a battery: food, rations, morning reports, prisoners, guard duty, all the little details you dont have hands-on experience with, because you dont experience this, even on a two-week active-duty tour, you know. So that was until January, when we received the troops; and they activated the batteries that were reorganized. It was a big expansion; and we manned installations that were obsolete, in a way.

My first assignment was as CO of Battery D. We decided to move to one of those two old barracks out at Fort Barry. We were assigned to Battery Mendell [two 12-inch DC] at that time.

Battery E was next door. It was one of the active batteries, because they were manning the 16-inch gun battery at the time [Battery Townsley]. But they only had skeleton organizations for all of these batteries. Theyd maybe only have 70 men, where a full complement was a little over 200.

I received my full complement of draftees in January. Of course, I had a cadre - first sergeant, some of the technical people, cooks, and the mess sergeant that you have to have. Basically, they had some training. And Battery E next door, they received enough to fill up to a full complement.

Our assignment to Mendell was only temporary. We received these troops about January 23, and by April we had to fire one gun at Battery Mendell. These people came directly from the reception center; they had no basic training. We had to train them from scratch, as far as military discipline, whatever it was. So we fired Battery Mendell, and it was quite successful. I think one round put a cres-cent on one of the skids on the target, but we had a misfire because of a faulty primer. So because of the time element, we ended up with only a satisfactory performance.

Volume 24, Issue 4 The Coast Defense Journal Page 20In May, we were moved to Battery Chester [two 12-inch DC, one 12-inch BC] at Fort Miley, a

12-inch disappearing battery with that one old 1892 barbette carriage, with the hoist to raise the shells up. It was sort of a museum piece, really obsolete. But they werent going to give up on them because, I guess, the overall idea was use whatever you have. I commanded that battery, and there we started our continued training; not only artillery, but even mob control. This was just routine, but there are a lot of techniques that have to be learned so you dont fire at people indiscriminately. We trained in chemical warfare, infantry, use of the bayonet, and small arms target practice.

Fort Miley, 1938. NARA, Archives II, RG-499, Entry-118

Back when we were with Battery D, at Battery Chester at Fort Miley, we had that one old barbette gun. The barbette gun, we just trained on it. We only did it for fun, really, because we didnt have enough personnel, I dont think that we could have used it. It was just something else that could be used. And we did train on how to load it and so on.

But, at any rate, I remember this one group; I dont know who they were, inspectors, maybe from Fourth Army. One of the officers - I think he was a major-said, Did you ever fire these guns? I said, Look at Sutro Baths down there. Theyre all glass roofs. You know what would happen if we fire the gun? He said, Well, we could pay for it. I dont know if those guns were fired. Not when Sutro Baths were there.

Fort Miley was surrounded by what they called a man-proof fence. No fence is man-proof, but that was enough security to keep out any casual person trying to get in. It was kind of like a post by


itself. We had our own post flag and a retreat ceremony every day. I had to mount a guard. Instead of sending people down to the guardhouse to go on a guard mount, we had to provide our own guard. We had rotation and people on guard; one officer. There were 12 of us [officers], we just had to rotate to be on duty.

The mortar batteries [Batteries Livingston and Springer] were given up because of their very lim-ited range. They used to practice with some of the mortar batteries. I went on one active duty in 1932, I think, where they had a mortar practice at the one on the south side, down towards Funston. There was a mortar battery there [Battery Walter Howe], and we watched that. But it was just a matter of training and tracking of targets, and so on, doing the things that, hopefully, theyd have better arma-ment to use later.

When I was in charge of Battery Chester at Fort Miley, I was senior officer for the entire post, be-cause there were no other officers, except our own battery. And we had other training. For example, a height finder was just brought in the service for antiaircraft purposes, a rather long tube with reflectors and telescopes. We had to train some personnel for that, too, because that was the only fire control for antiaircraft guns at the time.

