FORTITUDINENEWSLETTER OF THE MARINE CORPS HISTORICAL PROGRAM

VOLUME XIII SUMMER 1983 NUMBER 1

•1

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution isunlimited.

PCN 10401220100

DIVISION

HISTORICAL BRANCHCot John (1 Miller, USMCDeputy Director for History

Mr. Henry I. Shaw,Jr.Chief Historian

Hi stones Section: Maj Frank M. Batha, Jr., USMC; Maj Terrence P.

Murray. USMC; Maj Edward F. Wells, USMC; Mr. Jack Shulimson;Mr. Charles R. Smith; Mr. V. Keith Fleming, Jr.

Reference Section: Mr. DannyJ. Crawford; Mr. Robert V. Aquiina;Mrs. Ann A. Ferrante; Miss Lena M. Kaijot.

Oral History Section: Mr. Bcnis M. Frank.

MUSEUMS BRANCHCol F. B. Nihart, USMC (Ret)Deputy Director for Museums

Mr. Charles A. WoodChief Curator

.4rtists-in-ResidrnceLtCol Charles H. Waterhouse, USMCR

Capt DonnaJ. Neary. USMCR

Marsne Ba,rack, Special Projects: Mr. Richard A. Long. MaterialHistory: Mr. Kenneth L. Smith-Christmas. Echibits: Mr. Carl M.DeVere, Sr.; GySgt Davrd Dendy, USMC; Mr. Benny I,. Lenox, Sr.Art: Mr. John T. Dyer. Jr. Personal Papers: Mr. Joseph M. Miller.Registrar: Mr. John H. McGs.rry Ill.

Volume XIII

Museums Activities, QuanticoLtCol Herman C. Brown, USMC

Officer-in-Charge

History: lstLt Samuel H. Bishop, USMC. Ordnance: Mr. AnthonyW. Tommell. Aviation: Mr.Joseph E. Payton. Exhibits: Mr. RonaldJ. )'etkins. Securrry: Sgr Miguel Saninocencio, USMC

SUPPORT BRANCHLtCol Philip A. Forbes. USMC

Head/Division Executive Officer

Administrative: CWO4 Robert M. Skidmoec, USMC. Security:GySgt Vernon U. Kitele, USMC. Archives: Mrs. Joyce E. Bonnett.Library: Miss Evelyn A. Englander.

Publications Production: Mr. Robert E. Strudee. Production: MissCatherine A. Scoll. Graphics: Mr. Dennis W. Kirschncr. Typeset-ting: LCpl Stanley W. Crowl, USMC.

HIS TOR YAND MUSEUMS

F ORTITUD INEMotto of the United States Marine Corps in the 1812 era.

Summer 1983 No. 1

This quarterly newsletter of the Marine Corps historical program is published forthe Corps and friends of Marine Corps history in accordance with Department of theNavy Publications and Printing Regulations NAVEXOS P-35. Individuals and in-stitutions desiring Fortitudine on a complimentary basis are invited to apply to:History and Museums Division, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps (Code HDS-1),Washington, D.C. 20380.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Director's Page: The Use of"USMC" 3

Readers Always Write 9

New Waterhouse Exhibit Opens 12

Oral History Report 16

Vietnam Historians Meet at Center 17

Four Commandants for the Pentagon 18

SecNav's Wish, Artist's Command 18

People and Places 20In Memoriam 21

World War II Chronology: September-October 1943 22

Certificates of Appreciation 23

Do You Know This Marine? 24

Telephone: (202) 433-3838, 433-3840, 433-3841

DIRECFORBGen Edwin H. Simmons, USMC (Ret)

Editor, FortitudineMaj Edward F. Welts

THE COVER

The cover by Artist-in-Residence LtCol Charles H. Waterhouse, USMCR, is based onhis poster announcing the Marine Corps Museum's current exhibition, "Marines inthe Frigate Navy." This War of 1812 Marine is at his battle Station rn a man-o-wars'crosstrees, a vantage point affording observation and fields of fire on nearby enemyvessels' exposed decks. At yardarm-to-yardarm close quarters, accurate sharpshootersoften influenced the outcome of engagements by doing execution among the greatguns' crews.

Fortitudine is produced in the Publications Production Section of the History and Museums Division.The text for Fortitudine is set in 10 point and 8 point Gararnond typeface. Headlines are in 18 point or 24point Garamond. The newsletter is printed on 70-pound, matte-coated paper. Printing, by offsetlithography, is by the Defense Printing Service.

2

Director's Page

The Use of HUSMC"

Bless 'em aJJ, Bless 'em aJJ,The Commies, the u.N. and aJJ.

j'

Them slant-eyed Chink soldiershit Hagaru-ri.

And now know the meaning of"U.S.M.e. "

So sang the Marines coming back fromthe Chosin Reservoir in December 1950.

Or so says Robert Leckie in The Marchto Glory (Cleveland and New York: TheWorld Publishing Company, 1960).

I don't remember anyone in WeaponsCompany, 3d Battalion, 1st Marines,singing anything coming out of Hagaru­rio We were much too cold. But on moresalubrious occasions we were a singingcompany, at least a singing companyheadquarters. Our choirmaster was thecompany supply sergeant, Frank Barnak,'now GySgt, USMC (Ret), and living inAllentown, Pennslyvania. Frank waswell-qualified; his father was a memberof the Don Cossack Chorus. One of ourbest numbers was used to greetreplacements:

Gee, Mom, I want to goRight back to Quantico.

This was sung against an antiphonalchant of:

You 'JJ be sorry.None of which has much to do with

the subject of this Director's Page exceptthat if we accept the message that theCommunist Chinese were made to knowthe meaning of "USMC," then certainlyothers closer to home must know itsmeanmg.

It was rather surprising then to learn aswe did this past March that the UnitedStates Manufacturing Company ofPasadena, California, had filed fortrademark protection of its companylogo "USMC" The United States

Manufacturing Company is a maker oforthopedic and prosthetic devices. Welearned that it has used "USMC" as itslogo since 1978. Its original applicationto the United States Patent andTrademark Office goes back to that date.

The Patent Counsel in the Office ofNaval Research watches out for theDepartment of the Navy's interest insuch things and has challenged the use ofthe logo "USMC" on the grounds that itmight cause a false connection to beassumed between the goods so markedand the U.S. Marine Corps.

The matter is now in litigation beforethe Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.The procedures are very similar to thoseof a civil court except that the plaintiff isknown as the "opposer," and the defen­dant is known as the "applicant." Inother words, the Department of theNavy is opposing the United StatesManufacturing Company's application.Most of the testimony is taken in theform of sworn depositions.

The purpose in calling me as a witnesswas to show historically the depth andbreadth of the use of the symbol"USMC" to mean United States MarineCorps. My deposition was taken on 26July 1983 at the Marine Corps HistoricalCenter. Maj Theodore G. Hess, of theJudge Advocate Director's office, andMe. William F. McCarthy of the Officeof Naval Research, were the lawyersrepresenting the Department of theNavy. Me. Walter Kruger, a lawyetspecializing in patent and trademark lawrepresented the United States Manufac­turing Company. The proceedings tookseven hours and the transcript runs 150pages.

3

BGen Simmons

We had researched the matter muchthe same as we would any Marine Corpshistorical investigation. That is, westarted with the hypothesis that "USMC"had long been used to stand for theUnited States Marine Corps and that itsuse was very widespread. We thengathered evidence to reinforce or refutethat premise. We involved virtually allsections of the Marine Corps HistoricalCenter in the effort.

I formed a task group with representa­tion from the Reference Section,Histories Section, Library, Archives, Col­lection Section, and Museums Activities,Quantico. Me. Danny J. Crawford, headof the Reference Section, was put incharge of the group. I asked them to in­vestigate all of the lines of documentaryand physical evidence on the use of"USMC" within the Corps. As Presidentof the Permanent Marine Corps UniformBoard, I also assigned the Secretary­Recorder of the Board, IstLt Steven M.Berkowitz, to the group. My thought wasthat "USMC" had been inextricably link­ed with Marine Corps uniforms and per­sonal equipment for a very long time.

Our researchers examined officialpapers, taking them back as far as theycould go to find evidences of "USMC"We did the same with personal papersand physical evidence. We examined themany artifacts that we hold which aremarked or stamped "USMC" We madephotographs of a representative samp­ling. We also pored through the DefenseAudio-Visual Agency's file of

Maril\eCorps photographs for photographicrecords of the use of "USMC" in the past.All of this yielded a rather impressive ar­ray of evidence.

The earliest example of "USMC" wefound was dated 21 March 1809. This isonly 11 years after the act of Congressthat created the United States MarineCorps as such on 11 July 1798. This par-ticular piece of paper was found by Mr.Charles R. Smith, author of our Marinesin the Revolution, who is now research-ing for a follow-on book, Marines in theFrate Navy. Tucked away in RecordGroup 127 at the National Archives is atravel claim for the expenses of moving adetachment of Marines from Baltimore

to the city of Washington. It is written inthe clear, elegant script of the goose quillpens that antedated today's typewritersand word processors. The writer signed it"Joshua Sappington, Corporal ofAnd then he crossed out the "of' andfinished the signature line with"USMC."

You can almost hear the sergeant ma-jor telling the clerk that henceforth theold style of "Corporal of Marines" wouldbe used no longer and that "USMC"would be used in its place.

I must say that "Corporal of Marines"or "Colonel of Marines" still has a nicering to it. Some Marines I know still usethat form on Christmas cards and infor-mal correspondence. But I would guessthat some order had come out sayingthat henceforth you will use "USMC."And I will guess that CorporalSappington remembered that just intime to scratch out the "of' and finish hissignature with "USMC."

You will note that no periods were us-ed between the capital letters. Then, asnow, they were not needed or wanted inmilitary abbreviations. Sometimesperiods creep in and the symbol appearsas "U.S.M.C." It is too bad that this hap-pens. The periods weaken the solidstrength of "USMC." We have other ear-ly examples of handwritten cor-respondence, as for example a note writ-ten in 1839 to the then-Commandant,Col Archibald Henderson, and it is sign-ed "L. N. Carter, USMC." Another sam-ple of hand-written correspondence isfrom Maj Charles G. McCawley dated 6December 1864. He is writing from theMarine Rendezvous at Philadelphia andhe addressses Col John Zeilin as "Com-mandant USMC."

