FORT BENNING, INFANTRY HALL HABS GA-2392-F (Building …

PHOTOGRAPHS

WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA

HABS GA-2392-FHABS GA-2392-F

FORT BENNING, INFANTRY HALL(Building No. 4)(Academic Building)(School Building)North side of Karker Street between Chesney and Holtz StreetsFort Benning Military ReservationChattahoochee CountyGeorgia

HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEYSOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE

National Park ServiceU.S. Department of the Interior

100 Alabama St. NWAtlanta, GA 30303

HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEY

Fort Benning, Infantry Hall

(Building No. 4, Academic Building, School Building)

HABS No. GA-2392-F

Location: Infantry Hall, Building No. 4, is located on

the north side of Karker Street, north west

of the intersection of Edwards Street and

Eckle Street within the Fort Benning

Military Reservation, Chattahoochee County,

Georgia.

1955 (revised 1993) USGS 7.5’ Fort Benning

Georgia- Alabama topographic quadrangle

Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates:

(NAD83) E691119 N3581307

Present Owner: Fort Benning Military Reservation, U.S.

Army.

Present Occupant: The United States Army Infantry School,

Garrison Commander Fort Benning, Donovan

Technical Library, and associated support

commands and functions.

Present Use: The United States Army Infantry School,

Garrison Commander Fort Benning, Donovan

Technical Library, and associated support

commands and functions.

Significance: Infantry Hall, Building No. 4; the entry

landscape that includes the 100’ flagpole,

Facility No. M9799; the statue The

Infantryman/Follow Me; the semicircle of

flagpoles used to display state flags; as

well as York Field are eligible for the

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)

under Criterion Consideration G and Criteria

A and C.

PART 1. HISTORICAL INFORMATION

A. Physical History:

FORT BENNING, Infantry Hall (Building No. 4, Academic Building, School

Building)

HABS No. GA-2392-F (page 2)

1. Date of erection: 1964. Fort Benning Real Property

Records (Directorate of Public Works nd1) indicate

this date as well as the installation newspaper, The

Bayonet, the local Columbus, Georgia, newspaper, The

Columbus Enquirer, and numerous military publications

such as Infantry Magazine (September-October 1964:33-

35) which covered the story of the building’s opening.

Construction was begun in 1962 and the building, then

simply called the Academic or School Building, was

accepted in April 1964 (The Bayonet May 1, 1964:1).

2. Architect: Abreu [Francis Louis Abreu 1896-1969] &

Robeson [James Lee Robeson 1905-1991], Architects and

Engineers Brunswick and Atlanta, Georgia.

Francis Louis Abreu, the son of Diego and Marie Jova

Abreu, was born December 3, 1896, at Dannskammer his

maternal grandparents’ estate on the Hudson River near

Newburgh, New York. His grandparents, Mr. and Mrs.

Juan Jacinto Jova, were wealthy Spanish nationals who

owned Jova Brickworks in Newburgh. His father, a

Cuban educated in Spain, owned a Cuban sugar

plantation as well as property in Newburgh. Francis

divided his childhood between Dannskammer and his

father’s plantation in Cuba (Rathbun 1982; Piland et

al. 1997).

Abreu attended the Newburg Free Academy and in 1916

enrolled in Cornell. He interrupted his education to

serve in the U.S. Navy during World War I returning to

Cornell in 1919 and graduating in 1921 (American

Institute of Architects [AIA] January 7, 1942A; Piland

et al. 1997). During his youth, Abreu traveled

extensively to such places as Cuba, South America,

England, and several other European countries (AIA

January 7, 1942A).

Immediately upon graduation and until 1923, Abreu

began working for Arnold W. Brunner, Quartermaster

Corps, United States Military Academy, West Point,

which is located immediately south of Newburgh on the

Hudson River. The 1920s was a period of expansion for


Building)


West Point, and Brunner was involved in the creation

of Washington Hall (HABS No. NY-5780-44) and probably

Michie Stadium, both signature buildings at the school

(Nolte and Cinquino 1999). After this initial work,

Abreu began a successful career creating Mediterranean

and Spanish Colonial Revival style residences and

buildings in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where his

parents and grandparents had recently moved.

Because of Abreu’s early, expansive, and extensive

work in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, there has been much

speculation as to his earliest work experience in that

state. Family tradition holds that initially he

worked for the legendary Florida real estate developer

Joseph Young at Hollywood-by-the-Sea, a residential

community developed by Young’s company Hollywood Land

and Water Company that employed its own engineers,

architects, and other technicians (Piland et al.

1997). It has also been theorized that Abreu worked

with another Florida legend, Addison Mizner, south

Florida’s most famous boom time architect (Rathbun

1982). While many are quick to associate Abreu with

Young and Mizner, he did work with two less well known

but very influential architectural groups. Abreu’s

American Institute of Architects (AIA) records

indicate that he was a Draftsman in the office of

Harvey & Clarke, West Palm Beach, in 1923 and in the

office of William Manley King, West Palm Beach, in

1924. Then in 1924, he began his own practice without

a partner (AIA January 7, 1942A; AIA May 7, 1946).

Henry Stephen Harvey and L. Phillip Clarke of West

Palm Beach are considered the most sought after

Florida commercial architects of the 1920s. They

designed 35 depots for the Seaboard Air Line railroad

company in Florida (Palm Beach Preservation Foundation

2008; State of Florida 2008). William Manley King

worked in Palm Beach from 1920 to 1962 originally

designing high-end residences primarily in

Mediterranean, Moorish, and Spanish Colonial Revival

styles (Florida Historic Homes 2008). Abreu worked

with these individuals gaining experience in the


Building)


Florida market and in 1924 received a commission from

his grandfather, Juan Jacinto Jova, to design a beach

house at Alhambra Street, now Highway A1A (Rathbun

1982). This house in the Spanish Colonial Revival

style was the first of many residences he would design

in the area.

He next began designing residences for his mother’s

friends who needed winter homes and as his reputation

grew he no longer needed his family connections.

Abreu also began to expand into commercial and public

buildings such as cafes, hotels, schools, pools, post

offices, and office buildings (The Abreu Charitable

Trust 2007; Genealogy Society of Broward County [GSBC]

Florida 2007). Unfortunately, as Abreu’s star began to

rise, the Florida building boom began to burst as a

result of a series of hurricanes and bad economic

decisions. He would have to expand his practice out

of the state.

Far less information is known about James Lee Robeson.

Robeson was born January 9, 1905, in Willington, North

Carolina where he attended New Hanover High School.

He attended the Georgia School of Technology (Georgia

Tech) and graduated in 1926. From 1921-1924 he was a

Draftsman with Lynch & Ford, Wilmington, North

Carolina, presumably during the summer months; from

1924-1926 he was a Draftsman for L. McD. Hicks,

Florence South Carolina, and from 1926-1929 he was a

Draftsman for Edwards and Sayward, Atlanta, Georgia

(AIA January 7, 1942B; AIA May 7, 1946).

William A. Edwards and William J. Sayward, the

partners of Edwards and Sayward, formed one of the

leading Atlanta architectural firms between 1912 and

1932. The firm specialized in educational buildings

although it undertook a wide variety of projects

including “University Homes” Atlanta’s second great

slum clearing project in the 1920s. Edwards and

Sayward also designed a number of commercial

buildings, especially banks (Atlanta.Org 2008).

Robeson was with this firm when he met Abreu.


Building)


In 1928, Abreu was hired to design parts of the famous

Cloister Hotel on Sea Island, Georgia, where he had

also designed numerous houses including that of

playwright Eugene O’Neil. While on Sea Island, he met

James Robeson who was still a Draftsman with the

influential firm of Edwards and Sayward, and they

formed the partnership of Abreu & Robeson in 1929

working out of Atlanta and Brunswick, Georgia (The

Abreu Charitable Trust 2007). Once again, Abreu, now

with a partner, was faced with another economic down-

turn, the great Depression. However, the two

weathered the storm, and stayed in the partnership

until their deaths.

In 1946, Abreu & Robeson completed a questionnaire for

the architect’s roster of firms and individuals

qualified for Federal Public Works that provides a

small glimpse into the type of public work the

partners had been doing (AIA May 7, 1946). When asked

to list their single largest job competed between the

years 1930 -1940, they listed, “low cost housing -

USHA [United States Housing Authority] – Brunswick,

Ga. -$678,000.” All jobs completed during that ten

year period were valued at $9,150,000 with an annual

average of $915,000. The partners were doing quite

well in spite of the Depression.

Between the years 1941-1946, during World War II, the

single largest job they completed was, “War Housing –

Brunswick- $3,167,000.” All jobs completed during

that period were valued at $20,500,000 and the annual

average was $4,100,000. When asked for current jobs

under construction in 1946 or in authorized working

drawings, the largest single job was listed as, “St.

Joseph’s Infirmary, Atlanta, Ga. - $1, 500, 000,” and

total jobs were valued at $3,000,000 (AIA May 7,

1946). The partners were also asked to break projects

into designated cost categories and list the owners.

Abreu and Robeson’s owner list was composed primarily

of public agencies, as befitted the questionnaire that

included: the Federal Public Housing Authority

(FPHA), the Public Buildings Administration (PBA),


Building)


Federal Works Agency (FWA), the USHA, and one private

agency, the Goldsmith D. and Mary B. Johnes Home for

Aged Couples, Newburgh, New York.

The Mediterranean, Moorish and Spanish Colonial

Revival style grand houses of the past no longer

played a role in the partnership. Public buildings in

contemporary styles, especially the International

style, became the firm’s staple. Nevertheless, in

1953, they designed the Dura Apartments, public

housing in Plains, Georgia, where Jimmy Carter, later

President Jimmy Carter, and his young family resided

when Carter left the United States Navy to take over

the family peanut business (Historic American Building

Survey [HABS] nd).

Abreu & Robeson are best known for the design of the

Trust Company of Georgia Tower, Atlanta, (1965) which

DOCOMOMO (DOcumentation and COnservation of buildings,

sites and neighborhoods of the MOdern MOvement),

Georgia Chapter, highlighted as one of the landmarks

of modern Georgia architecture in their Modern

Architecture Timeline (DOCOMOMO 2007). The Trust

Company building, which was empty for a number of

years, has recently been converted into a restaurant.

Abreu & Robeson are also known to have designed: the

Northside Parkway, Buckhead and West End Branches of

the Trust Company of Georgia, the Farmers Market,

Atlanta, Fulton Federal Savings and Loan, Atlanta,

Chatham Memorial Hospital, Savannah, Hamilton Memorial

Hospital, Dalton, Henrietta Egleston Memorial

Hospital, Atlanta, Glynn-Brunswick Memorial Hospital,

Brunswick, Whitfield County Court House, Dalton, Frank

M. Scarlett Federal Building, Brunswick, Meriwether

Memorial Hospital, Warm Springs, and the “B” building

of the W.W. Orr Doctor’s Building Complex, Atlanta

(AIA May 7, 1946; City of Atlanta 2008; Emporis.com

2008; McLean 2008).


Building)


3. Original and subsequent owners: Fort Benning Military

Reservation, U.S. Army, was the original owner and has

been the sole owner of this property.

4. Builder, contractor, suppliers: Infantry Hall took two

years to build under the auspices of the United States

Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District. Charles

B. Kneller, Savannah Corps, served as the construction

engineer; he had also served as the construction

engineer for the Martin Army Hospital at Fort Benning

(Battle 1964). The Small Business Administration was

successful in convincing the Savannah Corps to divide

the prime contractor’s job into smaller contracts.

Therefore there were actually five prime contractors,

apparently an unusual situation in the early-1960s

(Battle 1964). They were: The Jordan Co., Columbus,

Georgia, construction; Deep South Construction Co.,

Montgomery, Alabama, site preparation and outside

utilities; T.D. McClure Jr., Co., Inc., electrical

distribution system, transformer stations, and street

lighting; J. Young Construction Co., Jacksonville,

Florida, all paving; and Micah Jenkins Nursery,

Charleston, South Carolina, landscape planting (Battle

1964). There were then a host of subcontractors for

all other aspects of the construction (The Bayonet

April 27, 1962:1; Battle 1964).

There were more than 30 subcontractors including:

Acousti Engineering Company, Atlanta, installation of

acoustical tile; American Tile and Marble Company,

Columbus, placing ceramic, quarry and terrazzo tile

and marble; Fred Carpenter Plumbing Company, Columbus,

mechanical, plumbing, heating, steam, water and

sanitary sewer; Dixie Construction Company,

Birmingham, Alabama, masonry; Georgia Southern

Electric Company, Columbus, interior electrical

(Battle 1964).

Also, A.M. Masters and Sons, Incorporated, Pen Argyll,

Pennsylvania, install stage equipment; The McGregor

Company, Athens, furnish and install auditorium

chairs; Columbus Glass Company, glass glazing and


Building)


mirrors; Elevator Service Company, Columbus, elevator

work; L.D. Herndon Company, Columbus, sheet metal work

for Carpenter Pluming Company: North Brothers

Incorporated, Atlanta, insulation of ductwork and

piping (Battle 1964).

Additionally, Johnson Service Company, Atlanta,

heating and air conditioning controls; Carrier

Corporation, Atlanta, installing and furnishing air

conditioning units; Frank M. Collins Company and

Alabama Roofing Company, Montgomery, Alabama, roofing

and sheet metal; The Guess Company, College Park,

erecting vertical lift doors; Southern Stage Equipment

Company, San Antonio, Texas, furnish and install stage

draperies and stage equipment (Battle 1964).

Also, White Partitions Company, Atlanta, installing

dry wall; Grinnell Company, Incorporated, Atlanta,

sprinkler and fire protection system; The Broadwell

Company, Incorporated, Albany, furnish and install

food service equipment; Maple Floors Incorporated,

Charlotte, North Carolina, furnish and install floors

(Battle 1964).

And finally, Brown Concrete Company, furnish all

ready-mix concrete; J.B. McKenney Company, Talladega,

Alabama, painting and protective coating; and Marley

Company, Kansas City, Missouri, erection of cooling

tower (Battle 1964).

Kneller, the resident Corps engineer, kept a staff of

22 people at Fort Benning during the two year

construction process. His construction team included

soil, bridge, electrical and mechanical engineers and

general construction inspectors. Kneller’s team had

worked on other construction projects with him, but

none as large as this project (Battle 1964).

The major part of the construction was contracted to

The Jordan Company, a Columbus, Georgia, firm that had

been in business since 1904 (The Bayonet April 27,

1962). The Jordan Company had had a long and


Building)


profitable relationship with both Fort Benning and the

military when it won the contract for the Infantry

School.

In 1917, John Betjeman, the Secretary of The Jordan

Company, was released from his job to work for the

Columbus Chamber of Commerce in order to lobby for the

location of then Camp Benning in Columbus. His powers

of persuasion worked; the camp was located in Columbus

in 1918 forever changing the economy of Columbus and

The Jordan Company. During the 1940s the company built

200 housing units in Battle Park and later 600 Wherry

housing units at Custer Terrace and Capehart units at

other locations. In the 1950s The Jordan Company

worked at Kelley Hill Cantonment and was the primary

construction contractor for Martin Army Hospital.

During this time, the firm was also completing

contracts for the Mobile Corps of Engineers at Camp

Rucker, Alabama, and Tyndall Field, Florida. But by

far, the largest project undertaken to date was

Infantry Hall. The Jordan Company was a fortunate

choice since the firm had already worked with Kneller,

the Corps engineer for Infantry Hall, and with Abreu

and Robeson during the construction of Memorial

Hospital, Atlanta (Crawford 1986; Nolte and Griffin

2003).

Only basic information, such as street address and in

some cases company officials, were found in

traditional sources such as city directories or local

library clippings files for the other four principle

contractors (Barton et al. 1999; Charleston City

Directory 1970,1994; Leland 1956; Montgomery City

Directory 1963, 1964, 1965, 1975, 1981; Neal 2008;

Summers 2002).

5. Original plans and construction: Although Infantry

Hall is now 44 years old (the building is eligible for

the NRHP through Criterion Consideration G); it still

looks very much the way it did on its Grand Opening in

1964 as is evidenced by the numerous line drawings and

photographs that appeared in various publications such


Building)


as the opening day program, The Bayonet, Infantry

Magazine, and The Columbus Enquirer.

Infantry Hall’s design is mid-century modern, a style

that takes advantage of air conditioning and

fluorescent lighting in its design components. The

520,000 square foot building is roughly H-shaped with

the George C. Marshall auditorium extending from the

rear side of the center of the H. The six-story,

central portion of the building, which holds offices,

is covered in yellow brick and is notable for its

concrete hooded, paired window groupings. The legs of

the H hold the actual classrooms of The Infantry

School and are notable for their folded plate roofs.

