EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, RANGE 22 ARMAMENT RESEARCH …

PHOTOGRAPHS

WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA

HABS FL-411-DHABS FL-411-D

EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, RANGE 22 ARMAMENT RESEARCHSHOP(Building 411)Range 22, east end adjacent to Eglin BoulevardValparaiso vicinityOkaloosa CountyFlorida

HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEYNational Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior1849 C Street NW

Washington, DC 20240-0001

HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEY

EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, RANGE 22 ARMAMENT RESEARCH SHOP

(Building 411)

HABS No. FL-411-D

Location: Range 22, east end adjacent to Eglin Boulevard, Eglin Air Force Base,

Valparaiso vicinity, Okaloosa County, Florida. The building is located at latitude: 30.476767, longitude: -86.506094, which represents the center of the building. The coordinates were obtained in 2014 by plotting its location in Google Earth. Coordinates are based on WGS84. Eglin Air Force Base location has no restriction on its release to the public.

Present Owner/ Occupant: United States Air Force, Eglin Air Force Base. Present Use: This building is currently unoccupied; however, the general area is used for

testing. Significance: Building 411 was used primarily to support testing operations at Range 22.

Range 22 was developed during the late 1930s as a gunnery range and it evolved in World War II to proof test the following: armament and armament-equipped aircraft; machine gun armament and incendiary bullets; gun turrets; periscope guns; and other military materiel. The gunnery tests were designed to gather information on guns and gun sight installations pertaining to accuracy, field of fire, reliability and durability, and base provisions. Each gunnery test consisted of a ground inspection and ground firing test, as well as an air firing test. These armament tests were for operational suitability. The proving ground was used to test aircraft coming off the production line, not yet tested for tactical suitability, and to make recommendations for possible improvements to equipment in the factory and in the field. The proving ground testing personnel were directed to “place themselves in the position of the combat crews” to ensure the materiel was operational.1 In addition to testing, the range supported the mission of the Air Corps Gunnery School, which was to instruct the students of all the Air Corps Advanced Flying Schools in fixed gunnery skills.

1 Brigadier General Muir S. Fairchild, Director of Military Requirements to Commanding Officer, AAFPG Command, 6 April 1942, Subject: Accelerated Service Tests of United States Aircraft, Exhibit 31; Fairchild to Commanding Officer, AAFPG Command, 9 April 1942, Subject: Directives, Exhibit 32; and Fairchild to Commanding Officer AAFPG Command, 29 June 1942, Subject: Reports on Operational Fitness of Aircraft Types, Exhibit 36 all in Joseph W. Angell, Air Proving Ground Command, History of the Army Air Forces Proving Ground Command, Part I: Historical Outline, 1933–1944 Appendices, reprinted (Eglin Air Force Base: Office of History, Munitions Systems Division, November 1989).

EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, RANGE 22 ARMAMENT RESEARCH SHOP HABS No. FL-411-D

(page 2)

The same mission applied during the Cold War when Building 411 was constructed to support armament research and non-destructive testing. Building 411 housed an armament machine shop, control tower on the roof, non-destructive testing room, and storage for testing equipment.

Historian(s): Karen Van Citters, Van Citters: Historic Preservation, LLC (VCHP). The text

for the section below called, “Establishing a Military Proving Ground” was adapted from the February 2, 2011 “Eglin Field World War II Historic District” National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, an amendment to an historic district at Eglin Air Force Base completed by Dr. Sarah Payne, previously of VCHP. This current documentation was completed in July 2015.

Project Information: This HABS Level II documentation was completed by VCHP for Eglin Air

Force Base, Civil Engineering Group, Cultural Resources Management in 2015. Photographic documentation completed by Martin Stupich in September, 2014. It was reviewed for transmittal by Christopher Marston and Mary McPartland of Heritage Documentation Programs in 2015.

Part I. Historical Information A. Physical History

1. Date of erection: Between 1951 and 1955 (as evidenced by site plans); control tower added in 1956.

2. Architect: Air Force Armament Center

3. Original and subsequent owners, occupants, uses: The building was originally an armament research shop on Range 22 at Eglin Air Force Base. The shop was constructed for the Air Research and Development Command (ARDC), which was established in 1950. In 1961, the ARDC was redesignated the Air Force Systems Command (AFSC) and AFSC took over the mission at Range 22 and thereby, the armament research shop. By 2002, the Eglin AFB Fire Department was occupying the building. However by 2013, the building was unoccupied.

4. Builder, contractor, suppliers: Unknown.

5. Original plans and construction: The two story building was built on the Fighter Bomber Firing Apron of Range 22. It was constructed of a poured concrete frame with a concrete floor and roof structure, and a concrete masonry unit infill wall. The first story consisted of four bays and the second story consisted of two on the east elevation and two and a half bays on the west elevation; the extra half bay of the second story was an entry room from an exterior metal stair on the west elevation. The building included ribbon windows on both the first and second floors on the


(page 3)

north and east elevations. The second floor window units were taller than the ones on the first floor and were also installed on the south elevation. There were metal personnel doors on the north end of the east and west elevations and an overhead door on the north and south elevations. An exterior clay tile chimney was located on the north elevation to the west of the overhead door. The exterior metal stair ran from the base of the northwest corner up to the second floor, where there were two metal personnel doors at the landing. The first floor had three large rooms with 12’ high bay ceilings and an enclosure for the boiler room in the northwest corner. One room was the width of two bays and the other two rooms were each one bay wide. The second floor was one large room with windows facing downrange for test viewing.

6. Alterations and additions: In March 1956, a degreaser and a monorail were added to the north room on the first floor. The monorail was hung from the concrete beam at the center of the room and supported by new 3” diameter pipe columns on the north and south walls of the room. It was attached to the existing beam and walls with 8” x 8” steel angles.

In May 1956, a wood control tower was added to the roof of the concrete building. A steel pedestal was added to the top of the building’s original poured concrete frame to serve as support for an open-web steel truss, which in turn supported a 6’–8” by 6’–8” wood room constructed of 2” x 4” dimensional lumber with fiberboard walls and a 12/4 pitch shed roof. There was a wood door with an L-shaped wood walkway and wood railing that led to the west edge of the roof, where there was a metal ladder that led down to the exterior stair landing.

In 1965, the rooms at the south end of the building were altered to provide a radiology laboratory, ultrasonic laboratory, dark room, and photo viewing room. As noted, originally there were three rooms that matched the exterior concrete frame bays of the building, with a smaller boiler room within the northwest corner. The northeast bay/corner became the radiology lab, which was constructed with 1’–3” thick poured concrete walls and a gypsum board ceiling attached to the existing 2” x 4” joist structure, which was then surmounted by 3/8” plywood and a ¼” lead sheathing. The new poured concrete was installed on the interior to create the south and east walls, and a partial north wall, leaving the original opening for the overhead door on the north. The door was replaced by a sliding metal radiation door constructed with steel angles and an interior core of ¾” lead, encased in 20 gauge steel. The east wall was constructed on the exterior of the original concrete masonry unit, infilling the original personnel door. In order to install the new poured concrete wall, the existing concrete floors were saw cut and the new poured concrete wall structure extended one foot below grade.

The dark and viewing rooms were constructed with concrete masonry units; both were the same 11’–10” length as the radiology room, but the dark room was 8’–10” wide and the viewing room as 5’–6” wide; they were connected by an open “U” shaped 3’-wide interior hall. The interior height of these and the radiology room was 8’, while the remainder of the first floor rooms were the original 12’ high bay height. The ultrasonic lab was directly across from the two photographic rooms and was the


(page 4)

combined width of both, but only had walls on three sides, leaving the laboratory open to the hallway. The south half of the building was open in its entirety and called the work room.

In 1968, a 24’ x 48’ poured concrete frame with concrete masonry unit infill work room was constructed on the south end of the building. There was no fenestration, except the overhead door on the south elevation. The addition was constructed to house the new fluorescent penetrant inspection unit for non-destructive testing. The existing building had not been large enough to house the necessary equipment. A one-ton overhead crane with an open-web crane bridge was installed in the new work room. The original south overhead door was moved to the new opening and the first floor windows in the original work room were infilled, leaving a smaller ribbon in just the two northern-most bays on the east elevation. The second floor window glazing was replaced with glare-proof glass. Once the work room was in place, the original south wall was demolished, creating one large 78’ x 24’ room.

In 1974, a Wright Electric Hoist two-ton overhead crane was installed in the addition. In 1975-76, ¼” lead sheets on ¾” plywood were attached to the interior of the radiology room, which was by then being referred to as the ‘x-ray’ room. And in 1976, the concrete masonry unit wall between the dark room and the viewing room was demolished. In 1977, a new metal personnel door was added to the west end of the south elevation.

In 1989, the south end of the large work room was subdivided into a 24’ x 24’ testing room with a drive stand and an 11’ x 24’ control room on the north side of the testing room. The wall between the testing room and the control room was constructed of concrete masonry unit, while the wall between the control room and the remainder of the building was constructed using metal studs, 3½” batts of insulation, and gypsum board. There was one metal door in each new wall and a metal door with a vertical vision panel added from the control room on the east elevation. A small 2’ x 2’ window was installed between the control room and the testing room. By that time, there was a small addition at the north end of the east elevation.

