By on May 29, 2011

Tank testing at General Motors’ Milford Proving Grounds

To commemorate Memorial Day here in the US, we’re taking a look at how the American auto industry was mobilized into war production for World War Two. Because that mobilization was so extensive, the conversion to military production so complete, a blog post by it’s very nature cannot really do the subject justice. This is only the most cursory review of the topic, which truly deserves a book length treatment. As a matter of fact, historian Arthur Herman is currently working on a book about the “arsenal of democracy”, American industry during the war.

Herman will have a lot of material to work with.Today we’ll be looking at the role of the Big Three automakers in war production, starting with General Motors. While Ford’s production of B-24s at Willow Run, and Chrysler’s tank plant in Warren probably get more attention from historians, the fact is that General Motors was the single largest provider of war material to the Allied forces. In addition to building over 850,000 trucks and amphibious vehicles for the war effort, GM built about 200,000 diesel engines for tanks and landing craft and about the same number of airplane engines. The company assembled 38,000 armored vehicles including tanks and tank destroyers. That’s the kind of war materiel you’d expect from a major car company. However, GM’s contribution was not just restricted to automotive technologies. The automaker also produced almost 2 million machine and submachine guns, and over 3 million carbines along with 190,000 cannons. It made over 300,000 precision gyroscopes, critical for aircraft navigation, along with millions of electric motors and fuses, and hundreds of millions of ball and roller bearings. To go with the cannons and guns, GM also made over a hundred million artillery shells and about 40 million cartridge cases.

The amphibious vehicles that GM made included the “Duck”, the GMC DUKW353. The Duck was designed jointly by GMC Truck Engineering and the naval architecture firm of Sparkman and Stevens. It took them only 43 days after the job was assigned and contracts signed to build the prototype. The US Army ordered 2,000 but over the duration of the war GM built over 21,000 Ducks in the Pontiac GMC plant. It served in a list of storied invasions and the design was so durable that Ducks are still in service carrying tourists in a number of locations around the world.

DUKW on the beach at Normandy

From the General Motors Heritage Collection:

Officially called model DUKW353, 2-1/2 ton 6×6, Amphibious Troop/Cargo Carrier, it was rated to carry 25 men with equipment or 5,000 lbs. on land or 50 men or 10,000 lbs. in water. It was basically a steel boat hull mounted on a GMC CCKW353, 2-1/2 ton 6×6 truck chassis. Powered by the 102 hp GMC 270 inline 6 gas engine, it had a 5-speed manual transmission and a 2-speed transfer case driving all 3 axles. Special equipment included a propeller and rudder under the stern (rear end to you truckers), 3 bilge pumps, an anchor and a rear-mounted winch. A major advantage was that no special preparation was required before entering the water. In 1943, central tire inflation became available to allow the driver to lower tire pressure for better traction on sand or soft soil, using instrument panel mounted controls.

Ducks were first deployed in an amphibious landing on the island of Noumea in the South Pacific in March, 1943. The public first learned of their existence then when photos were published showing them plunging through 15 ft. high surf to reach the beach. Thereafter, Ducks were used in every amphibious operation in both the European and Pacific theaters. The majority of early built Ducks went to North Africa and from there 100 of them invaded Italy. Many were used in the Normandy invasion in June, 1944, and, in March, 1944, 370 helped to move several Allied armies across the Rhine River into Germany after the Germans destroyed the bridges.

GM didn’t just devote its production facilities to war materiel production. The entire company was mobilized for the war effort. The GM Proving Grounds in Milford, Michigan were used to test a range of military vehicles. Executives like Charlie Wilson and William Knudsen got leaves of absence from GM to run the War Production Board. Knudsen even received a commission as a Lt. General in the Army. His position and contacts in the auto industry proved to be invaluable. His personal contacts with Edsel Ford and Chrysler’s K.T. Keller were instrumental in those companies’ war efforts. As the war’s end drew nearer, Wilson became an advocate for a permanent dedicated defense industry, realizing that the next war would not afford enough time for the kind of industrial conversion the US had undergone. He would further serve his country as Pres. Eisenhower’s Secretary of Defense.

Harley Earl’s styling department also contributed. Art Ross would go on to head styling of Cadillac after the war and then Oldsmobile in the 1950s. During the war he designed military equipment, camouflage and small arms for GM’s Camouflage and War Services Section. Like other GM stylists, he illustrated military instruction manuals. In 1942, he designed and painted a mural in the lobby of the Camouflage and War Services Section, illustrating an enormous tank destroyer that he called the M-1 Hellcat.

Art Ross’ fantasy tank destroyer. A mural based on this drawing graced the lobby of GM’s Camouflage and War Services Section

It’s not clear if Ross’ design for the “Hellcat” had any influence on the production M-18 Hellcat, but that tank destroyer was built by GM’s own Buick division.