The design of the building was not well received by

everyone since it was in a style unlike anything else

on Fort Benning. A local newspaper article describes

it as, “Starkly functional, and built for maximum

practicality and efficiency rather than aesthetic

appeal, the new academic building is a far cry from

the mellowed, old, faintly Spanish style Infantry

School…” (Coombes 1963:np). Some people complained

that the building looked, “drastically modern…and a

waggish ex-major eyeing the narrow slit-window

apertures implied the designers must have figured that

the next war would be fought with bows and

arrows…there was pride however in the jest. The

overall reaction to the new center has been one of

considerable pride accentuated with a note of urgency”

(Coombes 1963:np).

The design and planning concepts of Infantry Hall were

mid-century modern inspired although some appear to be

directly related to nuclear defense. In many cases it

is difficult to determine which was the over-riding

principle, mid-century modern or nuclear defense since

nuclear preparation could so easily slide into the

International Style concept of architecture as an

“enclosed space” independent of site.


Building)


6. Alterations and additions: The front, south, landscape

has been slightly changed and has matured, but the

entry façade would be clearly recognizable to anyone

who had not seen the building since the mid-1960s.

The north, rear, façade has also stayed the same. The

east and west facades of the classroom wings have some

doorways that have been changed (by bricking in or

permanently closing) at various dates, but they are

not significant changes.

The building interior has undergone a number of

changes within classroom spaces on the first floor,

the entry hall of the building has a room addition for

a Duty Officer, and some changes have been made to the

ceilings to accommodate new HVAC and electrical

systems. However, the basic layout of the school

floor has not changed and the original building

materials and furnishings are clearly discernable.

The office areas in the central office tower have not

changed either. The office floors, with the exception

of floor 6, the Commandant’s floor, are typical, drab

unexceptional office areas. The office spaces on

these floors have been changed, but the central

hallway with offices opening on either side has not

changed in 44 years. The 6th floor is highlighted by

the use of book matched, tree matched walnut paneling

at the elevators and immediately surrounding the area

into the Commandant’s office. Nevertheless, the

walnut paneling was original to the building, and the

6th floor itself has not changed.

Because of the building’s significance and the high

ranking officers who occupy it, Infantry Hall has been

well maintained. The exterior has had no significant

alterations.

B. Historical Context:

Cold War. The U.S. Army played an important role in

containing the spread of communism during the Cold War

(1946-1989). During this period, “the primary mission of


Building)


the Army was to deter or defeat communist growth in

conjunction with other services or allied nations,

preferably without using nuclear weapons. A secondary

mission was to support the defense of the United States

through antiaircraft missiles and antiballistic missiles”

(Army Environmental Center [AEC] 1998:2). In an effort to

accomplish these missions, the military services, in

general, and the Army, in particular, underwent significant

reorganization that included the 1947 National Security Act

and the 1962 reorganization of the Army’s technical

services into the Army Materiel Command (AMC).

Underpinning the Army’s ability to carry out its mission

was a growing reliance on increasingly sophisticated

technology, “that involved communications, surveillance,

logistics, guidance, and early warning systems, as well as

research, development, and testing in institutions both

public and private” (Gaither 1997:9-10).

Aside from the two hot wars in Korea and Vietnam that were

spawned largely as a consequence of the Cold War, the Army

was primarily concerned with waging war on a nuclear

battlefield during the 1950s. In the first five years after

WWII, Soviet Russia and the United States developed atomic

weapons, made great advances in the means of delivering

these weapons, and established basic technology that would

develop into enormous communications and surveillance

infrastructures (Gaither 1997). During this period, the

atmosphere of distrust, confrontation, and a shaky balance

of power was established. In 1953, President Dwight David

Eisenhower’s administration adopted a strategy of massive

nuclear retaliation replacing President Harry S. Truman’s

strategy of limited war. The massive retaliation policy

resulted in an effort to redefine the roles of services and

a shifting of their importance (Gaither 1997).

The Air Force became the preeminent service since it was

seen as the key to retaliating with nuclear weapons and, as

a result, funding began to shift away from the Army. As

all the other services began to take cuts, the Air Force

began increasing on an impressive scale. Among the three

services, the Army was receiving the smallest share of the

defense budget and was thought by some to be obsolete. To


Building)


counter the accusation of obsolescence the Army began to

place emphasis on missile development, space programs, and

the controversial “dual capacity” theory – the Army could

fight both conventional and nuclear battles (Gaither 1997).

The Army’s dual capacity theory led to the creation of the

Pentomic Army using the newly reactivated 101st Airborne

Division, Fort Campbell, Kentucky. This new division

consisted of five, hence the “Pent,” battle groups that

were relatively self-contained and semi-independent units.

The basic component of the division was the infantry battle

group; with each battle group containing five rifle

companies, combat support (including mortar battery), and a

headquarters and service company. A division included an

armor battalion of five tank companies, a cavalry squadron

of three troops, five direct support artillery battalions,

and one general support artillery battalion. One unit was

equipped with HONEST JOHN Rockets, a nuclear weapon.

The Pentomic concept called for unprecedented strategic

mobility. With the exception of tanks, each division’s

equipment was supposed to be transportable by long-range

aircraft. Such mobility was essential to the emerging

concept of rapid deployment of ground forces in limited

engagements throughout the world. According to the Army’s

new concept, the combat zone in an atomic war would be vast

in size and depth requiring more ground troops than a

conventional battle. These large massed troop

concentrations could not remain long on the field without

becoming a lucrative target of opportunity for the enemy.

This meant combat units needed to organize in checkerboard

fashion with large gaps in-between units creating a

cellular battlefield. These units would have to be quickly

and efficiently shifted around to achieve maximum effect

therefore creating the need for high levels of tactical

mobility. The units were designed to converge rapidly from

dispersed formations in order to make an attack, exploit

the effects of atomic weapons, or destroy enemy forces.

Then they were to disperse rapidly to minimize their

vulnerability to enemy counteraction. Being able to

concentrate or disperse quickly was the key to success and

survival on the atomic battle field (Keener 2001).


Building)


Army Chief of Staff, General Maxwell Taylor initially

proposed a five-year test period for the Pentomic concept.

Despite the incorporation of the Honest John rocket,

criticism over the capability of the Pentomic division was

heard. Opponents of the new division contended that the

versatility of the Honest John was limited in comparison to

conventional artillery (Taylor 1991:214). Other complaints

were directed at the lack of promotion the new structure

offered. The chief criticisms about the Pentomic concept

included manpower and firepower, service support, and

command and control. As early as 1959, the Army began

planning reorganization.

In 1961, a new divisional concept known as ROAD

(Reorganization Objective Army Division) was announced. The

new structure increased firepower, improved air mobility,

and enhanced command and control by the addition of brigade

and battalion headquarters. Basic components of the new

organization were nine infantry battalions, a cavalry

squadron, and three artillery battalions (Hart 1978:76).

It still used the HONEST JOHN in one of its artillery

battalions thereby making the Army nuclear ready.

In 1958, the U.S. Air Force began construction on the

United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs,

Colorado. This spectacular school was designed by

Skidmore, Owings & Merrill and was intended to be a

metaphor for military training itself (Rifkind 1998). The

school, which was completed in 1962, is now on the National

Register of Historic Places.

It was against this contentious and shifting background

that the Infantry decided to build a state of the art

Infantry School. It would take 13 years of skill and

patient maneuvering, but the Army would win out.

History of Infantry Training. The 100th year anniversary

of The Infantry School was April 1, 2007. On that date in

1907 the School of Musketry in Monterey, California, opened

for courses in rifle and machine gun marksmanship. By

1913, it moved to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, where it stayed

until 1918. The School of Musketry was then sent to Camp


Building)


Benning, as the newly named United States Army Infantry

School. In 1921, Camp Benning became Fort Benning and the

Model 1905 Bayonet on the school’s shoulder patch rotated

from point down to point up (Stieghan 2007).

In addition to instructors, Camp Benning included

demonstration units to support training, an Army Air Corps

detachment and 32nd Balloon Observation Company at Lawson

Field, and the Infantry Tank School. After the

installation became Fort Benning it still carried on a wide

variety of activities related to its role as The Infantry

School. The post not only trained leaders it also served

as an important center for testing weapons and tactics,

publishing professional journals and manuals, and

developing maneuver doctrine which it continues today

(Stieghan 2007).

In the 1940s the Airborne “Test Platoon” initiated the

Airborne School that still graduates thousands of

parachutists for the United States Army each year. The

Officer Candidate School (OCS) also began graduating

Infantry lieutenants and still operates as the only Federal

OCS program in the Army. By the end of WWII, Fort Benning

was conducting Ranger training (Stieghan 2007).

From 1945 to 1965, Fort Benning transformed to its standard

role as an education, testing, and doctrine development

center. The school expanded during both the Korean and

Vietnam wars. From 1967 to 1976, the greatly expanded OCS

and Noncommissioned Officers Candidate Course trained

thousands of Infantry sergeants forming the basis of the

current Noncommissioned Officer Education System.

In 2005, the United States Congress approved a Base

Realignment and Closure (BRAC) recommendation to move the

Armor School from Fort Knox to Fort Benning to join The

Infantry School becoming the Maneuver Center of Excellence

by 2011. Today, the United States Infantry School and Fort

Benning have more troops assigned as cadre or in-training

than any other facility in the United States military

(Stieghan 2007).


Building)


Infantry School Buildings. The establishment of the School

of Musketry in 1907 at the Presidio in Monterey,

California, included training in the use of a rifle in

battle as well as the testing of the rifle itself. Soon it

grew to encompass all small arms and all subjects connected

with small arms, ammunition, and tactics. When the school

outgrew the limited firing range at the Presidio, it moved

to Fort Sill, Oklahoma into a simple board and batten

building where it stayed for the next five years.

When the newly named United States Army Infantry School of

Arms came to Camp Benning in 1918, it was housed in a WWI

cantonment-type building (Fort Benning June 5, 1964). Over

the years at Fort Benning, The Infantry School had spread

to occupy eight buildings (The Bayonet June 5, 1964G).

That was about to dramatically change. After WWI, Fort

Benning was one of 13 posts targeted for new construction,

and this new construction involved the complete redesign of

the installation using the planning and design principals

of the City Beautiful and Garden City Movements. This new

design plan was carried out under the watchful eye of

George B. Ford, a prominent city planner hired by the War

Department. Ford, using an older installation plan as a

guide, created an installation based on usage patterns,

color, form, and open space. Anchoring the center of this

new plan was a signature building, a new Infantry School

building (Fisher and Johnson 1987).

The centerpiece Infantry School, Building 00035, was

designed by the firm of McKim, Mead & White in the Second

Renaissance Revival style for which they were famous. The

Infantry School was set in a visual axis with Riverside,

quarters No. 1, and the removal of officers’ quarter’s

00348 was recommended but never completed. If the quarters

had been removed this would have provided “striking” visual

connection between quarters No. 1 and the then new

Infantry School building (Fisher and Johnson 1987:22). An

axis to the rear of the old Infantry School Building is

formed with the Officers Club, Building No. 128.

Regardless, it is one, if not the most, imposing building

on the installation. The original Infantry School building,


Building)


now known as the Old Infantry School or the “Big House”, is

eligible for the NRHP (Fisher and Johnson 1987).

By the late 1950s, the signature Infantry School building

had grown too small. Building 00035 was originally

designed to accommodate a student body of 458 and a faculty

of 156, but by the late 1950s the student body had grown to

over 4,000 and the faculty to more than 2,000. The role of

the Infantry had changed significantly since the school’s

construction. In order to accommodate that change, the

school had scattered instructional buildings all over the

post. Instructors and students were chronically frustrated

by the travel distances between areas of instruction, which

cut deeply into training time (The Bayonet January 10,

1964). It was time for a new school.

Creation of the New Infantry School. As early as 1951 MJG

John H. Church, installation commander, began talking about

a new Infantry School, and in 1953 the first proposal for

inclusion in a Military Construction, Army (MCA) budget

occurred at the cost of $3.8 million. It is not clear what

happened to this proposal (Holland 1964).

In 1955, GEN Carl F. Fritzsche had the Savannah Corps of

Engineers draw a plan for a new Infantry School. The

instructions to the Corps are not known, but GEN

Fritzsche’s comments are noted on a surviving copy in the

Donovan Technical Library (Nowell 1955). The Corp’s school

is located in an unidentified area facing Ingersoll Street.

The shape of the building is quite unusual, a plus sign

with U shapes on each horizontal end. The building was

three stories tall and the interior was quite basic –

narrow hallways with offices, large and small classrooms,

restrooms, and an auditorium - opening on either side. Gen

Fritzsche’s comments however deal with the specifics of the

plan – there should be elevators not escalators, special

classroom requirements, walk-in safes, parking areas,

toilet locations, and addition entrances (Nowell 1955). No

elevations seem to have been created, and it is not clear

why the school was placed in this particular location.


Building)


In 1956, MJG George E. Lynch managed to get the project

listed as No. 35 for the entire Third U.S. Army area, but

it was deleted from the FY 1958 MCA program in early 1957.

Even though this deletion was appealed, the school was

deferred for “other more essential projects.” However, it

wasn’t until the tour of GEN Paul L. Freemen Jr. in 1958

that the budget won final approval at a cost of

approximately $10 million (The Columbus Enquirer December

9, 1965; Holland 1964:8).

GEN Freeman went about gaining approval for the school in

methodical military fashion determined to win each skirmish

and battle and therefore, untimely, the war. Although there

had been some Army briefings concerning the need for a new

infantry school building (Tate 1959), no one approached it

as carefully as GEN Freeman. He prepared “Discussion

Points” for any and all people involved in selling the

school. The Discussion Points, in outline form, covered

the history of the Infantry School, the reasons a new

school was needed, what the new school would accomplish,

what the facilities of other service schools were like, the

proposed plan of attack and a recommendation (Academic

Building Vertical File nd). GEN Freeman also created a

large report that justified every request made for the

proposed building all the way down to the extra storage

space. This Justification for the Proposed Academic

Building, MCA Program, FY 1962, featured graphs, mind

numbing statics, and the effects to the continued training

of the Infantry if not provided (United States Infantry

School 1962). It was a report tour de force. Knowing that

reports alone were not enough, GEN Freeman sent a hand-

picked Infantry soldier, COL Cecil M. Sanders, to keep the

heat on in Washington D.C.

COL Sanders job was to meet with everyone and anyone who

would listen and to justify the need for a new infantry

school at a time when the Army’s future was not

particularly bright. COL Sanders was a highly decorated

soldier and had an impressive resume, and most importantly

he made an excellent spokesman for The Infantry School (11th

Infantry Public Information Office [PIO] March 17, 1961).

He met more than thirty two different times with high


Building)


ranking government officials including members of the

Department of the Army, Construction Requirements Review

Committee, Budget Advisory Committee, Program Advisory

Committee, Chief of Engineers, Chief of Staff, Secretary

General Staff, and other officials at the Secretary level.

He impressed them all with his intelligence, analytical

ability, forceful and convincing manner as well as his

cooperative and friendly manner. His initiative and

enthusiasm tempered with a tactful and diplomatic approach

won many converts. Until he arrived in Washington, many

ranking Department of the Army officials did not even know

of the needs of The Infantry School (Holland 1964; Tate

1960). For his key role in “performance of meritorious

service as special officer of the United Sates Army

Infantry School during the period January 20, 1960 to March

12, 1961, “ COL Sanders was awarded the Army Commendation

Medal (First Oak Leaf Cluster) (11th Infantry PIO March 31,

1961).

The Infantry got the money for its new Infantry School

building.

As early as 1955, even while the Colonels and Generals were

still pushing paper and making budgets for the new school,

an architectural firm was chosen to create the school,

Abreu & Robeson, Atlanta and Brunswick, Georgia. They were

confronted with a number of issues in creating the new

Infantry School. The building needed to be large enough to

accommodate The Infantry School and all those organizations

and activities associated with the school including the

United States Army Infantry Board, the United States Army

Combat Developments Command Infantry Agency, the United

States Army Infantry Human Research Unit, and United States

Army Infantry Library (Evans March 27, 1964). The building

needed to serve an ever changing pool of students and

instructors in both large and small classrooms that were

flexible enough to meet a variety of changing classroom

needs. The building had to serve as school, HQ, offices,

mess hall, fallout shelter, and the new center of

installation activities. Above all, it had to be secure;

the threat of Soviet spy satellites and mutually assured

destruction (MAD) made real by both American and Soviet


Building)


procession of the atomic bomb called for nuclear hardened

rooms and other special construction concerns. To top this

all off, literally, the building was designed so that

helicopters could land on the roof; and it was anticipated

that a heliport would be established there (Fort Benning

ca. 1964B). This appears, however, to have never happened.

As can be expected, the design process went through a

number of iterations. It is not known if the Savannah Corps

blueprint was consulted. As early as 1955, Abreu and

Robeson drew their first plan, a basic H shape from which

the building would not deviate. Although the shape more

closely resembles an E, the building shape is always

referenced as H-shaped. The design the firm had chosen, or

perhaps had chosen for them, was a rather nondescript,

blocky, modern style that would accommodate the many

requirements for the building.

