Wartime peak (Blanchard/Davis era, 1944–1945)

In the mid-1940s Army football reached its competitive apex as the United States was engaged in World War II. Felix 'Doc' Blanchard and Glenn Davis formed a backfield tandem that propelled Army to national prominence: Blanchard won the Heisman Trophy in 1945 and Davis followed with the Heisman in 1946, emblematic of Army's dominance in that era [5][11]. The Army–Navy Games during 1944 and 1945 were major national events, drawing attention not only for athletic competition but also because they intersected with wartime morale, fundraising, and public symbolism of military readiness. Newspapers and later retrospectives describe the matches as focal points for patriotic sentiment, with proceeds and public visibility tied to wartime causes in some instances [5][11]. Game results from the period reinforced Army's standing: the program was ranked among the nation's best and Army teams routed many opponents during the Blanchard–Davis years, underscoring the rivalry's heightened stakes when one service academy represented dominant wartime athletic excellence [2][11].

The Blanchard–Davis era reveals how the Army–Navy rivalry can reflect broader national circumstances. With two consecutive Heisman winners and Army's national dominance, the rivalry's games carried symbolic weight during World War II, shaping public perception of the academies' contributions to national service and morale [5][11]. It also anchored the rivalry in a period when college football retained strong ties to national identity and wartime fundraising efforts.

After World War II, the prominence of service-academy teams faded as larger civilian universities resumed recruiting and competition, but the legacy of the 1944–1945 Army teams remained central to the rivalry's history. Blanchard and Davis's individual honors and Army's wartime success are recurring reference points in Army–Navy retrospectives and institutional histories [5][11]. The wartime peak is frequently cited when historians compare later eras of balance and when the rivalry's cultural significance is discussed [2].