Your military history newsletter – Issue CLXXXIV, August 2021 Front page • Project news • Article news • Book reviews • Op-ed

By RobDuch

I've been interested in forts almost all my life. When I was eight years old we visited my grandmother frequently. She lived within walking distance of an abandoned Endicott fort. I was fascinated by it, and gradually explored its passages and magazines. I was in New England, which had several abandoned forts, many with holes in the fences. When I was a teenager my father occasionally took my brother and I on fort-finding expeditions, which we continued once I learned to drive. In the 1990s I joined the Coast Defense Study Group, which visits, compiles information on, and contributes to the preservation of US forts. I went on two of their harbor defense tours that decade, Portland, Maine and Long Island Sound, New York (including Fort Terry at the USDA animal disease research facility on Plum Island.

I began editing Wikipedia in August 2013, initially on U.S. Navy articles. In early 2015 I turned my attention to U.S. Army fort-related articles. Some important articles had been written, but in most cases they were in need of expansion, or updating to meet current standards. I began with the articles on weapons, in most cases expanding them to include variants, such as 12-inch gun M1895, to which I added the M1888 and M1900 versions of this weapon. Eventually I created new articles for the remaining U.S. coast artillery weapons. There were several fort articles, including most of the third system (built 1819–1867), but these usually had little or no information on the new Endicott batteries added circa 1900. I also worked on the main Seacoast defense in the United States article, gradually over several years. I published my first complete fort article, Fort McKinley (Maine), in September 2015. In late 2016 I decided to create overarching articles on the harbor defense commands. For better or worse, I decided to include an overview of the entire history of coastal forts in each command's area. I published the first of these, Harbor Defenses of Portland, in early 2017. I've proceeded mostly geographically along the U.S. east coast, and so far I've got to Harbor Defenses of the Delaware. Chesapeake Bay is in the works. I've preceded each of these articles with an update, creation, or expansion of each fort's article. In 2018 I decided to improve the articles on the U.S. forts in the Philippines, the only ones to see heavy combat since the American Civil War, culminating in Harbor Defenses of Manila and Subic Bays, which I took from 4kb to 47kb. These varied widely in quality and quantity of information. I relied heavily on the online version of the U.S. Army's official history volumes for both the 1941–42 and 1944–45 campaigns involving these forts.

I built up something of a reference library in the course of doing this. For U.S. Army Ground Forces unit info during World War II, Stanton's World War II Order of Battle is very good, going down to battalion level. The best single reference on U.S. forts in the 1895–1945 period is Mark Berhow's American Seacoast Defenses, A Reference Guide, Third Edition, written by members of the Coast Defense Study Group (CDSG). This includes a list of each U.S. fort and battery, an overview of weapon types, and thorough Coast Artillery Corps organization info. A good recent work on the third system forts is John Weaver II's A Legacy in Brick and Stone, Second Edition. Perhaps the only readily available comprehensive work on the first and second system forts and the circumstances surrounding their construction is Arthur P. Wade's Artillerists and Engineers. Online, the CDSG's fort and battery list is very good, with a lot of other material on the site as well. Capsule unit histories for the coast artillery regiments are in two articles by William C. Gaines, one for the regular army and one for the National Guard. A comprehensive order of battle series for the previously neglected period 1919–41 by Steven Clay is online, the second volume of which includes the coast artillery.

In the American colonies and the United States, coastal forts were generally more heavily constructed than inland forts, and mounted heavier weapons comparable to those on potential attacking ships. In the colonial era, coastal forts tended to be rebuilt on the same site for each war the fort was involved in. One of the oldest and most frequently rebuilt forts was Castle William (later Fort Independence) in Boston, Massachusetts. The first fort on the site was built in 1634 as The Castle, rebuilt four times prior to changing hands in 1776, and three times after.^[1] Coastal forts built from 1794 through 1867 were generally grouped into three time periods by later historians as the first, second, and third systems; these were marked by significant federal fortification programs with most forts built in a particular style.