The over-all plan featured a central six-story office tower

flanked on each side by one-story classroom wings with a

large auditorium extending from the north, rear, of the

first floor of the office tower. The plan had three entry

points on the front, south, façade, one on each wing with a

flat roof portico and one at the main entry with a triple

arched portico roof, flat roofs on both the tower and the

classroom wings, as well as ribbon rows of windows on both

the front and rear facades. The east and west facades,

essentially the rears of classrooms, had no windows only

access doors. A later model of the building shows the

slightly modified plan still with three major entry points,

but all with flat portico roofs. On the side of each

classroom wing miniature tanks moved in and out of the

building, indicating that the floors were rated at 2.5 tons

so that vehicles could be brought into and out of specific

classrooms for training purposes.

Sometime between 1955 and 1962, the exterior of the

building changed dramatically. The three primary changes

were the fenestration, the roofs on the wings, and the

landscape. To date, no formal documents have been found

that account for these changes.


Building)


Arguably the biggest change was to the fenestration. Gone

are the ribbon rows in favor of strategically place paired

windows. The new building had air conditioning and with the

advent of air conditioning the need for windows grew less.

The new windows measure one by five feet and are surrounded

on the top and sides by concrete extensions that seem

almost Gothic in style. According to press accounts the

surrounds baffle direct sunlight eliminating the use of

Venetian Blinds as well as cutting down on the cost of air

conditioning. What is not mentioned here is that the

surrounds might also serve to block spy satellite

eavesdropping, a problem that will become of greater

concern as the 1960s wear on. The windows themselves also

provide comfort to claustrophobics who can see outside

(Fort Benning ca. 1964B; Moore 1964). In addition smaller

windows meant that the building was more prepared for a

nuclear event.

The second great change is to the roof structure of the

education wings. The original roof was a flat expanse now

turned into what is termed folded plate. This technique,

which was new in the mid-twentieth century, consists of

connecting thin, flat elements of concrete, steel, timber

or other materials to each other rigidly at angles, like

accordion folds, forming a stiff cross section which is

capable of carrying a load over a long span (Harris 1993).

A folded plate section serves as a window monitor allowing

light into both of the long education wing hallways. It is

unclear why the roof type changed.

The 1964 1/32” scale elevation drawings by Abreu & Robeson

clearly illustrates the fenestration and wing roof changes.

These same elevations also show the education wing hall

light monitors.

The third major change was to the landscape. The models

and drawings in the early phases of planning showed a

looped drive and separate front drives to each of the

wings. A 100’ flagpole was the single decorative landscape

element. By the time of construction, the landscape had

been completely changed. The large flagpole (1945),

Facility No. M9799, was moved from the Old Infantry School,


Building)


in part to save money and to make a connection between the

two schools, to the New Infantry School. The statue The

Infantryman/Follow Me was moved from Eubanks Field to the

front of the building and an outward-facing semicircle of

state flags was placed behind the statue. Immediately in

front of the statue an outward-facing, semicircular

concrete knee-wall featured cast aluminum letters baked in

Infantry Blue enamel that spelled out “The U.S. Army

Infantry School” (Moore 1964). A series of sidewalks

connected all these elements.

A person could no longer drive up to the front door of the

school or to the front of its wings. The road in front of

the building separated it from the Parade Ground later

named Alvin York Field. This new Parade Ground took the

place of the Field of Four Chaplains which had been the

primary parade field associated with the “Big House”, the

old Infantry School building, Building No. 35.

In all likelihood, the landscape changes to Infantry Hall

occurred as a result of security concerns. All of the

current elements could have been arranged around vehicular

drives, but are actually much more powerful when viewed as

a pedestrian. The success of this security is evident from

the fact that the front of this building is not ringed with

Jersey Barriers as most other older military complexes are

in the post-9/11 military. Even before 9/11 the hardscape

surrounding Infantry Hall included a series of movable

bollards at strategic points that could be used to block or

force traffic flow during special events, parades,

graduations, or heightened security. As a result, the

Infantry Hall landscape looks much as it did originally

because of its great flexibility in dealing with numerous

scenarios.

While the architects labored, The Infantry School staff was

called upon to assist in the creation of the new school

facilities. Brainstorming sessions were called, duly

attended by all Infantry School departments, recorded and

passed on to commanding officers. It’s interesting to note

that these were real brainstorming sessions in which all

ideas were recorded no matter how exotic and even more


Building)


interesting to note how many were incorporated into the new

building (Academic Building Vertical File May 15, 1958).

White papers were prepared on the organization of The

Infantry School and its future role within the Army (St.

Clair et al. 1962). The Infantry School was not just

constructing a new building; it was creating the Infantry

of the future.

Infantry Hall took two years to build under the auspices of

the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah

District. Charles B. Kneller, Savannah Corps, served as

the construction engineer. There were five prime

contractors: The Jordan Co., Columbus, Georgia,

construction; Deep South Construction Co., Montgomery,

Alabama, site preparation and outside utilities; T.D.

McClure Jr., Co., Inc., electrical distribution system; J.

Young Construction Co., all paving, Jacksonville, Florida;

and Micah Jenkins Nursery, Charleston, South Carolina,

landscape planting (Battle 1964). A number of

subcontractors were used for all other aspects of the

construction.

The Infantry School. The United States Army Infantry

School Building was officially dedicated and opened on June

5, 1964. However, since May 2, staff and more than “400

tons of things” had already begun moving into the building

(Black 1964:34). For the first time in the history of the

Infantry all command and control elements were under one

roof (Marmon 1964; Stieghan 2007). Aspects of training,

doctrine, testing, tactics, operations, and command were

and still are in one location making for the successful

integration of all these elements. This one-stop operation

and its success was especially important during the Cold

War when military tensions were heightened and the

possibility of a nuclear ground war meant that the Infantry

had to be ever ready to repel Soviet aggression.

While the exterior may show signs of heightened security

with smaller, less numerous windows and landscaping that

separates vehicular traffic from the building, the interior

of Infantry Hall really shows its Cold War origins.

Fallout shelters were an integral part of the interior


Building)


placed in various secure areas within the building. The

building also had a number of nuclear hardened secure vault

rooms. On the first floor, the building had a SEC COM

(SECured COMmunications) vault room that was also nuclear

hardened, and which appears to have had a separate

ventilating system. The room, which is located in the

archival section of the Donovan Technical Library, had a

large vault door, now gone, and a smaller communications

secure vault window. Paperwork on the vault combinations

indicates that the locks were maintained through the mid-

1990s. The building also had its own electrical power

plants. The Infantry was ready.

Infantry Hall was above all else The Infantry School. When

the building opened there were thirteen general purpose

classrooms and a night vision classroom in the two wings

each with a 200-man capacity. In addition, there were four

150-man communications classrooms and four 55-man radio

maintenance laboratories also in the wings. Each of the

200-man classrooms had a tiered floor, rear and front view

projection screens, chalk boards, and steel doors large

enough to allow vehicles to be brought on stage for

demonstrations. Each room featured centralized control of

lights, sound and audio and visual equipment from the stage

or project booth. The building had its own television and

recording studios. Best of all, the building was air

conditioned. It was completely state-of-the-art, and there

was no other like it on any military installation in the

United States (Moore 1964).

The interior of Infantry Hall was not lacking esthetically.

The first floor corridors and lobby have terrazzo flooring.

Centered on the lobby floor is the “Follow Me” insignia of

The Infantry School and the Infantry Center. The lobby’s

walls are lined with Carthage marble and hallways leading

from the lobby are paneled in walnut. The Commandant’s

office and the office of the Assistant Commandant are lined

in book-matched, tree-matched walnut panel (Moore 1964).

On the day the school was dedicated, Commandant MJG C. W.

G. Rich declared the, “completion of this educational and

training facility a most important milestone in The


Building)


Infantry School’s history” (Fort Benning June 5, 1964).

The building was dedicated to the, “Infantryman himself –

the true American Doughboy,” by GEN Hugh P. Harris, Acting

Vice Chief of Staff of the Army (The Bayonet June 5,

1964A). The $10 million building with its classrooms,

Carthage marble, fallout shelters, and television studio

truly marked a new era for the Infantry.

In November 1964, the Parade Ground in front of the new

Academic Building was named the “York Field” in honor of

SGT Alvin C. York, the most decorated soldier of World War

I who had died on September 2, 1964. In December 1965, the

Academic Building was officially named “Infantry Hall” by

MJG Robert H. York, Fort Benning Commanding General, after

a review of several recommended names (Rush 1965; The

Columbus Enquirer 1965).

Infantry Hall won the United States Army Corps of Engineers

Chief of Engineer’s Architecture Award in 1970(The Bayonet

July 31, 1970). The Chief of Engineers design awards

program began in 1965 as a way to recognize and promote

excellence in design achievement by the United States Army

Corps of Engineers and its professional contractors.

Impartial panels of design professionals from the private

sector choose winners within three categories:

architecture, engineering and landscape architecture. To

achieve equity in the selection of projects, each entry is

judged on the basis of fulfillment of its own requirements

and solution to its own requirements and the solutions to

its own particular problems (Chief of Engineers 1976). The

award has evolved since its initial creation.

It is unclear exactly what the awards were called when they

were first initiated. By the mid-1970s the awards were the

U.S. Army Chief of Engineers Distinguished Design Awards

and by the late 1980s they were the Chief of Engineers

Design and Environmental Awards Program (Ballard 2000;

Chief of Engineers 1989). Regardless of the name, the

program has presented a total of 400 awards in the 27 years

of its existence (Headquarters United States Army Corps of

Engineers 2007). Infantry Hall was one the program’s early

award winners.


Building)


PART II. ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION

A. General Statement:

1. Architectural character: Infantry Hall (1964),

Building No. 4, the site of The United Sates Army

Infantry School, Fort Benning, Georgia, designed in

the mid-century modern style was built as a state-of-

the-art military training facility unlike any other

academic building on any military installation in the

United States.

2. Condition of the fabric: The overall condition of

the exterior of the building is generally good. As

can be expected in a building that is now more than

forty years old, there are spalling issues with the

concrete panels on the east and west classroom wings

and rust associated with that spalling as well as

minor condition issues with some exterior doors. The

overall condition of the interior of the building is

generally good with some condition issues related

primarily to “upgrades” and changes made throughout

the building in various attempts to modernize the

interior. Although attempts have been made to

modernize the interior public spaces, on the whole,

the building’s interior retains much of the look and

feel of an early 1960s interior design.

B. Description of Exterior:

1. Overall dimensions: The overall shape of the building

has traditionally been described as an “H” and is in a

south, front façade, north, rear, façade orientation.

On the building, the cross bar of the H is represented

by the six-story office tower that is flaked on either

side by the single-story class room wings. The 1,500

seat George C. Marshall Auditorium is appended to the

rear, north, of the lower floor of the office tower.

The total floor area of the building is 525,000 square

feet with 4,250’ of outside wall perimeter (Black

1964).


Building)


The front, south, façade and rear, north, façade

measure approximately 1,280’ and the east and west

facades measure approximately 1,120’.

2. Foundation: The foundation is structural and

reinforced concrete. Although there is no basement,

the building is designed with some classroom elements

such as restrooms and weapon’s safes and with portions

of the auditorium well below grade thereby using

differing concrete configurations. The foundation is

exposed as a set-back from the brick façade and serves

as a decorative element for the building.

3. Walls: The office tower of Infantry Hall is covered

in buff-yellow brick laid in a running course. The

brick wall is topped by a large, precast, segmented,

ogee-shaped, smooth concrete coping. This is the same

for all facades.

The George C. Marshall Auditorium that extends from

the rear of the building into the area termed the

“Court Yard,” is also covered in buff-yellow, running

bond brick. However, because the auditorium walls are

not broken by windows, the architects found it

necessary to relieve the vast blank wall spaces by

recessing vertical lines in the three exposed walls.

The recessed lines are one brick deep and one brick

wide and are dispersed at regular intervals on the

three walls. Unlike the top of the walls on the

office tower, the walls on the auditorium are topped

with a precast, segmented, undecorated, square edged,

smooth coping.

The wings of Infantry Hall are covered in buff-yellow

brick and topped off the roof line with pre-cast

pebble-exposed (sometimes called “sand blasted

concrete” [Moore 1964]) concrete panels the top edge

of which is faced with a metal strip. The concrete

panels are on the upper portion of the wall separated

from the brick by a continuous pebble-exposed concrete

frieze and a flexible metal strip all of which appear

to form a type of entablature around the wings. Below


Building)


this modern entablature the buff-yellow brick is laid

in a running course. This is the same for both the

east and west wings including the Court Yard side.

The brick walls which are composed of 930,000 face

bricks stop short of the ground by about 8” thus

exposing the concrete foundation which becomes a

decorative element of the wall (Black 1964).

4. Structural system, framing: The building is framed

with 210 tons of structural steel and used 23,500

cubic yards of structural concrete reinforced with

3,350 pounds of reinforcing steel and 350,000 square

feet of embedded wire mesh (Black 1964).

The roof framing over the classroom wings is folded

plate. This technique, which was new in the mid-

twentieth century, consists of connecting thin, flat

elements of concrete, steel, timber or other materials

to each other rigidly at angles, like accordion folds,

forming a stiff cross section which is capable of

carrying a load over a long span (Harris 1993).

In the west classroom wing the theater-style

classrooms have a special flooring system which is

rated to hold 2.5 tons. The floors are reinforced for

this weight so that vehicles can be brought on to the

lecture stage and actually used in demonstrations.

This innovation was one that Commandants, professors,

and lecturers had been seeking early on in the

planning stages.

The building is equipped with fallout shelters on

every floor, but the fallout Protection Factor (PF) is

not known. During the early 1960s, numerous public

buildings were retro-fitted or constructed with

fallout shelters offering some level of protection in

the event of a nuclear attack. In general, a public

shelter should offer a fallout PF of at least 40 for

fifty people at 10 square feet per person with

adequate ventilation. A fallout PF of 40 indicates

that a person outside the shelter is exposed to forty


Building)


times the amount of radiation than those within the

shelter (Civil Defense Museum 2008).

In 1961, the Office of Civil Defense, under the

auspices of the Department of Defense, began a

training program taught by the Army Corps of Engineers

for architects and engineers on the design and

construction of fallout shelters called the “Fallout

Shelter Analysis Course.” This course was originally

created in preparation for the “National Fallout

Shelter Survey” which identified potential public

fallout shelter space in existing structures.

However, the program was also used by architects and

engineers to create fallout protection within a new

design. To demonstrate the feasibility of designing

low-cost fallout shelter space in new buildings and to

develop new ideas on how this can be done, the Office

of Civil Defense sponsored a National School Fallout

Shelter Design Competition in 1962 in cooperation with

the AIA. This was followed by a similar design

completion for shopping centers and by an industrial

shelter design conference at Rice University, Texas

(Office of Civil Defense 1965).

It is not known if Abreu, Robeson or someone in the

firm attended one of the classes or helped in the

National Fallout Shelter Analysis. Nevertheless, it

is certain that the Army wanted fallout shelters and

expected the architects to understand the relevant

construction technology.

There are two factors to be considered in a fallout

shelter: blast protection and radiation protection.

More than three-quarters of all shelters in the U.S.

were located on upper floors in high rise buildings,

and did not, therefore, protect against blast (Civil

Defense Museum 2008). Infantry Hall has a number of

fallout shelters on each floor, therefore, it can be

assumed that they do not protect against blast.


Building)


In order to incorporate a fallout shelter into a

building design several items need to be considered.

They include:

a. Location and quantity of window area –

reducing window area or raised sills could reduce

radiation exposure;

b. Site conditions – use retaining walls,

planters, overhangs or grading slopes away from

structures to minimize effects of radiation on

the ground. Other buildings can be used to

maximum advantage as a shield;

c. Basement – depressing the ground floor

either partially or complete below grade can

reduce the effect of fallout on the ground;

d. Entrances and exits – locating these so

there is no direct entry of ground radiation.

Placing stairwells at the ends of corridors and

hallways so as to maximize protection;

e. Partitions – using interior partitions to

block radiation;

f. Wall width – using dense, solid walls to

prevent radiation penetration;

g. Floors and roofs – using the best system for

preventing radiation penetration. A few extra

inches of concrete or a floor slab system enhance

protection;

h. Architectural arrangement – creating an

internal protected central core area that can

hold a shelter.

Abreu & Robeson incorporated design criteria a, c, d,

e, f and h when creating their structural systems.

Certainly, the design and location of the shelters was

considered during the development of the building.


Building)


Using these design criteria probably meant special

framing techniques and materials must be used.

In addition to fallout shelters, the structural system

of Infantry Hall included nuclear hardened rooms.

“Hardening” protected a target against blast, heat,

and radiation effects of nuclear weapons of specific

yields. Hardening is usually measured by the numbers

of pounds per square inch (psi) of blast over-pressure

which a target can withstand (Atomic Archive 2008).