B. Historical Context Development of Valparaiso and an Airfield In the early 1900s, the local economy of the area that became Eglin Field was based on fishing, regulated timbering, and oleoresin harvesting within the Choctawhatchee National Forest. Development began in the area during the 1920s, spurred on by developer Frank Perrine who was from Chicago. In 1919, Perrine bought 16,000 acres of land along Boggy Bayou, on which he created and promoted the development of the Valparaiso village. Perrine passed away a few years later and in 1922, his widow sold her husband’s development company and their real estate


(page 5) to James E. Plew.2 Plew would emerge for Valparaiso, indeed for the entire Choctawhatchee Bay area, as the most important businessman and developer of his time.

Plew possessed the perfect combination of interests and skills to bring an air field to fruition: he was a lover of aviation and was keen to bring lasting industry to the area. Within two years of his arrival, Plew had reorganized the Valparaiso Development Company, established the Valparaiso State Bank, and built the Valparaiso Inn and Chicago Country Club Golf Course (now the Eglin Golf Course). His highly marketed inn and recreation facilities were favorite vacation destinations of visitors from across the eastern seaboard, of potential investors in the region, and, most importantly, of aviators and officers from nearby Maxwell Field in Alabama. Officers from Maxwell frequently drove to Valparaiso or made a short flight, 130 air miles straight south, to get there. They traveled to the area so often that by 1932 they had their own baseball team at Crestview. Plew saw great advantage in courting the Air Corps officers and made their visits convenient by, for example, allowing them to occasionally land planes on the golf course. One of the numerous frequent visitors from Maxwell Field was Air Corps Lieutenant Arnold H. Rich who proposed to Plew that they work together to develop an actual landing field for visiting officers. This initial idea grew into the vision of establishing a permanent Air Corps facility: a bombing and gunnery range near Valparaiso.3

The idea of an Air Corps bombing and gunnery range, however, was by no means Rich’s alone. As early as 1928, the Air Corps had discussed establishing such a range. General Grandison Gardner, who would serve as Eglin Field’s commanding officer during much of World War II, later recalled of these early years that proper flight testing facilities were limited and suitable ranges for firing guns and dropping bombs “entirely unavailable.” In 1931, the Air Corps initiated a formal search for an appropriate location to establish a bombing and gunnery range for use by the Air Corps Tactical School (ACTS). Over the next few years, as the Air Corps surveyed and considered possible sites, it measured such factors as safety, nearby population, and supply and range facilities. To Rich, Plew, and ultimately to Air Corps officials, the advantages of locating the range at Valparaiso were clear. Much of the surrounding area was already government-owned land of the Choctawhatchee National Forest. In addition, the bay area was sparsely settled. The land, furthermore, was considered economical because the lumber and turpentine industries had greatly diminished, so the industries that had used it no longer were viable. Because of the location, there were opportunities for both land and water test ranges, as the forest abutted the Choctawhatchee Bay. Perhaps more importantly, the weather in the area was generally mild, and presented good flying conditions, and finally, the area was relatively close to Maxwell Field, where many of the most important thinkers in strategic doctrine were

2 The town of Valparaiso, Florida, has changed the spelling of its name several times between Valparaiso to Valpariso—here, the modern spelling of Valparaiso is used. Joseph W. Angell, Air Proving Ground Command, History of the Army Air Forces Proving Ground Command, Part I: Background of Eglin Field, 1933–1940 [hereafter Background of Eglin Field], 1944, reprint (Eglin Air Force Base: Office of History, Armament Division, March 1989), 37-40; Elizabeth B. Monroe, “Valparaiso Inn,” National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1978), Section 8; and Florida Master Site File (FMSF) Historic Site Data Sheet, Valparaiso Inn, 8OK117 (Tallahassee, FL: State Historic Preservation Office, ca. 1978). 3 Angell, Background of Eglin Field, 37-40; NRHP Registration Form, Valparaiso Inn; and FMSF Historic Site Data Sheet, Valparaiso Inn, 8OK117.


(page 6) stationed.4 As such, Valparaiso’s proximity to Maxwell Field was a considerable advantage in its selection as the site for a gunnery range.

As the new home of the ACTS, which had just arrived at Maxwell Field in 1931, the air field had become the center of the nascent Air Corp philosophy of strategic bombing. In 1933, the Air Corps Board (ACB), the entity responsible for making recommendations to improve the Air Corps Service, relocated from Langley Field to Maxwell Field, which solidified the central role of Maxwell Field within the Air Corps.5 Maxwell Field, however, lacked a key facility to teach and develop skills and to test aircraft weaponry: a bombing and gunnery range. A bombing and gunnery range, therefore, that was in close proximity to this center of the Air Corps world, and easily accessible by the ACTS would be highly advantageous for the work being carried out by Maxwell Field personnel. Colonel John F. Curry, Commanding Officer of the ACTS, reported that the site of the Valparaiso air field was “ideal” for a bombing and gunnery range and emphasized, “At present Maxwell Field has no aerial gunnery or bombing base or range and due to this fact cannot conduct all of the training desired.”6

The arguments in favor of a range at Valparaiso for the Air Corps were accompanied by equally compelling advantages to the communities of Choctawhatchee Bay. The economic depression had hit the region hard; the presence of an Air Corps installation, locals believed, would put men to work constructing facilities and would bring more people and income to the region. As the

4 Prior to its home at Maxwell, the ACTS was stationed at Langley. Forward thinkers stationed at Maxwell included Lieutenant Colonel Harold L. George, Major Donald Wilson, Lieutenant Kenneth N. Walker, and Lieutenant Haywood Hansell. The preeminence of the ACTS in developing strategic bombing doctrine has been questioned by some scholars, see, for example, Eric S. Mathewson, Major, U.S. Air Force, “The Impact of the Air Corps Tactical School on the Development of a Strategic Doctrine,” Research Report (Alabama: Maxwell Air Force Base, 1998). Personal Narrative of Brigadier-General Grandison Gardner, 13 February 1946, in A History of Air Proving Ground Command: Personal Narratives, 1941–1946 (Eglin Field: Historical Branch, AC/S-2, Air Proving Ground Command, Eglin Field, 1946, located in box “History: Army Air Forces Proving Ground Command,” Eglin Air Force Base, History Office Archives), p. 1.; Captain Arnold Rich, “History of Eglin Field, Valpariso, Florida 1933-1938,” June 1, 1938, Exhibit 6 in Joseph W. Angell, Air Proving Ground Command, History of the Army Air Forces Proving Ground Command, Part II: Origin and Growth: Acquisition of Land, reprint (Eglin Air Force Base: Office of History, Armament Division, August 1991); Joseph W. Angell, Air Proving Ground Command, History of the Army Air Forces Proving Ground Command, Part I: Historical Outline, 1933–1944,1944; reprint (Eglin Air Force Base: Office of History, Munitions Systems Division, November 1989), 1; and Angell, Background of Eglin Field, 1933–1940, 42-44. Robert T. Finney, History of the Air Corps Tactical School, 1920–1940, 1955, reprint. (Arlington, VA: Air Force History and Museums Program, 1998), 27-28, 55-78; and Charles D. Bright, ed., Historical Dictionary of the U.S. Air Force, (New York: Greenwood Press, 1992), 26–27. 5 The ACB was established in 1922 as the Air Service Board and was renamed in 1926. The ACB had by 1934 become almost entirely inactive, as most of its responsibilities had been transferred to the ACTS. However, in November 1934 with the implementation of the Baker Board Report recommendations, the ACB was reorganized the ACB into five sub-boards, and given a clear mission: “to provide the means for obtaining coordinated experience and thought of all phases of aviation and, particularly, for harmonizing tests and experiments of General Headquarters, Air Force.” Angell, Historical Outline, 1933–1944, 2-3; Air Force Systems Command, Chronological Syllabus of the Armament Development and Test Center, Part One The Forest Transformed, 1913-1942 (Eglin Air Force Base: Air Force Systems Command, October 1976), 5-6; Finney, History of the Air Corps Tactical School, 1920–1940, 29-30; and Robert Frank Futrell, “Science and Air Warfare: Training and Testing at Eglin Field in World War II,” in The Military Presence on the Gulf Coast, (Proceedings of the Gulf Coast History and Humanities Conference, Volume VII, 1978), 125-26. 6 W.A. Hartman, “Preliminary Report, Valpariso Aerial Gunnery and Bombing Base,” (Eatonton, GA: Land Program Region 5, 29 October 1934), Exhibit 7 in Angell, Origin and Growth: Acquisition of Land.