M-18 “Hellcat” tank destroyer. Built by Buick.

Ross and other members of Earl’s team also did the artwork for “Flight Thru Instruments”, a training manual for pilots. GM’s close involvement with wartime aviation directly led to the P-38 inspired tail fins that GM pioneered in the 1948 Cadillac.

While Chrysler’s contribution may not have been as large as GM’s, in many ways Chrysler was even more influential. Chrysler’s approach to mass producing large weapons systems at the Chrysler Tank Arsenal became the paradigm for other military factories, like Ford’s Willow Run facility, and the dedicated munitions industry that followed WWII.

At this point it should be noted that the automakers and their suppliers did not act solely out of patriotism. At first, before the entry of the US into the conflict, there was money to be made making arms for Britain under the Lend Lease program and for the US government as it rearmed. Once the war started, though, with the evaporation of the civilian market for cars and trucks the American car companies turned to government contracts to stay solvent. Though this was of particular importance to the smaller, poorer independents, the Big 3 could not have stayed in business for the duration had they not gotten contracts to produce weapons.

Still, patriotism was definitely part of the motivation. The Chrysler Corp. took particular pride in the fact that every project that the US government asked the company to perform was performed successfully, on time, below projected costs (Chrysler returned money to the government when efficiencies reduced costs) and beyond expectations.

As early as June of 1940, the Chrysler corporation publicly expressed its desire to start making tanks and other weapons, setting up an ordnance division within the company. Speaking to a convention of Chrysler, Dodge and Desoto dealers Chrysler chairman K.T. Keller boasted that Chrysler would be able to supply all of the US Army’s predicted needs for trucks and reconnaissance cars. Chrysler engineers predicted that the company would be able to start mass producing light tanks within weeks of getting armament contracts. After some initial contracts for bomb noses, shell casings and cartridge cases, later that summer the New York Times reported that the Army was negotiating with both Chrysler and GM for the construction and operation of two tank plants. While the plants’ location near Detroit seems natural due to the companies’ location, concern over possible air attacks on the east coast also argued in favor of the midwest.

Chrysler Tank Arsenal ~1942. Library of Congress photo.

In August of 1940 it was announced that American tank manufacturers would be filling a $200 million contract to supply 4,000 tanks to Great Britain. At the same time it was revealed that the US government would have Chrysler build a tank plant, with a 4% margin for building the factory and the same profit margin on the tanks. Chrysler engineers and managers predicted that it would take a year to build the factory and that it would be able to manufacture five tanks a day. Both of those predictions grossly underestimated the company’s ability. The plant would be in operation within 8 months and by the end of the war, Chrysler would be building almost 20 tanks a day. Later it was announced that the plant would cost $20 million to build (~$307 million in 2010 dollars). The contract also included $34 million for tanks. After construction in Warren, Michigan the government took ownership of the plant, known as the Chrysler Tank Arsenal which Chrysler operated under the terms of the contract and leased for $1 a year. The car companies were concerned over appearances of profiteering. Chrysler VP Herman L. Weckler explained that though the company had been asked to manufacture everything from tiny time fuses to 25 ton tanks, they didn’t have the appropriate specialty machinery, which required a substantial investment that had to be amortized.

That machinery was slow in coming. Though the company had no problems with supplies in 1940, with an active war in Europe and so many American industrial firms supplying both Lend/Lease and the US military, it got harder and harder to get machine tools and raw materials. By Feb. of 1941, only a third of the plant’s machinery had been delivered. Only half of the undelivered machinery was scheduled to arrive on time to start production per the timetable. The problem was the government’s Office of Personnel Management and the Army and Navy Munitions Boards’ method of allocating material.

In a frequently told story, K.T. Keller described how Chrysler got into the tank business. William Knudsen had invited him out to his home on Grosse Isle and asked Keller, “Will you fellows build tanks?”.

I said we would. And the next Tuesday, by appointment, I saw him in Washington and after about fifteen minutes of conversation agreed that we would build. Then came a session with the technical men of the War Department, next a visit to the Rock Island arsenal and a ride in a tank which astonished by its riding qualities in rough country.

We came home with 196 pounds of blueprints. It took 197 men four weeks to analyze the whole building and production layout and cost about $100,000.

We made each piece of the tank out of wood in our pattern shop and painted the pieces. We then put the whole tank together without scratching a bit of paint, a tribute to the splendid design work of the Army men who laid out this extraordinary vehicle, which has everything in it from a locomotive to a Swiss watch.

Those patterns were based on the M2A1 tank and the work was done at Chrysler’s Conner Road plant. Soon, though, the M2A1 would be declared obsolete. The arsenal would build the new M3 tank.