We found a lot of foggy weather there in summer, of course, so we finally ended up sending them over to Oakland every day. I guess the Army Air Corps provided a plane for us to track. That was an-other one of the facets of training that went on.

Fort Cronkhite, 1939. NARA Still Pictures, 342-FH, B17205

Volume 24, Issue 4 The Coast Defense Journal Page 22Now, as far as incidents, I can move on to about December. E Battery had problems and they

relieved the commander and sent me over to take charge of the battery. I was scheduled to have target practice the week after December 7, 1941. I found a lot of things rather strange there. I reported in the afternoon and Im standing there talking to the first sergeant in the office and I look at my watch and I said, Its time for retreat.

Retreat? Havent you ever had a retreat? No. That was pretty sad. This is how bad things had gotten.

E Battery was in the barracks area at Fort Cronkhite, assigned to Battery Townsley [two casemated 16-inch guns]. They were in the throes of trying to locate all the property that had to be signed up. This was a big hassle for any commander; youre responsible for all the property. I wouldnt sign for anything until I could find it, and theres a lot of property with that 16-inch gun battery. That was an interesting part of getting started. I think this was several days before December 7.

Battery Townsley, 1940. NARA, RG 77, Entry 1007 But, at any rate, I got familiar with the organization and took care of some of the problems that

they had with the personnel. I had some excellent people, and some dogs. And, unfortunately, a lot of the problems were people that had gotten into the army voluntarily sometime in the past. The draftees were no problem.

On December 7, I had Quarters 26B on [Fort Winfield Scott]. My wife was at Berkeley visiting a friend, and the two children were out in the yard playing on Sunday morning, December 7, while I was trying to get some breakfast together. My daughter rushed in and said, They attacked Pearl Har-bor! So I turned on the radio and heard the story.


Quarters 26 A&B, Fort Winfield Scott, Schonhers quarters. NARA, RG 77, Entry 393, Box 237

Then the phone rang. General Stockton called and said that he was getting ready to activate all of our defenses, and he would call me later. In the meantime, on the radio, they had calls going on in the bay area. Everybody - all military personnel - report immediately. Another call from General Stockton - he said go ahead and report to the battery and get organized to be able to defend ourselves against any kind of attack. And thats what happened on Sunday morning.(2)

I think we had to bring the cots up, as they were in the barracks; scatter them around inside the battery emplacements the best we could. Theres a lot of room in there. Its hard to find it because its dark now. The quartermaster found a way to attach these springs to the wall and they could be held by chains so that they were in proper position and could be folded back after the bed had been made. So this became the living quarters. The kitchen had gasoline field ranges, which had been authorized because of the antiaircraft - the possibility of movement in the field - and we had enough area to feed. We had another area for the office and enough room for the officer personnel to put their own bunks in there, including the battalion commander, a good commander, Lt. Col. [John H.] Fonvielle, at the time.

I dont remember if it was the first night or the second, it was quite late - I was asleep in bed - I had a phone right next to me in bed and Fonvielle was right next to me. The phone rang, and the harbor defense commander said its been reported that the Japanese navy was 400 miles off the coast of California. I shook Colonel Fonvielle and we looked at each other. Four hundred miles, well, thats a long ways away, so we went back to sleep. I think both of us had very many reservations about that statement to begin with; turns out we were correct. At any rate, thats how my career started with Bat-tery Townsley.

Around the first days of the war we had an alert. We had a rather primitive radar setup right there at the roadside near the barracks area. Just where the road starts up the hill, there was a van parked with radar equipment. I think they had more than one. At any rate, immediately, the alarm was sounded that there were planes overhead and a blackout was ordered for San Francisco, but it was incomplete. I remember there was a lot of hair-raising over that as far as San Francisco was concerned. People went around jerking out lights, breaking windows, and so on. That happened to be a very clear night, too.


Lt. Col. John H. Fonvielle. Harbor Defenses of San Francisco: 1941, The Army and Navy Pub. Co.

Nobody could hear anything or see anything. The searchlight battery turned on all their searchlights. There was a big antiaircraft organization in the Oakland area. They were alerted. That all came to naught.