(page 7) region’s primary developer and banker, Plew recognized the potential for economic stimulation an Air Corps presence would bring the region and facilitated the plans for the range. In April 1933, Plew, Colonel John F. Curry, Commanding Officer of Maxwell Field, and others met to discuss the suitability of the Valparaiso area for a bombing and gunnery range and to unofficially select a site. The men drafted plans to start the range by establishing a municipal airport at Valparaiso using federal, state, and local agency funds.7

The men were keenly aware of national politics, as evidenced by their shrewd use of relief agency funding for the project. Despite how badly the Air Corps might have needed the range, war department dollars were scarce. The combination of the Great Depression and a strong public isolationist sentiment since the end of World War I, meant that defense spending was low. In order to establish an Air Corps bombing and gunnery range, its advocates found creative funding sources and were patient with the slow development of the range. A range planning meeting between Plew, Curry, Rich and others took place during the height of newly elected President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s famous first 100 days, in which he initiated a host of relief programs. In March 1933, President Roosevelt established the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), which put young men to work conserving natural resources through road construction, flood control, and other improvements in national parks and forests. In May, Congress funded the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) which gave half of a $500 million appropriation directly to states, and spent the other half by matching $1 of FERA money for every $3 of state and local relief funds spent. In June, the Public Works Administration (PWA) was created, which eventually spent $3.3 billion for roads, public buildings, and other projects. Eglin’s founders used all these programs to pay for the construction of the Valparaiso air field and its associated structures and infrastructure. A 1939 newspaper article noted of Eglin’s birth:

The gunnery base began as a week-end picnic spot for Maxwell Field officers. Its guise as an air base was carefully concealed. Odd job [Works Progress Administration] WPA projects, CCC camp activities, and other devious methods were employed to add to the field’s gradual development. Most of the work was done even before they took title to the land.8

From Valparaiso Airport to Valparaiso Bombing and Gunnery Range (VBGR) From May to July of 1933, among the thick covering of longleaf and slash pine, the State of Florida Highway Department cleared a V-shaped swath of land using Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) money to create an unpaved air strip.9 During the April planning meeting, Plew and Curry had designated the location of the runway: 137 acres positioned one mile 7 Hartman, “Preliminary Report, Valpariso Aerial Gunnery and Bombing Base”; Captain Arnold H. Rich, “History of White Point (Maxwell Field Recreation Center) 1933-1941,” date unknown, Exhibit 30 in Angell, Origin and Growth: Acquisition of Land; and Angell, Historical Outline, 1933–1944, 1. 8 Valparaiso News, 20 December 1939, in Angell, Background of Eglin Field, 1933–1940, 51. 9 The RFC was one of President Hoover’s only Federal programs created in response to the economic crisis of the Great Depression. It was established in 1932 and was patterned after the War Finance Corporation of World War I. The entity made government credit available to ailing banks, railroads, insurance companies, and business. In July, 1932 Congress authorized the RFC to spend $300 million on states that had exhausted their own relief funds—only $30 million had been distributed by the end of 1933. Angell, Historical Outline, 1933–1944, 1; and Air Force Systems Command, Chronological Syllabus of the Armament Development and Test Center Part One, 4.


(page 8) southwest of Valparaiso and across Sunset Bayou, just north along what was then State Highway 10.10 Once complete, free use of the airstrip was offered to Maxwell officers. The land was owned by Plew’s Valparaiso Realty Company, which in January of 1934 had leased the 137 acres to the city of Valparaiso for 50 years at $1 a year. This first air field was christened the Valparaiso Municipal Airport. The airport consisted of two unpaved runways, a wooden supply house at the corner of the runway intersection (the first building completed in July 1933), and the cleared land between the runways. In early 1934, Plew’s Valparaiso Realty Company offered to donate the air strip to Air Corps, and later that year offered an additional 1,460 acres for the development of a bombing and gunnery range. The transfer of this land was delayed until 1937 as the War Department worked out legalities and conducted a lengthy title search.11

In the meantime, the airport slowly expanded using federal funding. In early 1934, the Civil Works Administration (CWA) granted the airport $8,000 for projects. Additional funding came from FERA, PWA, and CWA, as did labor from CCC, and assistance from the Forest Service in the form of a free-use permit issued to the city of Valparaiso for land and timber. Included in the expansions were an office, barracks, mess hall and kitchen, oil storage building, and the paving of runways.12

Finally, in May 1935, the lease of the airport was transferred to Maxwell Field at the price of $1 per year. With this lease transfer, the long-awaited VBGR was created. By June, a fifteen-man detachment of the 84th Squadron under the command of Captain Rich was sent for the summer to man the range. Captain Rich, however, commuted from Maxwell Field and it was not until 1937 that he was permanently stationed and quartered at the new Florida site. In fact, after the summer of 1935, no regular detachment of enlisted men was stationed at the range. Instead, Captain Rich sent twenty-five men at a time to VBGR from Maxwell Field for two week stretches. Pulling duty at VBGR was, at first, considered as a kind of punishment. The “Siberia of Maxwell,” as the men nicknamed the airfield, was not only remote but its facilities rustic. Funding for infrastructure and facilities at VBGR was slow-coming and scarce. The men stationed at VBGR acquired supplies and building materials any way possible such as scouring Maxwell Field’s salvage yard for useable materials and making trade deals with town shop-owners. Despite its humble beginnings, enlisted men eventually came to regard VBGR in a different light as they discovered its benefits: recreation opportunities in the form of fishing, swimming, hunting, and a more casual work atmosphere than at Maxwell Field.13

10 According to Blue Diamonds: The Old Florida State Road System (1917-1946) by Robert V. Droz, accessed 2014, http://www.us-highways.com/oldfl.htm. State Highway 10 operated from 1923-1945 and ran from the Georgia state line near Beachton to Pensacola. 11 Angell, Historical Outline, 1933–1944, 1-2; Telegram, James E. Plew to Chief of the Air Corps, 21 February 1934, Exhibit 9 in Angell, Origin and Growth: Acquisition of Land; Lieutenant Colonel John F. Curry, Commandant ACTS to Chief of the Air Corps, 20 February 1934, Subject: Bombing and Gunnery Range at Valparaiso, Florida, Exhibit 10 in Angell, Origin and Growth: Acquisition of Land; Brigadier General P. W. Guiney, Assistant Quartermaster General to Asst. Chief of Staff G-3, 14 December 1934, Subject: Acquisition of Land—Valparaiso, Florida, Exhibit 14 in Angell, Origin and Growth: Acquisition of Land; Hartman, “Preliminary Report, Valpariso Aerial Gunnery and Bombing Base”; Angell, Background of Eglin Field, 1933–1940, 42-46; and Air Force Systems Command, Chronological Syllabus of the Armament Development and Test Center Part One, 5. 12 Air Force Systems Command, Chronological Syllabus of the Armament Development and Test Center Part One, 5-7. 13 Angell, Historical Outline, 1933–1944, 4; and Angell, Background of Eglin Field, 1933–1940, 51-53


(page 9) Growth, Training Activities, and Eglin Field During its first year, VBGR held no gunnery training. Rather, the men prepared for visiting flights and improved upon the facilities, which continued to grow in number and quality. The first official gunnery training was conducted in March 1936 at Buccaroo Point; the end of what later became known as Range 21. This gunnery range was carved out of 400 acres on the west side of the original 1,460 acre-plot that Plew had donated to the Air Corps as range land.

Previously, in 1912, a member of the Air Corps had first shot a machine gun from an airplane in flight during a test at College Park, Maryland. This test proved that it was feasible to strike at surface targets or other aircraft with a gun in a moving plane. The technique had been put into place during World War I with .30 caliber guns: fighters had two fixed guns and bombers had guns fore, aft, and sometimes below, for defense of the aircraft. Leading up to World War II, aircraft became much faster and the armament much heavier, so the World War I guns and techniques were becoming obsolete. The Air Corps began to use multiple-gun turrets, power turrets, the Browning .50 caliber gun and a 20 mm cannon, computing sites, and remotely controlled turrets. Even with the more massive gun power in a bomber formation, the fighters held the advantage if they came in on a head-on assault, using high speeds, and the new heavier weapons. Because this was new technology, the materiel had to be tested and the men had to be trained in gunnery skills. This type of training was an important part of a modern Air Corps.14

Gunnery practice at VBGR was first conducted at a large cross-shaped wooden target pier that extended from the range into the bay 800’ and supported targets of inclined open wood frames with large numbers on each. An observation shelter, or range house, sat at the intersection of the piers. The pier, first used in March 1936 by a group of ACTS students numbering fifty-eight pilots and twelve observers, was the perfect shape for gunnery firing as it provided access to targets from four directions. Ground targets at the water’s edge were used for gunnery practice by National Guard units who trained at VBGR for several weeks at a time. National Guard units from Tennessee and Alabama came to practice on ground targets during the first year training and testing was conducted. Although the original intent, as some historians have speculated, may have been to use the eastern portion of the VBGR acreage for bombing tests, no bombing occurred anywhere at the field until the 1940s. The distance of the range from a railroad on which to transport bombs, and the range’s open access to civilians made bomb tests, at this stage in Eglin Field’s history, impractical and too dangerous.15

The year 1937 brought many keystone events to VBGR, which set it on the path for continued development and importance within the Air Corps. In January, Captain Rich became the first permanently stationed and quartered commanding officer at VBGR, a post he commanded until May 1938. The east-west runway was extended in February, and the detachment of enlisted men increased to thirty. In March, VBGR finally became the property of the Department of War when the title for Plew’s land donation (first offered in 1934) was approved and deeded. The next month, the largest gunnery practice held to that date in the United States was conducted at

14 Bright, Historical Dictionary of the U.S. Air Force, 272-273. 15 Karen J. Weitze, Historic Range Context, Air Armament Center Eglin Air Force Base, Volumes I and II (Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: U.S. Air Force Materiel Command, June 2007), p. 10 (Vol. I), p. B-161–B-165 (Vol. II); Angell, Historical Outline, 1933–1944, 5; Air Force Systems Command, Chronological Syllabus of the Armament Development and Test Center Part One, 8; and Angell, Background of Eglin Field, 1933–1940, 75-76.