By the spring of 1941, the auto industry saw the writing on the wall concerning civilian car production. In April GM announced that there would not be a 1943 model year. Ford and Chrysler would soon follow with the same announcement. Keller said, “We have been so busy with defense work that we have not had a chance to think about 1943 models. We have not got our 1942 models out yet.” Remember, this was still months before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Still, the Germans did not believe that the US could arm itself quickly and foolishly declared war on the US after the attack. By the time the US was an active combatant, much of American industry had spent the previous two years switching to military production. The US may not have been ready, but it was well on its way, with weapons in production and more advanced planes, tanks and other war machines on the drawing boards. Many of the most iconic weapons used by the US like Sherman tanks, the jeep, the M1 Garand semi automatic rifle our heavy bombers like the B-17, B-24, and even the B-29 were designed before the war.

The first prototype M-3 rolled off the assembly line at the still yet uncompleted arsenal on April 24, 1941. Production started in July, with 7 tanks built that month. Production would ramp up quickly. By the end of 1941, the arsenal would have three production lines and over 6,000 employees and had assembled 500 tanks. Over the next four years, the plant would produce over 3,300 M-3s, almost 15,000 M-4 Sherman tanks and over 7,000 Pershings. The Chrysler Tank Arsenal proved that tanks and other large weapons systems could be mass produced. Though other companies, like General Motors, built tanks for the US and the Allies, Chrysler alone exceeded German tank production. In addition to underestimating the US’ capacity to switch to military production, the German high command assigned much tank production to heavy equipment manufacturers. Building six cranes a year is not the same as building millions of cars. The US built about 75,000 tanks during WWII. The Germans only built about a third that number. Though the German Tiger and Panther tanks had better armor and better guns, the Allies were able to use the Shermans’ speed, mobility and greater numbers, along with close air support, to defeat the German armor.

When the M-4 Sherman was being designed, Chrysler engineers had a problem. They didn’t have a suitable engine. Ford proposed an all-aluminum DOHC V16, and the M3 used a radial engine but the Chrysler team instead opted for an unusual but clever in-house solution. Taking five inline Chrysler 6 cylinder engines and mounting them around a central shaft driven by  gears on each bank’s flywheel, they developed a massive 30 cylinder, 470HP engine. The primary development issue was induction. The unusual arrangement made it difficult to have equal length runners from the carburetors to the heads. Eventually they worked out that issue and the A57 proved to be very reliable in service. The multibank layout also meant that the engine could still power the tank with as many as two banks out of commission.

Chrysler A57 Multibank tank engine

Though Chrysler war effort was centered on tank production, it also filled large contracts for 40-millimeter anti-aircraft guns for the Navy, and the Martin B-26 bomber. The company also made refrigerators, bomb fuses, shells, landing gear for airplanes, cartridge fuses, bearings, marine tractors and tugs and assorted military vehicles such as command cars, ambulances, trucks, and weapons carriers for the war effort.

Dodge trucks were an essential part of the famed Red Ball Express that resupplied Gen. George Patton’s Third Army. The Dodge flathead six truck engine proved to be more durable than the OHV “stovebolt” Chevy when running the low octane fuel that was all that was available, the hi-test fuel being reserved for planes. Overall, Patton used more GM trucks but many of them filled the repair depots, with burnt valves.

Chrysler tried to get into the airplane engine business, first building a water cooled V12, and then later a V16, an example of which is on display at the Walter P. Chrysler Museum. Though it never saw combat, the V16 was Chrysler’s first use of a hemispherical combustion chamber. Yeah, it’s a Hemi. The cylinder head, crankshaft and connecting rod designs from that engine would later be used in Chrysler’s automotive Hemi. While aircraft engines of Chrysler’s own design did not see combat, under license the company’s Dodge-Chicago plant built thousands of Wright 18 cylinder 2,200 HP “Cyclone” engines for the B-29 Superfortress. The Enola Gay, which bombed Hiroshima, was equipped with Chrysler built engines.

Chrysler’s first “hemi”, an experimental V16 aircraft engine

Actually, Chrysler had a much more important role in the race to deliver an atom bomb, a role it earned because of the company’s reputation for engineering excellence. Gen. Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, needed to separate and purify uranium. The preferred method was gas diffusion, but the uranium hexafluoride gas used in the process is very corrosive. The only thing that would resist it was nickel. Groves turned to Chrysler to make the diffusers. The first challenge was that nickel was in short supply due to its need for other military purposes. The amount of nickel needed for the initial design of the diffusers exceeded the total US supply of nickel. Chrysler engineers determined that the vessels did not have to be made completely out of nickel, that a thin nickel plating not only was sufficient to prevent corrosion and leakage but also plating resulted in purer nickel than machining metallic nickel.

