Scan of original print of the 1915 War Department Board of Review
Transcription
Scan of original print of the 1915 War Department Board of Review
REPORT OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR (NOVEMBER 26, 1915) ON T HE COAST DEFENSES OF THE UNITED STATES THE PANAMA CANAL AND THE INSULAR POSSESSIONS (Printed for use of the Subcommittee in charge of the Fortification Appropriation Bill, Committee Oil Appropriations, House of Representatives) SIXTY-FOURTH OONGRESS FIRST SESSION CONFIDENTIAL WASB1NG'l'ON GOVERNMENT PRIN'rING OFFIOE 1916 - · /' MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MAJ. GEN. HUGH L. SCOTT, Chief of Staff. BRIG . GEN. M. M. MACOMB , hief War College Division. MAJ. GEN. TASKER H. BLISS, Chief Mobile Army Division. BRIG. GEN. E. M. WEAVER, hie! Coast Artillery Division. BRIG. GE J. DAN . KI GMAN , Chief of Engineers. BRIG . GEN. WILLIAM CROZIER, Chief of Ordnance. CAPT. STANLEY D. EMo !CK, Coast Artillery orps, R ecorder. 2 REPORT OF BOARD OF REVIEW. WAR DEPARTlI1ENT, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF, Washington, November 26, 1915. From: Board of Review. To: Secretary of War. Subject: R eport of the Board of Review as to the needs of seacoast defen es. In compliance with the instructions of the Secretary of War directing the Board of R eview to report upon so much of a letter of the Hon. Swagar Sherley, M. C., dated March 10, 1915, as relates to the needs of seacoast defenses, the following is submitted: The last comprehensive report upon the needs of our seacoast defenscs was that mad e by the Taft Board on February 1, 1906. That board recommended that additional armament be emplaced at a number of localities in continental United States, but as the appropriations for new fortifi cations that have been made since that date have been confined mainly to the insular possessions and the Panama Canal, comparatively little of the additional armament proposed by that board ha been installed. The period that has elapsed since the date of the report of the Taft Board has been marked by radical changes in naval designs, which included the development of the dreadnaught type of battleship, a type carrying heavier armor and much more powerful ordnance than its predecessors. As a consequence both the offensive and defensive capabilities of warships have been materially increased. In recognition of thi development the department during the early part of the current year adopted the policy that the majorcaliber direct-fire gun to be installed in future should be of at least 16-inch caliber . Considerations of the same character, more particularly the greater structural strength and increased deck protection of modern battleships, have led the Board of R eview to recommend that seacoast mortars to be installed in future should be of 16-inch caliber. In addition to these types, the projects of the board, 3 4 ..f REPORT OF BOARD OF REVIEW . as outlined hereinafter, call for the utilization as howitzers of a number of 12-inch guns that are now on hand, by mounting them on barbette carriages of a special design that will permit of the attainment of a range of 30,000 yards. The projects of the board, together with a brief statement of the objects expected to be accomplished by the proposed additional armament, are as follows: PORTLA D, ME.: Two 12-inch guns mounted for long-range fire-to defend the harbor and the existing defenses against a long-range naval bombardment. BOSTON, MASS.: Two 16-inch guns and four 12-inch guns mounted for long-range fire-to supplement the fire of the existing defenses and to defend the anchorage areas against long-range naval bombardment. BUZZARDS BAY: Two 12-inch guns mounted for long-range fire at Fort Rodman-to deny the bay as a base to the warships and transports of an enemy. EASTERN ENTRA CE, LONG ISLAND SOUND: Six 16-inch guns, eight 16-inch mortars, and two movable 4.7-inch