At least one room, the SEC COM (SECured

COMmunications) Room associated with the Donovan

Technical Library located on the first floor, is

believed to be nuclear hardened.

Beginning with the Cold War and extending to the

present, Army materiel [sic] supporting a critical

mission must meet a nuclear survivability requirement

(Army Regulation 70-75). This requirement generally

stipulates that the materiel must be operation for a

specified time after exposure and must be maintained

throughout the materiel’s life cycle, that the

materiel must not be permanently damaged after

exposure, or that an allowable time after exposure the

materiel must be useable within a set time limit

(Department of the Army [DOA] 2005; Pfeffer 2008).

In 1953, Defense Secretary Charles Wilson cracked down

on security violations particularly those dealing with

classified information and important policy documents.

Wilson sent memorandums reminding the military that

unauthorized disclosure of classified security

information was punishable, in the case of military

personnel, by trial by court martial, or in the case

of civilians, prosecution by the Department of Defense

(The Bayonet April 30, 1953). It would seem that

these two elements came together to secure a nuclear

hardened communications room in Infantry Hall.

The psi of the SEC COM room is not known. The room

does however appear to have its own ventilation

system, and is accessible only through a pedestrian


Building)


vault door or a smaller vault door through which only

papers or books can be passed.

Although exact nuclear hardening specifications for

the late 1950s to the early 1960s have not yet been

found, general guidelines do exist for high altitude

electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) explosions (high altitude

nuclear explosions) and TEMPEST, a termed used for any

compromising emanation, disruption. These guidelines

can be used to better understand the earlier

requirements for nuclear hardening. HEMP hardening

requirements include:

a. Shielding involves the use of a barrier or

series of barriers to reduce the magnitude of

energy incident upon the thing being protected.

There are a number of shielding techniques that

can be used including: an overall shield that

encompass the whole facility (global shielding),

shielding and constructed according to specific

protection requirements for the equipment

involved (tailored shielding), and zonal

shielding in which a facility is divided into

zones with shielding barriers creating a

shielding system of varying strengths.

b. Shield penetration is required for access.

This can involve large access doors, personnel

doors, and air-expandable doors. In the case of

Infantry Hall, a large access door provides

personnel access as well as access for equipment

and supplies. This large, thick steel door, now

gone, could also provided blast overpressure

protection.

c. Other systems may be required such as

ventilation, voice and communications lines,

security systems, control systems,

electromagnetic isolation and other kinds of

system isolation (DOA 1990).


Building)


The SEC COM room would have to be engineered as a

special part of the building.

5. Porches, stoops, balconies, porticoes, bulkheads: The

primary portico is located on the front, south façade

in the middle of the office tower. The portico which

projects forward has a flat roof and is supported by

four square concrete piers, two grouped on each side

of the portico, all of which are painted white. The

portico roof itself covers about 20’ of space. From

the front door to three concrete steps is

approximately 10’, and from the steps to the outside

edge of the roof is approximately 10’. The outside

edge of the roof drops down at a ninety degree angle

forming a type of modern entablature that does not

extend around the sides of the portico. Traditionally

this entablature has featured Infantry Blue letters

spelling out “United States Army Infantry School.” In

preparation for the building’s new use, the

entablature reads, “Future Maneuver Center of

Excellence.” On either side of the portico steps,

concrete plinths, painted white, delineate its edges.

On either side of the portico, the extended roof of

the portico with the dropped entablature is mimicked

in a smaller form as window protection and as a way of

tying the portico to the rest of the building.

On both classroom wings including the Court Yard

facades, incised porches cover exterior pedestrian

access to classrooms. In general, the incised porches

offer access to two different classrooms, and the

porches themselves are completely unadorned.

6. Chimneys: Infantry Hall has no chimneys.

7. Openings:

a. Doorways and doors: The primary doorway of

Infantry Hall is located on the south, front,

façade in the middle of the office tower. The

primary doorway is composed of three sets of


Building)


double doors are then flanked on each side by a

pair of glass doors.

The three, paired aluminum framed glass doors are

flanked the length of the office tower by plate

glass windows. This is a “typical” office space

door arrangement.

Each of the classroom wings has a doorway that

opens to both the front, south, and north, rear,

façades, using three aluminum framed glass doors.

However, these doors are in no way highlighted on

the classroom wings, and are, at best, merely

secondary entrances. The classroom wings also

have two sets of paired aluminum framed glass

doors at equal intervals on the east and west

facades of the classroom wings.

The east and west classroom wings have doors that

open into classrooms on both the primary and

Court Yard sides. These doors, which are covered

by incised porches, are plain metal. The west

wing has twenty-four original metal classroom

doors that open onto incised porches on the

primary façade. The west wing Court Yard side has

fifteen original metal doors that open onto

incised porches. The east wing primary façade

has seven original metal classroom doors that

open onto incised porches. The east Court Yard

side has four original metal doors that open onto

incised porches. The east Court Yard side also

has a pair of metal doors with four lights in the

upper quadrant, now painted over, and associated

with the power plant. All metal doors are

painted to blend with the building.

In addition, the east and west wings, on the

primary side, also have rolling metal doors so

that vehicles can be brought into classrooms. On

the west wing there are four, original, operable,

rolling doors and there are five that have been

enclosed. On the east wing there are two


Building)


original, operable, rolling doors, three that

have been taken and made into pedestrian doors,

and two that have been infilled. All of the

original rolling doors and infilled doorways are

painted to blend with the building material.

The doors on the north, rear, façade, are a

combination of metal and aluminum framed glass

doors. These doors provide rear access to the

dining hall, kitchen, and the auditorium. The

metal doors are painted to blend with the

building material.

b. Windows and shutters: Infantry Hall has a

variety of windows and no shutters. The windows

on the office tower measure 1’ by 5’ and are

surrounded on the top and the sides by concrete

extensions that seem almost Gothic in style.

According to press accounts the surrounds baffle

direct sunlight eliminating the use of Venetian

blinds as well as cutting down on the cost of air

conditioning. The windows have a simple, narrow

concrete sill.

The narrow aluminum awning windows are staggered

in pairs across the front, south, and rear,

north, facades of the office tower. There are no

windows on the east and west sides of the tower.

On the rear façade, the fenestration is not as

orderly as the front, but it tries as much as

possible to keep with the staggered pairs of

windows.

The first floor entry hall is flooded with

natural light from the plate glass windows that

run the length of the office tower. These windows

are now partially blocked with historical

displays, but originally, they would have tied

The Infantryman/Follow Me statue, the state and

national flags and the landscaping, the exterior,

to the interior. The north cafeteria wall is

also plate glass allowing in natural light.


Building)


However, the light is blocked by the George C.

Marshall auditorium and various temporary

structures such as wooden smoking gazebos and

tentage making the quality and quantity of light

not as great as that in the entry hall.

On both the east and west classroom wings, a

folded plate roof section forms a light monitor

which sends natural light into the classroom

hallways. The windows in the monitor are fixed,

aluminum framed, divided light. These monitors

can be seen from the Court Yard. The classroom

wings themselves have no windows aside from the

roof monitor windows.

8. Roof:

a. Shape, covering: The roof on the office

tower section of Infantry Hall is flat. The

covering is built-up layers of gravel and tar.

The folded plate roof on the classroom wings is a

membrane. Both roofs have an internal draining

system (Fort Benning ca. 1964B).

The folded plate roof is actually divided into

two parts on each wing. The large folds on the

roof run east and west and are located over the

larger classrooms. In the section of the

classroom wings immediately adjacent to the Court

Yard, the roof is stepped down and the folds

which are smaller and more tightly arranged run

north and south. This section of roof covers the

smaller classrooms.

b. Cornice, eaves: Infantry Hall does not have

a cornice or eaves.

c. Dormers, cupolas, towers: Infantry Hall

does not have dormers, cupolas or towers. While

the central office core of the building is called

a “tower,” the tower is not the type referenced

in this section. The building does have two

small “penthouses” on the roof. One shelters the


Building)


stairway onto the roof as well as the elevator

equipment; the larger one is a mechanical

equipment cover (Moore 1964). Both are in buff-

yellow brick with flat, built up roofs and were

constructed to be as unobtrusive as possible.

C. Description of Interior:

1. Floor plans: The building is laid out in an H shape

with the side legs of the letter forming the one-story

classroom space of Infantry Hall. The cross section of

the letter is formed by the six-story office tower

that contains a formal entry and the Gorge C. Marshall

Auditorium on the first level, a mezzanine, and office

spaces for the school and its ancillary support

activities on the remaining floors.

The entry hall is lined with exposed wooden beam

(walnut) accents that are highlighted by the Carthage

Marble surrounding the four elevators and the entry

into the George C. Marshall Auditorium. The Donovan

Technical Library is located in the west section of

the first floor office tower, and the cafeteria is

located in the east section. The Library originally

contained 85,654 volumes and featured open stacks

(Fort Benning ca. 1964A). The original cafeteria could

handle 480 diners hourly (Fort Benning ca. 1964A).

The location of these services has not changed. Two

additions have been made to the entry hall – a desk

sergeant’s office and a space that is now used for

displays of various types. The entire entry hall can

be closed-off from the classroom wings by a set of

glass and aluminum doors at both the east and west

ends of the entry hall.

The George C. Marshall Auditorium which is located on

the north, rear, of the entry hall has tiered seating,

a balcony and seats 1500 people (Fort Benning ca.

1964A). The auditorium has a full stage, theatrical

curtains, stage lights, and internal sound system.

The fabric seats which appear to be original are

padded and in good condition.


Building)


Two hallways run from each wing’s main corridors

giving students exit routes that do not pass through

classrooms. The west wing originally contained

communications classrooms – various radio classrooms,

special communications-electronics, and television

including a television station. The east wing

contained general purpose classrooms including those

with rollup doors and floors rated at 2.5 tons for the

use of vehicles during a class. In total there were

originally thirty-nine classrooms and two rooms set

aside for Infantry Hall’s television station.

The west wing contained ten large (200 person)

classrooms, nine with floors rated at 2.5 tons, and 12

small (50 person) classrooms. Nine of the ten large

classrooms line the west side of the west wing and the

twelve small classrooms and one large classroom lined

the east side of the west wing. The large rooms

originally featured a tiered floor, teaching and

observation stage, rear and front view projection

screens (10’ x 20’) motor-operated and vertically hung

from the roof on a steel framework, rolling chalk and

cork boards the back of which can serve as projection

screens, closed circuit television, and a rear

observation/projection booth. The lights, sound, and

all audio visuals could be controlled from the

speaker’s podium or the rear observation/projection

booth. The stage featured a full set of theatrical

curtains and the room itself was lined with acoustical

material as were all classrooms so that classes could

be happening in all rooms simultaneously without noise

pollution (The Bayonet January 10, 1964:5; Fort

Benning ca. 1964A; Moore 1964).

The east wing originally contained all the specialized

classrooms which dealt primarily with communications,

especially radio. This included a special night

vision testing laboratory, four radio maintenance

laboratories, four special communications-electronics

classrooms, and the television and recording studio

(Fort Benning ca. 1964A).


Building)


Although numerous classrooms have been changed and

reconfigured, the basic floor plan of the wings has

not changed.

The second through fifth floors of the office tower

are virtually identical. While the classroom spaces

and main entry are airy and open, the office spaces

are by comparison small and cramped. There are 135

offices spaces within the tower. A space by

definition is a 32’ x 20’ foot area designed to

accommodate eight people (The Bayonet January 10,

1964). The tower’s floor plan for its top five floors

features a single small hallway which is flanked on

each side by office spaces. The hallway seems dark and

close although the office spaces, while cramped, are

much brighter.

The sixth floor of the tower was originally occupied

by The Infantry School Commandant and the Infantry

Center Staff. Upon exiting the elevator on the sixth

floor it is immediately apparent that this floor is

important. The area immediately surrounding the

elevators is covered in book-matched, tree-matched

walnut paneling (Moore 1964). At the west end of the

hall, the area leading into the Commandant’s office

and the office area itself are also paneled in walnut.

On the west end of the fifth floor, an attempt has

been made to make those offices look like the

Commandant’s office area, however, the attempts have

fallen short of the goal since inexpensive, ready-made

paneling was used. Although the sixth floor’s elevator

area and the Commandant’s area are paneled in walnut,

the rest of the office spaces and the hallway are

indistinguishable from the other floors.

The office spaces themselves have been reconfigured

numerous times. However, their basic arrangement off a

long, narrow hall has not changed.

2. Stairways: Infantry Hall has four interior

staircases. One staircase is located at both ends of

each hallway (all five levels) within the office


Building)


tower. These staircases emerge on the ground floor -

one on the Court Yard side of the east wing and one on

the Court Yard side of the west wing. They both then

immediately exit into the Court Yard. The second set

of staircases are located mid-way down both sides of

each of the five hallways within the office tower and

emerge on the ground floor - one between the female

restroom and the rear, west side of the Donovan

Technical Library and one between the male restroom

and the rear, east side of the cafeteria. Both

staircases then immediately exit into the Court Yard

on either side of the George C. Marshall Auditorium.

The staircases are without ornamentation. They are

plain, concrete stairs with metal edged treads and

painted metal pipe hand rails. The walls are concrete

block and floors are concrete.

3. Flooring: The original flooring in the entry hall and

extending through the classroom wing hallways is

terrazzo with light beige and brown markings. In the

center of the lobby, immediately upon entering through

the front, south, doors, The Infantry School and

Infantry Center “Follow Me” Insignia is emblazoned in

full color in the floor. Originally all the rest of

the building floors were covered in soft tile

(asbestos) in a beige color (asbestos) (Black 1964;

Moore 1964). Originally 6,700 sq. ft. of terrazzo

floors, 350,000 sq. ft. of asbestos tile floors and

52,000 linear feet of rubber base board were used on

the floors (Black 1964). Carpet is now used in the

library and in numerous office spaces. The cafeteria

floor has been changed a number of times because that

room has been frequently reconfigured, and is now

polished concrete.

Numerous classrooms have been changed and when

changed, carpet is generally used for the new flooring

although some flooring is simply polished concrete.

4. Wall and ceiling finish: The wall surfaces within the

building change according to the area’s use. The


Building)


entry way, lobby area, as noted earlier, is a

combination of plate glass, on the south wall, walnut

and class on the library and cafeteria walls, Carthage

marble on the walls surrounding the elevators and

walnut and marble in the area around the George C.

Marshall Auditorium. The lobby area opens to the

second story and shows a plastered ceiling. The

mezzanine area that is visible immediately before and

above the elevators is screened by a series of walnut

beams that match those in the lobby. The ceiling

immediately above the elevators and the auditorium is

dropped, acoustical tiles.

In both classroom hall wings, the walls are concrete

block. The concrete block is glazed a soft gray for

approximately four feet and is then painted a soft

yellow up to the ceiling which is concrete painted

white. In some places the classroom hallway ceiling

has been dropped to accommodate new heating, air-

conditioning and ventilation systems, electrical

systems, and other mechanical changes. However, since

the whole ceiling has not been dropped, there is still

a feeling of openness about the hallways and the light

monitors still flood them with natural light.

The walls in the library and the cafeteria are painted

concrete block. The library has a number of smaller

rooms that have been added and these are sheet rocked.

The kitchen area of the cafeteria was inaccessible,

but it can be presumed that the walls are a

combination of materials since that area has been

changed multiple times throughout the building’s

history.

The classrooms and the auditorium were originally

lined with acoustical material to baffle noise. Their

basic construction materials are painted concrete

blocks and in some cases the acoustical material is no

longer apparent. However, the auditorium has its

original sound baffling materials intact. These

include large padded panels with pierced walnut

baffles attached on the east and west walls. In some


Building)


of the classrooms, fabric panels have been hung from

the roof in an attempt to baffle interior sound. The

walls in the reconfigured classrooms are still

concrete block; however, these rooms are generally

subdivided with a series of fabric panels creating

cubicles of various sizes.

The original ceilings in all the classrooms, the

library, the cafeteria, and the auditorium appear to

have been plaster. However, in various classrooms,

the cafeteria, and the library, ceilings have been

dropped and acoustical tile has been used. The

auditorium and some classrooms still have plaster

ceilings. Originally there were more than 23,000

square feet of plaster ceiling (Black 1964). Some of

the larger classrooms have ceilings that conform to

the folded plate roof line.

The offices on the mezzanine and floors two through

six have a combination of painted concrete block and

sheet rock walls. As noted previously, the

Commandant’s suite of offices on the east end of the

sixth floor and area surrounding the elevators on the

sixth floor are paneled in walnut. Nevertheless, the

rest of the sixth floor is like the other floors. On

the east end of the fifth floor an attempt was made to

make the office suite look like the Commandant’s,

however, inexpensive paneling was used and the suite

misses the mark. All of the offices and the hallways

have dropped acoustical tile ceilings.