Chrysler’s gas diffusion plant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, part of the Manhattan Project

Careful about secrecy, Chrysler transferred thousands of employees from their Lynch Road facility and set up the plating tanks there. To prevent contamination, the facility was air conditioned and clean-room procedures were used. Chrysler also built a processing plant at the Oak Ridge, Tennessee facility of the Manhattan Project, where thousands of diffusers were used to separate the 135 lbs of fissionable material that were used for the Trinity test, and the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atom bombs.

The nickel plating line at Chrysler’s Lynch Road plant, part of the Manhattan Project

Ford’s role in the arsenal of democracy is pretty well known, due to being able to make one B-24 an hour at their Willow Run factory and also their role in the story of the Jeep. What’s not so well known is that unlike Chrysler, Ford wasn’t exactly eager to get into the weapons business. In a way, Ford Motor Company’s behavior at the start of the Second World War was not unlike Henry’s actions surrounding the first global conflict 25 years earlier. Henry, like Billy Durant at GM, was a pacifist. Ford famously was a passenger on the “Peace Ship”, which futilely sailed to Europe trying to make peace. Later, though, after the US entered WWI, Ford built “Eagle” submarine chaser boats at the Rouge complex. As a matter of fact, initial construction of the Rouge facility and dredging of the Rouge River to accommodate large ships was done under government contract, with taxpayers’ money. When asked about the seeming hypocrisy, Henry Ford explained that though he opposed entering the war he was a patriot who would supply his government once his country was at war. By the time production started, the war was almost over and only five dozen boats were delivered by the end of the war.

In the case of World War I, Henry was a genuine pacifist who didn’t want to take sides. In the case of the second world war, though, Ford may not have been quite as impartial. Adolf Hitler greatly admired Henry Ford. That’s not necessarily to Ford’s discredit as you have no control over who admires you, but Ford also publicly accepted a high Nazi award from Hitler. While Ford might have recoiled had he known of the Final Solution, him not being an exterminationist anti-semite and having cordial relations with those he considered “good Jews”, like Albert Kahn and Rabbi Leo Franklin, he undoubtedly shared some of Hitler’s delusions about Jewish economic power. So Henry was not adverse to doing business with the Third Reich (Ford also did business with Stalin, building Russian car factories in the 1930s).

It should be pointed out that General Motors’ Adam Opel division in Germany also supplied the German government and armed forces in the 1930s. The role of other US companies, like IBM, in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s has been documented. In the case of most of those companies, I believe it was just business. In the case of Ford, though, it’s hard not to suspect that he was sympathetic to the Germans [Note: That link goes to a Christian reconstructionist site which has some fringey posts against flouride in water and in favor of "alternative medicine" AKA quackery, but the Ford article is footnoted from legitimate sources].

On the occasion of his 75th birthday, Ford was given the Grand Cross of the German Eagle – Germany’s highest honor.

By the late spring of 1940, Poland, Norway and Denmark were already under Nazi occupation and France was close to defeat. As Army chief of staff Gen. George Marshall increasingly warned Pres. Roosevelt about the dangers of a German attack on the US east cost, FDR turned to William Knudsen to head military production. Knudsen was president of General Motors but had earlier been a Ford executive. Soon after moving to Washington, Knudsen got an urgent request for warplanes from Britain’s Royal Air Force. FoMoCo having successfully built the Tri-Motor airplane in the 1920s, Knudsen approached Edsel Ford in early June about Ford manufacturing military planes. Edsel agreed that the Dearborn carmaker would expedite production of warplanes for Britain.

On June 12, 1940, Edsel Ford phoned Knudsen to tell him that Ford Motor Company would agree to produce 9,000 Merlin engines under license from Rolls-Royce, 6,000 for the RAF and the remainder for the US Army Air Corps (the USAF did not exist then). When the news of the engine deal came out of Britain, privately Henry flew into a rage. Publicly he repudiated and canceled it, telling a reporter, “We are not doing business with the British government or any other government.” Packard stepped in to make the engines.

Henry lied about not doing business with any other government. According to historian Douglas Brinkley, when Henry said that he’d already agreed to a contract for Ford’s Cologne subsidiary, Ford-Werke, to supply military trucks to the Third Reich. In 1928, Ford had merged his German subsidiary with chemical giant I.G. Farben, which had close ties to the Nazis once they came to power.

Ford, though, had a good finger on the pulse of average Americans and as with World War One, as US entry into the conflict grew more and more likely, Henry changed his position. Less than a year later, in May of 1941, Ford Motor Company opened up the Willow Run factory for the purpose of building the B-24E “Liberator” bomber. Like the initial construction at the Rouge, Willow Run was also built by the government. In addition to warplanes, Ford produced a variety of military engines, trucks, jeeps, tanks and tank destroyers.

