I think you need to define the purpose of this giant history establishment. There is probably a large measure of Churchill in the Army's history program: "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it" Do you think "On Point" is worth reading? It reads kind of like some propaganda tract. By "On Point II" we had kind of figured a few things.

CSI does a good job of near current history, or history that has an application (fighting the Apache across a sanctuary/border) in current ops. The kind of history that German General Staff Section was writing (or elder Moltke was writing himself) is being done by CSI.

Who is reading all this history? How do you intend to get relevant info to regular guys drinking a brew and watching ESPN? Most don't/barely read FM 3-0, 5-0, 6-0, 7-0 much less some official history.

A lot of the best history has been written by TR Fehrenbach, Bernard Fall, or Barbara Tuchman or somebody w/o the official Army stamp of approval. All we need is a bunch of historians that have been stamped with the same Army way of thinking as everyone else in the Big Green Machine!?!?

What is the task/purpose of these various history bubbas?

Funny, I found in writing 'Fiasco' and 'The Gamble' that 'On Point I' was more useful, just for the green book kind of stuff--who was where when, when was the first irregular attack on U.S. forces, etc.

I read 'On Point II' but don't remember finding anything I wanted to quote in it--and I usually find something, even in Jacob Devers' massive and massively boring oral history, which I read last night.

Best,
Tom

Whoever is running the Army's Facebook page posted this question on Sunday, 19JUN: "We are going to have a National Museum of the U.S. Army in 2015. What do you think should be included in the museum to best represent our Army?"

Out of approximately 400 responses so far, it's notable how many of the rank-and-Facebook have downright argued against another museum. Carlisle Barracks has been cited a couple of times.

Should it be built, there are some pretty creative ideas for what should be represented in such a structure, too. Everything from "every patch ever worn" to a "museum gift shop and surplus store."

https://www.facebook.com/USarmy/posts/112651962157734

A friend of mine (He's a retired SF guy and was also a SEAL) and I went to the Infantry Museum at Fort Benning a couple of years ago. He had been stationed there a couple of times. It was pretty nice. Parts of it were not yet open.

What would you have at an Army museum that you don't have at the infantry museum? Tanks and helicopters I guess. Maybe a B-17 or P-51?

Walt

Have been to MHI; it would a major crime to close it.
This is what happens when they take GOs out of the loop (the new director is a retired colonel); other programs/offices see the chance to "reprogram" a shinking budget in their favor against an office/activity that doesn't have someone who can use the GO mess to network/lobby/etc. There used to be a retired GO brought back on active duty to run CMH and he did not count against GO end strength; one of the officer "reforms" a few years back killed that. Heard informally it was payback for Rickover getting to 4 stars with three promotions as a retired flag; perhaps someone out there has more insight. IMHO, it is very unlikely that an SES who is not a retired GO/flag has the same influence where it counts.
There are lots of Army Museums but no "Army" Museum which is the driver here; the Army needs to put that program on hold and go w/ Carlisle Barracks until they can finance the entire construction program (buildings, parking lots, traffic improvements, etc.) from donors and not O&M money needed for recapitalization, modernization and day to day operations.

Walt

There are some great museums, with some great heavy metal. Patton Museum at Ft Knox (I think plan is for it to stay there when tankers move to Benning) Ordnance Museum Aberdeen Proving Ground is moving to Ft Lee. Tanks, tracks, assult guns will eventually rust away if you don't get them in some kind of climate controlled environment. I think reason APG ended up w so much is Ordnance developed all the American stuff and they tested all the captured foreign stuff.

I think it's obvious what is going on here. I am sure Carlisle is a good museum (I have never been) but let's see a comparison of visitor numbers between that and the USMC Museum in Quantico. Quantico, a quick jaunt down I-95 from DC, can easily be--and I'm sure is--on the itinerary of many of the huge number of tourists in Washington. That means a big commensurate advertising benefit for the Marines. Carlisle is of by itself in PA.

Of course, the Army Museum should have been situated in the DC area. Why was it not in the first place? After having spent big dollars at Carlisle, the Army now realizes it has made another mistake and is trying to do what the Marine Corps did--use private donor money to build a first-class museum where it will get lots of visitors.

Once again, the Army is a day late and a dollar short. I'm sure the defense contractors will step up, but come on, Army, let's get with it!

Actually, as I think about it, a joint US military museum that integrates the history of air, land, and naval forces and their employment in our various wars would be a great addition rather than simply an Army museum--something like the Imperial War Museum in London but with all the interactive features, large maps, etc that current technology allows (and that have been so well employed at the Marine Museum).

But what are the chances?