Forts of the first and second systems were generally earthwork star forts with some masonry reinforcement, mounting one tier of cannon, usually on the roof of the fort or behind low earthworks. Along with new forts, a few masonry forts of the colonial period were rebuilt under the first system, which was built from 1794 through 1801.^[2] The second system began construction in 1802, due to tensions with Britain and France that ultimately led to the War of 1812.^[3][4] Some larger masonry forts were built during this period, including Castle Williams in New York harbor. Forts of the first two systems were usually completed in two to five years, due to their simple designs.

The third system, developed after Washington, D.C. was captured and burned in the War of 1812 with its second system fort bypassed, had much larger forts than the previous systems. These were built primarily of masonry, typically with two or three tiers of cannon; two forts were completed with four tiers. All but the top tier of guns were in masonry casemates. These were the largest masonry forts built by the United States. Many were designed by US Army engineer Joseph G. Totten, assisted by French military engineer Simon Bernard. All forts built by the federal government were designed and constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; some were built entirely with state or local resources. Until 1901, federal forts were garrisoned by artillery units; following the Civil War most units at the forts were designated as heavy artillery batteries.^[5] Although designs varied, most were bastioned polygonal forts, having a large seacoast armament with musketry loopholes and howitzer positions to defend against land attacks.^[6][7][8]

Work on the third system forts began in 1819. These took decades to build, and many were incomplete when funding was cut off in 1867, especially those begun during the American Civil War. Several forts had their designs modified during the Civil War for faster completion, but this did not always result in a functional fort by 1867. Earthworks built during the war are not included in this list. The siege of Fort Pulaski in April 1862 showed that masonry forts were vulnerable to modern rifled cannon, though the Union did not act on this until after the war. In 1867 funding for masonry forts was cut off, and work began on new batteries with earth protection, reinforced with masonry and often near previous forts, such as at Fort McHenry in Baltimore. In 1876 funding was cut off again, with most of these batteries unfinished.^[9][10][11]

In 1885 the Board of Fortifications, chaired by Secretary of War William C. Endicott, met to lay the groundwork for a new coast defense system. New defenses were recommended for 27 harbors and river estuaries; most of the board's recommendations were implemented in what was often called the Endicott program. This included new rifled guns ranging from 3-inch (76 mm) to 12-inch (305 mm), most of them to be on disappearing carriages in new reinforced concrete emplacements faced with earth. The combination of earth-faced emplacements and disappearing carriages was intended to conceal the guns from an enemy; the airplane had not been invented yet.^[12] Due to delays in developing disappearing carriages, the first of the new 8-inch (203 mm) through 12-inch (305 mm) guns were mounted on barbette carriages. 12-inch (305 mm) rifled mortars and controlled minefields were also part of the program. A number of Endicott batteries were built near (and sometimes in) previous forts.

Since everything had to be designed and built from the ground up, progress was slow until the Spanish–American War of 1898 potentially threatened the U.S. east coast with bombardment by the Spanish fleet. Only a few new batteries were complete by then. Emergency batteries were hastily built and armed with Civil War-era weapons, along with some new 8-inch (203 mm) guns intended for Endicott batteries but temporarily mounted on old-style carriages, plus some smaller rapid-fire guns purchased from the United Kingdom.^[13]

In 1901 the artillery batteries were redesignated, the light batteries becoming numbered artillery batteries and the heavy batteries at the forts becoming numbered coast artillery companies, all still part of the Artillery Corps. Some companies were regular army and some were National Guard, harbor defense commands in the United States having both types. In 1907 the coast artillery companies were split off as the United States Army Coast Artillery Corps (CAC), the light batteries becoming the Field Artillery branch.^[14]

The Endicott forts were fully funded during and after the Spanish–American War, and were substantially complete by 1906. In 1905 the Taft Board met to decide on further improvements. The United States had acquired Hawaii and the Philippines in 1898, along with the Panama Canal Zone in 1903. The Taft Board made fire control improvements at several harbor defenses, and decided on new defenses in the three new territories as well as Los Angeles, California. Since the Japanese were building capital ships armed with 14-inch (356 mm) guns, new weapons of this caliber were developed and emplaced in the four new defenses, though not at any existing defenses. The overseas harbor defenses were garrisoned by the regular army and were kept near full strength.