B-24 Liberators being assembled at Ford’s Willow Run facility

Ford had a major role in the development process for that military jeep, submitting an entrant to the Army’s competition along with American Bantam and Willys. Though the ultimate standardized model was based on the American Bantam design, the Army incorporated Ford’s front end and flat hood (which allowed it to be used to carry cargo or stretchers), and Ford ended up making more jeeps than Willys (the Army decided that American Bantam did not have the production capacity so they were assigned other military contracts). A more detailed version of the jeep history will follow when we look at the role of independent automakers in the arsenal of democracy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

36 Comments on “For Memorial Day: The Arsenal of Democracy – the Big 3 Go To War...”


  • avatar

    wow. excellent work, timely and appropriate. thank you for another reason why TTAC is a part of my daily reading and such a reliable source of information.

  • avatar
    obbop

    Good article.

    For those interested ample full-length books available to “flesh out” the required condensation of complex topics within the above article.

    If the opportunity arises and you can tour a US Navy warship gaze at the diesel engine back-up electric power-providing set-up(s).

    Sizes vary but them thar engines are immense, impressive and just nifty to peer at.

  • avatar
    ronald

    Ronnie,
    Thanks for posting. Interesting stuff.

  • avatar
    Flybrian

    Another interesting GM development during the war, the P-75 Eagle – one of the countless aircraft whose development cycle was outpaced by changing battle requirements.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-75_Eagle

  • avatar
    djn

    Careful Ronnie, when it comes to making statements like “favor of “alternative medicine” AKA quackery,” you are way outside your depth.

    • 0 avatar

      Sorry but the allopaths won that argument over a century ago.

      Science is about not believing experts. That’s why we replicate experiments to see if we get the same results. So there’s nothing inherently wrong with challenging the prevailing paradigm. Just demonstrate how “alternative medicine” works.

      Just which alternatives do you think aren’t quackery?

      Homeopathy? Do you know anything about chemistry and solutions?

      Accupunture? Medical schools in China are allopathic.

      Aryuvedic Medicine? Medical schools in India are allopathic.

      Touch therapy? Therapeutic hugs.

      • 0 avatar
        djn

        Ronnie:

        Re: Homeopathy
        http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/nobel-prize-winner-reports-effects-of-homeopathic-dilutions The fact that Europe has major hospitals and research institutions devoted to homeopathy is testament to its effectiveness

        But to keep in the spirit of TTAC, why would I insist on using Vice-Grips when a good set of Whitworth wrenches might work better?

        As for allopathic medicine in China and India, the existence of large, prosperous, Chinese restaurants in New York does not lead to the conclusion that local “American” food is neither nutritious or tasty.

      • 0 avatar

        RE: Homeopathy

        Can you explain how something that is so dilute as to not contain even a molecule of the original compound works? While some compounds are biologically active in concentrations of single digit parts per million nothing is biologically active at a concentration of zero parts per million, and that’s what homeopathic dilutions end up with: water.

        Like I said, I’m open minded. Just show me how it works.

        Energy fields? Electromagnetic signatures? Can I offer you a 200 mpg carburetor?

        Just so you know, Luc Montagnier also believes that AIDS/HIV can be reversed through nutritional supplements. Montagnier appears to be joining that group of Nobel laureates, like Linus Pauling and Louis Ignarro, who later became cranks. Winning a Noble Prize doesn’t make you right about everything. BTW, Montagnier also “invented” and patented the device he used to detect and measure the supposed electromagnetic “signatures”.

        Here’s a scientist’s look at Montagnier.

        Sometimes a bolt is broken and all the Whitworth wrenches in the world won’t help you remove it. Sometimes a ViceGrips is the right tool to use.

        We’re not talking about comparing Lee Ho Fook’s beef chow mein to Rattner’s cheese blintzes we’re talking about medical care for your children. Why, if aryuvedic medicine and acupuncture work so well at healing people, would Indians and Chinese establish allopathic hospitals and med schools?

      • 0 avatar

        Ronnie,

        I write about medicine. Although a lot of altnerative medicine is, indeed quackery, some alternative medicine does work, quite well, actually, and a lot of allopathy has ***no evidence*** backing it up. This information is not from promoters of alternative medicine, but from allopaths such as Dr. David Eddy, MD, PhD.

        Back pain, for example, and other musculoskeletal issues are areas where allopathic medicine is pretty useless, and where alternatives work well (see any book by John Sarno, MD, and if you happen to have chronic musculoskeletal pain, reading one of his books just may cure you, as it did for Howard Stern, for a prominent expert on the planet (or planetoid if you prefer), Pluto, and me). I could go on and on and on…

        That medical schools in China and India are allopathic proves nothing. You are wrongly casting allopathic vs alternative medicine as mutually exclusive. They are absolutely not; in fact, both make important contributions and both have areas of uselessness. Moreover, acupuncture doesn’t pretend to substitute for surgery, or antibiotics, etc.