(page 10) VBGR, with 100 officers and 125 enlisted men present. A few months later in August, VBGR was designated as Eglin Field in remembrance of Lieutenant Colonel Fred I. Eglin, who was once stationed at Maxwell Field and had died in a plane crash in January 1937. As the year drew to a close, Eglin Field was designated a sub-post of Maxwell Field. This change in Eglin Field’s status put it firmly, for the first time, within the Air Corps organizational hierarchy, placing the field in a position to receive funding for improvements, as well as serving to solidify its mission. With the potential future of Eglin Field as a large testing ground already in mind, the first survey of Eglin Field and the surrounding Choctawhatchee National Forest was conducted by Army engineers from Fort Benning, Georgia. This first step in the acquisition of large tracts of land for Eglin Field was complete by early 1938.16

Eglin Field continued to be heavily used in 1938, although there was a dramatic shift in who used the facilities. During 1937, there had been 325 officers trained at the facility and 470 enlisted men. In 1938, the numbers of enlisted men who trained there skyrocketed to 1,173, while the number of officers fell to 241. Most of the enlisted men using Eglin Field’s facilities were National Guardsmen, including units from Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, and Indiana. In April, Eglin Field’s status was expanded when a concurrent National Guard training status was granted. This standing had been sought since 1936 because it would allow for National Guard funds to be legitimately spent on improvements to Eglin Field. Joining the guardsmen in training at Eglin Field during 1938 were Air Corps officers and men in observation and pursuit squadrons from Maxwell, Langley, Scott, and Brooks Fields, and from Forts Knox and Benning. After almost a decade of planning and working to build a bombing and gunnery range near Valparaiso, Eglin Field had, by 1938, finally established itself as a useful and growing post. Those individuals who had been instrumental in Eglin Field’s early development exited from the story––Captain Rich left his command in May with Captain George A. Whatley succeeding him, and James Plew died in April.17

Base Development Eglin Field’s early years were difficult—the nascent air field creatively sought funding and supplies wherever they could be found, survived fires that destroyed newly built structures, and a hurricane that ripped through the bay in 1936.18 Despite these challenges, by 1938 the post was well developed with a considerable number of buildings. The primary structures were barracks, bath house and latrines, mess halls and kitchens, a headquarters building, an administration building, and a number of sheds. The VBGR also included residential structures at White Point, which included furnished cottages with bathrooms, hot water heaters, and heating stove; a mess hall and lodge; and recreation facilities including tennis courts and a pier.

Without the farsighted dreams of Plew, Rich, or the unique environment of the Choctawhatchee National Forest area, Eglin Field may have never come to be. But while the Choctawhatchee Bay area struggled through the depression years with the help of local visionaries, the worldwide

16 Angell, Historical Outline, 1933–1944, 7-9; Angell, Background of Eglin Field, 1933–1940, 57 and 61; and Air Force Systems Command, Chronological Syllabus of the Armament Development and Test Center Part One, 9-10. 17 Angell, Historical Outline, 1933–1944, 10-12; Angell, Background of Eglin Field, 1933–1940, 69-79. 18 Fires destroyed the latrine and bath house in 1936, and historic photographs indicate that fires occasionally broke out in the temporary tents. Angell, Background of Eglin Field, 1933–1940, 49, 52.


(page 11) depression had already set events in motion half-way around the world that would influence the development of Eglin Field. Across the globe, international production and trade had dropped sharply after World War I, and unemployment had risen. The United States focused on growing its own economy, but countries in Asia and Europe—Japan, Germany, and Italy in particular—turned to programs of territorial expansion and military conquest. Economic despair, fervent nationalism, long-standing cultural and regional conflicts, and residual resentments from World War I combined to create the perfect fuel for war.

Against this backdrop of increasing global tension and spreading violence Eglin Field emerged and grew. Although public sentiment in the United States still remained, for the most part, isolationist, President Roosevelt and military leaders recognized the threat as tensions across the world mounted and conflict erupted in Asia, Africa, and Europe. From dusty air strips carved out of the forest, to a real Air Corps landing field and gunnery training center complete with housing, administrative structures, and a survey of the surrounding area that signaled expansion, Eglin Field at the close of 1938 was poised to fulfill a vital role as the world plunged into war.

In 1939, the war in Eastern Europe escalated to alarming proportions as Hitler’s armies began their strategy of Blitzkrieg. The response of the U.S. military was to examine their own preparedness for armed conflict and Eglin Field became a primary focus of their attentions. A group called the Netherwood Board was convened to consider the need for an Air Corps-specific proving ground that would help advance the Army’s air technology. The board sought sites that included large tracts of land to accommodate a variety of targets, both land and water, and that would be able to house numerous types of facilities (administrative, aircraft, housing, etc.). The board chose Eglin Field as the Air Corps Proving Ground in September of 1940, in part due to the availability of the adjacent Choctawhatchee National Forest and private lands, which encompassed almost 400,000 acres.

While the Netherwood Board was studying location sites for the proving ground, Eglin Field had been granted separate status from Maxwell Field through the creation of an Air Corps Specialized Flying School (ACSFS) that was stationed at Eglin Field. The ACSFS was established as one of several schools intended to train student pilots of the Southeast Air Corps Training Center (SEACTC) in pursuit gunnery. Under this new organization, Eglin Field gained its independent “exempted status” and was under the control of the Chief of the Air Corps and the jurisdiction of the Commanding Officer of the SEACTC.19

Once the Choctawhatchee National Forest was formally acquired by the Air Corps, Eglin Field was redesignated as the Eglin Military Reservation, and Air Corp officials turned their attention to how best to develop the newly acquired lands. Five major projects were recommended, each of which was eventually carried out: 1) Establishment of land and water bombing ranges; 2) Construction of paved auxiliary fields; 3) Modification of the existing, main northwest-southeast

19 General Orders Number 2, HQ SEACTC, 29 August 1940, Exhibit 9 in Joseph W. Angell, Air Proving Ground Command, History of the Army Air Forces Proving Ground Command, Part I: Historical Outline, 1933–1944, Appendices [hereafter Appendices], reprint, (Eglin Air Force Base: Office of History, Munitions Systems Division, November 1989).


(page 12) runway; 4) Addition of a new northeast-southwest runway at the main field; and 5) Formation of ranges located adjacent to the auxiliary and main fields.20

By the end of 1939, the first general proof testing had taken place at Eglin: testing of Allison engines on two P-37 planes. From a total of five tests in 1939, test numbers almost quadrupled in 1940 to eighteen. A majority were completed the same year, though some continued into 1944. Among the tests conducted in 1940 was the first actual bombing test on the newly acquired forest land: a comparison of glide and low bombing with high altitude bombing. Along with bombing tests, the earliest bombing practice began at the enlarged post the same year. Other training activities also expanded as Eglin Field transformed into the much larger Eglin Military Reservation. Gunnery practice continued, with observation, pursuit, and bombardment squadrons from various posts that were using Eglin Field, and with continued use by the National Guard. The 23rd Composite Group, now numbering 74 officers and 600 enlisted men, transferred to Orlando, Florida. However, this move would prove to be so logistically inconvenient with the ACB at Maxwell Field, its testing group the 23rd in Florida, and testing facilities at Eglin Field that it would lead to the transfer of both the ACB and the 23rd Composite Group back to Eglin Field in the summer of 1941.21

By the close of 1940, Eglin’s identity had shifted from that of a rather small gunnery range focused on Buckaroo Point to a large installation of vital importance to the future of the Air Corps. Eglin Military Reservation had gained thousands of acres of land and had just initiated the expansion of its facilities. The mission of Eglin had shifted as well. No longer was Eglin just a training facility for gunnery and bombing practice, it was now the planned site for the Air Corps’ premier testing facility. These multiple roles of training and testing would intensify over the next few years, changing the shape of the post as permanent residential, administrative, and support facilities were erected so that Eglin could fulfill its missions.

In March of 1941, the Chief of the Air Corps Plans Division, Brigadier General Carl Spaatz, made a series of recommendations for Eglin Military Reservation that would bring to fruition the vision of a large proving ground. Spaatz counseled four steps be taken immediately: 1) facilities be made available to the 23rd Composite Group and the ACB for the “hasty conduct of any type test which may be required”; 2) an Air Corps Proving Ground be created as a permanent establishment and command from the existing Eglin Military Reservation; 3) the 23rd Composite Group be permanently stationed at Eglin; and 4) the ACB be permanently stationed at Eglin. The Air Corps acted quickly on Spaatz’s recommendations. By May, Eglin had been formally redesignated as the Eglin Field Air Corps Proving Ground (ACPG) with a directive issued on its mission and organization. Colonel Donald P. Muse, who had assumed command of the ACSFS from Major Maxwell in April, became the first Commanding Officer of the ACPG.22

20 Study on Development of Gunnery and Bombing Ranges in the Choctawhatchee National Forest, enclosure to letter from Colonel Walter R. Weaver to Chief of the Air Corps, 1 August 1940, Exhibit 44 in Angell, Origin and Growth. 21 “Service Tests Activated and Completed at Eglin Field, 27 July 1937–30 June 1944,” Appendix B in Angell, Appendices; Angell, Historical Outline, 16-23, 38; and Angell, Background of Eglin Field, 77-79. 22 Memo for Chief of the Air Corps, by Brigadier General Carl Spaatz, 21 March 1941, Subject: Relationship between the Air Corps Board and the 23rd Composite Group and the location of each, quoted in Angell, Historical