5. Openings:

a. Doorways and doors: Aside from the aluminum

framed glass doors in the entry hall that were

previously discussed, the doors in Infantry Hall

are all plain, painted metal with either round

knobs or push bars. The door frames are simple,

undecorated, and metal.

b. Windows: The awning windows which open from

the top do not have interior frames and are


Building)


instead slightly recessed into the wall.

Although they were not intended to have Venetian

Blinds, many now have blinds. It was intended

that these windows never open except to be

cleaned (Fort Benning ca. 1964B).

The classroom wing hall roof monitors have no

special surrounds. These monitors allow a great

deal of light into the hallways even on the

gloomiest of days.

6. Decorative features and trim: Infantry Hall has a

number of decorative features that have previously

been highlighted including Carthage marble in the

entry lobby, walnut paneling and beams in the entry

and on the sixth floor, and The Infantry School and

Infantry Center insignia emblazoned on the entry

floor.

In addition, in the auditorium on either side of the

stage, attached to acoustical padding, are company

insignias of units stationed at Fort Benning. On the

wall outside the auditorium are a bronze dedication

plaque and two oil paintings of George C. Marshall for

whom the auditorium is named. The lobby itself has a

number of bronze plaques honoring various warriors and

is set up with a number of historical displays.

Students can be seen reading this material on a daily

basis.

Throughout the classroom hallways there are a number

of bulletin boards and glass-enclosed display boards

that exhibit historical and inspirational material

directed at the students.

7. Hardware: Infantry Hall has no notable hinges,

knobs, locks, latches, window hardware or fireplace

hardware. It does have a number of large walk-in

safes for the storage of both documents and fire arms

and ammunition. These safes, however, have typical in

door combination locks on massive steel doors that

open with a single handle that is turned in full


Building)


circles. The large safes are located on the first

floor and are generally associated with a classroom.

It is believed that some or all of these safes are

nuclear hardened.

8. Mechanical equipment:

a. Heating, air conditioning, ventilation:

The original heating, air conditioning and

ventilation (HVAC) system was installed during

construction by the Carrier Corporation of

Atlanta and was a Carrier system. The heating and

air controls were provided by Johnson Service

Company, Atlanta (Battle 1964). The building had

1,470 tons of air conditioning equipment and

22,350 feet of metal air conditioning duct work

weighing 190 tons (Black 1964).

The entire building was air conditioned; a

distinct departure from the typical building on

Fort Benning at the time. In 1964 when the

building opened, The Bayonet’s Roving Reporter

asked several people what they liked best about

the new building, and an Infantry School

instructor replied, “I like the air

conditioning”(Smith 1964).

At an unknown date the HAVC system was changed.

When the system was changed, portions of the

ceiling were dropped in the classroom wings to

over the mechanicals.

The Donovan Research Library has ceiling fans in

the reading and computer area presumably because

of the heat generated by the various computers

and other equipment scattered throughout the

area.

b. Lighting: Originally there were over 150

miles of metal conduit that contained the wiring

for over 8,000 four-foot fluorescent lights and

1,500 incandescent bulbs used to light the


Building)


offices and classrooms of Infantry Hall (Fort

Benning ca. 1964A). The light fixtures were and

are typical for an institutional and office

setting. There are no special fixtures or

chandeliers. In the large classrooms that have

slopping floors, the banks of fluorescent lights

are hanging on metal rods in order to bring the

light closer to the student’s desks.

c. Plumbing: Plumbing work was originally

contracted to Fred Carpenter Plumbing, Columbus,

who was responsible for mechanical, plumbing,

heating, steam and water. Dixie Construction,

Birmingham, Alabama, was responsible for sanitary

sewer work (Battle 1964).

The restroom facilities associated with the

classroom wings are typical with porcelain

urinals, commodes in metal panel stalls, and

porcelain sinks with mirrors above. Tile floors

and tile partially up the wall make this a

typical institutional restroom. What is

interesting to note here is the sheer number of

restrooms and their dispersal in the classroom

wings. In the east wing alone there are five

restrooms all located on the hall below the ten

200 person classrooms. The location of these

restrooms was originally ideal since 200 people

would be breaking at the same time and the

restroom at the foot of the classroom meant that

the soldiers need not wander around the halls.

Additionally, an all male clientele meant that

one bathroom could serve the whole class. Now

the large number of restrooms means that they can

be equally divided between male and female.

The restrooms in the office tower have seen

differing levels of renovation and upkeep. Like

the classroom facilities, the office tower

restrooms have porcelain fixtures, metal stalls

and tile on both the floor and wall; however,


Building)


these restrooms were designated as male and

female.

One of the more interesting plumbing features of

the new building was “refrigerated” water

fountains (The Bayonet June 5 1964F). These

fountains which are porcelain bowls attached to

piping through the wall served icy cold water, a

treat during Georgia summers. Unfortunately,

while they work, they no longer serve cold water.

d. Elevators: The elevators were installed by

Elevator Service Company, Columbus. Four

automatic elevators with a lift capacity of

fifteen passengers each flank the center entrance

to the George C. Marshall Auditorium. It is

interesting to note that the control panel

buttons for the elevator are located

exceptionally high on the elevator’s interior

wall. Presumably, Infantry soldiers are all well

over six feet tall.

e. SEC COM (Secured Communications) room: The

actual structural components of the SEC COM room

are discussed in Section B. Description of the

Exterior, Number 4, Structural system, and

framing. The SEC COM room is believed to be a

nuclear hardened room. “Hardening” protected a

target against blast, heat, and radiation effects

of nuclear weapons of specific yields. It appears

that this room held classified documents.

The room is accessed only through a pedestrian

steel vault door, now gone, and a barred, steel

window vault opening. The room appears to have

its own ventilation system. The actual operation

of the pedestrian vault door and the window vault

opening is not known. The room has no bathroom

facilities nor is it designated as a fallout

shelter so it can be presumed that only documents

were intended to last through a nuclear incident

with people seeking protection in the numerous


Building)


fallout shelters found in the building.

Nevertheless, it is possible that the fallout

shelter sign has been lost.

It is not clear if a separate electrical system

or what type of communications system/s served

the SEC COM room. Infantry Hall had an internal

communications system of some type, but the type

is unknown; and it is not known how the SEC COM

room fit into that system (The Bayonet June 5,

1964F). The room now holds metal, flat storage

cabinets for magazines and historic information.

This is a space that is not discussed, for

obvious reasons, in the period literature.

f. Fallout shelters: The actual structural

components of the fallout shelters are discussed

in Section B. Description of the Exterior, Number

4, Structural system, and framing. There are two

factors to be considered in a fallout shelter:

blast protection and radiation protection. More

than three-quarters of all shelters in the U.S.

were located on upper floors in high rise

buildings, and did not, therefore, protect

against blast (Civil Defense Museum 2008).

Infantry Hall has a number of fallout shelters on

each floor, therefore, it can be assumed that

they do not protect against blast.

The space allotted for refugees was a ten foot

square per person; it was hoped that this minimal

space would provide as many shelter spaces as

possible. Nevertheless, without adequate

ventilation, square footage could not be counted.

Adequate ventilation was based on unaided air

circulation throughout the shelter area (Civil

Defense Museum 2008).

Many public fallout shelters were partially if

not fully stocked with supplies. Generally, if

the shelter was marked with a sign it was at


Building)


least partially stocked. The supplies were

usually in some out of the way area of the

shelter. The Office of Civil Defense plan was to

provide two weeks’ worth of supplies in the

shelter. This was based on the fact that initial

radiation fallout would be very intense, but the

more intense the fallout the faster it decayed.

The shelter stay was merely to allow time for the

radiation to drop to a level where it might be

possible to leave for a short period of time to

seek out more supplies or to move to areas

outside the shelter permanently (Civil Defense

Museum 2008).

The fallout shelters in Infantry Hall do not seem

to have been stocked, even though they were

marked with official signage, since no storage

places for food and other supplies could be

found. Standard rationing could be reduced if the

equivalent food is available and certain

requirements pertaining to perishability and

availability were met (Office of Civil Defense

1965). Perhaps there were areas set aside within

the kitchen for supplies, or perhaps there were

rationing areas set aside on each floor that are

now no longer extant or long forgotten.

The fallout shelters in Infantry Hall are not

discussed in period literature although Bayonet

articles of the time discuss training at Fort

Benning related to the DAVY CROCKETT weapons

system, a nuclear armament.

g. Computer room: On the second floor in room

No. 224 one of the most important pieces of the

modern Infantry School took up residence, the

Univac 1004 Computer. The computer was leased

by the school, but their plans included

purchasing an even more sophisticated digital

computer by the end of 1964. The Infantry School

believed that, “automation will…play an

increasingly important role [at the school], and


Building)


[that] 1964 will be a great year of progress in

this arena (The Bayonet January 10, 1964:5).”

The room is approximately 30’ x 30’ and features

a double floor system so that wiring for

individual computers and equipment can be routed

through a chase formed the two flooring levels.

Panels within the top flooring level can be

removed for servicing the machines. This

eliminates a tangle of cables on the floor. The

air conditioning for this room was also

originally located within this chase.

By 1964, the school was using the old punch card

system for Resident and Nonresident Academic

Records and Analysis. This meant that lesson

grades, examination scores, class rosters,

transcripts of credit, question analysis data,

posted grades, and coefficients of correlation

between various sets of data could be analyzed

and recorded. Students with weaknesses could be

identified and the school’s areas of instruction

could be evaluated against student grades. The

new digital computer was eagerly awaited since it

could store data and would eventually handle

scheduling of instruction and equipment,

instruction and analysis, computer-based

programmed instruction, and many other

administrative functions (The Bayonet January 10,

1964:5; Black 1964). Computers were the wave of

the future and The Infantry School was onboard.

The inclusion of Electronic Data Processing (EDP)

systems, now known generically as computers,

purpose built rooms was a new trend in the late

1950s early 1960s. The early EDP systems were

highly demanding of the architect and

consultants. The machines refused to operate in

high heat and humidity or in low temperatures.

The machines were extremely heavy and placed

concentrated loads on building floors. Large

areas were required for the placement, servicing,


Building)


and repair of large machines. Electronic power

with low variations in voltage and frequency must

be furnished to the machines. Sunlight, dust and

vibrations all posed special problems for the

systems. Since the EDP systems were so finicky,

the architectural community was beginning to

publish books on the subject (Hunt 1961).

The design of computer rooms had to consider a

myriad of details. In addition to those

mentioned previously, others included space

planning, acoustical treatment, illumination,

lightening protection and tape storage. Not only

were these machines large, they vibrated and were

exceptionally loud with card printers being the

main culprit. EDP rooms had to be acoustically

designed to prevent the noise and vibration from

dispersing throughout the rest of the building.

While the machines themselves vibrate, they were

sensitive to extraneous vibrations so the room

itself had to also prevent vibrations emanating

from other sources. While the machines

themselves were not harmed by bright light, the

console and signal lights were best seen in low

light, and, therefore, computer rooms tended to

be windowless like that in Infantry Hall.

Lightening protection for the computer system was

vital on all electrical systems, but especially

on secondary, backup systems to prevent surges in

electricity. Tape storage presented its own

special problems related to storage and use (Hunt

1961).

When Infantry Hall opened, The Infantry School

was using a Univac 1004 manufactured by the

Sperry Rand Corporation. It is not known if it

was a Univac 1004II or a Univac 1004III and what

type of support equipment it was using (i.e. a

card reader, a card processor/reader, paper tape

punch and/or backup Magnetic Tape System)(Sperry

Rand Corporation ca. 1960). Regardless, either

model required a working area of 195 square feet


Building)


(including the computer [reader] and the card

printer) and weighed 2,500 pounds (Weik 1964).

The system required air circulation for the

processor of 250 cubic feet per minute and for

the card printer of 600 cubic feet per minute

(Weik 1964). A system, depending on performance

characteristics and support equipment was leased

for between $46,000 and $60,000 a year (Weik

1964). Although this was the Univac system was

moved into Infantry Hall, The Infantry School

knew it was going to have a new digital system

within the year; therefore the computer room had

to be designed with flexibility in mind.

One of the problems early-on that architects

faced in designing EDP rooms was that computers

became outmoded very quickly and once computers

were introduced into a company’s business, it was

soon discovered that other operations lent

themselves to automation (Hunt 1961). In general

more computers, even larger in size, would be

introduced into the space. IBM’s RAMAC 750 III

system took up 3,500 square feet, and most

computer systems required six times as much air

conditioning as an office (Hunt 1961). Infantry

Hall’s computer room was designed with expansion

in mind (approximately 900 square feet) but never

to the level of an IBM RAMAC 750 III.

Today Room No. 224 still functions as a computer

room holding the servers for The Infantry

School’s Directorate of Training. However the

room has undergone some changes. The air

conditioning which originally ran in the floor

chase was no longer capable of keeping up with

the demand of the machines and has since been

moved to ceiling ducting. The Infantry School

stayed loyal to Univac computer using various

models up through the 1990s. The last Univacs

that were used in the 1990s were just recently

moved out of the computer room.


Building)


h. Substations: Perhaps as a hedge against

nuclear war or simply the need to be operational

at all times in an unforgiving world, Infantry

Hall has its own electrical substations. Both

are located in the rear, north, courtyard area of

the building.

One is located behind a chain link fence on the

west wing with an entry door into the west wing.

The other is located behind a brick screen wall

in the back of the George C. Marshall Auditorium

and is associated with the air conditioning

control room. The need for constant air

conditioning and humidity control was not only

for the comfort and convenience of the humans

occupying the building but for the computers and

other electronic equipment that were an integral

part of Infantry Hall.

9. Original Furnishings: Infantry Hall has a number of

original furnishings. The George C. Marshal

Auditorium still has its original nubby textured

fabric covered seats which are an orange color as well

as its original stage curtains. Many of the 200

person classrooms have their original Infantry blue

stage curtains and much of the original stage

equipment including the motor-operated, vertically

hung 10’ x 20’ rear view projection screen, portable

rolling chalkboard and screen combination panels on

casters, and wooden podiums in an odd hour glass shape

equipped with sound, light and other technical

equipment controls.

Outside the classrooms there are “Class in Session”

light boxes above the door that can be illuminated

when the room is in use. In addition, there are

illuminated boxes to the side of each classroom door

with grooved sliders so that the name of the teacher

and class can be inserted. There are also original

built-in glass enclosed bulletin boards throughout the

classroom wings where notices and posters can be

displayed.


Building)


D. Site:

Historic Landscape design: The original landscape planting

was by Micah M. Jenkins Nursery, Charleston, South Carolina

(Battle 1964). It is not clear if Jenkins also designed

the landscape.

The front, south, of Infantry Hall is highly landscaped and

includes: a monumental statue of an infantryman, The

Infantryman/Follow Me, but often called “Iron Mike,” a 100’

flag pole flying the U.S. flag flanked on each side by a

semicircle of flag poles flying state flags, a series of

semicircular knee walls, another statue, The Doughboy,

which originally stood in front of Building 00035 when it

was the Infantry School building, a series of flower, tree

and shrub beds, a semicircular walk trimmed in red brick,

and a number of static vehicles and arms. In addition,

across Karker Street immediately in front of Infantry Hall,

is York Field, The Infantry School’s parade ground. The

building is flanked east and west by flat parking lots.

The landscape in front of the building including the statue

The Infantryman/Follow Me; the 100’ flag pole (1945),

Facility No. M9799; the semicircle of state flags; the

central portion of the low wall that visually divides the

building from the street, the two parking lots and Alvin

York Field are all original components of the Infantry Hall

landscape.

The monumental statue The Infantryman/Follow Me was created

in 1959-1960 by PVT Manfred Bass, who was only 23 years

old, with assistance by PVT Karl H. Von Krog using Eugene

J. Wyles, then an Officer Candidate School student as a

model (Wyatt 1976). A note should be made here about the

name of the monumental statue: it is and has been called by

many names, sometimes within the same magazine/news

article. The statue is known variously as Infantry Statue,

The Infantryman, Follow Me, Doughboy, The Ultimate Weapon,

and Iron Mike (Army Times 1969; Grube 1983, 1988; Sellers

1960; Wilder 1967). Although the official name of the

statue appears to be The Infantryman it is also commonly

called Follow Me, and this double name calling can be found


Building)


in Army, Fort Benning, and National Infantry Museum

publications when referencing the monumental statue in

front of Infantry Hall (The Bayonet June 5, 1964H; Grube

1983, 1988; Infantry Magazine May-June 2004; Moore 1964;

United States Army Infantry 2008; Wyatt 1976). It is also

colloquially called Iron Mike, as are numerous other

military and “tough guy” statues in the United States. In

2004 when the statue was rededicated, the plaque for that

rededication actually names the statue as the “Follow Me

Statue.” Since the name of the statue is in question, it

is referenced here as its two most common names, The

Infantryman/Follow Me.