Some facts:
First the Army doesn’t actually own enough in the way of museum worthy artifacts to fill a central museum even if one were to be built. Most of the nation's preserved history at arms was accomplished by the far larger militia in whose states that history was and is preserved (see for examples the Ohio Historical Society or the New York 69th ).
With the exception of the West Point teaching museum (on the old Ladycliff campus) the central Army and its general staff actually have very little in the way of artifacts. What does exist in the 1/3 of the Army that is active is: a) mostly WWII or after and that b) firmly in the hands of fort, camp and station museums that are 501 C3 outfits which have been in existence for years and have become part of the local communities’ tourism base, as well as touchstones to unit identity (see for example the Airborne Museum).
Over the decades of dreaming of a super army central museum there have been more than a few attempts by the Army general staff to gather “their” collection by demanding those “local” collections be made available for the to be built central facility. The reactions were predictable: “hell no” is a fair summary of those responses.
What the active Army does have is a large collection of art, mostly bad, all WWII and some after (including a vast store of really, really bad Nazi art (ironically preserved aside Norman Rockwell pieces) that never sees the light of day. They are so protective of it that whenever a senior general or civilian asks for some to decorate their offices, it is supplied, but as a very expensive on cardboard fake (see the portraits of the former Army Secretaries and Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon - all are on card board fakes - the real “art” is in secure storage. The explanation for this is to prevent any of it being harmed should the Pentagon be attacked again. In case you were wondering, it is all housed in a high rise and high rent building in downtown DC just off of K Street. Go figure
Second, the history of the many aborted sites for this central museum could be a novel in itself. In spite of a wealth of evidence that large scale museums only thrive (generating visitor traffic sufficient to cover the huge cost of a big central facility) when they are near other tourist attractions, making them part of a “destination experience” (see Disneyland), the Army has always tried to find out of the way places far from other things. This is best exemplified by the location of the moment - in the middle of Ft Belvoir, a place where even the local county commissioners say there is so much traffic it is impossible to get to, and there is zero else to do nearby making it a most UNdestination experience for tourists.
The previously aborted sites (the Mall, the Marriot Twin Bridges etc) each have their own sad tales; the current location was selected after the Army declined the opportunity to obtain for ONE DOLLAR the southern half of the Washington Navy Yard (then empty). Completely build out ready, this huge site had acres of land to build on, to parade, river front access for ducks etc, located adjacent the Navy’s National Museum, close to two interstate highways, a Metro stop at the front door, the Capital barely 5,000 feet away, etc, etc. In short, this was a museum location of unbelievable potential. Instead the Army general staff convinced Louis Caldera and his Chief to trade that site for something at Belvoir (with John Warner in exchange his support) for several Stryker brigades that the Army was going to get anyway.
You can’t make this stuff up. Unicorn out

There is no museum at Carlisle Barracks/Carlisle, PA. There is a splendid repository of archival materials, the best on US Army history anywhere in the world. It is visited primarily by researchers, scholars, and writers like Tom Ricks good friend, Rick Atkinson. They also display a few artifacts indoors and outdoors and have recently added a "vistor's center." We don't know how many visitors they get because they don't publsh that information, but a good bet is that it's well under 100,000 a year. Reportedly, the size of the visitors center is 12,000 sf. Let me hasten to add that, like Tom Ricks, I think the outfit at Carlisle should continue and not be eliminated. They do a lot of good for Army history.

But I would also argue that it is the wrong size and in the wrong place to do justice to the history of the United States Army.

The Fort Belvoir site for the army's national museum is 2 miles from the most traveled highway in America, I-95. Just a few miles further south along I-95 is the Marine Corps museum, and their attendance is 500,000 a year. Mount Vernon is six miles from the Fort Belvoir site, and they get 900,000 paid visitors a year. The Fort Belvoir site sits almost astride the Fairfax County Parkway and is very accessible to not only one of the richest counties in America, but also to a large number of Army retirees in the National Capital Region. The planned size of the Army museum is 185,000 sf, roughly the same size as the Marine Corps museum.

When millions of visitors come to Washington, DC, they can see the Washington Monument, the Capitol building, and Arlington National Cemetery, all of which they Army helped build. They can see the new Air Force Memorial, the Marine Corps Iwo Jima Memorial, and the Navy memorial plaza downtown, as well as the Navy Museum at the Navy Yard.

But there is no Army memorial or museum in the National Capital Region.

How can Tom Ricks want this to continue?

The Army is the oldest and largest of the armed services. It was created by the Second Continental Congress on June 14, 1775, more than a year before the Declaration of Independence was signed. Most historians would agree that the creation of the Continental Army and placing George Washington in command of it was an essential precursor to even writing the Declaration of Independence.

Army history is in many ways American history--all the way back to Massacusetts Bay Colony creation of a militia in 1636. The Army helped explore--Lewis and Clark's Corps of Discovery was an Army operation top to bottom--and then settle the West. It has fought 11 wars and 183 campaigns. For a very long time it was the only army in the history of the world to swear to support and defend, not the sovereign, but a written document that includes the Bill of Rights.

That, I would argue, is an army that deserves a great museum.

When the Wright brothers wanted to show they could do more than bounce a plane down the beach at Kitty Hawk, they went to the Army in 1908 and got a contract to fly from Fort Myer, VA, to Alexandria, VA and back, to stay in the air at least an hour, and to maintain an airspeed of 40 knots--which they fulfilled. Historic. A complete reproduction of the 1908 Wright Flyer will be in the Army museum at Fort Belvoir.

The lead tank into Bastogne--named Cobra King and commanded by LT Boggess of the 4th Armored Division who relieved the 101st Airborne Division-- in December 1944 will also be in the Army museum.

And plenty of other terrific artifacts.

But artifacts aren't the whole story because today museums need to be interactive and engaging if they are going to attract visitors of all ages and backgrounds. That's the Army's plan for this museum, which will even include options for visitors of different ages and backgrounds.

It will have an experiential learning center that will follow the standards of learning and attract teachers who want to give their students an exciting venue for solving problems, collaboratively and competitively, requiring the use of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM education), plus, of course, some geography and history.

It will even be a green museum--specifically, meet the standards for LEED silver--by using new technology to save on energy use.

Why does Tom Ricks insist that 236 years of Army history is best told in a small museum at Carlisle Barracks, PA?