guns-to supplement the fire of existing defenses, particularly in the prevention of a run-past, and to afford a defense against a long-range naval bombardment. SOUTHERN NEW YORIC Four 16-inchguns, four 12-inch gun mounted for long-range fire, four 6-inch guns, and sixteen 16-inch mortars-to advance t·he line of defense and preclude a naval bombardment of New York and Brooklyn, to afford increased protection to a United States fleet debouching from Ambrose Channel, and to prevent the reduction of the existing defenses at Foi·t Hancock by long-runge naval fire. DELAWARE BAY: FoUl' 12-inch guns mOWlted for long-range fire-to deny the bay as a base to the warships and transports of an enemy. CHESAPEAKE BAY: Four 16-inch and four 6-inch gun, and eight 16inch mortars-to deny the bay to the battleships and transports of an enemy and to afford protection to a United States fleet debouching from the bay under fU'e of a hostile naval force. PENSACOLA, FLA.: Two 12-inch guns mounted for long-range fire-to defend the harbor and city against long-range naval fire. REPORT OF iBOARD OF REVIEW. 5 MISSISSIPPI RIVER: E ight 6-inch guns- to afford an lUner line of defen e against an attempted run-past by crui ers and destroyers. GALVE 'TON, TEX.: Four 12-inch guns mounted for long-range fireto defend the harbor and city against long-range naval bombardment. SAN FRANCI CO, CAL. : Two 16-ineh guns, two 12-inch guns mounted for long-range fir , two 6-inch guns, and four 16-inch mortars-to defend the city and harbor again t long-range naval bombardment and to supplement the fire of existing defenses over certain channels of approach. COLUMBIA RIVER: Four 16-inch 1110rtars-to cover water areas not covered effectively by existing armament. PUGET SOUND: Four 16-inch, five 6-inch, and four 3-inch guns, and eight 16-inch mortars- to supplement the fire of the existing defenses and to afford an inner line of defense for Admiralty Inlet. \.. OAHU: SL"X 12-inch guns mo un ted for long-range fire-to cover water areas not covered by existing armament from which the ' naval utilities can be bombarded by a hostile naval force, and to afford a means of defense against hostile warships attempting to support landings on the island. MANILA, P . 1.: Two 12-inch guns mounted for long-range fire-to afford a means of defense against long-range artillery that may be established by an enemy on the Mariveles Peninsula and to supplement the existing defenses in fire to the seaward. J PANAMA CANAL, ATLANTIC TERMINUS: Two 16-inch guns, and four 12-inch gun mounted for long-range fire- to supplement the exi ting defense and to preclude a long-range naval bombardment of the Gatun Spillway from the water areas to the north and we t of the mouth of the Chagres River. PANAMA CANAL, PACIFIC TERMINUS. Two 16-inch guns and twelve 16-inch mortars- to reduce the danger to be apprehended from a concentrated naval fire upon the existing defenses and to enlarge the protected water areas afforded a United States fleet debouching from the canal. The total armament, for continental United States included in the above projects comprises twenty-two 16-inch gum:, twenty-four 12-inch guns mounted for long-range fire, twenty-three 6-inch and v'" 6 REPORT OF BOARD OF HEVTE W . four 3-1nch guns, a.nd forLy-cight 16-inch mortars; for the insular posse ions, eight 12-inch guns mounted for long-range fire; and for the Pn.nltma Cann.l, four 16-inch guns, four 12-inch guns mOlmted for long-range fire , and t w Ive 16-inch mortar . In adJition to the above the Pl'oj <'ct of thE' bon.rd inC'lude(one hundred and thirty-four 3-in ch anLiairer af t gun fo], the seacoast defenses of c.ontin ental ni ted States, sevE'nLeen 3-inch ant,iaircraft guns for the in3ulflr po ses ions, and eight 3-inch nnti aircrn.ft guns for the P anama Cnnal. The board haa recommended nl 0 that an ItPpl'Oll'iation be a 'ked of Congress at i L nex t. ession for the constru ction of six 16-inch movable hov..