It has come to be that personnel in theMarine Corps are almost invariably iden-tified by the letters "USMC" after theirname. The usual way is rank, first name,middle initial, last name, USMC, andthen sometimes serial number, whichnow is identical with the Social Securitynumber.

Muster rolls, the basic administrativerecords of the Marine Corps until theywere overtaken by computers, also showconsistent use of "USMC." Muster'rolls,as is implicit in the name, were monthlyrosters of Marines serving in a particularcommand. The muster roll reported eachMarine's status with respect to his dutyassignment, his rank, his pay, and soforth. The early muster rolls were hand-drawn forms. The originals are in theNational Archives. What we have arephotostats or microfilm copies. Two thatwe offered in evidence were for theMarines at Norfolk, Virginia for themonths of July and August 1846. Theverifying officer was R. Douglas and hesigned himself "Captain USMC."

By the time of the Civil War printedforms were being used. One muster rollthat we offered in evidence was the

By the time of the Civil iT/ar, "USMC" was being embossed on leather equipment.This M-1875 cartridge box, in the collection of the Marine Corps Historical Center,once held 20 rounds of 45-70 caliber ammunition for the M-1873 Springfield.

The M-1905 cal. 38 revolver was used briefly before the introduction of the M-1909cal. 45 revolver and is now a collector's item. As shown, the butt was stamped"U.S.M. C." The holster, worn on the right h:p, was embossed with "USMC."

4

Marine command at Newport, RhodeIsland, and covered the month ofJanuary 1885. Capt Dickins identifiedhimself as "Captain, USMC."

Almost as ancient and honorable asthe muster rolls are the printed annualreports of the Commandant of theMarine Corps to the Secretary of theNavy and the similiar reports from theSecretary to the President. These annualreports were rendered for a period of atleast a hundred years.

In my deposition I offered a represen-tative sampling of four of the Comman-dant's reports—for the years 1893, 1901,1917, and 1932—and three of theSecretary of the Navy's—for 1885, 1895,and 1902—to show that the use of"USMC" was widespread and consistent.In these reports in almost every list ofnames you will see "USMC" used afterthe rank particularly to distinguishMarine Corps officers from Navy officers.

Muster rolls were supplanted by thefar less elegant and satisfying machine-prepared unit diary reports. The formchanged but the use of "USMC" per-sisted as we pointed out by exhibitingthe unit diaries for VMF-214—MarineFighter Squadron 214—for May 1950,and Marine Barracks, Lake Mead Base,January 1955.

We also presented pertinent portionsof Navy Registers and lineal lists. Whilethese have changed somewhat in titleand format over the years, their purposehas remained the same. They are the of-ficial listings of Navy and Marine Corpsofficers, giving pertinent information,such as rank, service number, date ofcommissioning, duty station, and so on.We considered them significant becausethey show the continued use of "USMC"to designate members of the MarineCorps and to differentiate them frommembers of the Navy. The Navy Registerof 1884 is a case in point. It shows ColCharles G. McCawley, USMC, as Com-mandant, Marine Corps and ColWilliam B. Remey, USMC, as the JudgeAdvocate General of the Navy Depart-ment. Remey was the Navy's first JAGand it is interesting that he was a Marine.

In more modern times, the MarineCorps has issued its own lineal list. Theexample we displayed, the 1944 list, us-ed "USMC" to distinguish regular of-ficers and "MCR" for reserve officers, acommon practice when there isn't roomfor "USMCR."

In the array of evidence we assembledwe also included Tables of Organization,those documents that set forth thestrength, composition, and structure ofMarine Corps units. Throughout the ex-amples we displayed, "USMC" is used todesignate the U.S. Marine Corps and"USN" is used to designate the U.S.Navy or a member of the United StatesNavy.

As I said earlier, the deposition-takingwent on for seven hours and we piled

document on top of document. I am notgoing to detail them all here. One docu-ment I did find particularly interesting(and convincing) was the order of battleof the United States Land Forces in theWorld War, compiled by the historicalsection of the Army War College afterWorld War I. They used "USMC" todistinguish Marine officers and to makethe point clear, in their list of abbrevia-tions, "USMC" is shown as standing forUnited States Marine Corps just as

In 1889 a Marine detachment under command of Capt Henry C. Cochrane was sentto the Paris Exhibition. Photographs taken of their billets at the Ecole Militaire showaccoutrements and uniforms neatly arranged and haversacks stamped "USMC."

UYith its turret-mounted cal. 30 Lewis machine gun, this armored car c. 1917 musthave looked formidable to Haitian bandits in the early years of the 1915-34 interven-tion. The initials "U. S.M. C. "stencilled on the sides left no doubt as to the Service.

5

"AEF" stood for American ExpeditionaryForce and "HQ" stood for headquarters.

Moving on to another world war, wewere able to show that "USMC" was usedin official correspondence, reports,orders, and other documents whenever ashorthand form of U.S. Marine Corpswas needed. I think we alsodemonstrated that the individual Marineis exposed to the use of "USMC" as the

Two tough Marines of the 1920s wereMajGen Smedley D. But/er and MSgtJiggs. The latter's parade uniform in-c/tided his chevrons and an emblemalong with a vely large "U. S. M. C."

equivalent of U.S. Marine Corps fromenlistment to discharge or death, as thecase may be.

I read into the record an extract fromthe Marine Corps Manual of 1926 on theuse of identification tags or "dog tags":

These tags will be stamped asfollows: Officers, full name andrank at date of issue; enlisted men,full name and date of first enlist-ment in the Marine Corps, the tagsof both officers and enlisted mento have the letters USMC plainlystamped thereon.We have many dog tags in our collec-

tion. One that we photographed for thedeposition was that of Col Harry B.("Harry the Horse") Liversedge. In accor-dance with regulations, "USMC" is clear-ly stamped on it.

As every Marine knows, there is a

whole family of flags or colors — nationalensigns, unit colors, and unit guidons. Aguidon is a small rectangular pennant,red silk with yellow lettering and yellowfringe. Fleet Marine Force units havetheir company designations on theirguidons. Non-FMF units have simply"USMC" in yellow embroidered letters.The same "USMC" guidon is used as amarking guidon for parades andceremonies.

Historically the guidon was a rallyingpoint for the company in battle. Theguidon bearer held up his guidon andthe company knew where it was to stand.

6

Such uses for colors, standards, andguidons go back to Roman times.Presently the uses are more ceremonial.

When I took Weapons Company, 3dBattalion, 1st Marines, overseas toKorea, I had no thought of taking thecompany guidon into battle with us. Butthe company clerk had other thoughts.Unbeknownst to me he took the guidon,cut the staff in half, and had a brasssleeve made for it so he could carry itmore easily. After we landed at Inchonhe broke out the guidon. That sort of in-dicates the feeling that Marines have fortheir guidons and their colors.

Our utility uniform has combined theMarine Corps emblem and "USMC"since at least 1942. As wearers will

remember, the emblem and "USMC" arestamped or stencilled in black on theleft-hand breast pocket. At times the"USMC" has been above the emblem,but mostly, as at present, it has beenbelow. It is so prescribed by paragraph4125 of the current Uniform Regula-tions.

In the old days the Marine Corpsmanufactured or bought its own utilityiniforms and they came complete with

the emblem and "USMC" (as well asdulled brass buttons that were stamped"U.S. Marine Corps.") Now all servicesget the same woodland camouflage'uniform through the Defense PersonnelSupport Agency as a common use item.How do we distinguish our uniform fromthe same uniform being worn by asoldier, sailor, or airman? Well, we placea decal on the left pocket. The governingparagraph in Uniform Regulations readsas follows (and if you are a recentgraduate of Parris Island or San Diegoyou can close your eyes and hear yourdrill instructor intone the words):

The USMC decal will be placedon the camouflage uniform in thefollowing manner. The decal willbe cut in half so as to have theemblem on one portion and theUSMC on the other. The emblemwill be centered on the left breastpocket flap with the wings of theeagle parallel to the upper seam ofthe pocket. The letters USMC willbe placed on the lower portion ofthe left breast pocket two inchesabove and parallel to the bottomseam of the pocket. Because thelower portion of the pocket is

In their field hats, flannel shirts, khaki trousers, and leggings, Marines were familiarfigures in the Caribbean in the 1920s. They left their mark, as on this mouldering oldwall, with "USMC" vying in popularity with the familiar Eagle, Globe, andAnchor.

The guns were barely silent when this temporary cemetery at fWD lima was dedicatedin March 1945. The wooden headboards bore name, rank, emblem, and "USMC."Gravestones at national cemeteries for many yeaTS have used (J chiselled "USMC. "

Football helmets of the 1920s offired very little protection to the face as thisphotograph ofthe 1926 Quantico team plainly shows. The standardathletic jersey ofthose days was ofknitted blue wool with white letters boldly announcing "USMC."

divided by a vertical slit, theUSMC should be centered with theUS on one side of the slit and theMC on the other.That's about as specific a set of direc­

tions as you can get.The practice of stamping, stencilling,

or em bossing Marine Corps ac­coutrements and equipment with"USMC" apparently began very early andprobably was well entrenched by thetime of the Civil War. We don't haveanything in our collections marked"USMC" that is quite that old but we dohave a canteen dated 1875 with "USMC"stencilled on its canvas cover and a car­tridge box of the same date with"USMC" embossed in the leather.

One of the earliest photographicevidences of the use of "USMC" we havedates to 1889. That was the year of theParis Exhibition and a Marine ceremonialguard was sent to Paris for the occasion.They were billeted at the barracks of theEcole Militaire. Photographs of the bar­racks room survive and "USMC" can beseen on the haversacks neatly arrangedon the shelves over the camp beds.