In 1917, with World War I in progress and all major powers in possession of dreadnought battleships, the Army decided on a new type of battery. This would have two 12-inch (305 mm) guns in open emplacements on high-angle (35° elevation) barbette carriages to increase their range. Existing 12-inch (305 mm) guns were used for these batteries, eleven of which were in the continental United States (in most cases at existing forts), two in Panama, one in Hawaii, and two one-gun batteries in the Philippines. The initial lack of protection from air attack was a significant problem with these batteries; their only concealment was camouflage and being set back from the coast, although their magazines were in bunkers. Most of these batteries were completed circa 1920.^[15][16]

During World War I, the Coast Artillery (CAC) was designated to provide the personnel for all U.S.-manned heavy artillery (155 mm gun and larger), almost all railway artillery, and later all anti-aircraft artillery units. As with most U.S. Army World War I equipment, these units were primarily equipped with French- and British-made weapons; few American-made heavy weapons arrived in France before the Armistice. As with other American World War I units, the CAC units operated alongside French forces for the most part. The CAC units sent to France and Britain with the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) were organized into a total of 11 brigades comprising 33 regiments of 24 guns each, plus a replacement regiment, nine trench mortar battalions and thirteen anti-aircraft battalions (a.k.a. sectors). Many Coast Artillery companies were withdrawn from stateside coast defenses to provide cadre for the new artillery regiments.^[17][18] Only 13 regiments saw action; the remaining 20 regiments did not complete training before the Armistice, and up to 6 of these never received guns. Only one regiment saw action equipped with U.S.-made guns, the 58th Coast Artillery armed with the 8-inch (203 mm) howitzer M1917, based on the British BL 8-inch (203 mm) howitzer Mk VI.^[19]

A considerable effort was made to remove some of the coast artillery's weapons from forts and remount them for use in France, but essentially none of these were used in action. Most of the weapons that made it to France were 72 6-inch (152 mm) guns and 26 5-inch (127 mm) guns mounted on field carriages, which armed four regiments. These were among the regiments that did not complete training, and the 5-inch regiment may not have received ammunition. Most of the 6-inch (152 mm) guns were eventually remounted in new fixed defenses in World War II; the 5-inch (127 mm) guns were declared obsolete and scrapped in the 1920s.

Many railway guns were also built in the US (and some in France) using Coast Artillery weapons removed from forts and newly built carriages, but none were used in action and most were completed after the Armistice. Ninety-one 12-inch (305 mm) railway mortars were mounted, along with 47 8-inch (203 mm) railway guns and some 10-inch (254 mm) and 12-inch (305 mm) guns.^[20] The 8-inch (203 mm) guns and 12-inch (305 mm) mortars used a common railway carriage, with outriggers and a rotating mount allowing all-around fire. This allowed the weapons to be used in coast defense against moving targets. The 10-inch (254 mm) and 12-inch (305 mm) railway mounts could only be trained a few degrees, and saw only limited service after the war, most being scrapped in the 1930s. The 8-inch (203 mm) guns and 12-inch (305 mm) mortars were on hand for World War II; references have significant information on the deployment of the 8-inch (203 mm) guns but virtually no information about the mortars.