Several days later, we had a very heavy rain. Up and down the coast, the infantry and field artillery were just going around; from wherever they started, the Golden Gate Bridge was filled with trucks, ar-tillery going someplace to take up positions. And then it began to rain. This one day, a captain who had an Infantry company in the area, supposed to provide infantry protection, came and, lo and behold, it was Captain Bunker, who was a CCC commander at the same time I was. I said, All your people have are shelters only shelter halves. Well, I think its going to be okay. If youd like to move in behind the two guns, its a large covered area. Its kind of damp and cold, and the wind blows through there, but its out of the rain. He said that would be great, so I called Harbor Defense and they said thats fine. They moved in and it was heaven for them. They could get in out of the rain; put their sleeping bags on the cold concrete.

And we happened to be on alert at that time. We had a Class-A alert. One of the gun command-ers, a sergeant, came to me and said he had the magazine doors open. Had to have everything ready. And he said, There are quite a few Japanese in that outfit.

I said, Well, I dont know. Itll probably be all right if I called headquarters. I called the Harbor Defense Command Post. Gen. [Edward A.] Stockton came back personally and said, Well, theyre members of the army. Let em stay. I assumed if he had any question about it, I thought I had to inform him.


Gen. Edward A. Stockton. Harbor Defenses of San Francisco: 1941, The Army and Navy Pub. Co.

And they were there for only two nights, and then they moved on. I think there was a lot of repositioning-a lot of changes going on, even in our organization. Originally, the harbor defenses were organized as sectors. Gen. [Henry T.] Burgin at the time was the commander of the Northern Califor-nia sector. When war broke out, we were transferred to the control of the [9th] army corps. That was the organization for a while, until I guess it went back directly under 4th Army. Im a little hazy about this, anyway.

I know my promotion was delayed for about five or six months. It was early in January [1942], the War Department wanted to get data on bombproof shelters, and they had nothing about penetration by aerial bombs. They decided that they would use the 16-inch gun battery [Townsley]. Well, they constructed four concrete blocks of various thicknesses with various reinforcing steel in em and I was assigned the problem of firing at these blocks. Although the harbor defense ordnance officer would be charged with it, I never saw him.


Battery Townsley test blocks. NARAWell, it was kind of a neat problem. They had to define the muzzle velocity of the shell to approxi-

mate the terminal velocity of a bomb. So they had to use different powder charges to get the results they wanted. So they brought out an ordnance powder man, a civilian from Salt Lake City, who hap-pened to be in the corps area command structure. He made up the different sizes of powder charges. We were going to fire a live armor-piercing shell, but the ordnance man deactivated the base fuse, which sets it off. They wanted just to get the simple penetration.

The other problem was to aim a gun like that. The block was probably about 300 or 400 yards away; I dont remember the exact distance. I could bore-sight the gun by pointing it at the target they put up. First of all, you put a wire across the muzzle, and you connect that with the wire screen on the block, and they can determine the actual velocity of the shell when it cuts through the wire of the muzzle and when it penetrates the frame of wood with chicken wire. The frame wasnt very big, and I had to aim at it. I worked it out that Id have to aim the gun about 18 or 20 inches above the target for a spot. So I traversed the gun until I had somebody do it while I was looking through the primer hole. I had the cross-struts with the front of the barrel, so I had an aiming point. That way, I could set the gun as far as azimuth. Then I went over to the range drum and put a little scratch there, because the readings on it werent that fine. That worked fine.

The Lockheed Aircraft Company provided the high-speed camera. They rigged it up with the primer on the gun to have a slight delay to allow the camera to get up to speed before the guns fired. So, [the cameraman] actually fired the gun. Id just tell him Fire, hed start the camera, and then hed press the button and the gun would fire.