(page 13) The primary purpose of the newly established proving ground was to provide a common location for the ACB and the 23rd Composite Group, where tactical tests could be performed on “aircraft armament and its accessory equipment and of the tactics and technique of employment of aviation units.” In addition, the ACPG was to provide landing fields, facilities, and personnel services for gunnery training as required by the SEACTC. Air Corps officials emphasized the importance of the careful and thoughtful development of Eglin’s facilities and organizational structure. Officials charged the ACB with the duty of developing and approving all plans for the installation’s buildings and facilities, operations, use of special units such as engineer troops, development and modification of tables of organization, requisitions and use of special machinery needed for preparation or as part of tests, and requisition and use of civilian labor.23

With the ACB and the ACPG Detachment now both located on site, the number and types of tests conducted at Eglin expanded greatly. There were forty-nine known tests that took place during 1941. The majority of the tests were of weapons and related equipment (twenty-one tests) or bombing and bombing equipment (nine tests).24 A partial list detailing the specifics of these tests includes armament-equipped B-25s, B-26s, SBD-1s, and P-40s; machine gun armament and incendiary bullets; gun turrets; periscope gun and bomb sights; bomb hoists; computerized data analysis for low altitude bombing; night bombing gear; target development; armor plating and safety glass; gas masks; mobilization equipment; and cluster bomb development.25

In early September, the ACPG Detachment issued its first progress report under the new structure, documenting seventeen tests in progress, pending, or completed.26 Only weeks later, the ACB outlined a detailed program for accomplishing accelerated service tests of aircraft armament and accessory equipment. Two kinds of service tests were included in the accelerated plan: gunnery and bombing. The gunnery tests were designed to gather information on guns and gun sight installations pertaining to accuracy, field fire, reliability and durability, and base provisions. Each gunnery test consisted of a ground inspection and ground firing test, as well as an air firing test. Likewise, the bombing tests were intended to determine the accuracy of equipment in all applicable methods of approach, the adequacy of instruments and other accessory equipment, and the ease and reliability of equipment operation. Each bombing test included inspections and thorough examination of loading, calibration, flight performance, and tests of accuracy at night and during glides, climbs, dives, and at high altitude. The ACB intended the systematic testing program to “bring to light any weaknesses or unsatisfactory conditions…determine the adequacy of operating instructions to be furnished with individual airplanes to tactical units, and to develop special techniques of operation applicable to the specific equipment.” The board mandated that all tests be accompanied by reports to the Materiel

Outline, 31 [italics added]; General Orders Number 1, ACPG, 19 May 1941, Exhibit 17 and Letter (no signature) to Commanding Officer ACPG, 26 May 1941, Subject: ACPG Directive, Exhibit 18, both in Angell, Appendices. 23 Letter (no signature) to Commanding Officer ACPG, 26 May 1941, Subject: ACPG Directive, Exhibit 18, in Angell, Appendices. 24 Test numbers in other categories were as follows: radio and radar equipment (1); pursuit, interceptor and fighter aircraft (1); special operational projects (1); personnel equipment (2); maintenance equipment (3); power-plants an propellers (3); aircraft instruments and devices (2); photographic equipment (4); light and medium bombardment aircraft (1); miscellaneous (1). 25 Angell, Historical Outline, 50; and Air Force Systems Command, Chronological Syllabus Part One, 30. Specific test types listed in Weitze, Eglin Air Force Base, 1931–1991, 24. 26 Angell, Historical Outline, 44-45.


(page 14) Division detailing failures or unsatisfactory performance, as well as recommendations and combat capabilities.27

Although the primary purpose was now as a proving ground, Eglin Military Reservation did not altogether abandon its history of gunnery training. Along with a refined organizational hierarchy, the month of August brought to Eglin the establishment of an Air Corps Gunnery School. Earlier that year, the Assistant to the Chief of the Air Corps had inspected Eglin Field to determine if the installation was appropriate for use as a student gunnery base. His positive recommendations, combined with Colonel Walter R. Weaver’s persistence that gunnery training at Eglin not be entirely sublimated by testing led to the creation of the permanent school. The mission of the gunnery school was to instruct the students of all the Air Corps Advanced Flying Schools in fixed gunnery skills. Commanding the gunnery school was Delmar T. Spivey, now promoted to the rank of Major. Eglin’s Commanding Officer was to furnish all necessary facilities, and oversee the school’s instruction for conformity with Air Corps policy and with War Department standards. By the end of the year, the Air Corps Gunnery School was fully operational and consisted of the 385th, 386th, 387th, and 54th School Squadrons, along with flying instructors.28 By the end of 1941, the station strength had almost twelve times more officers than in the previous spring (243) and almost six times as many enlisted men (3,404).29

Eglin’s facilities in the main cantonment expanded greatly during 1941 to accommodate the larger numbers, but also the acreage of the ACPG continued to swell. In March, the Budget Officer of the War Department recommended an allotment of $236,000 for the purchase of an additional 34,000 acres of land adjacent to the military reservation, then late in the year, $159,250 was appropriated for another tract of land. Work conducted in 1941 on improving newly acquired land included the paving of auxiliary fields 1, 3, 5, and 6.30 By the end of 1941, the ACPG at Eglin Field had received construction appropriations totaling $4,742,936. Eglin’s main cantonment had grown from a few buildings clustered around the timber structures of the late 1930s to well over one hundred temporary and permanent facilities on an orderly grid of streets. The proving ground now possessed sufficient infrastructure to support its primary mission of testing aircraft and armament, and just in time. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the United States formally entered into World War II, the efforts of the Air Corps expansion and reorganization all seemed utterly justified. As the nation mobilized for war, Eglin’s role became increasingly important as a training and testing facility for some of the United States’ most important operations and weapons.31

During the spring of 1942, Eglin Field ACPG underwent yet another series of major changes, the first of which was receiving a new leader. On March 30, Colonel Grandison Gardner assumed

27 Program of Accelerated Service Tests of Aircraft, Armament, and Accessory Equipment,” ACB, 15 September 1941, Exhibit 25 in Angell, Appendices. 28 Angell, Historical Outline, 30; Futrell, “Science and Air Warfare,” 128; and Personal Narrative of Brigadier-General Grandison Gardner, 6. Colonel Edward F. Mitsell, Adjutant General, SEACTC, to Commanding Officer, Air Corps Advanced Flying Schools, SEACTC, and Commanding Officer, Eglin Field, 20 August 1941, Subject: Air Corps Gunnery School (Fixed), Exhibit 23; and Eglin Field Organization (ACPG) December 1941, Appendix D, D-4, both in Angell, Appendices. 29 Angell, Historical Outline, 32, 38, 47, 50. 30 Angell, Historical Outline, 29, 31. 31 Angell, Historical Outline, 50.


(page 15) command of the ACPG. Gardner would be the first Commanding Officer to remain in that position for more than a few months; in fact, he held his post at Eglin Field until the war’s end. Prior to his duty at the proving ground, Gardner had a distinguished military career serving as, among other important positions, an Assistant Chief in the Office of the Chief of the Air Corps under General Henry “Hap” Arnold.32 The spring season ushered in more than just change in leadership—the proving ground also saw yet another change in command and structural organization. In early March, War Department Circular 59 was issued, which reorganized the AAF creating eleven numbered air forces and eight major commands: Flying Training, Technical Training, Troop Carrier, Air Transport, Materiel, Air Service, Proving Ground, and Anti-Submarine Commands. At the same time that Gardner assumed command of Eglin, General Arnold’s title was changed to the Commanding General, AAF, at which point Arnold acquired equal status with the commanders of the Army Ground Forces and Services of Supply. The AAF was directly under the orders of the Chief of Staff of the Army, General George C. Marshall, but now held autonomy within the War Department.33

In April, the Army Air Forces Proving Ground (AAFPG) Command was formally established with Eglin Field as its headquarters. The command’s first priority was to “test aircraft being produced either experimentally or in production to determine their operational suitability, particularly from an armament viewpoint.”34 This was the same priority the ACPG had held since its formation in 1941, an indication of how aware Air Corps officials had been of the importance of superior aircraft and armament even before the United States entered into World War II. Other responsibilities of the new AAF command headquartered at Eglin Field included supporting the Air Corps Flying Training and Air Forces Materiel Commands with services, facilities, and assistance as needed. The proving ground was officially re-designated as the AAFPG, and likewise, the Air Corps Proving Ground Detachment was re-designated as the AAFPG Group. The structural and functional organization of the proving ground was only slightly altered from 1941, with the AAFPG Command at the top of the chain of command and consisting of Headquarters, the Proof Department, and the ACB all headquartered at Eglin Field.

Now repackaged for efficiency, the directive of the AAFPG was perhaps clearer than it ever had been. Above all other testing, the primary priority of the AAFPG Command was to test aircraft, and especially aircraft armament, for operational suitability. “No diversion of effort should be permitted which interferes with this first priority unless specifically directed in each case by higher authority,” declared the Director of Military Requirements. The proving ground was to test aircraft coming off the production line, not yet tested for tactical suitability, and to make recommendations for possible improvements to equipment in the factory and in the field. The proving ground was to test aircraft and armament from the operational rather than technical

32 Colonel David S. Seaton had assumed command of Eglin Field as base Commander on 5 March 1942, this was revoked two days later on the seventh. General Orders Number 10, ACPG, 30 March 1942, Exhibit 29 in Angell, Appendices; and U.S. Air Force Biographies, Major General Grandison Gardner, accessed August 2010, http://www.af.mil/information/bios/index.asp. General Orders Number 7, ACPG, 5 March 1942, Exhibit 28 in Angell, Appendices; and Angell, Historical Outline, 55. 33 Air Force Historical Studies Office (AFHSO), “Evolution of the Department of the Air Force,” accessed May 2010, http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/Evolution.htm. 34 Muir S. Fairchild, letter to Commanding Officer, Proving Ground Command, Eglin Field Florida, 9 April 1942 in Angell, Historical Outline, Exhibit 32.