Following World War I, the Army attempted further improvements, but in the peacetime funding climate little could be done. A new 16-inch (406 mm) gun was adopted, on a new barbette carriage with 65° elevation to allow plunging fire. With funding limited only eleven weapons of this caliber could be deployed by 1927; one on a disappearing carriage, four 16-inch howitzers, and the remainder in batteries similar to the 12-inch weapons, all at new forts except the disappearing weapon. The ports protected by these included Boston, New York City, the entrance to the Chesapeake Bay near Norfolk, Virginia, and Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The Navy provided twenty 16-inch guns intended for cancelled battleships in the 1920s; six of these were deployed in Hawaii and Panama by 1935.^[21][22]

The harbor defense units had retained their company-based organization during the war, though the units had a bewildering variety of redesignations.^[14] Several of the wartime heavy artillery regiments were retained in service after the war, becoming "tractor-drawn" or railway artillery regiments. In 1922 the National Guard coast artillery units adopted a regimental organization, followed by the regular army units in 1924. In the Philippines, the Philippine Scouts were created in 1922. These were U.S. regular army units, primarily with American officers and Filipino enlisted men. They provided much of the personnel for the forts in the Philippines. Organized Reserve harbor defense units were also created; their manning levels are unclear, and on mobilization in World War II many of these were inactivated, while others were activated in the regular army and redesignated.^[23] Between the wars most harbor defense commands were reduced to caretaker status, usually with a single regular army battery as the caretakers, and eight harbor defense commands were disarmed and inactivated.

In 1938 construction began on two casemated batteries for 16-inch (406 mm) guns near San Francisco; the casemates protected the guns against air attack. After the Fall of France in 1940, the Army's Harbor Defense Board met to consider the future of coast defenses. The board decided to replace the turn-of-the-century defenses with new casemated 16-inch gun batteries with two guns each, typically one or two batteries per harbor defense command; most previous 16-inch batteries were also to be casemated. Due to their range advantage over previous weapons, most 16-inch batteries were at new forts, usually called "military reservations" to conceal their purpose. The long-range 12-inch batteries were retained and most were casemated, a few being built new. Due to circumstances requiring development of a new 16-inch gun for new battleships, the Navy released about 50 additional 1920s 16-inch guns to arm the new batteries. The 16-inch batteries would be complemented by 6-inch (152 mm) guns stored since World War I, on new high-angle shielded barbette mounts with magazine bunkers, and new 90 mm (3.5-inch) dual-purpose gun batteries. In 1940 the regular army harbor defense units were gradually brought up to strength, and in September 1940 the National Guard harbor defense units were activated. Due to the diminishing threat of enemy surface attack as World War II progressed, especially on the east coast, of 38 16-inch batteries proposed only 21 were completed, and not all of these were armed. As the 16-inch batteries were completed the older heavy weapons at the harbor defense commands were scrapped, though some 6-inch and 3-inch guns were retained.^[24][25]

The only major combat involving U.S.-built forts since the American Civil War took place in the Philippines. The Japanese invaded the Philippines shortly after Pearl Harbor, bringing the Harbor Defenses of Manila and Subic Bays into the war along with the other U.S. and Filipino forces in the archipelago. The Japanese initially landed in northern Luzon, far from the defenses of Manila Bay. Although the Coast Artillery did their best, many of their weapons were poorly positioned against the direction of enemy attacks and vulnerable to air and high-angle artillery attack. In late December 1941 U.S. and Filipino forces in the northern Philippines withdrew to the Bataan Peninsula and the fortified islands, following the pre-war Plan Orange. After holding off attacks for over three months without reinforcement or resupply, these forces were defeated and 78,000 troops surrendered on 9 April 1942. This left only the fortified islands in Allied hands, and brought Japanese artillery within range of Corregidor. It also resulted in the Bataan Death March. The 14-inch turret guns of Fort Drum and the 12-inch mortars of Battery Way and Battery Geary were probably the most effective coast defense weapons in the Battle of Corregidor, but all but two of the mortars were knocked out by artillery before the Japanese landed on the island. The unique Malinta Tunnel proved crucial to the survival of Corregidor's medical services, senior command, and the Philippine government. Following nearly a month of artillery and air bombardment, the Japanese successfully invaded Corregidor on 5 May. The remaining U.S. and Filipino forces surrendered on 6 May 1942, after destroying their weapons.