        You won’t get any argument from me about homeopathy, and quacks who claim that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, or anywhere else where claims defy science.

      • 0 avatar
        CRConrad

        @djn: “The fact that Europe has major hospitals and research institutions devoted to homeopathy is testament to its effectiveness”

        Nope, it’s testament to the power of superstition.

    • 0 avatar

      djn,

      Do you also believe in alternative engineering?

      • 0 avatar
        djn

        Do I believe in A for Alternate Engineering? As in A for Abarth or A for Alfa or A for Alpine (Renault) or even better A for Autobianchi Abarth? You bet.

        As for Medicine, allopathic, homeopathic, Chinese or Herbal. Yes to all. Buyer beware. Allopathic can also be ineffective and harmful. Allopathic requires a big leap of faith. Try reading the side of the bottle sometime. An aware consumer can pick and choose carefully. Maybe thats why all the health insurance plans that I have been covered on in the last 20 years cover a variety of non-allopathic health care providers.

      • 0 avatar

        It’s funny that you mention reading the side of the bottle. Regular pharmaceuticals and other allopathic drugs are manufactured under pretty stringent standards. In contrast, homeopathic remedies, nutritional supplements and other “alternative” treatments can be and have been found to contain all sorts of contaminants, chemical and biological.

        It’s also funny that you say allopathic medicine requires a leap of faith. It’s the homeopaths and other alternative treatments that say you gotta believe that it works for it to work. (Cf. Placebo effect).

        Antibiotics kill bacteria whether I believe it or not.

        When I read what advocates of alternative or integrative medicine have to say, I’m taken aback by some of the shear lies they tell (eg. MDs don’t get educated about nutrition). The “study” you cited was essentially a vanity publication and it fails to meet even the most basic standards for scientific experiments because there is not sufficient information on how to replicate the test.

        What that study claims is that “pathogenic” bacteria’s DNA creates an electromagnetic force that imprints the DNA on the water, allowing the water to reformulate the pathogen even after it’s been filtered out. The study claims that beneficial bacteria don’t display this phenomenon. Tell me, does that make sense to you? Besides, what’s “pathogenic”? Something harmful to humans might not be harmful to another species.

        Sorry, but I’ll put my health in the hands of science based medicine (and yes, I’m well aware of the trail and error nature of medicine).

        A good friend of mine told me that on his first day of med school one of his professors told the class than in the next four years, half of what they learn will eventually be proven to not be correct. The problem, he said, was that they didn’t know which half.

        The difference between real science and pseudoscience quackery is that when real scientists are confronted with findings contrary to their theories, they change their theories. Good scientists admit that they’re wrong, when the facts prove them wrong. The thing with quacks, conspiracy theorists, and other people acting not on reason, is that they can’t be convinced that they’re wrong. Everything is either evidence that supports their fantasy or a conspiracy against it.

        Now that Wakefield has been shown to be a fraud, will the anti-vaccine sociopaths (they put my children and grandchild at risk so yes, they’re sociopaths) admit that they’re wrong? I doubt it.

        Are homeopathy or other alternative treatments falsifiable? Can they be tested in a double blind experiment?

        Insurance companies cover non-allopathic treatments because the quacks have been successful enough propagandists that there is consumer demand for those treatments. It’s a business, not a medical, decision. No different than offering coverage for Viagra or abortions.

        When I was a child, pediatric leukemia was a death sentence. Today, most kids with leukemia survive well into adulthood. Did homeopathy raise those survival rates? No, it was real science and real medicine.

      • 0 avatar

        Ronnie,

        Medical schools do not teach much, if anything, in the way of nutrition. If doctors were really up on nutrition, and dealt with it as a matter of course, Americans would consume far less red meat, sugar, white flour, and corn syrup than we do. The American diet is really abysmal.

        Again, an awful lot of allopathy is not based on evidence.

        Your statement about how the difference between real science and quackery is that real scientists, when confronted with contrary evidence, change their views, is not strictly true. The view of establishment science often doesn’t change until the old guard has died. I have a friend whose work at the National Institute of Health is (slowly) changing the paradigm of how the immune system works. Self-non self is going out, being replaced by the Danger Theory (google Polly Matzinger). We’ve had a lot of discussions on this issue. The best book on this is probably still The STructure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn. Anyway, the bottom line for medicine is that new information often takes a decade or two to become common knowledge.