(page 16) perspective; testing personnel were directed to “place themselves in the position of the combat crews.”35

Late in 1942, the Air Forces School of Applied Tactics (AFSAT) was established at Orlando. The school was the descendant of the ACTS, which had languished when the ACB moved to Eglin Field in 1941. In November, AAF Headquarters outlined the school’s role and relationship to AAFPG Command, tasking the school with the primary mission of determining the “requirements and tactical use of equipment.” The AAFPG Command retained its mission to test the suitability of equipment, but was now directed to “maintain constant and close direct liaison with the AFSAT,” and further, all projects at the AAFPG Command that might affect the development of tactics, and the suitability of equipment to meet military requirements, were to be closely coordinated with the AFSAT.36 As a result, AAFPG proof reports created from November 1942 onward were printed under the authority of the AFSAT and typically were attached to AFSAT documents. Perhaps more significantly, the result of split locations and administrative bodies at Eglin and Orlando was not only to separate and confuse test records, but also to create a jurisdictional battle that lasted through the war, ending only in 1946 when the AAFB was deactivated and the proving ground headquarters received full authority over testing at Eglin.37

Shortly after the AAFPG Command and AFSAT received their new orders, the AAFPG Group was expanded. Fighter; light, medium, and heavy bombardment; and radio control units were activated in the AAFPG Group in late December 1942, considerably growing the testing group’s personnel and testing capabilities.38 The anticipated tests included those of airplanes and flight instrumentation; armament and ordnance; photographic equipment; communication, radio, and radar equipment; and tests of other accessories and miscellaneous equipment. All of these categories of tests are reflected in the partial lists of tests initiated and completed at Eglin during the World War II period.39

Development of Range 22

35 Brigadier General Muir S. Fairchild, Director of Military Requirements to Commanding Officer, AAFPG Command, 6 April 1942, Subject: Accelerated Service Tests of United States Aircraft, Exhibit 31; Fairchild to Commanding Officer, AAFPG Command, 9 April 1942, Subject: Directives, Exhibit 32; and Fairchild to Commanding Officer AAFPG Command, 29 June 1942, Subject: Reports on Operational Fitness of Aircraft Types, Exhibit 36 all in Angell, Appendices. 36 When established at Orlando, as historian Karen Weitze has noted that “the Army’s Interceptor Command School in Orlando had already established itself over a jurisdictional area of 8.000 square miles—with radar, communications, supply and antiaircraft networks. Both the Eglin and Orlando installations conducted tactical training and proof testing, doing so simultaneously and independently of one another,” Weitze, Eglin Air Force Base, 1931–1991, 23-24. Brigadier General Muir S. Fairchild, Director of Military Requirements, to Commanding General, AAFPG Command, 16 November 1942, Subject: Directive, Exhibit 44 in Angell, Appendices. 37 Personal Narrative of Brigadier-General Grandison Gardner, 6; and Weitze, Eglin Air Force Base, 1931–1991, 23-24. 38 General Orders Number 2, AAFPG Command, 24 December 1942, Exhibit 46 in Angell, Appendices. 39 Lieutenant Colonel H. O. Russell, Chief, Analysis branch, Proof Department (AAFPG Command), to Commanding General, AAFPG Command, 12 December 1942, Subject: Survey of Equipment Needed for the Proper Functioning of the AAFPG Command, Exhibit 45; and Appendix B, Service Tests Activated and Completed at Eglin Field, 27 July 1937-30 June 1944, both in Angell, Appendices.


(page 17) Perhaps the most significant changes to the main cantonment during 1942 -1943 occurred along the flight line and near the Buckaroo Point gunnery range. In 1942, there were two authorizations for the construction of hangars at Eglin Field for the Materiel Command: $346,000 in July and $246,000 in September. It is unclear which hangars were included in each authorization, but by 1943 Hangars 71, 421, and 422 had been added to Eglin Field.40 The latter two were paired at the north end of a new boresighting range, which had been constructed adjacent to the earliest Eglin test facility––the Buckaroo Point gunnery range. The new range was constructed in the first half of 1942, it was noted on the site plan as the Armament Laboratory and Gunnery Range, and was labeled officially as Range 22. The site plan also referred to the adjacent range––the original gunnery range––as the Strafing Range. It was officially labeled as Range 21.41

Boresighting is the process of making adjustments to an optical sight to align a weapon barrel. During World War II, boresighting required removing the bolt and sighting down the bore of a gun to a fixed point. While the gun was fixed in place, the scope or irons would then be adjusted to also aim at the distant object. Modern methods of boresighting use lasers, rather than visual inspection, to illuminate the distant point. Lasers do not require the removal of the bolt and allow more movement in the gun, because a laser dot will not move relative to the barrel. However, such technology was not available in World War II, and boresighting was completed visually in order to align the cross-hairs of the scope to the spot where the barrel is pointing at a particular distance. Because of variations in the trajectory of different types of ammunition and other factors, the bore-sighted gun would not necessarily shoot to the exact spot that the cross-hairs indicated. Live ammunition needed to be fired to fine-tune the sighting process to be sure the sights/gun were aiming where they were intended. This was also true to determine optimal harmonizing: either spreading fire to increase the chance of a hit, which was called pattern harmonization, or concentrating on one spot, which was called point harmonization. At Range 22, guns and ammunition for use in Air Corps aircraft were boresighted and harmonized to determine the best operational sighting and placement of guns on an aircraft to optimize a range of potential circumstances and remain sufficiently accurate.

Once Range 22 was constructed, Range 21 was used primarily for strafing, which is the practice of attacking ground targets from low-flying aircraft using aircraft-mounted automatic weapons. Cannons were mounted differently for strafing than for aerial combat and the guns were not boresighted to aim straight ahead, they were aimed slightly inward so that the ammunition would converge several hundred yards in front of the nose of a fighter aircraft. There were limits to harmonized strafing––targets closer or farther away from the boresighted/harmonized effective zone for the weapon would likely be missed as ammunition rounds would diverge after reaching the convergence point. After weapons had been boresighted and harmonized for specific scenarios, they would be tested for strafing techniques. This was critical testing, because strafing exposed a pilot to anti-aircraft artillery and machine gun fire. In addition to testing techniques and effectiveness, the personnel at the range were likely also looking at how to provide additional armor around the cockpit of aircraft that were to be involved in combat strafing.

40 The original building numbers for 421 and 422 were 530 and 531, respectively. 41 Detail Map of Armament Laboratory and Gunnery Range, 1942-43 (Eglin Air Force Base: digital drawing files).


(page 18) The new boresighting facility, Range 22, had been constructed at the cost of $580,000.42 It was located just to the south of Range 21 and included a pair of parallel sand clay roads on an axis of South 57°– 30° East that ran from Choctawhatchee Bay over 2,000 yards to an L-shaped concrete Range Firing Building. The range building was adjacent to a concrete apron that had a perpendicular ramp and a curved ramp leading from the test apron up to an apron at Hangars 421 and 422.43 There were a series of perpendicular roads that intersected the two parallel roads at 200 yards, 400 yards, 600 yards, and 1,000 yards from the ramp at the Range Firing Building. Each of the roads included a poured concrete and earthen embankment firing butt that held double hung 8’ x 8’ wood frame targets. Three targets were used for boresighting/harmonizing and four were used for firing from the Range Gunnery Building. In addition, there were portable targets that included two 16’ x 24’ and five 8’ x 8’ that could be positioned wherever they were needed for a specific test. Aircraft would be brought from the hangars, tied down at one of the three positions on the apron at the range, and then the aircraft guns would be fired at the targets to test their operability. There were two bomb-proof shelters on the north side of the road system at 1,200 yards and adjacent to the beach of the Choctawhatchee Bay, about 600 yards south of the Buckaroo Point pier. Two observation towers flanked the concrete bomb-proof shelter––approximately 1,000 yards to the north and south on the beach. A safety tower was located on the north side of the hangar apron above the Range Firing Building.44

Although the Gunnery Squadrons and proof and service tests at the AAFPG increased significantly in 1942 from previous years, the height of testing at the AAFPG occurred from mid-1943 into 1944 as new ranges and other types of tests began to occur. In 1943, proof tests totaled 724, the bulk of them, according to the surviving partial list of tests, were in the categories of weapons and related equipment, bombing and bombing equipment, and construction maintenance and shipping equipment.45 The Eglin facilities were also used to conduct tests of heavy bombers in 1943, specifically of B-17 and B-29 aircraft. The final tests of the B-17, the primary arm of the heavy bomber strike force in Europe, were completed during the year, and evaluations of the B-29, used to great effect in the Pacific Theater, were initiated. Tactics to surmount the beach defenses of the German “Atlantic Wall” for the invasion of Europe were also developed at the AAFPG. Tests were conducted on life-sized replicas of German defenses using various air and torpedo weaponry to determine the most effect assault. The successful assault on Normandy’s beach in 1944 was partly due to the tactics developed as a result of these tests.46

42 Angell, Historical Outline, 1933–1944, 65; United States Engineers Directive Register, Job Nos. A-2-29 (July 11, 1942), and A-3-10 (September 26 1942), Angell, Historical Outline, Exhibit 8; and Drawing for Extension to Warm-up Apron, September 2, 1942 (Eglin Air Force Base: digital drawing files). 43 These hangars were originally numbered 530 and 531. 44 Information taken from a ca. 1942 Armament Laboratory and Gunnery Range plan (Eglin Air Force Base: digital drawing files). 45 “Service Tests Activated and Completed at Eglin Field, 27 July 1937–30 June 1944,” Appendix B in Angell, Appendices; and Weitze, Eglin Air Force Base, 1931–1991, 24-25. In her endnote 41 for Chapter 1, Weitze explains why the list of service tests in Appendix B cited above is only a partial list, and notes the test reports comprise 192 boxes of files at the National Archives. 46 Gardner, “Major Accomplishments of the Proving Ground Command,” passim; and PTA, “Evaluation of Buildings 33-38, 40,” Report of Investigations No. 453, February 16, 2001.