U.S. forces returned to the Philippines beginning in October 1944. Corregidor was retaken by an airborne and amphibious assault between 16 February and 2 March 1945. The remaining forts were retaken by incinerating the Japanese forces in them in late March through mid-April, culminating in the recapture of Fort Drum on 13 April.

In 1940–41 the U.S. Army determined that the coast artillery would not have a front-line role, except for the anti-aircraft branch. The 240 mm (9.45 in) howitzer M1 and the 8-inch (203 mm) gun M1 were developed to provide the field artillery with heavy weapons for use against fortifications. The only overseas deployments of functional railway artillery were to Hawaii and the Philippines; railway guns deployed to Newfoundland and Bermuda were in static emplacements. In March 1942 the functions of the Chief of Coast Artillery were assumed by the Chief of Army Ground Forces, with the former coast artillery chief transferred to lead the anti-aircraft branch. During 1943 units formerly designated as Coast Artillery (Anti-aircraft) were redesignated as Anti-aircraft Artillery, usually in conjunction with the Army's force-wide change from a regimental to a battalion-based organization (except infantry). From October 1944 through April 1945 most of the coast artillery's harbor defense units were inactivated, with most personnel transferring to the field artillery and the remaining unit functions and personnel assumed by the parent harbor defense command.^[26]

Almost all remaining gun defenses were scrapped by 1948. The coast artillery was formally deactivated in 1950, with the merger of anti-aircraft and field artillery into a single artillery branch. The current result of several changes to the Army's lineage system since then is that the first seven anti-aircraft regiments in the regular army carry the lineage of the seven artillery regiments broken up in 1901. These units' lineage was carried by the first seven regular army coast artillery regiments, which existed from 1924 until broken up in World War II. The current units also carry the lineage of seven distinguished anti-aircraft battalions from World War II.^[27] Several Army National Guard units retain the unit numbers and lineage of coast artillery ancestors.^[24][25]

• Berhow, Mark A., Ed. (2015). American Seacoast Defenses, A Reference Guide, Third Edition. McLean, Virginia: CDSG Press. pp. 52–53, 201–231. ISBN 978-0-9748167-3-9.((cite book)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Lewis, Emanuel Raymond (1979). Seacoast Fortifications of the United States. Annapolis: Leeward Publications. ISBN 978-0-929521-11-4.
• McKenney, Janice E. (1985). Army Lineage Series: Air Defense Artillery, CMH 60-5. United States Army Center of Military History.
• Rinaldi, Richard A. (2004). The U. S. Army in World War I: Orders of Battle. General Data LLC. ISBN 0-9720296-4-8.
• Roberts, Robert B. (1988). Encyclopedia of Historic Forts: The Military, Pioneer, and Trading Posts of the United States. New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0-02-926880-X.
• Stanton, Shelby L. (1991). World War II Order of Battle. Galahad Books. ISBN 0-88365-775-9.
• Wade, Arthur P. (2011). Artillerists and Engineers: The Beginnings of American Seacoast Fortifications, 1794–1815. CDSG Press. ISBN 978-0-9748167-2-2.
• Weaver II, John R. (2018). A Legacy in Brick and Stone: American Coastal Defense Forts of the Third System, 1816–1867, 2nd Ed. McLean, VA: Redoubt Press. ISBN 978-1-7323916-1-1.

About The Bugle First published in 2006, the Bugle is the monthly newsletter of the English Wikipedia's Military history WikiProject. » About the project » Visit the Newsroom » Subscribe to the Bugle » Browse the Archives + Add a commentDiscuss this story To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache. No comments yet. Yours could be the first! + Add a comment