Marking of canvas items, from tentsand tarpaulins to canteen covers ofcourse still continues. Marking ofweapons and vehicles dates back at leastto the early years of the 20th century.

We have an M1905 revolver with"U.S.M.C." stamped on it and "USMC"embossed on its leather holster. Notquite so lethal is a trom bone, dated1910, with "U.S.M.C." engraved uponIt.

Edged weapons enthusiasts willremember that the stiletto used byMarine raiders in World War II had"U.S.M.C." etched on its blade. A morecommon knife is the utility fightingknife carried by virtually every Marine inWorld War II and still an issue item on aless liberal basis. It is best known by itsnickname "Ka-bar knife" and it isstamped "USMC."

The marking of tactical vehicles withsome version of "USMC" is almost as oldas the internal combustion engine itself.We have a photograph taken in 1916 inHaiti of a Jeffrey "quad" truck jury­rigged into an armored car. "U.S.M.C."is bravely painted on its side in large ifrather shaky letters. By the time we gotinto World War I, a year later, markingof vehicles was being done more profes­sionally.

By World War II, the stencilling of"USMC" on vehicles had become stan­dardized: "USMC" in yellow paint inblock letters without periods followed bythe vehicle's number. Tracked vehiclesfollowed the same scheme as wheeledvehicles and so, for that matter, did ma­jor items of engineer equipment.

Today's Special Services athleticclothing and equipment is liberallyadorned with "USMC" - as a viewing ofany group of Marine joggers will quicklyconfirm. The practice is not new. Thestandard Marine Corps athletic jersey ofthe first several decades of this centurywas of knitted blue wool with white felt

7

letters across the chest—sometimes"MARINES" but more often "USMC."We found photos of a Marine baseballteam in Peking about 1910 and a fieldhockey team in Shanghai in 1913 souniformed, and the 1920s is replete withsuch teams and photographs.

Marines learned very early that rockspainted white could be arranged in frontof tents or barracks to form an outline ofthe Marine Corps emblem and an accom-panying "USMC." At Parris Island clamand oyster shells were also used for suchpurposes.

The survey that we made confirmedwhat I knew to be the case: the use of"USMC" is all-pervasive throughout theMarine Corps and it has been so almostsince the Corps' beginning. That wouldseem to give us some sort of proprietaryright to the symbol.

A highly recognizable 'USMC"stamped or stencilled on our equipmentand vehicles would appear to come veryclose to being a trademark. I'll hazard anopinion that not many persons will see"USMC" and think "United StatesManufacturing Company."

During the course of my testimony Iwas asked to give a judgment as to howvaluable the symbol "USMC" was to theMarine Corps. I testified that I thought itvery valuable because it immediatelyconjures up the concept of the UnitedStates Marine Corps. I said I would valueit somewhat less than the Eagle, Globe,and Anchor which is generally regardedas the most recognizable service insigniain the world, but would guess that"USMC" has higher recognition valuethan even our motto "Semper Fidelis."

As I write this, the proceedings of theTrademark Trial and Review Board arenot yet complete so I do not know if theDepartment of the Navy will be suc-cessful in barring the registration of"USMC" as a trademark by the UnitedStates Manufacturing Company. Thelawyers tell me that even if the Boardfinds in favor of the Department of theNavy and denies the registration, theUnited States Manufacturing Companycould still continue its use of its logo"USMC" as an unregistered mark.Prevention of this would require furtherlegal action.

Whatever the outcome, I am certainthat all Marines will agree with me that"USMC" is "ours."

By the time of World War II, the use of "USMC" and vehicle number stencilled inyellow was standard for Marine Corps motor transport, engineer equipment, andtracked ordnance. This M4A3 Sherman tank was on a range in the Russell Islands.

This M48A3 Patton tank with its 90mm gun had just been procured from the Armyin June 1964. While awaiting repainting, the "A" of the "U.S.A. "was covered overwith a crudely lettered "M. C. "as a second closer look at the photograph will show.

8

Other Uses?The History and Museums Division is very interested in learning of other

early, dramatic, or different uses of "USMC" as a symbol for United StatesMarine Corps. Readers knowing of such uses are encouraged to write to thebelow address. Photographs where appropriate, or objects themselvesstamped or marked "USMC," would be appreciated.

USMC ProjectMarine Corps Historical Center

Building 58Washington Navy Yard

Washington, D.C. 20374

ReadersAlwaysWrite

UVESTMORELAND INTER VIE JV

I certainly have no desire for con-troversy with a nationally prominentfigure but, after considering the implica-tions of Gen Westmoreland's remarks onthe subject of air support to I Corps Ar-my units in 1968 as reported in the lastFortitudine [Spring 1983], and afterreviewing the sequence of ideas on thesame subject in his A Soldier Reports, Imust speak up .

the following is an attempt toclarify the issue. To refresh my memoryand to some extent enlarge the back-ground, I've asked a number of my then-associates for their recollections. Whatfollows is a digest from several sources:

Marine Corps aviation in Vietnam wasthere for the purpose of providing all theclassic air support functions to the twoMarine divisions and the logisticorganization of III MAF (III Marine Am-phibious Force). A secondary respon-sibility, support to other forces in andadjacent to the I Corps zone, was regard-ed in the main as an emergency mission,although upon occasions Marine sortieswere assigned in advance to forces of theU.S. Army as well as Vietnamese Armyunits. Such non-Marine Corps organiza-tions, which by late summer of 1967 in-cluded Task Force Oregon (soon tobecome the Americal Division) providedtheir own communications into theTACC (tactical air control center) of the1st MAW (Marine Aircraft Wing) atDaNang. By this means, they lodgedtheir requests for pre-planned oremergency sorties and alerted their owncontrol agencies concerning transfer ofMarine flights to them. It should benoted that while the Americal Divisionrelied primarily on 7th Air Force for pre-planned air support, the 1st MAW onmany occasions made supplementary sor-ties available to that division, which fre-quently voiced its satisfaction with thearrangements and the results. And itshould be stressed that this arrangement,

whereby the supported unit provided itsown communications into the Marinesystem followed the logic of necessity,, itbeing manifestly impossible for a Marineaircraft wing to possess equipment andpersonnel to net with all possible sup-ported units. The 1st MAW, in fact,possessed only the communications nor-mally required by a Marine air-groundteam.

Further concerning force structure in ICorps, it was the consensus until the lastdays of 1967 that III MAF and ARVN(Army of the Republic of Vietnam)forces from DaNang north were fullycapable of defeating the combined ef-forts of the Viet Cong and the NVA(North Vietnamese Army) in their areaof responsibility, particularly since thearea south of DaNang had been, in themain, turned over to the Americal Divi-sion and the South Korean MarineBrigade. This permitted the 1st MarineDivision to concentrate its efforts onboth sides of the Hai Van Pass and in-land to the west of DaNang Harbor,while the 3d Marine Division took care ofthe area north to the DMZ (Demilitariz-ed Zone) and inland to the borderbeyond Khe Sanh. As the air com-mander for III MAF, one of my greatestconcerns was conservation of resources toensure full responsiveness to the needs ofthe two heavily reinforced but greatly ex-tended Marine divisions . . . . Thus, inthe summer of 1967 heavy B-52 strikesfor the 3d Marine Division at Con Thienand elsewhere along the DMZ werewelcomed as conserving 1st MAWresources. Later, at Khe Sanh in thewinter of 1968, similar strikes againstmore threatening targets were extremelyvaluable indeed.

Much changed when late in 1967 in-telligence indicated a strong buildup ofNorth Vietnamese forces in the DMZand Laos. Two U.S. Army divisions, the1st Cavalry [Airmobile] and the 101stAirborne, were moved into I Corps northof the Hai Van range which, from a com-mand and control viewpoint, formed anatural boundary between two majortactical areas of I Corps. Recognizing thisgeographical peculiarity, the air controlsystem of III MAF included a tactical airdirection center at Hue-Phu Bai to insuresatisfactory communications for air re-quest and control in the area. As was thecase with the 3d MarDiv (3d Marine

9

Division), the newly assigned Army divi-sions were to communicate through thisagency for air support by the 1st MAW,in the same manner as the AmericalDivision in southern I Corps. The sup-ported divisions would, from their ownresources or those of other unitsredistributed for the purpose, establishnecessary nets into the III MAF air con-trol system. Considered, but judged in-feasible, was assigning the assets of theOkinawa-based ANGLICO (Air andNaval Gunfire Liaison Company), sincethey were in constant demand for am-phibious attack by seaborne battalions ofthe Seventh Fleet.

When the 1st Cavalry Division [Air-mobile] with several hundred helicoptersand fixed-wing aircraft had been emplac-ed at Camp Evans in northern I Corps,the ability to obtain pre-planned andemergency air support from the 1st

MAW was of prime importance. Yet,during the first Westmoreland visit toMajGen [John J.] Tolson at his newheadquarters, Gen Tolson combined thecomplaint about help from Marine airwhich the Westmoreland book em-phasizes with the tacit admission that atthat point in time his headquarters hadnot yet established the required nets toobtain such help. LtGen [Robert E.]Cushman, CG, III MAF, having witness-ed the discussion in the company of GenWestmoreland and sensing the urgency,directed my immediate attention to theissue. Communications specialists fromthe Wing's air control group were dis-patched to Gen Tolson's headquarterswithout delay to stress the absolutenecessity for the supported unit toestablish the required air support nets.During my visit a day later, Gen Tolsonassured me that communications hadnow been established and that Marinesorties had, in fact, been provided.

Of interest in connection with GenTolson's difficulties is the contrasting ex-perience of the 10 1st Airborne under thecommand of MajGen [Olinto M.] Bar-santi. Entering northern I Corps approx-imately two weeks after the 1st Cavalry,Gen Barsanti's division followedestablished procedures, sending advanc-ed liaison teams on air support and othermatters to III MAF, netting itself intothe tactical communications of adjacentand supporting units including the 1stMarine Aircraft Wing, and in general fit-

ting easily and effectively into thesystems and procedures of I Corps .