-itzE'rs and a n experimE'ntal 14-inch gun on railroad-cal' mount for defense again t hostile landings in unfortifiod harbOl . The poli cy followed h<,retofore as to reser ve seaeoa, t ammunition has contemplated the ac umulation of the o-called t.wo-hours' allowance-an allowance assumed to be. suffi cient for the dmation of a single engagel11 ·nt. The board is co nvinced that thaL allowance is inadequate, an d hal> recommended that Lhe allowancE's for the several caliber;; be: (a ) For gun in co ntin ental United tates, except gun. of 8-inch caliber and upward on inner lines of defense, allowance.;; equal to one-half the accuracy Me of the respr.ctive calibers' for morta.rs , excopt Oll inner lines of defense, an nllowance equal to onc-folll'th the accul'aey life. (b) For armament of -inch caliber and upward on inner lines of defense in co ntin ental United State~ , allowances equ al to olle-half those for outer lines. (c) For guns in the in ular POs,'(\' sion;; and on the Canal Zone, allowances equal to the accuracy life of the respecti ve calibers ' for mortars, an allown.nce equal to two-thirds the aceul'l1.cy life. In so far as can be foreseen by the board at the present time, the only additional land that will be required in co nn ection with existing defenses will be a small amount at Los Angeles for the installation of certain accessories. For the projected defenses additional land will be needed at Boston, Rockaway Beach , Delaware Bay, near New Orleans, San Francisco, Puget Sound, and at Panama. The estimated cost of the areas required is shown in the tables of estimated cost given hereinafter. J 7 REPORT OF BOARD OF REVIEW . The board has studied the existing seacoast fortifications with a view to determining which, if any, are of insufficient military importance to warrant their retention. As a r esult of this study tbe board has reached the conclusion that tbe following armament is of insufficient military value to warran t incurring tbe cost involved in prov iding a m anning personnel or ammunition therefor: Boston : One lO-in ch rifle. Long Island Sound: Two 8-inch rifles. Eastern ew York: SL'\:teen 12-inch mortars (cast iron) . Sou them New York: Two 8-inch rifles. Delaware River: Two 12-inch and two 8-incb rifles. Cape Fear River: Four 8-in ch rifles and four 12-il1ch mortars (cast iron). Mobile : Two 8-inch rifles. San Francisco: Sixteen 12-inch mortars (cast iron) and fi ve -inch rifles. (It is proposed , in connection with the above scheme, that [our steel mortars shall be transferred from Fort Totten to Fort Slocum, and fo ur steel mortars from Fort Howard to Fort Slocum, and that four steel mortars from Fort De Soto and fo ur hom Fort .\forgan shall be transferred to San Diego to be mounted in the emplacements authorized at the last session of Congress.) The board is of the opinion also that upon tbe installation of tbe proposed additional armament called for w1d er the proj ects above outlined, the following armament will become of in ufficient military value to warrant incurring th e cost involved in providing .a manning personnel or ammunition th erefor, and tb e co t of ammunition for this armament is not included in th e total e timates of cost given below: Long Island SOlmd: Two lO-ineh and four 5-inch riA e E ast ern New York: Two 8-in ch rifles . Southern New York: SLxteen 12-incb mortars (cast iron ). Baltimore : One 12-inch and three 8-in cb rifle ~ . Potomac River : Three 8-inch rifles. Pensacola: Two 8-inch rifles. New Orleans: Two 8-inch rifl es . C(1lumbia River: Four 12-inch mortars . In view of tbe impracticability of anticipating the military a,nd naval developments of the future, the board is not prepared at this time to recommend the relinquishment by the Government of any N • 8 R EPORT OF BOARD OF REVIEW . of the areas of land h eretofore acquired by the