The Infantryman/Follow Me statue sits inside a blue outline

of a Norman shield, like that on the Infantry School

insignia, on a 10’ concrete base. The bronze statue itself

is 12’-4” tall and depicts a charging infantryman, arm in

the air, head turned slightly back over his shoulder

exhorting the assembled troops to, “Follow Me!” The

uniform and equipment are World War II and Korean War

vintage, and the statue is equipped only with a helmet,

canteen cartridge belt, first aid pack, entrenching tool,

and an M-1 rifle (Sellers 1960).

The statue was the brain child of MJG Paul L. Freeman Jr.,

Infantry Center Commander, who tasked COL John N.

Woestenburg with its completion. COL Woestenburg in turn

found PVTs Bass and Von Krog – Bass had some experience

working at Disneyland – and using only available funds

began the process of finding the best medium for the statue

since the cost of a monumental bronze was out of the

question. The answer was a combination of polyester and

glass fiber, much like the hulls of fiberglass boats and an

outer coating of epoxy resin impregnated with bronze that

would form a finishing substance all applied over a steel

armature, framework (Sellers 1960).

Many photographs of Wyles, the model, were taken and

studied, and a number of clay models were made before the

final pose was chosen by MJG Freeman. The entire process

from research to model poses to final mounting on the base


Building)


occurred in strictest secrecy and was code named “Project

S” (Sellers 1960).

The Infantryman [Grube (1983) states that the official name

of the statue as of June 15, 1959 was The Ultimate Weapon.

Nevertheless, it appears that it was called The Infantryman

when it was unveiled in 1960 (Sellers 1960)] was built at a

cost of about $2,000 for materials and weighed only 3,000

pounds. It could withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind and

could support unusual weights. The riffle alone could hold

up to 300 pounds. It was estimated that the epoxy and

bronze finish would last for 100 years,…”as long as there

is a Fort Benning” (Sellers 1960:np).

The original bronze plaque on the base is a quote from I am

the Infantry by LTC Stephen H. White, COL Francis X.

Bradley and SP4 Howard Webber, 1955, “Wherever brave men

fight and die for freedom, you will find me. I am always

ready…now and forever. I am the Infantry - - Queen of

Battle! Follow Me!”

The statue was dedicated May 3, 1960 by Secretary of the

Army, Wilber M. Brucker, as the highlight of the massive

demonstration called Project MAN (Modern Army Needs)

(Sellers 1960). It originally stood on the edge of Eubanks

Field, north, to the rear, of Infantry Hall. It was moved

to the front of Infantry Hall as the new symbol of the

Infantry. During its transfer from Eubanks Field to the

front of the building, the statue was dropped chipping the

infantryman’s left elbow. Manfred Bass was flown in from

New Jersey to oversee the repair work to the elbow (The

Bayonet June 5, 1964H).

A second plaque was added to front of the statue. It

reads, “UNVEILED BY SECRETARY OF THE ARMY WILBER M.

BRUCKER/3 MAY 1960/ THIS TRIBUTE TO INFANTRYMAN WAS

CONCEIVED/AND CONSTUCTED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF MAJOR

GENERAL/PAUL L. FREEMAN, JR., COMMANDANT, UNITED STATES

ARMY/INFNATRY SCHOOL.

SUPERVISION OF THE PROJECT WAS EXERCISED BY/COLONEL JOHN W.

WOESTENBURG, ORDNANCE CORPS, AND HIS/ASSISTANT, CHARLES O.

CROWDER.


Building)


ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY PFC/MANFRED BASS,

SCULPTOR AND DESIGNER, AND PFC KARL H. VAN KROG, ASSISTANT

SCULPTOR. THE MODEL WAS OFFICER CANDIDATE EUGENE J.WYLES.

PLAQUES DONATED BY DUSA.”

A third plaque was added in 1975 during the Army’s 200th

anniversary. The plaque in the shape of a Norman shield

reads, “…THE ONE THING THAT BEST SUMS/ UP THE SPIRIT OF

THIS DAY IS, / THE SIMPLE BUT DEEPLY MOVING STATUE HERE, AT

FORT BENNING, /AN AMERIACN COMBAT INFANTRYMAN. /THE STATUE,

AS YOU WELL KNOW, BEARS THE INFANTRY MOTTO -/ONLY TWO SHORT

WORDS/BUT IT SPEAKS VOUMES FOR THE COURAGE, FOR

THE/SACRAFICE THAT THE AMERICAN FIGHTING MAN HAS ALWAYS

DEMONSTRATED. /THE MOTTO IS “FOLLOW ME.”/…STATEMENT BY

PRESIDENT GERALD R. FORD UPON HIS VISIT TO FORT BENNING ON

THE ARMY’S 200TH ANNIVERSARY, 14 JUNE 1975.”

In 1988 the statue was removed for cleaning and

restoration. In 2004, The Infantryman/Follow Me was moved,

and an exact copy was made in bronze and reinstalled July

1, 2004 to coincide with Independence Day festivities

(Infantry Magazine May-June 2004). The original statue was

retained by the National Infantry Museum, Ft. Benning.

Georgia. For the statue’s rededication, a plaque was added

to rear of the base. It reads, “THE HONORABLE JOHN O.

MARSH JR./REDEDICATED THE FOLLOW ME STATUE/ TO THE UNITED

STATES INFANTRY SOLDIER ON JULY1 2004./THE CEREMONY

INCLUDED/BG BENJAMIN C. FREAKLEY, COMMANDING

GENERAL;/COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR MICHAEL A. KELSO;/MJR (R)

EUGENE WYLES, THE STATUE’S ORIGINAL MODEL;/ COMMAND

SERGEANT MAJOR (R) BASIL PLUNLEY;/ AND PRIVATE SILES

EVANS./ THIS STATUE REPRESENTS THE INFANTRY IN ITS WELL-

KNOW STANCE. LEANING FORWARD, ARM UPRAISED, AND

COMMANDING, “FOLLOW ME!” TODAY’S INFANTRY HONORS ITS

HERITAGE BY CONTINUING TO LEAD THE WAY.”

Immediately behind, north of The Infantryman/Follow Me, is

a 100’ flag pole, Facility No. M9799, which was originally

erected in 1941 in front of the “Big House”, Building

00035, the former Infantry School building. This pole was

moved from Building No. 35 to Building No. 4 in 1964 in


Building)


part to save money and to make a connection between the two

buildings. In early drawings and models of Infantry Hall,

the 100’ flag pole is a consistent landscape feature. On

each side of the 100’ flag pole in an outward, south,

facing semicircle are fifty flag poles, twenty-five on each

side, for the state flags (Moore 1964).

Immediately in front, south, of Infantryman/Follow Me is a

smooth textured, concrete knee wall painted white that

originally had cast aluminum letters in baked Infantry blue

enamel that spelled out, “The U.S. Army Infantry School.”

This semicircular wall also faces outward, south. A series

of walkways and a large semicircular walk that could serve

as a driveway connect all these elements together.

The addition of The Doughboy statue, a commemorative statue

of the WWII soldier which was originally created to stand

at the Big House, some vehicles and arms, and some other

knee walls by the original wall have not detracted from the

overall formality or elegance of the landscape plan. While

it is a pleasant to view from a vehicle, it was really

planned as a pedestrian landscape and is most powerful when

viewed from that perspective.

On the other side of Karker Street, immediately south of

Infantry Hall is the school’s large parade ground. At the

Big House, the Field of the Four Chaplains was used and had

become too small. Infantry Hall’s huge parade ground also

serves as an open space in front of the building providing

a much need green space that matches the other large open

spaces throughout the residential and administrative areas

of Fort Benning. When the parade ground was first opened

it had no name, but in November 1964 it received a memorial

name.

The field was named York Field in honor of the late SGT

York, the most decorated World War I soldier, who had died

September 2, 1964. When SGT York died his name was

submitted to MJG John A. Heintges, Infantry Center

Commander, for consideration as a name for the field in

keeping with the post tradition of naming landmarks for

famous military personnel (Aran 1964:6). A granite and


Building)


bronze commemoration marker on the northern edge of the

field, immediately in front of Infantry Hall reads: YORK

FIELD/NAMED IN HONOR OF/SARGEANT ALVIN C. YORK/325th

INFANTRY REGIMENT/82d INFANTRY DIVISION/AWARDED MEDAL OF

HONOR/8 OCTOBER 1918.

In the east and west sides of Infantry Hall, 900 car

parking lots were created to provide adequate parking for

staff and students. The building was considered a marvel

of comfort all the way down to the parking

lots,…”[Personnel] work in completely air-conditioned

rooms; take water breaks at refrigerated water fountains;

contact each other through inter-communications system

[sic]and drive their cars home from a spacious parking lot”

(Fort Benning June 5, 1964). The west parking lot has been

reduced in size since Building 00006 now takes up part of

the lot.

1. Outbuildings: Infantry Hall has no outbuildings.

Several small wooden “smoking” gazebos have been

placed in the north, rear Court Yard, but they are not

truly outbuildings.

PART III. SOURCES OF INFORMATION

A. Architectural Drawings: A full set of architectural drawings,

more than 100 of them, are available in Plans and Support,

Master Planning Division of the Directorate of Public Works,

Fort Benning, Georgia. These included elevations, floor

plans, details, and other aspects of the construction of

Infantry Hall. Part of the blueprints feature information

blocks with Abreu & Robeson’s names and others merely bear

the Savannah Corps of Engineers’ name.

B. Early Views: There are a significant number of early

photographs of Infantry Hall since it was constructed in the

middle of the 20th century. These early views can be found

in Fort Benning’s newspaper, The Bayonet, the local Columbus

Georgia newspaper, The Columbus Enquirer, and numerous

military magazines such as Infantry Magazine. In addition,

Fort Benning itself has a number of archives, including the

Donovan Research Library and the National Infantry Museum,


Building)


which contain original Army photographs of various stages of

the construction and completion of the building.

C. Interviews: One interview was conducted for this report with

Mr. David S. Stieghan, Installation Combat Historian, Fort

Benning, Georgia. The interview was conducted at Infantry

Hall on September 20, 2007, with the author, Ms. Kelly Nolte,

Senior Architectural Historian, Director Architectural

History Division, Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Tuscaloosa,

Alabama.

D. Bibliography:

1. Published sources:

The Abreu Charitable Trust

2007 Family History, The Abreu Charitable Trust (Available on

line http://www.abreufoundation.org/history.asp)

American Telephone & Telegraph (AT&T)

2008 AT&T History Page, Former AT&T Site owners Discussion

Group, Nuclear Hardening specifications (Available on line

http://macpassradio.com/pages/att.htm).

Aran, David J., PVT

November 6, 1964 “Infantry School Parade Field Named after

Sgt. Alvin York,” The Bayonet, page 6, Fort Benning,

Georgia (Available in Donovan Technical Library, Infantry

Hall, Fort Benning, Georgia).

Atlanta.Org

2008 “Roosevelt High School (Girls High),” Guide of Atlanta

(Available online http://www.atlanta.org.)

Atomic Archive

2000 “Effects of Nuclear Weapons,” Science of Nuclear Weapons.

Available (Online)

http://www,atimicarchives.com/sciencemenu.shtml

Army Environmental Center (AEC)

1998 Thematic Study and Guidelines: Identification and

Evaluation of U.S. Army Cold War Era Military-Industrial


Building)


Historic Properties. U.S. Army Environmental Center,

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

Army Times

October 22, 1969 “This Major Looks Like a Statue, Has Big

‘Following’,” Army Times (on file National Infantry

Museum, Fort Benning, Georgia).

Ballard, Joe N., LT GEN

2000 “A Message from the Chief, LT GEN Joe N. Ballard, Chief of

Engineers, 2000 Chief of Engineers Design and Environmental

Awards Program. Available online

htp://www.wbdg.org.pdf/USAEC_DesignAwards2000.pdf.

Barton, William H., “Bill” Barton, Sr., William H. “Buzz”

Barton, Jr., M. David Byers, Jr., Thomas L. Henegar, and Danny

J. Summers

1999 The History of the Southern Nursery Association. The

Southern Nursery Association, Atlanta, GA (Available

Charleston County Public Library, Charleston, SC).

Battle, Lisa

June 5, 1964 “Charles B. Kneller was the Man in Charge.” The

Bayonet, page 44, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in

Donovan Technical Library, Infantry Hall, Fort Benning,

Georgia).

The Bayonet

April 2, 1953 “We’re 46, Men, and Hale!” Page 1, Vol. 11, No.

28, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in Donovan Technical

Library, Infantry Hall, Fort Benning, Georgia).

April 30, 1953 “Wilson Tightens Security” Page 4, Fort

Benning, Georgia (Available in Donovan Technical Library,

Infantry Hall, Fort Benning, Georgia).

January 2, 1958 “Army Faces Three Fold Role in Long Range

Look,” Page 1, Vol. 16, No. 19, Fort Benning, Georgia

(Available in Donovan Technical Library, Infantry Hall,

Fort Benning, Georgia).


Building)


January 30, 1958 “Construction Supervision Totals $26 Million

at Benning in 1957, Housing Tops 51 Projects,” Page 24,

Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in Donovan Technical


March 23, 1958 “Statue to Arrive Here Next Week,” Page 1, Vol.

16, No. 28, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in Donovan

Technical Library, Infantry Hall, Fort Benning, Georgia).

March 27, 1958 “The Infantry School to Observe 51st year,” Page

1, Vol. 16, No. 30, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in


Georgia).

April 3, 1958A “Ceremonies Mark TIS [The Infantry School]

Anniversary,” Page 1, Vol. 16, No. 31, Fort Benning,



April 3, 1958B “Doughboy Statue Unveiling Held; Stands as

Infantryman Memorial,” Page 1, Vol. 16, No. 31, Fort



April 3, 1958C “Benning Inaugurates Special Cancellation: Marks

Doughboy Statue,” Page 3, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available

in Donovan Technical Library, Infantry Hall, Fort Benning,

Georgia).

October 8, 1953 “Post Serves Free World 35 Years: Infantry

School a Force for Peace,” Pages 1, 6 and 16, Fort Benning,



December 4, 1953 “Top Leaders Eye Role of Infantry in

Future,” Page 1, Vol. 17, No. 12, Fort Benning, Georgia



December 11, 1958A “Leaders Draft Means to Power New Army,”

Page 1, Vol. 16, No. 11, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available


Building)



Georgia).

December 11, 1958B “Over 150 Stars at Meeting,” Page 1, Vol.

16, No. 11, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in Donovan


April 27, 1962 “Academic Building Low Bids,” pages 1 and 2, Fort



January 4, 1963 “’Progress’ is Keyword in U.S. Army,” Page



Georgia).

February 21, 1963 “Confused? ROAD Concept Seen as Basically

Simple,” Page 11, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in


Georgia).

March 1, 1963 “What’s Inside ROAD: The Whys and Wherefores,”

page 14, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in Donovan


March 29, 1963 “World’s Top Infantry Leaders Receive Their

Training Here at TIS [The Infantry School],” Pages 31 and



July 12, 1963 “Infantry Instructor’s Conference Scheduled July

15-19 by TIS,” Page 1, Vol. 21, No. 44, Fort Benning,



November 22, 1963 “AUSA Provides Classified Forum,” Page 1,

Vol. 22, No. 11, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in


Georgia).

December 6, 1963 “Tactical Mobility Office Established,” Page



Building)



Georgia).

January 3, 1964 “1964 Army Inventory Will Boast Advanced

Weaponry,” Page 1, Vol. 22, No. 17, Fort Benning, Georgia



January 10, 1964 “’Giant Steps’ Forward Scheduled for 1964 at

The Infantry School,” Page 5, Fort Benning, Georgia



February 28, 1964 “Military Education Called ‘Best’ by College

Study,” Page 39, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in


Georgia).

May 1, 1964 “’Big House’ Exodus Starts Tomorrow,” Page 1,

Vol. 22, No. 34, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in


Georgia).

June 5, 1964A “Each Infantry School Instructor Attends

Instructor Training Class,” Academic Building Commemorative

Edition, Page 26, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in


Georgia).

June 5, 1964B“Company Tactics Department Trains Small Unit

Commanders,” Academic Building Commemorative Edition, Page



June 5, 1964C “New Building Boasts Modern TV Facilities,”

Academic Building Commemorative Edition, Page 35, Fort



June 5, 1964D “Infantry School’s Library Helps Teach Skills of

War,” Academic Building Commemorative Edition, Page 18,


Building)




June 5, 1964E “TIS Origin is Traced to ‘Cable,’” Academic

Building Commemorative Edition, Page 7, Fort Benning,



June 5, 1964F “New Academic Building Designed for Comfort,”




June 5, 1964G “New Building Ninth Built for School Use,”



Infantry Hall, Fort Benning, Georgia)

June 5, 1964H “Saga of a Broken Elbow,” Academic Building

Commemorative Edition, Page 32, Fort Benning, Georgia


Fort Benning, Georgia)

June 12, 1964 “Acting Vice Chief of Staff Dedicates New

Building,” Page 2, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in


Georgia).