In summary, procedures to provide airsupport to non-Marine Corps units hadbeen developed by III MAF during themonths prior to the arrival in I Corps ofthe 1st Cavalry Division. Of necessity,such units were required to establishtheir own communication into the IIIMAP air support system, an arrangementequally true of U.S. Army and ARVNforces. That the 1st Cay (1st CavalryDivision [Airmobile]) was to be handleddifferently was not made clear, either byMACV (Military Assistance CommandVietnam) or by 1st Cay liaison. When, inresponse to Gen Tolson's complaint, theCG, III MAF tasked me as the 1st MAWcommander to straighten the matter out,such was done. With all practical speed,the 1st Cay conformed to establishedprocedures, a fact which GenWestmoreland failed to mention .

One may be excused for wondering, too,about the role of the Air Force in all ofthis for, as reported in Fortitudine, GenWestmoreland noted the insistence ofSeventh Air Force that it be given "singlemanager" responsiblity, to which heultimately succumbed because of theMarines' unwillingness to cooperate.Relentlessly pursuing his doctrine of cen-tralized control, the Air Force com-mander may well have placed so muchpressure on ComUSMACV (Com-mander, U.S. Military Assistance Com-mand Vietnam) that the division inwhich the purported failure occurred wasof little moment. It would be of service,at any rate, if Gen Westmoreland wereto address this confusing discrepancy.

MajGen NormanJ. Anderson,USMC (Ret)

Norfolk, Virginia

KHE SANH CASUALTIES

I today received the current issues ofForritudine, Spring 1983 and have justread the Director's Page with the com-ments about the status of the Vietnamhistories. I noted with great interest thatyou [Mr. Jack Shulimson] are the authorof the volume dealing with the battle ofKhe Sanh.

I am a veteran of that battle and formany years have been disturbed that the"official" casualties statistics for the bat-tle have never been fully disclosed. Thefigure of 205 KIA has been cited foryears by fully compentent authors. Thefirst time I saw that number, many yearsago, I calculated that the total KIA [kill-ed in action] for the battle had to behigher than that. I was in 1/9 and waspresent for the entire battle.

Mr. Robert Pisor, in his recent bookabout the battle, referenced the diary ofChaplain Ray W. Stubbe which is at theHistorical Center. His diary cites a KIAfigure of 441 by name, rank and serialnumber. I can understand that the 205figure may pertain only to OperationScotland, but that does not begin toreveal the full cost of the battle inhuman lives. Mr. Pisor's book tends to besomewhat controversial in certain in-stances, but his casualty figures are cer-tainly more correct than the "official"ones.

It is my belief that it is now an ap-propriate time to fully disclose the KheSanh casualties. That much is due uswho participated in and survived the bat-tle. Those who died certainly are entitledto have the full measure of their sacrificeknown and recognized. When you arewriting about the battle for the officialhistory, please set the record straight. Iand all my fellow Khe Sanh veterans willappreciate it.

Bert MullinsArlington, Texas

Mr. Shulimson replied: Yourpresumption is correct; the figure of 205Marines KIA relates only to OperationScotland and is for the period November1967-March 1968. Our records show 92Marines killed during Operation Pegasus(1-15 April68) and another 308 killed inOperation Scotland II through 30 June1968. Although the evacuation of KheSanb was completed on 5 July 1968,Scotland II continued through the end ofthe year with another 72 Marines addedto the KIA list.

The reporting system is based on nam-ed operations rather than locale and thiscompounds the difficulty in determiningthe number of actual casualties sustainedat Khe Sank. Moreover, the researcher

10

must clar:fy the time span andgeograp hical area of the so-called "Battleof Kbe Sank."

All three operations, Scotland,Pegasus, and Scotland II, covered amuch broader area than the perimeter atKbe Sanh, and Pegasus and Scotland IIboth had a more extensive area of opera-tions than Scotland.

To which Mr. Mullins replied: . . . Icertainly understand the historian's pro-blem in determining the correct numberof casualties for a given battle. You ap-parently have an excellent grasp of theevents atKhe Sank andlam sure will beable to clarify the number of casualties.My concern originally arose when I firstsaw the figure of 205 KIA, knowing thatI could account for approximately 100 ofthose from 1/9 alone.

Editor's Note: Mr. Mullins will be in:cluded in the list of "commenters" forthe 1968 volume in the VietnamHistories series. Prior to publication, hewill have the opportunity to review aworking draft and submit his observa-tions to be considered for incorporationin the finaltext. (See Fortitudine, Spring1983).

COMUSMA CV

The piece on the interview withme last April was accurately reported byyou in the publication [Fortitudine,Spring 1983]. Your efforts to seek ac-curacy and fairness in your history seriesare commendable.

Gen William C. Westmorelad,USA (Ret)

Charleston, South Carolina

POSITION OF A SOLDIER[OF THE SEA]

The idea of the plates of uniforms isgreat. However, I have a question: Whyon page 12 of Fortitudine (Winter 1983)do the gentlemen bend their left arms?They are not standing in the "position ofa soldier," i.e., at attention. But even if

they were, would not that require thatboth arms be extended to same length?

In my day it was considered uncouthto hang on to your sword scabbard whenmarching with sword in right hand. Tostand at "semi-attention" and grasp one'sscabbard would easily lead to hanging onto the damn thing when underway.

Are the gentlemen in question justchecking to see if they have their sword?

Regards and congratulations on yourarticle on Bob Williams and SammyGriffith....

LtGen James P. Berkeley, USMC (Ret)Norfolk, Virginia

The "gentlemen in question" arephotographic, sketch, and watercolorrepresentations of Maj W'illiam R.Melton. At Capt Donna Neaty 's requestbe crooked his arm to expose the hilt ofhis sword to the viewer. Maj Me/ton, astickler for parade ground punctilio,staunchly maintains his confidence in hissword's rigging (although be prefers aSam Browne belt to the cloth belt andinvisible sling) and denies "grasping" hisscabbard at rest and the intention of do-ing anything with his left hand under-way but swinging it "six to the front andthree to the rear. "—Editor

NEW/ GEORGIA

I read with great interest, the "WorldWar II Chronology, July-September1943" in the Spring 1983 issue of For-titudine.

I was a member of the SpecialWeapons Group, Ninth Defense Bat-talion and made the first day landing onRendova. On 4 July 1943 I was memberof the detail that went to Zanana beachon New Georgia.

The Chronology stated "that on 4 Ju-ly, four 40mm guns were emplaced forantiaircraft protection." This statementis erroneous. There were two 40mm gunsand two water cooled, pedestal mounted.50 cal. machine guns. I was on the crewof one of the 50's . . . operating the waterpump.

When we made the landing on Ren-dova I was on the crew of a twin 20mmgun mounted on a 40mm gun mount.The orders were issued for us to go toZanana beach and my gun crew and oneother 20mm gun crew were assigned tothe two 50's.

We had the guns and out gear loadedon LCVP's and were ready to depart fromRendova when that "last sizeabledaylight assault of 16 bombers" occured.Even though the bombers were some30,000 feet in altitude, everything fromReising [submachine] guns to the 90mmwas fired at the formation. This was thebest Fourth ofJuly I have ever experienc-ed.

I do not remember any of the namesof the other Marines in the detail, but aLt Blake of the Tank Platoon, 9thDefense Battalion was on our LCVP to goto Zanana beach to scout the area forpossible use of tanks. A LtCol Smith wasat Zanana beach as an observer for theMarine Corps. He was not a member ofthe Ninth Defense Battalion.

11

I am trying to figure out where the "52man" figure came from. That is quite afew men for four gun crews. I do notremember the exact numbers but as I

remember it we had five or six men oneach .50 cal. and about eight men oneach 40mm gun and considering one Of-ficer, one Staff NCO and one Navy Cor-psman, that would come to a total of 31men maximum. We did not have any ex-tra men for a perimeter defense or tobeef up our gun crews.

I hope that this note will update yourinformation for this event. I also lookforward to receiving each issue of For-titua'ine as it brings back old memoriesand new information of "The OldCorps."

Edward L. DawsonMGySgt, USMC (Ret)

El Paso, Texas

Our source was the Official History ofMarine Corps Operations in World WarII, Vol II, derived, inter a/ia, from 9thDefense Battalion Report of Operations,dated 2 May 1944. W"e welcome clarifica-tion and amplification of this particularepisode of the New Georgiacampaign. —Editor

TARA WA REPRINTEDTarawa: The Story of a Battle by

Robert Sherrod has been reprintedas The Bantam War Book for Oc-tober 1983. For this Fortieth An-niversary Edition the author hasadded several clarifications to a

revitalized text no longer burdenedby the requirements of World WarII censorship.

Tarawa (paperback, $2.95, pp192) is the seventy-fifth volume inThe Bantam War Book serieswhich includes:

W"ith the Old Breed, at Peleliuand Okinawa by E. B. Sledge;Helmet for My Pillow by RobertLeckie; The'Battle for Guadalcanalby Samuel B. Griffith II, BrigadierGeneral USMC (Ret.); The CactusAir Force by Thomas G. Miller, Jr;and Iwo Jima by Richard F.

Newcomb.Bantam Books Inc.666 Fifth Avenue

New York, N.Y. 10103

New Waterhouse Exhibit Opens

by Col Brooke Nihart

AN EXHIBITION OF a new series ofhistorical paintings by LtColCharles Waterhouse illustrating

Marine Corps activities during the first40 years of the new United States Navyopened at the Marine Corps Museum on11 July.

These paintings will illustrate an up-coming History and Museums Divisionpublication, "Marines in the FrigateNavy, 1794-1834" now being researchedby Richard A. Long and written byCharles R. Smith, author of the 1975predecessor volume Marines in theRevolution.

The 14 large acrylic paintings, ten ofwhich are now on display, are supportedby contemporaneous art from the Bever-ly R. Robinson Collection of the U.S.Naval Academy Museum and weapons ofthe period from the Marine CorpsMuseum Collection.