Government in connection with existing or prospective for tification projects, and it recommends, therefore, that th e armament listed above, and the areas of land on which it is now emplaced, he retained for possible fut ure miGtury needs. The board ha . consid ered the advisa.b ility of continuing the disappearing carriage in seacon· t fortifications to be construct ed in the future, or of sub titut ing in its stead some other cal'liage. "The board is of the opinion that th e disappearing principle should be retain ed and that it should be the type of mount for direct-fire guns, except in those instances where special conditions may render advisable the installation of the turret or the barbette mount." . The following table shows the approximate estimated cost of completing the accessories, including the increased allowances of ammunition proposed by th e board for existing defenses : Con ti nent.'ti United States: Ammunltion __ ____ __________ __ _____ ______ ___ _____ ___ $20, 166, 362 Sit es __________ _________. _. ___" " _'_ ... ____ . _. _.__ _ 16, 000 Submarine mines __ . _. _. _. .. . __. _. _. _. ___ __. _____ . __ 506, 231 Submarine-mine stru ctures __ _____ . __ _. __. _.. __ ___ . __ 411, 968 Fire control. ___ ______ _____ __ ______ ___ _. _______ . _____ _ ] , 928, 758 searchlights ___ . __ . _. ___ _____ _________ . _____ __ ____. __ 1,858,700 Power plants _____ __ __ __ . __. ___ _. _. __..... . . . . _.. . _. _ Moderni zing emplacements ____ . _.. __ __. _. ___ __. _. ___ 160,000 1,500,000 Total Unitecl States .. .. __ ____ ______ _________ _______ ____ ___ __ __ $26, 638, 019 I nsular possessions : Ammuni tion ____ ___ ____________ ___ _____ ____ _________ Submarine min es __________ ______ _. ___ __ ___ ___ _. __ _. _. Subma.rine-mine structures _. ____. ____ ___ _. ______ _. __ Fi.re control. __ __ _____ .. __ ____________ ____ _____ __ _____ 7, 384,500 138, 100 10,000 H 2, 050 Total insular possessions ______ ____ ____ ____ ___ __. _____ . __ ___ ___ . . Panama Canal : Ammunition __ __ _________ _____ __ _. ___ ___ ____________ Subma rin (> mines ________ __ . ____ __ __ ________ __ ______ Subma rine-mine stru ctures. __ __ _. ___ ____. _. _____ __. _ 7,644, 650 3, 682, 000 240, 000 47, 000 Total Panama CanaL. _.. _______ . ___ ____ . __ _. ______ ___ ____. ___. ~, 969, 000 Approximate total estimated cost of completing accessories for all existing . defenses ____ __________ ___ ____ ___ . ___ . _. __. __. _. ___ . _____ __. _____. _ 38, 251, 669 9 REPORT OF IBOARD OF REVIEW . The following table shows the approximate estimated cost of the additional armament proposed by the board and of the accessories therefor : Continental U nited States: Armament ___ __... ___ . _______________________ _______ $15,478,000 Emplacements ___ __. __. _____ . _______ . ___ " ____ . _____ _ 13,863, 000 Ammunition ____ .. _____ __ ____ ____ ___ __ __________ __ __ 9,467,638 sites ___ ___ _______ . ______________ _. _. ____ __________ _ 1,886,000 Submarine mines _____ . __________ ___ . _____ __ _. _____ _ Submarine-mine structUl'es __ ______ . __ ' ____ _: ________ _ Fire controL __ _. ____________ ____ ___ __ ______ ____ ___ ___ Searchlights ________ _____ ___ . _____ __________ __. __ . __ _ Power plants. ________________ . ___________ _________ . . 419, 750 242,000 1,236,000 592,000 1,140,000 Total United States ______________ . ___ ... ___ . ___________________ $44, 324,388 Insular possessions : Armament ____ . __________ . ______ _. ___ ____ _______ __. _ Emplacements ____ ___________ _. _. ___ ___ ___ . _____ __. __ Amm unition_____ ___ ___ __________ _________ _________ _ F ire control. ____________________ . _______ _____________ Searchlights _________________________________________ Power p lants ______ ____ _____ __________________ __. ____ 610,000 977,000 1,571,500 79,000 140,000 80,000 Total insular possessions ________ __ _____________ . _______ __ __ ____ _ Panama Canal : Armament. ________________ . __________ . _______ . _____ Emplacement's ____________ _______ . ____ . _________ ___ __ Sites ___ __ __. ___ _. _____________ . __ __. _______________ Ammunition _____ . _______ ____________________ . ______ Fire control. _____ ____ _____ _. _________ . ______ ___ __ __. _ Searchlights _________________________________________ Power plants . __ __ ___ . ___ . _____ . _____________ . _______ 3,457,500 2, 440,000 2,348,000 100,000 4,573,000 225, 000 160, 000 180,000 Tot.al Panama Canal ___________________________________________ 10, 026, 000 Approximate total estimated cost o[ proposed additional armament and accessories ______ . ____ ______ _____________________ . __________ . _______ 57,807,888 ,- 10 REPORT OF 'BOARD OF REVIEW. The consolidaLed totals of the above estimates, arranged by items, are as follows: Armament __ __ . .... _.... _. . . _......... _............. . .. _... .... . . . _. $18,528, O()() Emplacemel1t. .. ......... ....... .. .. . .... _. .... .. . __ . .... . ___ . _... _. . 17,188,000 Ammunition ..... .... . ......... ..... . _......... .. . . ... . . . . .. _...... . 46,845, 000 Sites . ..... _..... __ . . . _.. .. ..... _.. . . . . . . . . ..... _. . ........ . .. .. ... . 2, 002, 000 Submarine mines ................. . . . . ... _........... ........ .. . ... . 1,394, 081 Submarine-mine structures ......... .... .. ___ ............... . ....... . 710,968 Fire controL .. .. _.. _. . .. _. . ...... .. . . ...... . ....... . . . ............ .. . 3, 580,808 earchlights . . .. __ __.. . .. _. .. ... ....... . .. . . _. ..... _.. _. .. _. _. _.. ... . 2,750,700 Power plant ........................... . ......... . ... _............. . 1, 560,000 Modemizing emplacements ................ _. _. _........ _........... . 1,500, 000 Grand total. .. . ........ . .......... . .. _....................... . 96, 059, 557 This gr and total, $96,059,557, which includes the estimated costs of completing the accessories for existing armament, of procuring and installing the proposed additional armament, and of providing acce ories therefor, may also be subdivided as follows: For continental United States ....... ... .. .. ......... _. _..... ......... 70,962,407 For the insular possessions .................. . .. .. _. _. . .. . ... _. . . . . . . . 11, 102, 150 Fol' the Panama Canal.. ........... ......... . . . ...... . ......... ..... _ 13, 995, 000 A pproximate grand total for the United States, insular possessions, and Panama Canal. . .. . .... .... _.. ... _................ 96,059,557 If the appropri ations to be made by Congress be equal to the amount" that can be expended annually \\,--1th advantage by the constructio n departments, the manufacture and installation of all of the armament included in the projects of the board may be expected to require approximately foUl' year.;;. In accordance with the in tructions of the Secretary of War, the amount of the estimates for new fortification work submitted for consideration by Congress at the next session has been confined to $20,000,000, a sum which is approximately one-fourth of the total e timated cost of the project submitted by the board on September 15, 1915. An ·appropriation for the first year of an amount greater than $20,000,000 could be expended, however, with advantage, and would result in greater expedition in the accomplishment of the entire proj ect. The conclusions of the board upon the particular items of armament to b e included in the estimates submitted for consideration by REPORT OF ~OARD OF REVIEW . 