This new element for consideration was the circumstance that the entire French system of manufacture in metals is radically different from our own in its practices and is not readily adapted to American methods.
The English and the American engineers and shops use inches and feet in their measurements, but the French use the metric system. This fact means that there was not a single standard American drill, reamer, tap, die, or other machine-shop tool that would accurately produce the result called for by a French ordnance drawing in the metric system. Moreover, the French standards for metal stocks, sheets, plates, angles, I-beams, rivet holes, and rivet spacing are far different from American standards.
It was discovered that complete French drawings were in numerous cases nonexistent, the French practice relying for small details upon the memory and skill of its artisans. But even when the complete drawings were obtained, then the American ordnance engineer was confronted with the choice of either revolutionizing the machining industry of the United States by changing over its entire equipment to conform to the metric system, or else of doing what was done—namely, translating the French designs into terms of standard American shop practice, a process which in numerous cases required weeks and even months of time on the part of whole staffs of experts working at high tension.
Nor do the French know the American quantity-production methods. The French artisan sees always the finished article, and he is given discretion in the final dimensions of parts and in the fitting and assembling of them. But the American mechanic sees only the part in which he is a specialist in machining, working with strict tolerances and producing pieces which require little or no fitting in the assembling room. Consequently, in the translating of French plans it was necessary to put into them what they never had before, namely, rigid tolerances and exact measurements.
| Year. | Battle. | Days' duration. | Army. | Rounds of artillery ammunition expended. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1863 | Chickamauga | 2 | Union | ▏ 7,325 |
| 1863 | Gettysburg | 3 | Union | ▎ 32,781 |
| 1870 | St. Privat | 1 | German | ▍ 39,000 |
| 1904 | Nan Shan | 1 | Japanese | ▎ 34,047 |
| 1904 | Liao Yang | 9 | Russian | █ 134,400 |
| 1904 | Sha Ho | 9 | Russian | ██ 274,300 |
| 1915 | Neuve Chapelle | [1]3 | British | ██ 197,000 |
| 1915 | Souches | [2]1 | French | ███ 300,000 |
| 1916 | Somme | [3]7 | British | ████████████████████████████████████ 4000000 |
| 1917 | Messines Ridge | [3]7 | British | █████████████████████████ 2753000 |
| 1918 | St. Mihiel | [2]4 | United States | ██████████ 1098217 |
[1] Artillery preparation lasted 35 minutes.
[2] Artillery preparation lasted 4 hours.
[3] Artillery preparation intermittent 7 days.
One of the most striking developments of the present war has been the great increase in the use of artillery to precede infantry action in battle. This is illustrated by a comparison of the expenditure of artillery ammunition in characteristic battles of recent wars with that in important battles of the present war. The special features of the several battles should be kept in mind. Chickamauga was fought in a heavily wooded region; Gettysburg and St. Privat over open farm land. The latter battles, together with Nan Shan, and all the battles of the present war considered below, involved artillery preparation for assault upon armies in defensive position. The expenditures, therefore, are roughly comparable.
The high mark of the use of artillery in offensive battle was reached at the Somme and Messines Ridge, before the effective use of tanks was developed.