A s a young Marine, LtCol Water-house was inspired by the art of

Marine Cols John W. Thomason andDonald L. Dickson. After recovery fromwounds received at Iwo Jima, anddischarge, he attended the NewarkSchool of Fine and Industrial Art. Therehe came under the influence of the Bran-dywine school of art as exemplified bythe work of N. C. Wyeth and HowardPyle. His instructors were former pupilsof Pyle, W. J. Aylward and Steven R.Kidd. He turned out a large volume ofwork for national magazines in a widerange of media and subjects, and, in thelate 1960s went to Vietnam andelsewhere overseas as a combat artist forall four armed services.

Since coming to active duty in theMarine Corps in 1973, he completedhistorical series of paintings on "Marinesin the Revolution" and "Marines in theConquest of California" as well as a seriesof posters on the Marine-run VietnameseRefugee Camp and work on other sub-jects. The "Marines in the Revolution"paintings illustrated the book of thatname.

Concerned about British threats toreverse the outcome of 1775-1783 andpushed into an undeclared war withFrance in 1798, America had little choicebut to build a navy. As in 1775, Con-gress considered Marines on board shipan essential component of any such forceand followed the legislation foundingthe Navy with an act organizing a MarineCorps. The United States Marine Corps,as we know it today, was thus born on 11July 1798.

From sea fights in 1799 to raids onpirate lairs in Sumatra in 1832, the

Marines carried their nation's flag to Der-na, Tripoli; fought American Indians;landed against West Indian pirates and

slavetraders; and fought the British onland and sea in our Second War of In-dependence. They fought from ship-board serving the great guns, pouring inmusketry from the fighting tops andboarding enemy ships with the sailors.When America'a frigates were bottled upby a close British blockade, the Marinesfought alongside the Army; their mostnotable stands being at Bladensburg,Maryland, near Washington, and NewOrleans.

Marines in the Frigate Navy will re-main on exhibition at the Marine CorpsMuseum through February 1984. It willthen appear in a series of naval andmaritime museums from Virginia toMassachusetts during 1984-86.

LtCol Charles H. Waterhouse points out a detail of "The Cutting Out of the Sand-wich" to Gen P. X. Kelley, Commandant of the Marine Corps, at the opening of the"Marines in the Frigate Navy" exhibition at the Marine Corps Museum on 11 July.

12

Cutting Out of the Sandwich, Puerto Plata, 11 May, 1800. Navy Lt Isaac Hull andMarine Capt Daniel Carmick on board the French privateer, Sandwich, following thevessel's surprise seizure by their seamen and Marines from the frigate Constitution,

Placing the Marine Barracks, Washington, D.C., 31 March 1801. LtCol CmdtWilliam Ward Burrows and President Thomas Jefferson selected a site for the MarineBarracks, "near the Navy Yard and within easy marching distance of the Capitol."

13

Swamp Ambush, St. Augustine, 11 September 1812. Struck down by an unexpectedvolley, Marine Capt John U'7ihiams lies mortally wounded. His 20 Marines andGeorgia militiamen withdrew under fire of Seminole Indians and runaway slaves.

Shipbuilding at Sacketts Harbor, New York, 1 January 1814. Marine Capt RichardSmith, Navy Master Car W'illiam Crane, and Sh:ô builder Henry Eckford survey theconstruction of U.S. ships to halt the expected British advance on Lake Ontario.

14

The Final Stand at Bladensburg, 24 August 1814. With the rest of the American ar-my streaming back to Washington in defeat, Capt Samuel Miller's Marines and Corn-moJoshua Barney's seamen remain to oppose the advance of veteran British infanty.

Repulse of the Highlanders, New Orleans, 8January 1815. After overrunning an ar-tiley redoubt in front of Lt Francis de Bellevue's Marine detachment, the 93dHighland Regiment was unsuccessful in its charge on the American position.

15

OralHistoryReport

Instead of interviewing the com-manders and staffs of the 22d MarineAmphibious Unit and its componentunits upon their return from Beirut, thehead of the Oral History Section, BenisM. Frank, flew to Lebanon in late May toconduct on-the-scene interviews withpersonnel of the MAU and with key in-dividuals of the 24th MAU, which reliev-ed the 22d on 29 May. While inLebanon, Mr. Frank also interviewed SgtCharles A. Light and Cpl Robert S.Moreno, members of the Beirut MarineSecurity Guard detachment who were inthe American embassy when it was

destroyed in a terrorist bombing. Alsointerviewed about this event was ColCornwill R. Casey, USMC, CinCEurliaison officer to the Multinational Force,who was in the embassy at the time it wasbombed and who assisted in the evacua-tion and rescue efforts which ensuedalmost immediately. Before he left forBeirut, Mr. Frank interviewed GySgtClarence Hardeman, Jr., NCOIC of theMSG detachment, who escorted homethe body of the Marine killed in the at-tack.

A unique interview was recently heldwith Adm Arleigh A. Burke, USN (Ret),Chief of Naval Operations from 1955 to1961. Joining in the interview sessionswas BGen Samuel R. Shaw, USMC,(Ret), who has been Marine Corps liaisonofficer to NavOp-23 (OrganizationalPolicy and Research Division) in1948-49, under then-Capt Burke. Alsoassisting in the interview was Col Donald

J. Decker, USMC (Ret), who was aMarine Corps member of NavOp-30(Strategic Plans Division) in themid-1950s when RAdm Burke headedthat. The purpose of the interview was toobtain Adm Burke's reminiscences of theinterplay within the Navy-Marine Corpsteam during the post-World War IIunification struggle and in the JCS, aswell as his comments on his relationshipswith Commandants Shepherd, Pate, andShoup, on a number of issues of mutual

concern. Of particular interest is AdmBurke's recollection of how he nearlybecame a Marine. Impressed by MajGenCommandant John A. Lejeune, whomhe met at the Naval Academy in the fallof his first class year, Midshipman Burkeopted for a Marine Corps commissionand went so far as to order his uniforms.As he recalls, however, he changed hismind and remained in the Navy after hethrought more about how much hehated to walk and preferred to ride.

Former CNO Adm Arleigh A. Burke wasjoined by BGen SamuelR. Shaw and CotDonald J. Decker (I. to r.) for an oralhistory interview about Navy-MarineCorps concerns post World W"ar II.

In July, Mr. Frank journeyed toMaryland's Eastern Shore to interviewMrs. Frances Howell Neville Vest, theonly child of the 14th Commandant ofthe Marine Corps, MajGen Wendell C.Neville. Sharp-minded at age 84, Mrs.Vest clearly recalled accompanying herfather on his tours stateside, as well as inpre-Worid War I China. Sheremembered Marine officers she hadknown, when they were young, and wholater became senior officers in the Corps.Mrs. Vest spoke of the time after hermother's death when she acted as hostessfor her father, who was then Comman-dant.

Among interviews recently completedis an issue-oriented one with Col WarrenP. Baker, USMC (Ret), who was Ex-

16

ecutive Officer, Marine Barracks, 8th andEye, Washington, D.C., 1951-1954.During this time, he also served as SeniorWhite House Aide for both PresidentsTruman and Eisenhower. In his inter-view, Col Baker reminisced about hisduties, personalities of the Presidents,changes at the barracks, and the tours ofCommandants Cates and Shepherd.

A new interview in the Oral HistoryCollection is one with MajGen Joseph 0.Butcher, who commented on his tour asthe Senior Member, Military ArmisticeCommission, Korea, United NationsCommand, from April to October 1966.Gen Butcher described the nature of themeetings with the North Korean and theChinese Communist representatives atarmistice talks, and the problems incommunicating with them.

Another recently accessionedtranscript is a marathon interview thatthe Vietnam writers and Mr. Frank hadwith Col William H. Dabney, about thesiege of Khe Sanh and his views of theplanning and conduct of Operation LamSon 719, when he was an advisor toSouth Vietnamese Marines.

Two other major interviews were add-ed to the collection. One was with BGenFrank H. Schwable, a veteran Marineaviator who pioneered the Marine Corpsnight fighter program in World War II.When he was chief of staff of the 1stMarine Aircraft Wing in Korea, he wasshot down with his pilot, became a POWof the Chinese Communist Forces, andremained in solitary confinement untilhis release in 1953. His interview con-tains comments on early Marine aviationpersonalities as well as on Marine aircraftin the 1930s.

The second interview is with the lateBGen Robert H. Williams, who finishedproofing and revising his transcript onlya few days before his death in February.Gen Williams' transcript parallels hisbook, The Old Corps: A Portrait of theU.S. Marine Corps Between the Wars,for the interview took place while he waswriting the book. Gen Williams' descrip-tion of his tours early in his career arethose of a literate and thoughtful man.He gives the full flavor of being a ChinaMarine in the 1930s as well as being anaide to MajGen Commandant ThomasHolcomb.

Vietnam Historians Meet at Center

by Jack Shulimson

About fifty government historians andarchivists re-fought the Vietnam war in aone-day conference co-hosted by theNavy and Marine Corps HistoricalCenters on 9 May. The historical officesof all the Services were represented, aswell as other Depanment of Defenseagencies, the State Department, and theNational Archives.

The morning session consisted of thir-teen workshops. Topics ranged from"Command and Control" to "Prisonersof War," spanning a period that beganwith the end of the Indo-China war in1954 and ended with the fall of SouthVietnam in 1975. (Listing of workshopsand chairmen is shown below.)

In the afternoon plenary session, eachworkshop chairman summarized hisgroup's discussion. Highlights follow:

Jeffrey Clark, from the Army's Centerof Military History, chaired the workshopon "The Advisory Effort." He reportedthat his group had perceived five distinctadvisory periods:

• 1954-61. A small, high-level ad-visory program.

• 1961-65. Increasing advisor involve-ment in tactical operations conducted bySouth Vietnamese armed forces.

• 1965-68. Advisors assigned at alllevels of the South Vietnamese militarystructure, serving more in liaison rolesthan actually providing tactical advice.

• 1968-73. Intensive advisory effort toprepare the South Vietnamese to carryon the war after direct American involve-ment ended.