The projectile hit right in the middle of the screen. Unfortunately, the muzzle velocity was too high; the shell penetrated the block completely and lodged in the dirt behind it. So I had to come down to a lower velocity. The powder bags were quite long. They had to end up with a very small one, about like a pancake, about maybe eight inches deep and greater than 16 inches in diameter, because the powder chamber is bigger than the shell. At any rate, he put that in last. He closed the breech, got ready to fire again, and nothing happened. The captain said, What the hell did I do wrong? I said, Nah, nothing. I think its a misfire.

Colonel Fonvielle said, Well, why dont you put a new primer in it? I said, Well, regulation says that if the primer fires, you wait a full two minutes before you open the dang breech, so we waited and


pulled the primer out. The gun commander said open the breech and looked in and said, Is it still burning? I said, Close it, and I waited. I finally said, Theres something wrong with it. I opened it up. Well, the base of that powder charge, its painted red, and he thought that was burning. All that happened was this thing collapsed in there, and the flames just skittered right off the powder charge, never ignited. It didnt even smolder. It was just no better than a scorch mark on it, because when it collapsed, it was pretty flat; and the flame has to hit it directly.

Unfortunately, we blew the counter-recoil cylinder on the darn thing, because nobody knew that with this navy gun, you had to reduce the pressure in the counter-recoil mechanism at the time. We checked with the navy and they said, Oh, just reduce the pressure; we do it all the time, because they didnt fire a full [charge].

So then when we finished the rest of that successfully, they put the shell back in [the concrete block] and detonated it to see what happened to the concrete. Unfortunately, its like a mortar that had struck. If you look at the top of the concrete up there [on top of Casemate No. 1], theres this chip mark up there. When theyd detonate, I could hear the stuff rattling on the shield. See, they have a big, about three-inch-thick armor around the carriage, spaced around so no fragments could get through.

Somebody was telling me that they had a black 155 mm regiment [the 54th CA] down at Cronk-hite at that time, and they furnished the guard for the area down there. And this guard happened to hear this thing awhistling, and he started running and he stumbled down. And the fragment hit not far from him. We had a .50-caliber machine gun on top of the plotting room [PSR], and some of the stuff started raining down on them, too. So every time they detonated a shell, we had to get everybody to stand clear down in the Cronkhite area, because that stuff was just flying all over.

The shells actually dropped when they hit, and they had to hoist them back and put them in the crater, and then electrically detonate em. They have a very, very blunt armor-piercing steel front. In fact, those shells didnt even break up into pieces. We put one on top of a post on top of the battery there for a gas alarm. It made a nice bell sound. In fact, one of the guards, on a foggy night, he thought that was a person. He challenged; nothing happened, so he fired his rifle at it. He found out it was just this shell sticking on a post. It looked like a man in the fog.

We had USO groups come up to the battery, some famous actors. I cant remember em, but they were pretty famous. The only one I can remember is this funny fellow that had the big bug eyes, Col-onna, Jerry Colonna. And there were two women actresses that had the same last name. I cant think of them. Anyway, it went pretty well.

We had a lot of rain that winter. One of the base end stations - the last one up north near Drakes Bay, we couldnt even get to them with a truck. They were marooned for several days. So we went out with a truck and took several people along. We just carried the rations in about the last quarter mile. But they had good quarters at these base end stations and we supplied them. They did their own cook-ing. In fact, a couple of them, I think, got a deer or so.

The guys were on duty at the base end station constantly. At the first part of the war, they just lived there. They didnt rotate, stayed for weeks on end. They had bunks there.

As CO of Battery E, I was responsible not only for Battery Townsley and its two guns, but also for all the base end stations; they were all part of the same personnel. We had to fire up there in Drakes Bay and down past Point Montara, clear down to Devils Slide. And of course, we had to have plans for defense of the land around us. I was responsible for the antiaircraft machine guns around Townsley, as well.