(page 19) During World War II, tanks were added as targets at the gunnery range. These included M3 medium tanks, M3A1 medium tanks, a M3 light tank and some World War I “Renault baby tanks.” The tanks would be positioned along the pier and shoreline for firing tests. After World War II, in the late 1940s, Range 21 and 22 became known solely as Range 22. The testing in the area continued to focus on boresight and harmonization, tests of developmental aircraft guns, and gun firing demonstrations. These tests were primarily ground gunnery tests of aircraft guns and ammunition. A 30’ control tower had been added to the aircraft apron and offshore there were three wooden barge targets, a sunken barge, and a 30’ x 40’ wooden panel target used for strafing. A mile into the Choctawhatchee Bay the Air Force had installed flagged piles to alert boats that they were at the boundary of the danger zone for .50 caliber and 20mm cannon fire. After the war, the panel targets were rebuilt in a number of configurations. In 1949, two rails were installed on Range 22. They began ten feet from the firing line and were spaced 83.3 feet apart, parallel to the target butts, downrange. The test crews would move wheel-mounted targets across the rails, which provided more flexibility and movement for tests.47 By the mid-1950s, the range included 620 acres of cleared land and a firing area that extended 10 miles into the bay.

In 1950, the ARDC was established and began to run tests at Range 22. Sometime between 1950 and 1954 the Armament Research Shop (Building 411) was constructed on the aircraft apron at Range 22.48 By 1954, the aircraft apron at Range 22, originally designed to tie down up to three aircraft, was capable of accommodating eight to twelve fighter aircraft or six B-47 bombers. By 1955, there was a control tower on the roof of the Range Firing Building. There was also a new “anti-richochet cap” added to the left half of the 200 yard target butt that could stop ammunition up to 75 mm. And, two more rails had been added between the 200- and 400-yard target butts for boresight tests that required moving targets. In 1956, the control tower was moved from the Range Firing Building to the roof of the Armament Research Shop building.

By 1963, the combined range became known as Test Area A-22 and the bay firing area had been limited to three miles. An engine test stand and two firing-in butts were added to the area near the Range Firing Building (to the north and east, respectively). In 1967, the Air Force Armament Laboratory established the Ballistic Experimentation Facility/Ballistic Analysis Research System at the range, which included an outdoor test range with yaw cards and an outdoor shadowgraph facility, machine shop, wind tunnel, electronics laboratory, and specialized launchers for ballistics testing. In the 1970s and 80s, the area received a Pyrotechnic Laboratory/Propellant Evaluation Facility/Flare Test Facility (at the Choctawhatchee Bay end of the old Range 21), and an Interior Ballistics Laboratory/Terminal Ballistics Instrumentation Site. The ballistics laboratory included an enclosed firing tunnel, gun room test control room, data acquisition room, static test room, load room, conditioning room, and propellant chemistry laboratory. During this period, the Armament Research Shop was being used for storage, control tower, and non-destructive testing.

In 1965, to support non-destructive testing at Range 22, the Armament Research Shop building was reconfigured on the interior to include radiology and ultrasonic laboratories. These two

47 At the same time that these were installed, the cross-shaped pier at Buckaroo Point was demolished. 48 The original construction documents were not found during research for this project; however, the building construction is typical of the 1950s military architecture and it does not appear on site plans until 1954. The 1956 construction documents refer to the structure as an “existing building.”


(page 20) laboratories supported range personnel in their efforts to identify operational issues with armament. Both were used to locate and characterize defects. The radiology room was used to conduct radiographic testing to inspect materiel for hidden flaws. An x-ray machine, or other radioactive source, would be used to create short wavelength electromagnetic radiation, which has high energy photons that are capable of penetrating materials. The amount of radiation that would emerge from the opposite side of the material would be detected and measured. The variations that were identified were then used to determine the thickness or composition of material and locate anomalies or defects. In order to conduct the test, the beam of radiation was directed to the middle of the section under examination at 90 degrees to the material surface at that point. The armament was placed between the source of radiation and the detecting device––film in a light-tight holder or cassette––and the radiation would penetrate the component for the length of time necessary to adequately record. The result was a “radiograph.” This was a two-dimensional projection of the component onto the film that would provide a latent image of the varying material densities according to the amount of radiation that actual reached each area. The radiograph was not printed on paper, as a photograph would have been, rather the information would be reviewed in the negative, because the negative would show more detail than a print.

The ultrasonic room was used to perform ultrasonic testing on steel and other metals that were components of military armament. The first patent for practical ultrasonic testing had been applied for on May 27, 1940, by Dr. Floyd Firestone of the University of Michigan, and granted on April 21, 1942 as U.S. Patent No. 2,280,226, titled “Flaw Detecting Device and Measuring Instrument.” Dr. Firestone summarized his device:

My invention pertains to a device for detecting the presence of inhomogeneities of density or elasticity in materials. For instance if a casting has a hole or a crack within it, my device allows the presence of the flaw to be detected and its position located, even though the flaw lies entirely within the casting and no portion of it extends out to the surface…The general principle of my device consists of sending high frequency vibrations into the part to be inspected, and the determination of the time intervals of arrival of the direct and reflected vibrations at one or more stations on the surface of the part.49

Ultrasonic testing continued to develop and by the 1960s included a number of techniques that were based in the propagation of oscillating sound pressure waves with a frequency greater than the upper limit of the human hearing range within the object or material tested. In most common applications, very short ultrasonic pulse-waves with center frequencies ranging from 0.1-15 MHz, and occasionally up to 50 MHz, are transmitted into materials to detect internal flaws or to characterize materials. To test metal components of armament, a transducer connected to a diagnostic machine would be passed over the object. A device would send a pulse wave into the materiel being tested, a wave would be reflected back and the device would display the results in the form of a signal with an amplitude representing the intensity of the reflection and the distance. Imperfections or other conditions would be revealed through the process.

49 Floyd Firestone. “Flaw Detecting Device and Measuring Instrument,” U.S. Patent No. 2,280,226 granted on April 21, 1942.


(page 21) In 1968, an addition was constructed on the building to allow for fluorescent penetration testing of armament. This is a type of testing in which a fluorescent dye is applied to the surface of a non-porous material in order to detect defects. It was a much lower cost and more simple method than radiology to determine issues with military materiel. Scratches and cracks in metal often look similar to the human eye, but when a fluorescent dye is applied, the surface wiped and then lit with ultraviolet lights, the dye that did penetrate into a crack can be seen. Since the testing is light sensitive, no windows were included on the addition and because the new room was sizeable, it is likely that much larger armament and components were tested at the building.

Part II. Architectural Information A. General statement Building 411 was determined eligible to the National Register of Historic Places as a contributing building to the Range A-22 Historic District, which is eligible under Criterion A for its contribution to weapons testing and development. The building was constructed from the early 1950s through 1968. This comprised the original two story structure, a large addition, a wooden control tower on the roof, poured concrete walls for one room, and a number of other alterations, including the removal of windows. Although it lacks architectural integrity, because of its placement and continued use for armament testing until 2002, it was considered a contributing feature to the testing range.

1. Architectural character: The architecture is utilitarian in nature and of typical military Cold War construction with a poured concrete frame and concrete masonry unit infill. There is no ornamentation and the only remaining windows are on the second floor. The original ribbon windows have been replaced with single aluminum hopper units. The bulk of Air Force buildings constructed during the 1950s and 1960s used the same concrete frame, standard plan detailing as Building 411 at Eglin AFB. This simple architecture may have had roots in the Functionalist architectural movements that occurred between World War I and World War II. Architects such as Le Corbusier and Mies Van der Rohe used elementary forms and proportional geometry to express the functional “appropriateness” of their buildings. In addition to a “form follows function” approach, their architectural philosophy included a fluidity of the plan––their designs were based on the systematic spatial articulation of the structure that allowed for a free flowing plan. Walter Gropius and the Bauhaus movement paralleled Functionalist principles, looking for freedom as the ideal of order for a new architecture. The Bauhaus method looked to a rhythmic equilibrium that relied upon asymmetry to achieve balance within the architectural design. While the early Cold War buildings of the U.S. Air Force reflect the ideals of Functionalist architecture and are free of historical symmetrical references, they generally do not reflect the deeper ideals of Le Corbusier, Mies Van der Rohe, and Walter Gropuis––they lack fluidity and a nuanced, balanced asymmetry. The overall character of Building 411 makes references to the modern architectural movements through its simplicity and exterior structure. However, it is truly functional. It lacks the sophistication of a Functionalist building, because it is a rectangular building


(page 22)

that is symmetrical along the longitudinal axis, and it encases small rectangular rooms. The asymmetry that currently exists in the building was produced through additions. While it may portray some of the surficial effects of the modern movement, Building 411 is a practical building that was altered over the years to meet the operational needs of military testing. 2. Condition of fabric: The building is in overall good condition with some peeling paint and staining. There is staining from water on the brick chimney and the wood fascia of the sliding door overhang is warped. The metal truss that supports the control tower structure at the roof is beginning to rust. Paint is peeling and boards are beginning to warp on the control tower. There is some moisture damage and peeling paint on the interior concrete masonry unit, as well as water stains on the carpet in the second floor office space.