• 1973:75. Reversion to high-level ad-visory effort only; South Vietnameseforces "go it alone" tactically.

Clark concluded that the U.S. militaryhad attempted to make over the SouthVietnamese forces in its own image. TheAmerican way of war, with its emphasison firepower, logistics, and hightechnology, stresses the offense. Theirony of the Vietnam experience lay inour establishing "a defensive army thatwas really territory-oriented or orientedto provide territorial security" in the im-age of an offensive army.

Another Army historian, RichardHunt, reported on the "Pacification" ses-sion. His workshop saw the basic pro-blem as one of perception: "How do youknow what's going on in Vietnam?" Allof the reports, including those of theprovince advisors and those in theHamlet Evaluation System, were internalAmerican documents "written forAmerican eyes and ears." As Hunt con-cluded, "We don't know really what theSouth Vietnamese thought."

Will Webb, of the Joint Chief of StaffHistorical Office, spoke on commandarid control in Vietnam. The consensusof his group was that "command ar-rangements in Vietnam, like the involve-ment itself, evolved without any generalplan or design." There was no agreementamong the group whether there shouldhave been more subordination of in-dividual service efforts to a single com-mand. The workshop's conclusion wasthat command arrangements "were notthe best . . . but that they did work."

George C. MacGarrigle, also from theCenter of Military History, had some in-teresting insights from his workshop on"The Tet Offensive." He believed thatthe country-wide attacks during Tet 1968represented an all-out North Vietnameseeffort only in the I Corps sector. He com-pared the scale of commitment of NorthVietnamese Army (NVA) units to the of-fensive in the north to that aroundSaigon. At Hue, eighteen NVA bat-talions were committed to the battle forthat city. Around Saigon, however, onlyone of the 16 enemy battalions wasNorth Vietnamese. He felt that theprimary North Vietnamese objective inlet was the capture of the two northern

17

provinces. MacGarrigle discounted theimportance of Khe Sanh, arguing thatthe purpose of the NVA operations therewas "to pull in as many U.S. forces aspossible and make sure that Hue was asuccess."

Col John Schlight, USAF, from theOffice of Air Force History, reported onthe workshop, "Air Operations." He sawfour air wars: over North Vietnam; overSouth Vietnam; over the Ho Chi MinhTrail; and over northern Laos. Discretecommand structures for each of thesewars resulted in a "command and controlnightmare." Schlight compared theCommanding General, Seventh AirForce, to a motor pooi director "who isbeing tugged in four different direc-tions." According to Schlight, his grouphad a "fruitful exchange of views overthe single manager" issue that arose bet-ween the Air Force and Marine Corpsover the control of Marine aviation inVietnam. He observed that the consen-sus of his group was "the fact that thistype of doctrinal question is one thatprobably will never go away. It is still be-ing discussed in the Pentagon and pro-bably always will be."

The conference brought together thehistorians and archivists in the govern-ment who have been tasked to documentand write the official histories of theVietnam War. It provided a forum for auseful exchange of both information andopinion. Attendees learned aboutdocumentation that is available; areas ofconsensus and disagreement over issuesand events; and, most important, whatstill is not known. A taped transcript ofthe plenary sessions will be retained onfile in the Oral History Section.

Workshops Not Mentioned in TextThe JVarat Home WihiamM. Hammond, CMH

The Enemy, U.S. Intelligence, and infiltration Edward). Marolda, USN HistCntr

The Buildup, 1962-1967 Dean C. Allard, USN HistCntr

Policy and Direction of the War Edward Keefer, State Dept

Logistic Support Vincent H. Demma, CMH

W":nding Down the War.. .1969-1975 Graham A. Cosmas, CMH

The Bombing andPans Agreement, 1972-1973 Neil Petersen, State Dept

Prisoners of War John D. Holstein, Nat WarCol

Four Commandants for the Pentagon

by Col H. Avery Chenoweth

TO CONCEIVE AND PAINT oneportrait is quite a

challenge—four at one time waseven more so. Since all the subjects arelong deceased, the project called for asizable amount of research and some im-agination.

Of particular concern to me as the ar-tist—as opposed to precise historical ac-curacy for the historians—was recreatinglikenesses of the individuals, not somuch as they probably were but as wenow perceive them to have been. Do theportraits measure up to the virtuallyheroic images we have of the subjects?The only pictorial reference of Nicholas

was a miniature oil on ivory, paintedsometime around 1778. The colorblowup shows adequate detail, an ap-proximation of what our first Comman-dant looked like. But, to translate thatinto a 30" x 25" oil portrait, from waistup, with hands, in the correct uniform,required some ingenuity—and, perhaps,some liberties. Take the epaulettes, forinstance. On almost all miniatures andengravings of the period, they appear tobe delicate, flimsy things drooping downas if there were no shoulder at all. Writ-ten records also indicate that theepaulette was only worn on either theright or the left shoulder, depending on

18

the seniority of the officer. However, atone interval late in the Revolution theywere adopted for both shoulders. This isthe moment I chose, when Nicholaswould have also been at his highest rank,that of major. The facings (or turnedback lining) of the coat presentedsomewhat of a dilemma, for writtenrecords indicate that Marines, unlike theContinental Army, had white facings.This disputes the fact that they appearbuff in the miniature. In the 1830's, aswell, when Commandant Hendersonchanged from the blue to the "Revolu-tionary War green" uniform during 1833to 1837, he referred to the facings as"buff."

SecNav's Wish, Artist's Command

Recently called upon to fill a

"hole" in a Pentagon wall, theMuseums Branch art programresponded with alacrity and withthe help of a Reserve artist quicklyturned out portraits of four formerCommandants.

The Pentagon, thought by muchof the public to be a secret inac-cessible place, has become a

veritable museum with over120,000 visitors a year taking thePentagon tours to see the variety ofart and other exhibits offered. Thewider corridors are increasingly fill-ed with exhibits dedicated todistinguished leaders such as

Generals Marshall, Eisenhower,and Bradley; to Defense and Ser-vice secretaries; to treaty organiza-tions such as NATO and ANZUS;and the like. The Marine Corps isrepresented by a small exhibit ofcased artifacts and art titled "Firstto Fight" located at the junction ofthe fourth deck's seventh corridorwith the E Ring, in Secretary of theNavy country. We also have com-bat art in the Assistant Secretary ofDefense for Public Affairs area, aswell as a case containing

memorabilia of war correspondentRichard Tregaskis. Another Marineshow features the 101 Korea andVietnam war photographs of DavidDouglas Duncan.

The Museums Branch is fre-

quently called upon to provide aquick reaction "fix" for a problemin art or exhibits. A recent examplewas the creation of four portraits offormer commandants for the wallof the E Ring Secretary of theNavy's corridor. The section bet-ween the sixth and seventh cor-ridors contained some portraits ofChiefs of Naval Operations andSecretaries of the Navy. AtSecretary John Lehman's in-sistence, these were rearranged toprovide space for four portraits offormer Commandants. The art col-lection just happened to have fourportraits and these were proposed.Unfortunately, three of the fourwere of living former Comman-dants and thus were unacceptableto the Secretary.

The solution was to engage anavailable, qualified portrait artistto create portraits for this use. ColHorace Avery Chenoweth, USMCR

(Ret.), a combat artist in two warsand a recognized portrait artist,was willing to be recalled to dutyand undertake the commission.Three months for the task wasagreed upon. Chenoweth visitedthe Historical Center to gatherresearch material—photos, por-traits, historical uniform informa-tion, and biographicalmaterial—and to discuss the pro-ject. Four Commandants weresought who were both represen-tative of different periods andhighly significant in the history ofthe Corps. Those chosen were MajSamuel Nicholas, first leader of theCorps; BGen Archibald Hender-son, Commandant for 39 years anddistinguished combat leader;MGen John A. Lejeune, combatleader in World War I who put inindelible stamp on the post-warMarine Corps; and Gen Clifton B.Cates, distiqguished in two WorldWars and who helped preserve theCorps from post-World War II ef-forts to eliminate it.

But let the artist tell his ownstory of how he created portraits ofthese notable Marines. — FBN

One other footnote on the Nicholasportrait: despite the tendency to dress upthe Revolutionary period uniforms, theMarines abandoned the powdered wig,which seemed to have been maintainedby other services during that period.

Since Colonel-CommandantHenderson reinstated green

uniforms for the Marine Corps, it was atthat particular point in history that Ichose to portray him. As reference, aphotograph was available of an excellentoil portrait of a Marine officer, Lt JohnMarshall Gamble, painted during thesame period. I took the liberty of revers-ing and copying the photograph quiteliterally, except for the head (which I ag-ed slightly), which was Henderson's.This portrait was a delight to paint, for itwas bright and had a lot of detail in theuniform and the background, to which Iadded an anchored frigate in place of theChapeau de bras in the original, placingthe latter in the cradle of the subject'sarms. Again some refinements had to beadded to give Henderson the properrank, i.e., four gold straps on the cuffand gold straps on the epaulettes eachwith a spread-eagle insignia. Also, since Ihad reversed the original, the sword sidewas revealed. This necessitated exten-ding the sword straps around to thesword, upon which his hands rested infront of him. In addition, the white belthad to go over the red waist sash on thatside. These were seemingly minordetails, but they had to pass the closescrutiny of the historians.

After sifting through a mountain ofphotographs of MajGen Lejeune, I

found a small one I had never seenbefore. It had good, strong side lighting.Also, I found a vigorous pose of anotherofficer sitting next to the general, whichI substituted for Lejeune's body.Although both officers were in dressblues, I felt that the essence of the periodwas the high-collared service dress greensuniforms with the overseas cap and SamBrowne belt. To me, that instantly said,"World War I." The other details wererelatively easy, since so muchphotographic material was available.