Somewhere in the early past, [Assistant] Secretary of War John J. McCloy came out personally. I showed him around the battery, as battery commander. The battalion commander doesnt, he just goes


John Schonher at Battery Townsley. NPS, GGRA Archives

along. Its up to me to take him around. And he decided that the defensive area wasnt satisfactory. He wanted barbed wire entanglements put up. So we put them down on the beach there at Rodeo Lagoon and we put it up on the hillside, on the north side of the hill above the powder magazine. It was just barbed-wire entanglements, where you put posts in the ground. Theyre like a triangle, as I remember; very formidable. The barbed wire was dipped in some kind of tar-like substance to retard rusting in that salt air.

As far as the organization, there was the battalion organization and then there were the groups. There were really three groups - major-caliber, lighter caliber, and the mines. The major-caliber in-cluded Davis, Townsley, and Wallace. I never kept up too much on the six-inch gun batteries.

The year before Pearl Harbor, we had the 6th Coast Artillery; the 2nd Battalion, 18th Coast Artil-lery; and the 56th, which was tractor drawn. Of course, these were gradually withdrawn as time went on. The 18th was deactivated [May 5, 1944], and the officers, I think, went to either the antiaircraft or field artillery and I guess the enlisted personnel went into the infantry. We also had an antiaircraft battalion. It was activated when I became a lieutenant colonel. Lt. Col. [Richard R.] Moorman had command of the antiaircraft battalion. It was a separate battalion, the 65th Coast Artillery Battalion, but it was finally deactivated.(3)

All these units were gradually cut down as time went on. At different times after Id been promoted to lieutenant colonel, they took out a cadre of one lieutenant colonel and one major to activate anti-aircraft battalions, and this is where a good deal of the officers went. Colonel Moorman was assigned to the field artillery.

One of the courses that I went to in 1943, I guess, they decided that field officers, who would inspect motor vehicles, should know what to look for. So they had a school down at the ordnance, the


people that occupied Santa Anita racetrack. Colonel Moorman went down on one weeks tour there to learn all the intricacies of what maintenance is required for motor vehicles. Before that, well, I can remember the regimental commander, all he did is look to see that everything was clean and take a look at the dipstick. Thats all theyd ever do. And this modern detergent-type of oil was just coming in; and it doesnt look like the other. He didnt believe me. He got the motor-pool sergeant, who said, Oh, thats new. So he finally gave in. Thats how much he knew about inspecting a motor.

While we were there, we saw a very interesting gun parked over there. It was an eight-inch field artillery gun. We didnt know it existed; it was just something new. It took a huge vehicle to move it. The strange thing about it is when I got a letter from Colonel Moorman and he said he had a battalion of those eight-inch guns.

Camouflage was already being planned before I took over command of the battery. They had strung out cables from the top of the parapet to anchor bolts in the ground and put a great net that we could collapse very quickly and tow these cables out of the way to get the gun in position to fire. Of course, they had something different for the three-inch guns. There were flat things with cables run-ning out of them. Im not too familiar with them.

Fort Cronkhite April 26, 1944, before tone-down camouflage. NARA RG 77, Entry 1007, Box 136

The harbor defense commander said they had arranged with the navy to take a ride in one of their blimps, just to look at the camouflage. They had a blimp out all the time for patrol in the daytime for antisubmarine alerts. They let me sit in the bottom of the air seat, which was fine, because it was right in the center of gravity, and I never got airsick. We went over and the camouflage looked pretty good. Of course, I knew what I was looking for, but it blended in very nicely. They put the right number of streamers, the right colors, in there. It looked very good. That was all the camouflage measures. The base end stations had a certain amount; they had their steel visors painted with camouflage. The base

Volume 24, Issue 4 The Coast Defense Journal Page 30end stations were painted sort of browns and greens, dull greens. If you looked at them from a distance, you couldnt distinguish them.

We had one or two incidents where our authority checked our alertness by making dummy attacks, you know. But they never affected me. Most of it was done on the San Francisco side because it was a lot easier, I guess. But it was interesting, because the people making reports of what they saw were pretty bad.