November 13, 1964 “Infantry School to Open TV Classrooms,”

page 14, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in Donovan


December 11, 1964 “ School Television Crew Takes Over; Mobile

Team Returns to New York,” pages 1 and 2, Fort Benning,



July 31, 1970 “Builder of Infantry Hall Retires,” Page 12, Fort




Building)


Black, Charles

June 5, 1964 “School and Center Occupy Building,” Page 34, The

Bayonet, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in Donovan


Catanese, Anthony J. and James C. Snyder (editors)

1979 Introduction to Urban Planning. New York: McGraw-Hill

Book Company.

Charleston City Directory

1970 “Micah Jenkins Nursery,” Charleston City Directory,

Charleston, SC Available Charleston County Public Library,

Charleston, SC).

1994 “Micah Jenkins Nursery,” Charleston City Directory,

Charleston, SC Available Charleston County Public Library,

Charleston, SC).

Chief of Engineers

1976 “U.S. Army Chief of Engineers Distinguished Design Awards,”

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.

1989 “Design and Environmental Awards Program,” U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, Washington, D.C.

City of Atlanta

2008 “W.W. Orr Doctor’s Building,” Atlanta, GA (Available on

line at http://apps.atlantaga.gov/citydir/URBAN/wwordo.htm)

Civil Defense Museum

2008 “Community Fallout Shelters,” Community Fallout Shelter

Tours, Civil Defense Museum (Available on line

http://www.civildefensemusuem.com/edmusuem2/sommun.html).

Columbus City Directory

1963-1964 “Jordan Company, The General Contractors,” Columbus

City Directory, Columbus, GA (Available Columbus Public

Library, Columbus, GA).


Building)


The Columbus Enquirer

December 9, 1965 “Academic Building Named Infantry Hall,” The

Columbus Enquirer, Columbus, Georgia (Available in Donovan


Coombes, John

April 21, 1963 “University of War Rising Skyward, Fort Benning,”

The Columbus Enquirer, Columbus, Georgia (Fort Benning,

Infantry School vertical file, Columbus Public Library,

Genealogy Room, Columbus, Georgia).

Crawford, Sara, Ed.

1986 G. Gunby Jordan II Remembers…A History of the Jordan

Company 1904-1986, published by Janis Eberhart, Columbus

Productions, Inc., Columbus, GA.

Deats, Ken, Sp4

October 4, 1968 “Infantry Hall Symbolizes Infantry,” The

Bayonet, page 23, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in


Georgia).

Department of the Army (DOA)

December 31, 1990 Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP ) and TEMPEST

Protection for Facilities. Pamphlet No. 1110-3-2. U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army. Washington,

D.C. (Available on line

http://www.usace.army.mi/inet/usace-docs/eng-

phample/ep.htm).

May 2, 2005 Army Regulation 70-75, Research, Development and

Acquisition: Survivability of Army Personnel and Materiel.

Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC.

Director of Operations and Training

1965 History Annual Supplement 1965. Headquarters, United

States Infantry Center, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in


Georgia).


Building)


DOCOMOMO

2007 State of Georgia Modern Architecture Timeline (Available on

line)http://wwwdocomomoGeorgia.org/pages/timeline;timelinew

eb.htm

Emporis.com

2008 “Frank M. Scarlett Federal Building,” Emporis.com

(Available on line

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id+474989).

Evans, Ida C.

March 27, 1964 “School’s Birthday a Family Affair: 57-Years Old:

From Tent City to Huge Campus, New Building” The Bayonet,

Pages 10 and 27, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in


Georgia).

June 5, 1964A “Infantry Students ‘Take to the Hills’ for

Realism in Communications-Electronics Dept’s’ Lab

Training,” The Bayonet, Page 12, Fort Benning, Georgia



June 5, 1964B “School Didn’t Miss a Class During ‘Great Move:’

Detailed Planning Makes Major Relocation Easy,” The

Bayonet, Page 22, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in


Georgia).

June 5, 1964C “Mobility Department Boasts Important Job,” The

Bayonet, Page 7, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in


Georgia).

Federation of American Scientists (FAS)

2008 “U.S. Strategic Command Center,” United States Nuclear

Forces (Available on line at

http://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/c3i/cmdctr.htm)

Fisher, W. Robinson and Christine Johnson

January 14, 1987 Historic American Building Survey Fort

Benning, Georgia. Prepared for United States Army Corps of


Building)


Engineers, Savannah District, Georgia, under contract to

United States Army Infantry Center, Fort Benning, Georgia

by Robinson Fisher Associates, Inc, Athens, Georgia, and

Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc., Athens, Georgia.

Florida Historic Homes

2008 “History of West Palm Beach,” Florida Historic Homes

(Available on line

http://floridahistorichomes.com/WPB.html)

Fort Benning

1969 History Supplement, 1968, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available


Georgia).

Fort Lauderdale Historical Society

Nd Abreu building image file, Fort Lauderdale Historical Society,

The Hoch Heritage Center, Fort Lauderdale, FL (Available

Fort Lauderdale Historical Society, FL).

Gaither, Steve

1997 Looking Between Trinity and the Wall: Army Materiel Command

Cold War Material Cultural within the Continental United

States 1945-1989. U.S, Army Materiel Command Historical

Context Series, Report of Investigations, Number 11. Geo-

Marine, Plano, TX. Prepared for the United States Army

Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth TX.

Gelke, Donald, MAJ

June 5, 1964 “Academic Building Will Train Infantrymen

Better,” The Bayonet, page 42, Fort Benning, Georgia



Genealogy Society of Broward County Florida (GSBC)

2007 Notable Persons of Broward County Florida, GSBC (Available

on line).

http://www.rootsweb.com/~flgsbc/resourcesbiographies.html

Gillis, Susan and Daniel T. Hobby

1999 Fort Lauderdale. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, SC.


Building)


Harris, Cyril, Ed.

1993 Dictionary of Architecture & Construction. McGraw-Hill,

Inc., New York.

Hart, Kevin R.

1978 A History of Fort Campbell, Kentucky, 1942-1978. Fort

Campbell, Kentucky.

Headquarters United States Army Corps of Engineers (HQ USACE)

2007 “2001 Chief of Engineers Design and Environmental Awards,”

Headquarters United States Army Corps of Engineers

(Available on line).

http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/pubs/apr02/story10.htm

Hine, Thomas

1986 Populuxe. Borzoi Book published by Alfred A. Knopf, New

York.

Holland, John

June 5, 1964 “Infantry School Building finally Becomes a

Reality After Spending 13 Years in Planning and

Construction,” The Bayonet, Academic Building Commemorative

Edition, Page 40, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in


Georgia).

Hunt, William Dudley, Jr.

1961 Office Buildings: An Architectural Record Book. F. W.

Dodge Corporation, A McGraw-Hill Company, New York.

Infantry Magazine

September-October 1964 “New School Building,” Infantry

Magazine, Volume 54, No. 5, pages 33-35 (Available in


Georgia).

May-June 2004 “The Infantryman comes home,” Infantry Magazine

(Available online at

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_mOIAV/is_3_93_n621021

7)


Building)


The Jordan Company

2008 “Development Overview,” The Jordan Company, Columbus,

Georgia (Available on line http://www.thejordanco.com)

Keener, J. Kristopher

2001 The Helicopter Innovation in United States Army Aviation.

Working Paper 01-1, January. MIT Security Studies Program,

NPP.

Keller, J. Timothy, and Genevieve P. Keller

1998 How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes.

National Register Bulletin No.18. United States Department

of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Leland, Jack

July 14, 1956 “Tree Cutting is Halted on Highway 17,”

Charleston News and Courier, Charleston, SC (Available

Charleston County Public Library, Charleston, SC).

Loechl, Suzanne Keith, Samuel A. Batzli, Susan I. Enscore

1996 Army Guidelines for Identifying and Evaluating Historic

Military Landscapes: An Integrated Landscape Approach. An

AEC Technical Guideline prepared by United States Army

Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research

Laboratory, Champaign, IL.

Mallory, Tom

May 29, 1958 “School Brigade Serves 10,000 Infantry School

Students Yearly,” The Bayonet, Page 34, Fort Benning,



Marmon, Jim, 1st LT

June 5, 1964 “’Building is a Tribute to the Infantry’,” The

Bayonet, Academic Building Commemorative Edition, Page 40,



A. M. Masters & Son, Inc.

June 5, 1964 “We are Proud…” (Advertisement), The Bayonet,

Fort Benning, Georgia. (Available in Donovan Technical



Building)


McClelland, Linda Flint, J. Timothy Keller, Genevieve P. Keller,

and Robert Z. Melnick

1990 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic

Landscapes. National Register Bulletin 30. U.S.,

Department of Interior, National Park Service, Interagency

Resources Division, Washington, D.C.

Montgomery City Directory

1963 “Deep South Construction Company,” Montgomery City

Directory, Montgomery, AL (Available at the Juliette

Hampton Morgan Library, Montgomery, AL).







1975 “Carr & Rothschild,” Montgomery City Directory, Montgomery,

AL (Available at the Juliette Hampton Morgan Library,

Montgomery, AL).

1981 “Carr Construction,” Montgomery City Directory, Montgomery,

AL (Available at the Juliette Hampton Morgan Library,

Montgomery, AL).

Moore, Joe, Sp4

June 5, 1964 “New Academic Building Called ‘Only One of Its

Kind.” The Bayonet, Academic Building Commemorative

Edition. , pg. 8, Fort Benning, Georgia.

Office of Civil Defense

January 1965 New Buildings with Fallout Protection, Technical

Report 27, Department of Defense, Office of Civil Defense,

np.

Palm Beach Preservation Foundation

2008 “Community Map,” Palm Beach Preservation Foundation

(Available on line http://palmbeachpreservation.org).


Building)


Pfeffer, Robert A.

2008 A Rationale for Establishing Survivability Requirements for

Objective Force Unmanned Army Platforms and Systems

(Available on line

http://www.dodccrp.org/events/8th_ICCRTS/pdf/074.pdf).

Piland, Sherry, Barbara Mattick, and Carl Shriver

1997 National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, St.

Anthony School, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, completed by

Bureau of Historic Preservation, Tallahassee, Florida.

Rathbun, Marrilyn C.

Spring 1982 “Francis L. Abreu and Fort Lauderdale’s Boomtime

Architecture,” New River News, Volume XX, Number 4, pgs. 3-

10, Fort Lauderdale Historical Society, Florida.

Rifkind, Carole

1998 A Field Guide to Contemporary American Architecture.

Dutton, New York, New York.

Rush, Sam

December 10, 1965 “Building Four Now ‘Infantry Hall’,” The

Bayonet, Vol. 24, No. 14, pages 1 and 2, Fort Benning,



Sellers, Tom

May 8, 1960 “Do-It-Yourself Statue,” Ledger-Inquirer Magazine

[newspaper], Columbus, Georgia (on filed National Infantry


Sherfy, Marcella and W. Ray Luce

Nd Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that Have

Achieved Significance within the Last Fifty Years. National

Register Bulletin 22. United States Department of Interior,

National Park Service and Interagency Resources division,

Washington, D.C.

Smith, G.E. Kidder

1996 Source Book of American Architecture. Princeton

Architectural Press, New York, NY.


Building)


Smith, William, Captain

June 5, 1964 “New Building Draws Praise of Majority, Roving

Reporter,” The Bayonet, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in


Georgia).

State of Florida

2008 “Palm Beach County,” NRHP Florida state Listings (Available

on line

nttp://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/fl/Palm+Bea

ch/state.html)

Stieghan, David S.

March-April 2007 “A Century of Excellence” the U.S. Army

infantry School – Then and Now,” Infantry, Vol. 96, No. 2,

pages 26-30.

Stieghan, David S., Installation Combat Historian

September 14, 2007 “A Century of Excellence United States Army

Infantry School then and now,” The Bayonet, Infantry

Warfighting Conference Edition, page W11, Fort Benning,



Summers, Karen

2002 “SNA Awards for Honorary Lifetime Membership,” Southern

Nursery Association (SNA), Inc., Press Release, SNA,

Atlanta, GA (Available Charleston County Public Library,

Charleston, SC).

Taylor, Thomas H.

1991 “From Southeast to Southwest Asia” in 101st Airborne

Division Screaming Eagles, pp. 86-96, 214. Turner

Publishing Co., Paducah, Kentucky.

Tisdale, Tyron E., COL

July 1965 “Historical Report, 1964,” United States Infantry

School, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in Donovan



Building)


United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth

1997 Cold War Property Identification, Evaluation and Management

Guidelines. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Fort

Worth District, Fort Worth, TX.

United States Army Infantry

2008 National Infantry Museum Iron Mike, United States Army

Infantry Homepage, National Infantry Museum, Fort Benning,

Georgia (Available on line)

https://www.infantry.army.mil/museum/off_site_tour/iron_mik

e.htm

United States Department of the Interior

1991 Guidelines to Complete the National Register Registration

Form. National Register Bulletin 16A and 16B. United States

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural

Resources, Interagency Resources Division, National

Register Branch, Washington, D.C.

Wyatt, Jim, SP5

February 1976 “The Man Behind the Statue,” Soldiers, pages 35 –

36 (Available in the Vertical File, The Man Behind the

Statue,” in Donovan Technical Library, Infantry Hall, Fort

Benning, Georgia).

11th Infantry Public Information Officer

March 17, 1961 “Lt. Colonel Sanders Named as Deputy BG

Commander,” The Bayonet, Page 12, Fort Benning, Georgia



March 31, 1961 “Col. Sanders Earns Medal for Service,” The

Bayonet, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in Donovan


2. Unpublished sources:

Academic Building Vertical File

May 15 1958 Memo to Col Crouch re: “‘Brainstorming’ session”

for new Academic Building, Academic Building Vertical File,

Archival, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in Donovan



Building)


nd “Discussion Points New Academic Building, Academic Building

Vertical File, Archival, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available


Georgia).

The American Institute of Architects (AIA)

January 7, 1942A “Application for Membership, Francis Louis

Abreu,” AIA, Washington, D.C. (Available in AIA archives,

Washington, D.C.)

January 7, 1942B “Application for Membership, James Lee

Robeson,” AIA, Washington, D.C. (Available in AIA archives,

Washington, D.C.)

May 7,1946 “Questionnaire for Architect’s Roster and/or Register

of Architects Qualified for Federal Public Works, Abreu and

Robeson,” AIA, Washington, D.C. (Available in AIA archives,

Washington, D.C.

Directorate of Public Works

nd1 Real Property Records, Directorate of Public Works, Fort

Benning, Georgia.

nd2 Blueprints, Directorate of Public Works, Fort Benning,

Georgia.

Fort Benning

ca. 1964A United States Army Infantry School (Brochure), Fort



ca, 1964B “Infantry Hall” [Sic] (hand-out), Fort Benning,

Georgia (Available in National Infantry Museum, Fort

Benning, Georgia).

June 5, 1964 Dedication United Sates Infantry School Building.



Fort Benning and the United States Army Construction Engineering

Research Laboratory (USACERL)


Building)


2001 Draft Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan. Fort

Benning and USACERL, Fort Benning, Georgia.

Grube, D.D.

December 11, 1983 Information Paper, Subject: Statue at

Infantry Hall [to Chief of Staff with opinions and facts

upon which he may base a conclusion that the statue at

Infantry Hall was in any way inspired by the commander of

the 34th Infantry Regiment on the beach at Leyte], Fort

Benning, Georgia (on file, National Infantry Museum, Fort

Benning, Georgia).

June 23, 1988 Information Paper, Subject: The Infantryman

Statue at Infantry Hall [to inform the Chief of Staff of

facts concerning the statue located in front of Infantry

Hall], Fort Benning, Georgia (on file, National Infantry


Historic American Building Survey (HABS)

nd Plains Public Housing – 9A (Jimmy Carter, Dura Apartment),

HABS No. GA-2210, Historic American Building Survey,

National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

Washington, D.C.

Little, Tom, President Georgia Chapter DOCOMOMO

2008 Email to Jeanette Knowles, Architectural Historian,

Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Tampa, Florida, re: Abreu

and Robeson’s Atlanta buildings.

McLean, Beth

January 12, 2008 Personal correspondence via email with Kelly

Nolte, Senior Architectural Historian, Panamerican

Consultants, Inc., Panamerican Consultants, Inc.,

Tuscaloosa, Alabama, re: Abreu & Robeson.

Neal, Ray, Reference Librarian

January 23, 2008 Telephone conversation with Jeanette

Knowles, Architectural Historian Panamerican Consultants,

Inc., Tampa, Florida, re: J. Young Construction Company,

Jacksonville Public Library, Jacksonville, FL.


Building)


Nolte, Kelly

2008 National Register of Historic Places Evaluation of

Infantry Hall, Building 00004, Martin Army Community

Hospital Complex, Building 09220-09205 and 09207, and

Building 00334, Fort Benning, Georgia. Prepared for

Department of the Army, Army Infantry Center, Fort Benning,

Georgia, by Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Tuscaloosa,

Alabama.