Numerous photo references were alsoavailable for Gen Cates. With Cates,however, I deliberately broke with thegreen uniform sequence of the precedingthree. For the final portrait, I wanted to"pull out all the stops," and show the

Col Chenoweth puts the finishingtouches on his portrait of Maj SamuelNicholas, Continental Marines, the firstCommandant during the RevolutionaryU'ar. In the background is Col Chen-oweth 's portrait of MajGen Comman-dant John A. Lejeune, 13th Comman-dant (1920-29). Col Chenoweth's selec-tion of poses and uniform details re-flected painstaking research and fillingin some gaps with creative imagination.Col Chenoweth, working in oil paints,tried to match each portrait's artistic styleto the historical period of its subject.

Corps' most elegant — and, to the generalpublic, I imagine—most unfamiliaruniform, Evening Dress. Also, with thered, white, and blue possibilities, I add-ed the national colors behind him on theleft and the Marine Corps colors on theright, forming a subdued "V" for thebackground. With Gen Cates' medalsand the fourragere awarded to the FifthMarines in France, he appears theepitome of our uniform heritage.

W hile all these details of characterand uniforms were fascinating,

the central challenge — or opportuni-ty—was the requirement to compose allfour portraits at the same time. I had, ofcourse, visited the corridor where theywould be hung, which enabled me toconceive of the grouping as a small entityin itself. Both end portraits would be fac-ing inboard, toward the center ones. (Todo that, I had to reverse the miniature of

19

Nicholas) Then, I had the two 18th and19th century figures generally turnedtowards each other, as I had the two 20thcentury ones turned toward each also.The placement of the subjects' arms is asubtle device for imposing unity of com-position on the group. The outer armson the end portraits form a barrier whichtends to halt a departing viewer, forcinghim to turn back into the composition.At least one arm in each portrait is bentat the elbow, communicating a

rhythmic, undulating feeling while atthe same time maintaining the necessaryhorizontal stability overall. The otherarms are positioned to add verticals andaccents both to the overall compositionand to each individual composition.

After much deliberation, I decided ona standard size for each portrait of 30 in-ches high by 25 inches wide, whichwould afford a tight three-quarter figurebut would not be so large as to over-whelm the corridor. Using a traditionaloil-on-canvas technique, I tried tosimulate the particular style of eachperiod. My initial desire to paintNicholas in a Gilbert Stuart style had tobe changed when my research revealedthat he, as many other artists of theRevolutionary period, had fled toEngland, only to return afterward for hisillustrious career of painting the warheros. Charles Wilson Peale was a MilitiaColonel as well as an artist, so I kept hiswork in mind as I painted the father ofthe Marine Corps.

Out of this series for the Pentagon hasalso come another portrait of MajorNicholas, for the Commandant's house.This was not a copy of the painting forthe series; instead, I used the miniature,not reversed, and created the test of thecomposition by folding Nicholas' armsacross his chest. This bunched up thetunic and allowed me more leeway withthe treatment of the material, as well asproviding an opportunity to display astrong, triangular design that stands onits own.

Having done a lot of paintings for theMarine Corps over the last thirty years ofmy Marine Reserve career, includingcombat in Korea and Vietnam, I foundthis series of four former commandantsto have been a unique challenge—andone that I relished. It is the kind of op-portunity that rarely comes to a portraitartist.

PeopleandPlaces

HEINL AWARD

The winner of the third annual ColRobert D. Hem!, Jr. Award in MarineCorps History was LtCol Robert E. Mat-tingly, USMC. In his article, "WhoKnew Not Fear," in the Summer 1982issue of Studies in Intell:gence, LtColMattingly chronicled the experiences ofMarines serving with the OSS (Office ofSrategic Services) in France during WorldWar II. The award was announced at theMarine Corps Historical FoundationBoard of Directors meeting of 5 April.Additionally, two "honorable mentions"were announced:

•The late BGen Robert H. Williams,USMC (Ret), for "Those ControversialBoards," Marine Corps Gazette,November 1982.

'Capt Richard S. Moore, USMC, for"Ideas and Direction: Building MarineCorps Amphibious Doctrine," MarineCorps Gazette, November 1982.

LtCol Mattingly received $1000 and aplaque. The "honorable mentions" alsoreceive plaques. The award is for "thebest article pertinent to Marine Corpshistory" published in 1982.

Two Special Awards were also named:

•Globe and Laurel, the Journal of theRoyal Marines, "in recognition of itsprompt and comprehensive publicationof historical materials relating to theemployment of the Royal Marines in theFalklands War." [See Spring Fortitudine]

'Leatherneck, Magazine of the Marines,"in recognition of its consistent use ofMarine Corps historical materials and itssupport of the Marine Corps HistoricalProgram."

BGen F.P. Henderson, USMC (Ret);Mr. J. Robert Moskin; and Dr. Allan R.Mil!ett judged the competition. Allthree are well-known historians and

charter members of the Marine CorpsHistorical Foundation which gave theaward.

Gen Henderson was a member of theCommandant's Advisory Committee onMarine Corps History and was a frequentcontributor to the Marine Corps Gazette.Mr. Moskin, a former foreign editor withLook magazine, is the author of the re-cent history, The U.S. Marine CorpsStory. Dr. Millett, a professor of historyat Ohio State University and a MarineReserve colonel, has written another newhistory of the Marine Corps, SemperFidelis.

LtCol Mattingly, recipient of theAward, became interested in the Marinesof the OSS while doing a research projectat the Marine Corps Command and StaffCollege.

Both recipients of "honorable men-tion" have strong Marine Corps ties. GenWilliams, recently deceased, was theauthor of The Old Corps: A Portrait ofthe U.S. Marine Corps Between theWars. Capt Moore, an instructor at theNaval Academy, prepared his articlewhile attending Duke University as agraduate student in the AdvancedDegree Program.

Col Heinl, whom the award com-memorates, died in May 1979. Adistinguished Marine Corps officer, jour-nalist, and historian, he was a founder ofthe Marine Corps Historical Foundation.

20

The Heinl Award was made possibleby unsolicited gifts to the Marine CorpsHistorical Foundation for that purpose.Continuation and expansion of theaward program is dependent upon fur-ther donations to the fund. Personsdesiring to nominate articles appearingin 1983 for the next award or in con-tributing to the fund should write:

The Heinl Memorial Award FundMarine Corps Historical FoundationBuilding 58, Washington Navy YardWashington, D.C. 20374

BGen James M. Mead, former CO, 22dMAU deployed twice to Lebanon, ad-dressed a professional developmentseminar at the center on 14 September.

Gen BalTow presented the 1983 Heinl Award on 19 May. From left are Mr. RonaldD. Lyons, Editor, Leatherneck (Special Award); Capt Richard S. Moore (HonorableMention); Gen Barrow; Mrs. Robert H. Williams (widow of Honorable Mention reci-pient BGen Williams); and the Heinl Award winner LtCol Robert E. Mattingly.

BGen Hommel BGen O'Shea BGen Potter Col Broe

In MemoriamBGEN ROBERT E. HOMMEL, USMC

(RET), died on 24 August at his home inAnnapolis, Maryland. A native ofBrooklyn, New York, he was born on 11November 1911. He graduated from theNaval Academy in 1934. After com-pleting the Basic School, he served suc-cessively in San Francisco, at Marine Bar-racks, Philadelphia Navy Yard, and withthe 4th Marines in Shanghai. At thebeginning of World War II, Capt Hom-mel was serving with the 6th DefenseBattalion on Midway Island. He later wasCommanding Officer of the SpecialWeapons Group, 10th Defense Battalionon Eniwetok. Following the war, LtColHommel served with the 1st MarineDivision in China and with the 1st

Brigade on Guam. Tours then followedwith the Chief of Naval Intelligence(1948-195 1), and as comhiander of the2d Force Service Group, FMFLant, atCamp Lejeune. He was the senior U.S.military observer with the U.S. MilitaryObserver Group in Palestine and waslater Chief of Staff, United NationsTruce Supervision Organization. In1956, Col Hommel became G-2 atHeadquarters Marine Corps, where heremained until he retired in 1957. Hewas promoted to brigadier general at hisretirement. Gen Hommel was buried inArlington Cemetery 26 August withmilitary honors.

BGEN GEORGE J. O'SHEA, USMC(RET), died 17 August in Fort Lauder-dale, Florida, at the age of 84. He wasborn in Brooklyn, New York, 24 March1899, and graduated from the Naval

Academy in 1922. Following BasicSchool, Gen O'Shea's early dutyassignments were varied and included atour in Santo Domingo. In 1927, he wasin Nicaragua, where he won the NavyCross for displaying "extraordinaryheroism, coolness and excellent judge-ment in the performance of duty whilein command of a small patrol during anengagement at Sapotillal." During theinterwar period, Gen O'Shea had gar-rison, foreign, and sea-going duty, in-cluding a tour in the Gendarmeried'Haiti. In 1942, he was assigned as aplanning and naval gunfire officer on theStaff of Commander, AmphibiousForce, Southwest Pacific Area, whichparticipated in the liberation of thePhilippines as the Seventh AmphibiousForce. At the time of his retirement in1952, Gen O'Shea was the Director, 1stMarine Corps District in Boston. He waspromoted to brigadier general uponretirement, for having been decoratedearlier in combat. Gen O'Shea wasburied on 20 August in Our Lady,Queen of Heaven Cemetery, in FortLauderdale.

BGEN GEORGE H. POTFER, USMC(RET), a Montana native and 1927graduate of the Naval Academy, died atthe age of 77 in Daytona Beach, Florida.Before World War II, he served inNicaragua, China, and the Philippines.As the Executive Officer, Wake IslandDetachment, 1st Defense Battalion, MajPotter was captured when the island fell,and he remained a prisoner for the entirewar. After his release and return to theUntied States, he attended the Staff and

21

Command Course at Quantico. He com-manded the 6th Marines at CampPendleton at just before he retired on 1August 1948. Upon retirement, he waspromoted to general officer rank, as arecipient of special commendation forperformance of duty in combat. GenPotter was buried at Arlington NationalCemetery on 21 August with fullmilitary honors.