11 by Congress at the next session were based upon the following assumption : (a) That the installation of the proj ected armament for Rockaway Beach is recognized to be a matter of fir",t importance; but, as it is expected that approximately one year will be required for the Government to acquire title to the land upon which the defenses will be erected, the actual appropriation of funds for the fortification of that locality, except for the acquisition of the site: may be deferred until next year without delaying materially the final completion of the proj ec t, provided authorization be given to proceed to carry out the execution of the project in a continuous way. (b) That the installation of the 12-inch guns mounted for longrange fire will afford, in genera.!, a greater measure of protection than can be obtained oth erwise in the same time and for a like expenditure of funds. (c) That as the supply of anti-aircraft guns for the protection of existing defenses is an urgent necessity, and as these guns can be procured expeditiou ly, provision for the procurement of a number of these guns should be included in the program for this year. (d) That it is deemed inadvisable to postpone the completion of the fortifications at San Pedro for such additional time-about one and one-half years-as would be required to substitute 16-inch guns in place of the 14-inch guns now approaching completion . H. L. SCOTT, Major General, Chiej oj Staff, Senior Member oj BOa1,d. ESTIMATED COSTS, BY LOCALITIES, OF PROJECTS OF BOARD OF REVIEW, INCLUDING ESTIMATED COSTS OF COMPLETING ACCESSORIES FOR EXISTING ARMAMENT (DETAILS OF ESTIMATES GIVEN IN REPORT OF BOARD OF REVIEW OF NOV. 26, 1915). .... ~; '/ Locality. Arma- ment. Emplacemen ts. Ammunit ion . Sites. Fire conSubmarine 1s Ubmarine-1 mine trol. mines. structures. UNITED STATES. IHl, S70 Kennebec River ... ....... . .. .......... .. · 1·········· · ·1 ·· · · · ······· Portland. . . .... . . . . . ....... .. .. . ... . ..... SIlO, ooo 5240,000 Portsmouth .. ... . . . .. . ..... _.. ... .. . ..... ......... . .. .......... . . Boston ................ . ... . .. ... ... .. .. .. S70,OOO 930,000 New Bedford. ....... . . ........ ..... . ..... 110,000 240,000 Narragansett Bay. ..... . .. .. . ... .. ....... . .. ......... .......... . . Long Island Sound. . .... .. . . . ... .. . .. .. . . 3,240,000 1, 990, 000 Eastern New York .. ..................... . ... .. ...... .. .. . . ...... Southern New york.. ... .. ...... .... . . . .. ..... ... .... .... .. . . .... Sandy Hook.. . ... ............... . .... . .. . 2, 760,000 2, 900, 000 Delaware.... . ............................ 220,000 480,000 Baltimore. . . ...... . .... . . ... .. . . . . . . . .. .. ............ . .. ... . . . .. . Potomac. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... ... . .... . ....... ... . Fort Monroe.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...... ...... ... ......... Cape Henry... .............. . ... .. .. . . . .. 1, 980, 000 1,7S0,ooo ~:~;l!:~. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: Savannah . . ....... ... .................. .. . . . . .... .. ..... . . ...... . Key West . .. . .. ... . . .... . .. ... .. .. ........... . . . . .. . . .. . ... . ... . . 'rampa ... .. ..... . . ....... . .... ...... . . . ... .. ... ........... ...... . Pensacola... ....... ...... .... . . .. ...... . . 110,000 240,000 Mobile . .. . . .. .. . .... . ...... •. .. . ... .. . .. ... . ... . .. . . . . . ....... ... . 480,000 240, 000 New Orleans ... ..... . . . . .. . . ...... . . . ... . 480,000 Galveston ........ .. .. ...... . ...... . . . ... . 220,000 s25, ~1 I. ....... . 29,565(" ... . ....... $25,000 ......... . . . ........ .. S,OOO . .......... . . . . .. . ... . 1, 550,000 20,000 H ,SHi ......... . . . 992 . . ... : ..... ~ 3,370 25, SI5 , ... .. .. . . ... 17, 950 380,517 74,070 ( 10,992 ..... . . ... . . 000 .••... • •.... ..... .... ......... . . .. : . 4,504 . .. . .... ... . 6, 168 ............ 512 500 ... . ... . ... ........... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . . . ....... ... .. ···.·.