        >>>A good friend of mine told me that on his first day of med school one of his professors told the class than in the next four years, half of what they learn will eventually be proven to not be correct. The problem, he said, was that they didn’t know which half.

        This is classical. But the word you’re overlooking is “eventually.” The statement is referring in large part to all the stuff that is not evidence-based.

    • 0 avatar
      Morea

      For those interested, here is a link to the original paper:

      http://www.homeopathy.org/files/LucMontaigner2009.pdf

      Here is the first paragraph of the Discussion section that summarizes the manuscript nicely:

      “We have discovered a novel property of DNA, that is the capacity of some sequences to emit electromagnetic waves in resonance after excitation by the ambient electromagnetic background.”

      But the results seem to depend on them having noise in their detection system “The use of the 12 V battery for the computer power supply did reduce, but not abolish this noise, which was found to be necessary for the induction of the resonance signals from the specific nanostructures.” This is a warning sign that the paper may have (at the least) uncontrolled variables.

  • avatar
    Robert.Walter

    Nice write-up Ronnie, thanks.

    Some comments:
    - Rhein crossine was in ’45;
    - The experimental Chrysler aircraft engine … I saw this at the WPC Museum in A.H. it is a very impressive and large engine…
    - Wish you would go back and in parenthesis list the GM-divisions that prodouced all those items you listed (like Inland; Saginaw; Hyatt for the bearings; Delco and Remy for the motors; Harrison for the radiator matrix that cooled the glycol and oil for that Packard Merlin in the P-51 – which was built by the GM-subsidiary North American Aircraft; AC for all those spark-plugs; Rochester; Guide; Packard Electric; Chevrolet Axle Div., etc. etc.)
    - As mentioned above, the Mustang (P-51) was built by GM-subsidiary NAA, and designed for mass-production from the get-go… this is the plane (once the GM-built Allison – forgot Allison above – engine was dumped for the better performing and more efficient Packard Merlin) which made it possible for the B-17′s to fly escorted from GB to Berlin and back … this is what turned the tide for daylight precision strategic bombing in Europe);
    - the Allison did make its mark in the P-38 Lightning and the P-40 Warhawk/Kittyhawk, and the Bell P-39 Airacobra and P-63 Kingcobra
    - the independents also did their part … my grandfather was a Hudson millwright before becoming one at Chrysler after Hudson’s demise … Hudson built either – IDR – Bofors or Orlikon AA guns as well as things like nose- and wing-sections for things like, IDK, ,the A-20 Havoc or the “Baltimore Whore” B-26 Marauder…
    - Studebaker built trucks, and I remember the builder’s plate on a B-17 smaller Wright Cyclone bore the Studebaker name…
    - Henry the crank also lied about the Merlin deal as the Trafford Park plant was put-up to produce Merlins in the U.K.
    - The ‘good Jew’ you mention, really and extra-ordinary person, Albert Kahn, the Architect of Detroit, was also the designer of Willow Run (wouldn’t be surprised if did the Chrysler Tank Plant too);
    - Back to my baby, the P-51, the Packard Merlin was an extraordinary extension and re-design of the RR Merlin, Packard basically took what Ford had done in GB (while Ford in US was copying the blue-prints and then making an aircraft engine that failed to find interest except in a tank as a V-8) by re-designing the supercharger for a 2-stage design giving better performance over a wider-altitude range, this worked thru a Bendix pressure-carb which gave inverted-flight performance on-par with the Daimler injected engines used in many Nazi-planes…
    - And besides the automobile suppliers like Bendix, etc., there were the non-automotive Detroit companies like Burroughs (then and up through the end as Unisys Burroughs was a direct competitor to IBM for tabulation machines) which built the super-secret Sperry Norden bombsight …); And don’t forget the Detroit steel industry…

    Funny, as I look back on all this, it saddens me that the Arsenal of Democracy (Detroit) and the infrastructure that made it happen (think of all those storied names above) are gone or just shadows of their former selves.

    Detroit, my birthplace, was once a hell of a town, now it is just a memory.

    • 0 avatar

      Robert,

      Thanks for adding all those details. We have great readers here.

      As it is, the piece runs close to 3,000 words. I had to leave some stuff out. But that’s a great idea to list all the different companies and subsidiaries that contributed to the war effort.

      There are pictures of the ack-ack guns that Hudson made in Charles Hyde’s book on the independents, I think they were Orlikons. Chrysler made Bofors. I’m hoping to post the independents’ part in the war effort tomorrow.

      Detroit’s been blessed with architects. Besides Kahn, Yamasaki and Saarinen also lived and worked here.

      The end of Burroughs was another Detroit tragedy. Unlike IBM, Burroughs didn’t do business with the Nazis. Those tattooed numbers on concentration camp inmates arms? Hollerith numbers for IBM punch card readers.