COL RUTH H. BROE, USMCR (RFF),died at the age of 71 at the Veterans Ad-ministration hospital in La Jolla, Califor-nia, after a long illness. A native of WestVirginia, she graduated from FairmontState College. After enlisting in theMarine Corps in February 1943, she wascommissioned the following Novemberas a member of the 7th Officers Can-didates Class at Camp Lejeune. DuringWorld War II, she served at Camp Le-jeune, Cherry Point, Mojave, and ElToro. At the end of the war she wasreleased from active duty. She enteredthe Marine Corps Reserve program in1950 and was active in a number ofunits, including PAU 4-1, Washington,D.C. In 1966, Col Broe was a member ofa group from PAU 4-1, which wrote a50th anniversary history of the MarineCorps Reserve. Beginning in 1967, sheserved at Headquarters, U.S. MarineCorps as the project officer for the obser-vance of the 25th anniversary of theWomen Marines. Col Broe was a chartermember of the Women Marines Associa-tion and served as its president from1972 to 1974. She retired from theMarine Corps Reserve in 1971. Funeralservices were conducted on 24 August.

World War II ChronologySeptember- October 1943

6 September. The Joint War Plans Committee prepared astudy entitled "Outline Plan for the Seizure of the Marianas,including Guam."

7 September. A 5,000-foot airstrip was completed atNanumea, Ellice Islands.

8 September. The Italian government accepted the Alliedterms of unconditional surrender.

10 September. Headquarters, V Amphibious Corps, wasmade directly responsible to Commander, Central PacificForce.

15 September. MajGen Charles D. Barrett relieved LtGenAlexander A. Vandegrift as Commanding General, I MarineAmphibious Corps.

15 September. The 2d Marine Division was attached to VAmphibious Corps for the seizure of Tarawa Atoll.

15 September. 14 Brigade, 3d New Zealand Divisionlanded at Barakoma, Vella Lavella, to relieve U.S. Armytroops there; MajGen H. E. Barrowclough of the 3d Divisionassumed command of all Allied forces on the island.

16 September. Three platoons of Marine Defense bat-talion tanks reinforced the U.S. Army troops on ArundelIsland.

17 September. Adm Halsey, Commander, South Pacificordered the Commanding General, I Marine AmphibiousCorps to take necessary action to establish a forward Marinestaging base on Vella Lavella.

18-19 September. U.S. Navy and Army aircraft bombedTarawa, Gilbert Islands.

20 September. The 4th Marine Division was assigned tothe V Amphibious Corps for the Tarawa operation.

20-21 September. The last Japanese survivors on ArundelIsland, New Georgia, withdrew, and the island was declaredsecure.

22 September. Adm Nimitz, Commander in Chief,Pacific Ocean Area, completed the initial planning requiredat the area level, and the Marshalls project passed to Com-mander, Central Pacific Force for execution.

22 September. Adm Halsey, Commander, South Pacific,directed that a study be prepared for a proposed landing atEmpress Augusta Bay, Bougainville; RAdm Theodore S.Wilkinson was placed in overall command of the operation.

22 September. Allied General Headquarters issued ordersfor the assault on Cape Gloucester, New Britain; the landingwas postponed from 20 November until 26 December.

22-30 September. Two patrols comprised of Marines,Navy officers, and New Zealanders scouted the northern endof Choiseul Island and Choiseul Bay.

22

23 September. Barakoma airfield on Vella Lavella becameoperational. Marine BGen James T. Moore relieved BGenFrancis P. Mulcahy and became a new task unit commanderunder Aircraft, Solomons.

23 September. A Marine-Navy patrol team from the sub-marine USS Gato scouted the northeast coast of Bougainvillein the vicinity of Kieta; its report was generally unfavorable toa landing in that area.

23-26 September. A Marine-Navy patrol, landing fromthe submarine USS Guardfish near the Laruma River in nor-thern Empress Augusta Bay, Bougainville, scouted CapeTorokina and the area to the north; it reported the area light-ly defended and acceptable for airfield development.

24 September. The first party with American scouts to goashore on New Britain landed near Grass Point; the patrolsearched unsuccessfully for a trail south between Mt. Tangiand Talawe.

25 September-8 October. Troops of I Marine AmphibiousCorps landed on the east coast of Vella Lavella at Juno Riverand Ruravai Beach, and to the south at Barakoma andestablished a Marine advance staging point. It was replaced (8October) by the Vella Lavella Advance Base Command.

27 September. MajGen Charles D. Barrett, CommandingGeneral, I Marine Amphibious Corps, issued instructions tothe 3d Marine Division for the capture of Bougainville.

27 September. Marine aircraft landed on Barakoma air-field, Vella Lavella, to begin operations from that base.

1 October. Adm Halsey, Commander in Chief, U.S.Pacific Fleet, informed the Commander in Chief, SouthwestPacific Area, of his decision to invade Bougainville on 1

November, and Gen MacArthur promised him maximum airassistance from Southwest Pacific Area units.

5 October. Adm Nimitz issued Operation Plan 13-43which directed the Commander, Central Pacific to "capture,occupy, defend, and develop Makin, Tarawa, and Apamama,and to vigorously deny Nauru to the enemy."

6 October. Action in the central Solomons came to a closewhen U.S. Army units made an unopposed landing onKolombangara.

6-7 October. The Battle of Vella Lavella. The Japanesecompleted their evacuation of forces on Vella Lavella despiteAllied interception, thus ending their occupation of the NewGeorgia Group.

8 October. LtGen Alexander A. Vandegrift reassumedcommand of the I Marine Amphibious Corps upon the deathof MajGen Charles D. Barrett.

9 October. The 3d New Zealand Division declared VellaLavella secured.

9 October. Nukufetau airstrip on the Ellice Islands becameoperational.

12 October. Adm Nimitz issued Operation Plan 16043,the first formal operation plan to deal with the Marshalls.

12 October. In the Bismarcks, the Allied Air Forces, in thefirst of a series of raids planned to support the pendingBougainville operation, mounted the largest strike of the waragainst Rabaul airfield and Simpson Harbor.

14 October. Adm Nimitz issued a plan for operations inthe Marshalls, assigning troops to definite objectives and call-ing for the capture, occupation, and development of bases atWotje, Maloelap, and Kwajalien. The target date for Wotjeand Maloelap was set at 1 January 1944 and for KwajaleinAtoll, the following day.

14 October. Allied general headquarters approved a planfor the New Britain operations which proposed a landing bythe 7th Marines (less one battalion) organized as CombatTeam C on north shore beaches between Cape Gloucester andBorgen Bay; the remaining battalion was to land near Tauali.The 1st Marines, organized as Combat Team B, would be inimmediate reserve.

15 October. The I Marine Amphibious Corps issuedOperation Order No. 1 which directed the 3d Marine Divi-sion to seize Cape Torokina, Bougainville. In the Solomons,Allied aircraft began an intensive preinvasion bomdardmentof Bougainville.

20 October. The First Joint Assault Signal Company wasactivated at Camp Pendleton, California. Its mision was tocoordinate supporting fires during amphibious operations.The unit was later attached to the 4th Marine Division for theMarshalls operation.

20 October. The Commander, Aircraft, Solomons head-quarters was displaced forward to Munda Airfield and beganoperations from that strip.

23

20, 24, 25 October. Fighter-bomber groups of the Alliedair forces struck Simpson Harbor and Rabaul airfields on NewBritain causing considerable damage to Japanese installa-tions, and reducing Japanese ability to strike at the Bougain-yule assault forces.

22 October. 1 Marine Amphibious Corps ordered the 2dParachute Battalion to land on Choiseul in the northernSolomons on the night of 2 7-28 October to conduct a diver-sionary raid preliminary to the Bougainville landings.

22 October. The Commander, V Amphibious Corpsordered his Reconnaissance Company (minus one platoon) toland on Apamama Atoll, Gilbert Islands, on 19-20November in order to determine Japanese strength.

24 October. Col William 0. Brice assumed command ofthe Fighter Command in the Solomons.

27 October. The first marine observation squadron(VMO- 1, originally activated as Artillery Spotting Division,Marine Observation Squadron 155) was activated at Quan-tico, Virginia.

27 October. A Marine advance party landed at AtsinimaBay, north of the Karuma River on Bougainville, to preparefor an assault on the island.

27 October. Elements of the 8 New Zealand BrigadeGroup (I Marine Amphibious Corps) made unopposed lan-dings on Soanotalu and Stirling Islands and went ashoreagainst light opposition at Blanche Harbor, Mono Island.

28 October - 4 November. The 2d Marine Parachute Bat-talion made an unopposed diversionary landing in the vicini-ty of Voza village, Choiseul, and later engaged Japaneseforces until withdrawn.

31 October. The 22d Marines (Reinforced) was detachedfrom Defense Force, Samoan Group, and assigned to the VAmphibious Corps.

Certificates of AppreciationRecent awards of Certificates of Appreciation issued on behalf of the Comman-

dant of the Marine Corps to persons who have made significant contributions tothe Marine Corps Historical Program are as follows:

For five years of service as a Museum Shop Volunteer:

Mrs. Charles DrakeMiss Evelyn EnglanderMrs. Benis M. Frank

Mrs. John GraceMrs. Harold HatchMrs. Milton Irons

Mrs. Warren H. Wiedhahn, Jr.

For over 500 hours as a Museum Shop Volunteer:Mrs. Eugene B. Fallon

Mrs. John Grace

For over 250 hours as a Museum Shop Volunteer:Mrs. Harold HatchMrs. Milton Irons

For over 50 hours as a Museum Shop Volunteer:Mrs. Bain McClintockMrs. E. W. Johnson

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS U.S. MARINE CORPS BULK RATE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20380 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

USMCOFFICIAL BUSINESS

PERMIT NO. 038-000

DO YOU KNO IV THIS MARINE?

Of all the photographs of Marines comingout of China in the 1930s, this one — of amember of the Peking Mounted Guard—epitomizes the salty "China Marine" ofthe period. Although this photograph hasappeared in many publications, the Marinehas never been identified. Do you knowwho he is? If so, please write the Editor,Fort itudine, Marine Corps HistoricalCenter, Building 58, Washington NavyYard, Washington, DC 203 74.

24