The regular army officers were being drawn off constantly; they had better background than the reserve personnel and certainly were more qualified. Of course, I felt I did just as well as the battalion commander. Wed have been in bad shape without reserve officers. You can understand how pitifully small the Regular Army was - very small, a little under 300,000.

At any rate, I gradually moved up. Captain [Arthur] Kramer got promoted to major. I was still a captain; my first promotion was delayed because of this hang-up between our organizations. I finally got to be a lieutenant colonel in January 43, I think.

I was senior officer at the north post, so I had command of all the forts, with general responsibility for them. Of course, you have the quartermaster and all the other people that do all the housekeeping anyway.

Forts Baker, Barry, and Cronkhite all remained separate, as far as names were concerned. They were not important so much as the armaments was concerned. I had Battery Wallace and Townsley, and I had Battery Davis to the south. There was quite a bit of distance between them. I also had command of the searchlight battery. That was in the battalion, too, because it provided illumination for the major-caliber guns and for the others, too.

As major-caliber commander here on the north side, my action station was the Group Barry command post on Wolf Ridge, but I didnt spend much time in it. I remember when I was battalion commander we had target practice with Battery Townsley. Captain [Wayne B. Garff], I think, was in charge then. I just stood outside his command station and gave him his orders for his target, because I wanted a place right where I could see what was going on and could see the guns fired that Id never fired in a target practice.

As far as an administrative post, I had that Fort Baker headquarters building, the little building up at the end of the parade ground. And when the alert status got much lower, I spent time there for administrative problems. The rest of the time, it was just a matter of inspections and constant supervi-sion of what was going on, which wasnt a big chore, really.

By the time I was battalion commander, I dont think we ever had any Class-A alerts. In June of 1942, of course, we had broken the Japanese code and we knew about the attacks on Alaska and Midway. They gave us that same information, because we wouldnt know; might have to do some kind of diversion even on the coast. So we knew about it in advance. But I dont think we had any real im-mediate alert. Maybe we were Class B, ready to go in 15 minutes. I just dont remember. It was such a long period that we were there; and, yet, we spent so much of it in a rather relaxed state of readiness. Nothing was a threat.

When I became battalion commander, Colonel [Felix M.] Usis was regimental commander. I ad-mired him; he was a very competent officer, a West Point graduate, and he went back into the reserves. He was a Ford motor company executive in Richmond, and he came back as a lieutenant colonel. He was first the mine commander and was promoted to colonel. Then he got a little itchy for something more. He wanted to get something in Europe or something, and finally he ended provost marshal [the officer in charge of military police] in North Africa. He came back for a visit afterwards, and he didnt think much. He said, You cant believe what our troops can do.


Fort

Cro

nkhi

te, 1

945.

HD

Ann

ex

Volume 24, Issue 4 The Coast Defense Journal Page 32When Colonel Usis was regimental commander, 1943 at least, if I remember, they were taking

lieutenant colonels and majors for activating antiaircraft battalions almost every month or two, but Colonel Usis said, No, youre not going to go. He just wouldnt let me go.

Then the other time was in August of 45; I was picked for what they call Shipment X-Ray, about 2,000 officers, to set up for the invasion of Honshu. There were about 2,000 officers there. They had to come up with a different type of organization, a much more massive type of situation, I guess. At headquarters on the post, I had to do something for the family and started to scurry around to find a place for them to rent, which was difficult. About the second day, Col. [William F.] Lefrenz called me and said, Ah, forget it. Somebody down at Presidio has bumped you off. So the irony of it was they went out on the ship. I knew when they were going out. They went out under the Golden Gate Bridge on VJ Day and kept going.

On VJ Day, I went down to San Francisco that afternoon, and the activities were really starting. Everybody was out on the street. More sailors around than servicemen, really, and doing a lot of crazy things. I remember one sailor was doing a handstand on the Emporium building. I saw that, figured he was probably drunk anyway. But, at any rate, that was the big celebration. And then the 6th Coast Artillery staged a large VJ Day parade, about a day or so later. I was in command of the regiment, whatever was left of it, for the parade.(4) It was interesting. We started down one of the side streets down at the foot of Market Street. I dont know how far we went up Market Street. I think up to Civic Center, at least. The army outranks the navy, so we led the parade.