      Not all the infrastructure is gone. I’d say that about half of the old factories that still stand are currently occupied by functioning businesses.

      I recently found out that the Russel Industrial Center’s location is where Anderson Carriage built Detroit Electric cars. Across the street is where Ray Dietrich ran LeBaron, also still occupied by a viable business.

  • avatar
    Dynasty

    Agreed.

    Plus, it has nothing to do with the article.

    • 0 avatar

      I’m assuming you’re also referring to the alternative medicine remark. I just wanted to give folks a heads up that the link might not be the most reliable source. There are lots of myths and urban legends about Henry Ford and the Germans. We generally don’t use footnotes here at TTAC (I tried that once but our esteemed ed Ed edited them out). That it has nothing to do with the main thrust of the article is obvious from the fact that the comment was labeled “Note” and in brackets.

      I was just trying to be responsible to my readers and give them a heads up about a possibly flaky source. Not all links are equal. Hell, half the time when I’m researching something related to Jews I end up at hate sites.

  • avatar
    Austin Greene

    Well done and long overdue.

  • avatar

    Opel opened a new factory in 1939 that never built a car it produced aircraft engines

    • 0 avatar

      It would have been remiss of me to not mention GM and Ford’s business with the Third Reich, but I wanted the focus to be on the arsenal of democracy, not on how some companies helped both sides.

      To be honest, the major reason why I included the info about Opel and Ford’s German activities is because if I didn’t, someone would have brought it up in the comments.

      As Edwin Black showed with his book on IBM, the topic is worthy of serious book length consideration.

      • 0 avatar

        This was an absolute boom time for the big 3 full scale production guarrenteed sales no marketting costs and nothing permitted to interupt the post war markets as it wouldnt be coming back with GM and Ford supplying both sides the Big 3 raked it in,

  • avatar
    OldandSlow

    Ronnie, an outstanding summary of Detroit’s part in supplying the war effort. My grandfather enlisted at the age of 38 and wound up in Papua New Guinea.

    The early M4 Shermans had a Continental built Curtiss-Wright R-975, nine cylinder radial.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_R-975

    Let us not forget the merchant seaman role in moving supplies, some lost their lives off the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of the US. because of U-Boats.

  • avatar
    Omnifan

    What is also interesting are the plants built to support various war efforts, both during and after the war. GM Hydramatic in Warren MI was a Navy torpedo plant. Chrysler Sterling Heights assembly was an Army missile plant run by LTV. The Warren tank plant is now an industrial park.

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    What a great read. It is material like this that separates TTAC from the rest. It also is a reminder that these companies are an integral part of American history. While it is understandable that many have soured on them due to shameful short sited behavior, but I am glad they remain part of the American landscape. I can’t help but wonder could we do it all again today if we had to. It bothers me to think that maybe we could not.

    Regarding the Nazi material, I had a coworker who collected WWII items, and his pride were watches and other stuff with the “Bird” and “The Symbol” as he called it. I can understand that stuff being in a museum, why an individual would want items that glorified such hatred on so many different groups of people is beyond me.

  • avatar
    Bill Wade

    Thank you for an excellent reminder of our past and the companies that helped.

  • avatar
    mtymsi

    Ronnie,

    Thanks for taking the time to research your very well written article. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

  • avatar
    jpcavanaugh

    Wonderful article, Ronnie. Timely as well.

    As an Indiana boy I feel compelled to remind you not to forget Studebaker in South Bend. As the largest of the independents, Studebaker turned out a lot of Weasels, the Wright Cyclone engine for the B-17 (about 63,000 of them altogether) and most famously the US6 4 and 6 wheel drive trucks. I am told that “Studebaker” became russian slang for “truck” during the war.

    • 0 avatar

      Actually, Studebakers were sent to the USSR as part of the Lend Lease program. My father was stationed in USSR for a year and a half during the war. The Studebakers held up so well on the bad Russian roads, through the frigid Russian winters, and the Russians thought the Studebakers were terrific. The Studes broke the ice between the Russians and the Americans, and the word became a synonym for excellence in both languages. A beautiful woman would walk by, and one GI would say to the other, “She’s Studebaker!”

  • avatar
    Uncle Sam

    GOD BLESS THE BIG THREE. BUY AMERICAN, KEEP AMERICANS AT WORK!!! AND GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

  • avatar
    windswords

    “the company’s Dodge-Chicago plant built thousands of Wright 18 cylinder 2,200 HP “Cyclone” engines for the B-29 Superfortress.”

    It should be noted that Chrysler just didn’t build the things but helped in the engineering of them. These motors had a nasty habit of catching fire early on as well as other problems which the Chrysler engineers helped to solve.

    http://www.allpar.com/history/military/b-29.html


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India