Nolte, Kelly and Mike Cinquino

March 1999 Research and Review of the 1984 Historic American

Building Survey (HABS) Inventory, United States Military

Academy. West Point, Orange County, New York, prepared for

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, New York,

under contract to Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Mobile,

Alabama, by Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Depew, New York.

Nolte, Kelly and Stacey L. Griffin

July 17, 2003 Historic Structures Survey and Cold War

Evaluation of Kelley Hill Cantonment at Fort Benning,

Georgia, prepared for Environmental Programs Branch,

Directorate Facilities Engineering and Logistics, Fort

Benning Military Reservation, Georgia, by Panamerican

Consultants, Inc., Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Nolte, Kelly and Christine M. Longiaru

August 2006 Fort Benning Historic Properties/Survey Update

Phased Task 1.B Intensive Survey of Historic Properties

1919-1963 Including Wherry, Capehart and MCA Funded Family

Housing and World War II Permanent and Temporary Buildings,

Fort Benning Military Reservation, Georgia. Vol. 1.

Prepared for Fort Benning Military Reservation, Georgia, by

Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Nowell

March 15, 1955 Academic Building [blueprint] with notes and

changes made by General [Carl F.] Fritzsche, Savannah Corps

of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia, Academic Building Vertical

File, Archival, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in Donovan



Building)


Sperry Rand Corporation

ca. 1960 Univac 1004II and Univac 1104III: Power You Grow

With…Not Into [brochure]. Sperry Rand Corporation, United

States (Available online at:

http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Remington

_Rand/Univac.1004.1964.102646252.pdf).

St. Clair, Howard B., COL, Chairman Ad Hoc Group, Harold S.

Tate, Educational Advisor, and John M. King, COL, Infantry

Member

November 1962 “Analysis of the Organization of the United

States Army Infantry School per instructions from Royal

Reynolds, Jr., BG, Assistant Commandant, Fort Benning,

History File, Vertical files, Fort Benning, Georgia



St. Clair, Howard B. COL

1962 Analysis of the Organization of the United States Army

Infantry School (White paper). To BG Royal Reynolds, Jr.,

Assistant Commandant, United Sates Army Infantry School,

Fort Benning Georgia, from COL Howard B. St. Clair,

Editorial and Pictorial Office, United Sates Army Infantry

School, Fort Benning Georgia (Available in Donovan


Stieghan, David S., Installation Combat Historian

2007 Interview with Kelly Nolte, Panamerican Consultants, Inc.,

Tuscaloosa, Alabama, September 20, 2007. Infantry Hall,

Fort Benning, Georgia.

Tate, Harold S., Educational Advisor

November 20, 1959 Letter re: briefing by GEN Ruffner and GEN

de Shazo concerning the “critical points to help sell [the

proposed academic building] to the proper authorities,”

Academic Building Vertical File, Archival, Fort Benning,



October 6, 1960 Letter to COL J. H. Martin re: LT COL C.M.

Sanders work in Washington D.C. on behalf of the new

Infantry School building, Academic Building Vertical File,


Building)


Archival, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in Donovan


United States Army Infantry Board

1972 Only the Best for the Finest, United States Army Infantry

Broad, Fort Benning, 1903-1972 (pamphlet). United States

Army Infantry Board, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available in


Georgia).

United States Infantry School

1962 “Justification for the Proposed Academic Building, MCA

Programs, FY 1962,” Vertical File (Available in Donovan


July 13, 1964 “Fourteen Months of Actions and Events in the

Infantry School – Instruction and Management,” United

States Infantry School, Fort Benning, Georgia, Vertical

File (Available in Donovan Technical Library, Infantry


Weekly, Ruth

May 1958 Memo re: Infantry School Library, Academic Building

Vertical File, Archival, Fort Benning, Georgia (Available


Georgia).

Weik, Martin H.

January 1964 A fourth Survey of Domestic electronic Digital

Computing Systems. Ballistic Research Laboratories Report

[BRL] No. 1227 (Supplement to BRL Report No. 1115).

Ballistic Research Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Ground,

Maryland. (Available online at: http://ed-thelen.org/comp-

hist/BLR64.html#TOC).

Wilder, Samuel D., COL

September 15, 1967 Letter to COL James Little, Post Engineer,

Fort Sam Houston, Texas, Re: Infantryman statue at Fort

Benning, Georgia (on file National Infantry Museum, Fort

Benning, Georgia).

E. Likely Sources Not Yet Investigated: All likely sources of

information have been investigated. It should be noted


Building)


here that the bulk of Abreu & Robeson’s blueprints are now

located at the Public Library Brunswick, Georgia. The

blueprints are rolled, in poor condition and have never

been inventoried. Unfortunately, the library has no funds

for the inventory and conservation of the documents. Until

such time, they are not available for reference.

Nevertheless, Fort Benning has a full complement of

blueprints for Infantry Hall. It would be interesting,

however, to see if Abreu & Robeson kept elevations or older

versions of the building’s blueprints.

F. Supplemental Material: The attached supplemental material

consists of digitally reproduced copies of color 35 mm and

color digital photographic prints that were taken over the

course of several months in 2007 and 2008. The prints show

details of Infantry Hall that the Large Format Camera is

unable to capture. The prints are accompanied by captions

explaining the view and significance. Also included are

digitally reproduced copies of original Army photos that

are on file in the National Infantry Museum, Fort Benning,

Georgia. These photographs are identified as such.

PART IV. PROJECT INFORMATION

Panamerican Consultants, Inc., was contracted by the Cultural Resources Office, Fort Benning, Georgia, under the

direction of Dr. Christopher Hamilton to complete a HABS

Level II on the Infantry Hall as a result of BRAC actions.

Infantry Hall is scheduled for extensive renovation to

accommodate both The Infantry School and the soon to arrive

from Fort Knox, Kentucky, Armor School, thereby becoming

the Maneuver Center of Excellence. The exterior and

interior of the building will be changed significantly

under the proposed renovations.

Although not yet fifty years old, Infantry Hall was

identified in 2006 as, “Likely [to be] eligible for the

NRHP” (Nolte and Longiaru 2006:53). In January 2008 a NRHP

evaluation of Infantry Hall was performed and the building,

the entry landscape that includes the 100’ flag pole, The

Infantryman/Follow Me statue, the fifty state flagpoles,

the semicircular knee wall and York Field were identified


Building)


as eligible for the NRHP through Criterion Consideration G

under Criteria A and C (Nolte 2008).

Ms. Kelly Nolte, Senior Architectural Historian, Director

of the Architectural History Division, Panamerican

Consultants Inc., is the author of the HABS documentation

and conducted most of the research. She was assisted in

research efforts by Jeanette Knowles, Architectural

Historian, Panamerican Consultants, Inc. Mr. Mark

Drumlevitch, Panamerican Consultants, Inc., was the large

format photographer for the project. He was assisted by

Ms. Stacey L. Griffin, Senior Architectural

Historian/Principal Investigator, Panamerican Consultants,

Inc., who also took color digital photographs and conducted

research. Ms. Griffin also served as Panamerican staff

liaison with Fort Benning. Ms. Nolte took 35mm color

photographs. The report was edited by Ms. Kristen Reed and

Ms. Griffin.

While in the field at Fort Benning, Panamerican staff was

assisted by: Dr. Christopher Hamilton, Cultural Resources

Manager; Ms. Connie Barrett, Historic Preservation

Specialist, Cultural Resources Office; Mr. Jake Lowe, Plans

and Support; Ms. Amber Fields, National Infantry Museum;

the Desk Sergeants of Infantry Hall; LTC Ernest Coleman,

Deputy Chief of Staff; Mr. Ken Horn, Infantry Hall; Mr.

David Stieghan, Installation Combat Historian, Fort

Benning; and the truly hardworking librarians of the

Donovan Technical Library without whom this document could

not have been completed.


Building)


PART V. GRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION

A. Location Map

Aerial view of the area surrounding Building No. 4, Fort

Benning, Georgia (USGS 1955, photo revised 1985 Fort

Benning, Georgia-Alabama Quadrangle 7.5” topo map).


Building)


Location of Building No. 4, Fort Benning, Georgia (USGS

1955, photo revised 1985 Fort Benning, Georgia-Alabama

Quadrangle 7.5” topo map).


Building)


B. Historic Photographs

“Academic Building TIS [The Infantry School] Fort Benning

Georgia/ 7-18-55/ Abreu & Robeson/ Incorporated/ Architects and

Engineers,” an early plan for The Infantry School. Although the

building is in the more or less an H shape, the wings are flat

roofed and have major entry points on the south, front ends.

The entry to the school has a ripple arched cover, but, most

importantly, the fenestration is in a typical ribbon row form on

the center “tower” as it was termed. (Photograph courtesy of

the National Infantry Museum, Fort Benning, Georgia).


Building)


“Academic Building, The Infantry School, Fort Benning, Georgia.

Scale: 1” – 10’/ Corps of Engineers, United States Army, Abreu &

Robeson Inc. Architects – Engineers, Atlanta – Brunswick,

Georgia [model].” Note the tanks moving in and out of the

classroom wings; the floor was rated at 2.5 tons in certain

classrooms so that vehicles could be brought in as teaching

tools. (Photograph courtesy of the National Infantry Museum,



Building)


Model of the final plan for The Infantry School, Fort Benning,

Georgia. (Photograph courtesy of the National Infantry Museum,



Building)


Rear view of model of the final plan for The Infantry School,

Fort Benning, Georgia. (Photograph courtesy of the National

Infantry Museum, Fort Benning, Georgia).


Building)


“Lt Colonel[James T.] Carter and Captain [Herman J.] Vanbebber

check the progress” of Infantry Hall, Fort Benning, Georgia.

(Photograph courtesy of the National Infantry Museum, Fort

Benning, Georgia).


Building)


LTC Carter and CPT Vanbebber in front of the west wing; note the

officer tower behind, Infantry Hall, Fort Benning, Georgia.


Benning, Georgia).


Building)


Floor finishing work inside Infantry Hall, Fort Benning,

Georgia. (Photograph courtesy of the National Infantry Museum,



Building)


Newly opened Building No. 4, home of The Infantry School, Fort

Benning, Georgia. Note the completed landscaped in the front,

south, of the building and the parking lots on the east and

west. Eubanks Field, the location of the parachute jump towers,

now a NRHP eligible historic district, can be seen in the rear,

north of the building. (Photograph courtesy of the National



Building)


View of the west wing of Infantry Hall across 900 vehicle

parking lot, ca. 1964, Fort Benning, Georgia. (Photograph

courtesy of the National Infantry Museum, Fort Benning,

Georgia).


Building)


The “Big House,” the old Infantry School building, Building No.

35 (1935), designed by McKim Mead & White (Photograph by Stacey

L. Griffin, Panamerican Consultants, Inc., 2007).


Building)


View of entry hall, 1964, Infantry Hall, Fort Benning, Georgia.

Note the Follow Me insignia in the terrazzo floors, the Carthage

marble walls, the open walnut beams of the mezzanine and the

elevator banks (United States Army Photograph, Infantry Magazine

1964:33-35, Fort Benning, Georgia).


Building)


View of east hallway wing, 1964, Infantry Hall, Fort Benning,

Georgia. (United States Army Photograph, Infantry Magazine



Building)


George C. Marshall Auditorium, 1964, seats 1,500 people,

Infantry Hall, Fort Benning. Note the sound baffling system on

the west wall composed of acoustical pads with pierced walnut

beams overlain, and the balcony that is accessed from the

mezzanine. (United States Army Photograph, Infantry Magazine



Building)


Interior of fifty-man classroom, 1964, Infantry Hall, Fort

Benning, Georgia. Note the hourglass-shaped podium from which

the instructor could control lights, sound, and other classroom

equipment. (United States Army Photograph, Infantry Magazine



Building)


Interior of 200 man classroom, 1964, Infantry Hall, Fort

Benning, Georgia. Note the acoustical panels on the walls;

hanging banks of fluorescent lights; stage curtains; hourglass-

shaped podium from which the instructor could control lights,

sound, and other classroom equipment; screen that rolled from

under the curtain valance; and the tiered seating arrangement.

(United States Army Photograph, Infantry Magazine 1964:33-35,



Building)


Interior of cafeteria that

could seat 480 diners

hourly, 1964, Infantry Hall,

Fort Benning, Georgia.

(United States Army

Photograph, Infantry

Magazine 1964:33-35, Fort

Benning, Georgia).

Interior of Book Store originally located beside, to the east,

of the cafeteria, 1964, Infantry Hall, Fort Benning, Georgia.

(United States Army Photograph, Infantry Magazine 1964:33-35,



Building)


Interior of Computer Center, second floor, Infantry Hall, Fort

Benning, Georgia. Note the large Univac 1004 computer that used

punch cards. (United States Army Photograph, Infantry Magazine



Building)


Interior of Commandant of The Infantry School’s office, 1964,

Infantry Hall, Fort Benning, Georgia. Note the walnut paneling

and the narrow window without blinds. (United States Army

Photograph, Infantry Magazine 1964:33-35, Fort Benning,

Georgia).


Building)


Interior view of window, Infantry Hall, Fort Benning, Georgia.

The windows did not originally have binds, but most now do.

(Photograph by Stacey L. Griffin, Panamerican Consultants, Inc.,

2008).


Building)


Interior view of window showing no decorative surround, Infantry

Hall, Fort Benning, Georgia. (Photograph by Stacey L. Griffin,

Panamerican Consultants, Inc., 2008).


Building)


Exterior view of window vault door, SEC COM room, Infantry Hall,

Fort Benning, Georgia. (Photograph by Kelly Nolte, Panamerican

Consultants, Inc., 2007).


Building)


Interior view of window vault door, SEC COM room, Infantry Hall,

Fort Benning, Georgia. Note the additional barred door that

must also be opened to access the SEC COM room. (Photograph by

Kelly Nolte, Panamerican Consultants, Inc., 2007).


Building)


Original hourglass-shaped podium in the classrooms from which

the instructor could control lights, sound and other mechanical

features of the room, Infantry Hall, Fort Benning, Georgia.

(Photograph by Stacey L. Griffin, Panamerican Consultants, Inc.,

2008).


Building)


“Officers Candidate [Eugene J.] Wyles poses as the model for the

face, hands and position,” of The Infantryman/Follow Me statue

which has come to represent The Infantry School and Fort

Benning. (Photograph courtesy of the National Infantry Museum,



Building)


After a pose for the statue was selected, it was drawn on the

floor and the armature of steel beams was laid out upon it. The

primary sculptor, PVT Manfred Bass, smiles up at the camera.


Benning, Georgia).


Building)


PVT Bass, with dark hair, is assisted by PVT Karl Van Krog; here

they pose with the armature. (Photograph courtesy of the

National Infantry Museum, Fort Benning, Georgia).


Building)


PVT Bass works on the armature. Note the tools of the trade, a

large anvil, various hammers, and welding tanks. (Photograph


Georgia).


Building)


The head is shaped separately from the rest of the statue.


Benning, Georgia).


Building)


The hand is first created in clay by PVT Bass. (Photograph


Georgia).


Building)


The hands and head as well as some special detailing are next

fitted onto the armature. (Photograph courtesy of the National



Building)


The head, hands and certain details are covered and the armature

is coated with an epoxy and polyester mixture. (Photograph


Georgia).


Building)


Fibers are blown on epoxy mixture to form a hard finish much

like fiberglass. (Photograph courtesy of the National Infantry



Building)


Model of proposed landscape for Eubanks Field featuring The

Infantryman/Follow Me statue. (Photograph courtesy of the

National Infantry Museum, Fort Benning, Georgia).


Building)


Until the unveiling, the statue had been kept a secret and was

called “Project S”. It was unveiled on March 3, 1960, by

Secretary of the Army Wilber M. Brucker, who is assisted in the

photograph by MJG Paul L. Freeman, Jr., Commandant of The

Infantry School, who first initiated the plans for the statue.


Benning, Georgia).


Building)


The men responsible for the creation of the statue pose with the

Secretary of the Army, right to left, COL John W. Woestenburg,

Ordnance Corps, who was responsible for finding the sculptors

and getting the statue completed; Charles O. Crowder, his

civilian assistant; PFC Karl H. Van Krog, assistant sculptor;

Wilber M. Brucker, Secretary of the Army; MJG Paul L. Freeman ,

Jr., Commandant of The Infantry School; PFC Manfred Bass; and

Eugene L. Wyles, model, now a 2nd LT, in front of the base of the

statue. (Photograph courtesy of the National Infantry Museum,



Building)


The Infantryman /Follow Me statue on Eubanks Field. Note the

state flags that flank the statue; this concept will be brought

with the statue to the front of Infantry Hall in 1964.


Benning, Georgia).

Documents

FORT BENNING, INFANTRY HALL HABS GA-2392-F (Building …