B. Description of Exterior This two story building has a poured concrete frame with a concrete floor and roof structure, and a concrete masonry unit infill wall. The first story has seven bays and the second story has two on the east elevation and two and a half bays on the west elevation; the extra half bay of the second story was an entry room from the exterior metal stair on the west elevation. The second story has one aluminum hopper window in each bay on the south and east elevations, with a metal hood over the southernmost window on the east elevation. There are metal personnel doors on the north end of the east and west elevations and an overhead door on the north and south elevations. An exterior clay tile chimney is on the north elevation to the west of the overhead door. The exterior metal stair runs from the base of the northwest corner up to the second floor, where there are two metal personnel doors at the landing. There is a small, shed roof wood observation tower on the roof with a wood walkway leading from the west edge to the tower. C. Description of Interior The interior includes a poured concrete floor on the first floor and carpet on the second floor. Both floors have painted concrete masonry unit walls. The first floor includes two rooms in the long extension to the south and a series of smaller rooms at the north end. There is an exterior stair leading to the two rooms on the second floor. The first floor ceiling structure is exposed with long fluorescent light fixtures, while the second floor has a laid in grid ceiling with paired fluorescent box fixtures. D. Site The building is located on a concrete apron that was originally built to place bombers and fighters to discharge weapons downrange. To the west there were originally two hangars (421 and 422) that were associated with Range 22. There was an apron on the east side of the hangars with 14’ x 25’ bomb loading pit and a curved ramp that led down to the test range apron.50 Now Eglin Boulevard runs between the two aprons and the curved ramp is gone. The site is open to the south, to the north is an armament testing building, and to the west is the 2,000 yard test range leading to Choctawhatchee Bay.

50 The bomb loading pit was used to test bomb-racks and release mechanisms.


(page 23) Part III. Sources of Information Air Force Historical Studies Office, “Evolution of the Department of the Air Force,” accessed

May 2010, http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/Evolution.htm. Air Force Systems Command, Chronological Syllabus of the Armament Development and Test

Center, Part One: The Forest Transformed, 1913-1942. Eglin Air Force Base: Air Force Systems Command, October 1976.

Angell, Joseph W. History of the Army Air Forces Proving Ground Command, Part I:

Historical Outline, 1933–1944, reprint. Eglin Air Force Base: Office of History, Munitions Systems Division, November 1989.

———. Air Proving Ground Command. History of the Army Air Forces Proving Ground Command, Part I: Historical Outline, 1933–1944 Appendices, reprint. Eglin Air Force Base: Office of History, Munitions Systems Division, November 1989.

———. History of the Army Air Forces Proving Ground Command, Part II: Origin and Growth: Acquisition of Land, reprint. Eglin Air Force Base: Office of History, Armament Division, August 1991.

Bright, Charles D., ed. Historical Dictionary of the U.S. Air Force. New York: Greenwood Press, 1992.

Hartman, W.A. Quote by John F. Curry in “Preliminary Report, Valpariso Aerial Gunnery and

Bombing Base,” Land Program Region 5 Eatonton, Georgia, 29 October 1934, Exhibit 7 in Joseph W. Angell, History of the Army Air Forces Proving Ground Command, Part II: Origin and Growth: Acquisition of Land, reprint. Eglin Air Force Base: Office of History, Armament Division, August 1991.

Droz, Robert V. Blue Diamonds: The Old Florida State Road System (1917-1946),

http://www.us-highways.com/oldfl.htm. Fairchild, Muir S. Letter to Commanding Officer, Proving Ground Command, Eglin Field

Florida, 9 April 1942 Exhibit 32 in Angell, Historical Outline. Finney, Robert T. History of the Air Corps Tactical School, 1920–1940. 1955, reprint. Arlington,

VA: Air Force History and Museums Program, 1998. Florida Master Site File (FMSF) Historic Site Data Sheet, Valparaiso Inn, 8OK117. Tallahassee,

FL: State Historic Preservation Office, ca. 1978. On file at Eglin Air Force Base, digital documents at Cultural Resource Management office.


(page 24) Futrell, Robert Frank, “Science and Air Warfare: Training and Testing at Eglin Field in World

War II,” in The Military Presence on the Gulf Coast, ed. William S. Coker, Proceedings of the Gulf Coast History and Humanities Conference, Volume VII, 1978.

Gardner, Grandison. 13 February 1946, personal narrative in A History of Air Proving Ground

Command: Personal Narratives, 1941–1946, prepared by Historical Branch, AC/S-2, Air Proving Ground Command, Eglin Field, Florida, 1946. Located in box “History: Army Air Forces Proving Ground Command,” Eglin Air Force Base, History Office Archives.

Mathewson, Eric S., “The Impact of the Air Corps Tactical School on the Development of a

Strategic Doctrine.” Alabama: Maxwell Air Force Base, 1998. Monroe, Elizabeth B. “Valparaiso Inn,” National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1978, Section 8.

Rich, Arnold. “History of Eglin Field, Valpariso, Florida 1933-1938,” June 1, 1938, Exhibit 6 in

Joseph W. Angell, Air Proving Ground Command, History of the Army Air Forces Proving Ground Command, Part II: Origin and Growth: Acquisition of Land, reprint. Eglin Air Force Base: Office of History, Armament Division, August 1991.

_______. “History of White Point (Maxwell Field Recreation Center) 1933-1941,” date

unknown, Exhibit 30 in Angell, Origin and Growth: Acquisition of Land. Letter (no signature) to Commanding Officer ACPG, 26 May 1941, Subject: ACPG Directive.

Exhibit in Angell, Appendices. Payne, Sarah. “Eglin Field World War II Historic District, an amendment to an historic district at

Eglin Air Force Base,” National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2011, Section 8.

Prentice Thomas and Associates, Inc. “Evaluation of Buildings 33-38, 40.” Report of Investigations No. 453. February 16, 2001. On file at Eglin Air Force Base, Cultural Resource Management office.

“Major General Grandison Gardner.” U.S. Air Force Biographies, accessed August 2010, http://www.af.mil/information/bios/index.asp.

U.S. Army Air Force, detail map of Armament Laboratory and Gunnery Range, 1942-43. Eglin

Air Force Base, digital construction drawing archive. U.S. Army Air Force. Drawing for Extension to Warm-up Apron, September 2, 1942. Eglin Air

Force Base, digital construction drawing archive.


(page 25) U.S. Army Air Force. Six drawings of Building 411, 1942-1968. Eglin Air Force Base, digital

construction drawing archive. United States Engineers Directive Register, Job Nos. A-2-29 (July 11, 1942), and A-3-10

(September 26 1942). A list of projects in Exhibit 8 of Angell, Historical Outline. Weitze, Karen J. Eglin AFB, 1931–1991: Installation Buildup for Research, Test, Evaluation,

and Training. Eglin Air Force Base: U.S. Air Force Materiel Command, January 2001.

_______. Historic Range Context, Air Armament Center Eglin Air Force Base, Volumes I and II. Eglin Air Force Base: U.S. Air Force Materiel Command, June 2007.


(page 26)

ILLUSTRATED APPENDIX

All supplemental digital photographs were taken by Martin Stupich, September 2014.

Figure 1: Steel stair structure, west side north end; view to east.


(page 27)

Figure 2: Steel ladder with cage leading from second floor steel deck to roof, for access to control tower; view to northeast


(page 28)

Figure 3: Control tower; note open steel truss deck; view to northeast.


(page 29)

Figure 4: Roof-mounted raised aluminum catwalk connecting vertical steel ladder to control tower; view to south.


(page 30)

Figure 5: Detail first floor elevation showing (L-R) lead and steel sliding door to radiology lab, personnel door and base of clay brick boiler room chimney with iron clean-out door; view to south.


(page 31)

Figure 6: Roof-mounted raised aluminum catwalk connecting vertical steel ladder to control tower; view to south.


(page 32)

Figure 7: Interior view, middle work room toward fluorescent penetrant inspection room; view to south.


(page 33)

Figure 8: Interior view, one story south section (fluorescent penetrant room), view of southwest corner

with overhead door and opened personnel door; note overhead crane rail ceiling left; view to southwest.


(page 34)

Figure 9: Interior view, photo viewing room, note opening in wall leading to fluorescent penetrant

inspection unit (small wall opening is far right in preceding photo); view to southeast.


(page 35)

Figure 10: Interior view, second floor office; view to west.


(page 36)

Figure 11: Interior view, boiler room at far northwest corner first floor; view to southeast.


(page 37)

EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, RANGE 22 ARMAMENT RESEARCH …

Documents

Transcript of EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, RANGE 22 ARMAMENT RESEARCH …