The cluster of three-inch guns on the hill above the battery had their own command structure. They were a separate battalion, not part of the 6th Coast Artillery Regiment at that time, I think. I re-member, when I went on active duty in 1939, the 6th Coast Artillery manned those antiaircraft guns. They were under the battalion commander. It was Colonel Moorman at the time, and they were in touch with the radar setup that they had.

The radar for gun control didnt come into being until way late, somewhere in 44-45, I guess. Needless to say, we relied on the plotting board and visually tracking the target. Generally, that was thought quite acceptable because the navy couldnt do any better with the fog than we could. But they did develop radar to the point where they could track a target. And we actually had a firing with it.

By that time, before the plotting board, you either had a deflection angle on a sight, which would aim the gun far enough ahead of the target to reach it when the target gets there; or you could use the azimuth circle and then youd range drop for the range. Then they developed these synchronous motors to set a moving dial for elevation and a moving dial for the azimuth in connection with radar tracking of the target.

We actually conducted one shoot with Battery Davis. As a safety officer for it, I dont remember that I was too well prepared for it, because nobody gave me much information. But, at any rate, wed picked a foggy day; we couldnt see the mine planter towing the target. They had a special reflector on the target that gave a good signal for the radar. They started firing, and nobody could see anything. And the target, of course, was under the overcast. They [the men on the tow boat] could see the target being towed, so they could just plot the positions of the shots. But I never did hear what the final results were. They werent as accurate as they were with the other method. But this needed more fine tuning, I would imagine.

The crew on the gun, for the elevation, had a moveable pointer. All they had to do is keep the gun pointed to match the pointer. And for azimuth, theres a control that controls the motor turning that big turntable. All they had to do was match the pointer, and thats all-they didnt have to wait for the bell to fire. They could fire any time. That data was good continuously. At other times, you had to fire on the bell; because that was your predictive point.


The plotting room [PSR] behind Battery Townsley did have gas proofing, so they could seal it and they could keep air pressure inside. We didnt use it, but it was there to use. I dont remember much about it now. Poison-gas attacks didnt prey on my mind. The way the wind blows there all the time, we didnt think that we had much problem with gas.

At the battery, we had gates. There was a big kind of gate with a smaller gate back of each gun, thats where the troops went out mostly, that I can remember; because it was right at the end of the corridors for both ways to go out. I think this is the way they went in and out.

We kept on with our retreat ceremony every day. Thats just part of living in the military. We had formations right out there in the road right in back on the battery.

Fort Scott was considered a good coast artillery post, but when I look back on it, I dont know if I agree. All those peacetime years, there was so little money for training. They had skeletonized troops, maybe 90 men in a battery. A lot of their time was spent just on housekeeping duties; mowing the grass or policing, guard duty. And the officers had no ability to train. The captain would go down and sign the morning report in the morning and then go out to do something and hed go back to his quarters, if he wanted to, I guess. You know, this was boredom.

Then you brought up a group of reserve officers who were highly motivated to get going and theyre college graduates, mostly. I think they did yeomans duty as far as the harbor defenses. And Im sure the 35th Infantry was the same way. I know one of my classmates in high school was captain in the 35th Infantry and very competent, a graduate of Oregon State.

As far as my contribution to the defenses of San Francisco, as I look back on it after the passage of some 50 years, Im confident that I certainly had been able to perform my duty very capably. I dont see any problem with what I had to do. Its just a matter of training and responsibility. I think the CCC training I had helped me a lot with dealing with people as a captain. I always look back on it as sort of a rewarding time, because you were responsible for 200 men, and there are a lot of things you can do for them.

I remember one of our best trainee, as far

Documents

Coast Art Journal w History of Ft DuRussey