·····1 $29,634,000 ::::::::::: 419,750 ~::: 242,000 ... . . ~~:~~ 2,650 2,140 I· 2,175 10, 000 3,130 15, 850 31,4QO Power plants. Searchligh ts. IS,275 · ·· ··~;:;~-.l1 S67,850 58, liS 159,450 56,025 377,025 254 , 500 35,300 47,225 249, 700 ' 158, 925 107,775 64.,650 36, 150 174, 000 $32,000 . .......... . 32,000 $20,000 ...... 80,000 ........ . . . . 64,000 ' 80, 000 80, 000 . 20,000 80, 000, .... .... ... . 48,000 I 160,000 32, 000 .... .... ... . , . ... ... ..... , ....... . ... . 240, 000 96,000 144, 000 40,000 96,000 . . .. . . .. . ... 80, 000 .. . . . . .. .... SO, 000 .......... .. 96,00<1' 160,000 Ilsl, 500, 000 64,000 .- ....... ... 96, 000 ... .. ....... 80, 000 . .... ... . ... 80, 000 . .. . ...... .. 96,000 . ..... . ... .. 96, 000 20, 000 112, 000 . ...... . . . . . 80,000 128, 000 128, 000 40, 000 ~:~: ' - 69,075 75,475 49,425 lOS, 125 52, 350 117,475 100,700 Moderni?ingemplacemen ts. , 1'otnl. $69, 155 499,415 153,~ 2, 129,442 535,210 474,975 0, 155,087 7S, 292 4S, 185 7,795,700 1,067,429 209,943 145,6(l2 116, 150 4,851,750 12-1., liS 183,S2O 151,725 157, 615 147,600 574, 125 185, 755 1,071,325 1,057,850 ). . t:d t;l "d 0 t:d ,., 0 ":I to 0 ~ t:l 0 ":I t:d t;l ~ t;l ~ \ San Diego . ............... . .. ........ . . ... ............ . ....... .. .. Los Angeles . .. .. ........ ..... ... . .. . .... . .......... . . 639,000 San Francisco . .. . .•...... ... .. . . .... .. ... 1, 100,000 1, 130, 000 P uget Sound .... . ................. . . ..... 2, 043,000 1, 880, 000 Columbia .. . ............ . ............ . . .. . 280,000 320,000 Contingenoies .... . ................. . ... . . . I 2, 195,000 2134,000 Total, Uni ted States .. . ........ .. .. . 15, 478,000 I NSlJLAR POSSESSlQN S. Oahu .. ..... ......... . ....... . ........... . Manila ...................... ... .. . .. ... . . Total insular possessions .. . ...... .. . 410, 000 200, 000 610,000 ... . .. . . ... . .... 16, 000 258,000 15,000 .. . ........ ........... 13, 863,000 1 249,000 728, 000 29,034, 000 I} 977,000 8, 956, 000 1,902, 000 . ...... 1,015,981 653, 968 I}·········· r ··········1 ........... 8, 956, 000 . . .. .. ..... . 166,482 127, 500 156,001 99,200 174,000 96,000 209,3SO 96, 000 48,225 112,000 3 141,300 . .......... . ... . .... . ... 80, 213 80,000 1,000 56,000 12, 870 1,3SO 7SO 500 17,750 ... . . . . .. ... 138, 100 .. ... 10, . . . 000 .... 138, 100 3, 104, 758 2, 450, 700 1 ~: : I.... ~~~:~· 10,000 191,050 G9,OOO 41 , 000 100, 000 160,000 20,000 SO,OOO 3(j2, 982 1, 112, 014 2, 915,000 4,4 17,570 781,475 2,255, 4SO 1,300,000 1,500,000 • 70, 962,407 60,000 .. . . . ..... .. 20, 000 .... .. ..... . 140, 000 1,439, 900 700, 250 80, 000 .. .. . ....... • II , 102, ISO ~ t:rJ '"Ii 0 ~ 1-3 PANAMA CANAL. P anama can s L .... ............. •. ....... , 2,440,000 ) 12,348,000 1 Orand tota L .. .. .. .... ......... .... . 18,528, 000 1 17, 188,000 8,255, 000 1 100, 000 1 46,845, 000 1 2,002, 000 240, 000 1 1, 394,081 47,000 1 710,968 225, 000 3,580,808 I 100,000 2, 7SO, 700 I 180, 000 1············113,995,000 1,500, 000 1 1,500,000 I 96,059,557 0 "':I tjj 0 ~ Includes s ix 16·in ch mon,ble howi tzers, one 14-in ch moyable gon, a nd 134 antiaircralt gons. ' Includes 5134,000 lor emplacements lor nntiaircralt guns. • This nmou nt represents value 01 certain ordna nce !fre·control matarial on hand a nd has been dedu~ted in obtainillj! tbe tota l, 83,104,758 lor fITe control lor United States. • 'Potal shown Includ es a mounts lor ammunition , 829,634,0001 and lor modernizing emplacements, ~I ,500,OOO, in addition to to ta ls lor loea 1itles. • Total shown includes amount lor ammunition in addi t ion w totals lor localities. 0 o ....<: I t:J "':I ~ t:rJ t:rJ ~ ~ \ " t; \ · - -. r --- - - - . :-~ L/~ l,,,-., .I. • R DAD"'" :l ,. 'I!: r- ~ T •
Similar documents
Open resource
board is of the opinion that the disappearing principle should be retained and that it should be the type of mount for direct-fire guns, except in those instances where special conditions may rende...
More information