General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower’s D-Day Speech May 28, 2009
Posted by knightofrook in Battle, Quotes, World War II, military, war.Tags: american military, american military history, D-Day, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Eisenhower, general of the army, history, memorial day, military history, speech, war, warfare, World War II
1 comment so far
This is the week of memorial day, and therefore I would like to dedicate this post to the memory of the men who have died fighting for the United States of America.
A Quick Look at the Life of Edward the “Black Prince” April 11, 2009
Posted by knightofrook in Battle, Strategy, military, war.Tags: Black Prince, Castilian Civil War, Crecy, Cressy, Edward, Edward III, Edward the Black Prince, England, english history, english royalty, history, Hundred Years War, Najera, Poiters, royalty
add a comment
Edward the “Black Prince” was the oldest son of king Edward III of England. He was born on 15 June 1330 and died of an unknown illness on 8 June 1376 at age 45. Dying one year before his father, he was the first Prince of Wales not to be crowned king. His son was crowned king and became Richard II of England. Edward is remembered primarily as a military commander who enabled the great English victories during the Hundred Years War.
Black Prince's Tomb
Born on 15 June 1330 in Woodstock Oxfordshire, he was given the titles Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and Earl of Chester. When the king laid claim to the French crown, starting the Hundred Years War, a destructive conflict ensued between the English and the French.
Edward first accompanied his father on his Cressy campaign at age 16. It didn’t take Edward long to prove himself. At the battle of Cressy Edward was given command of the right wing of the army. Before the battle Edward was also presented with a black breastplate, which is where he most likely got his title the “Black Prince”.
The battle was decided by the English longbow, which slew most of the French army before they could even get in close enough to strike a blow. The brunt of the French attack that made it past the bows however, fell on the right wing commanded by the young Edward. Edward held his ground splendidly against the waves of French knights. Edward was knighted for the act. The English victory at Cressy was complete.
Edward continued fighting the French as a general under his father. He took part in the siege of Calais, the Calais counter offensive, and the naval battle of Winchelsea. He became a very popular figure among the English, and was admired everywhere for his bravery.
Edward was finally given command of his own army in the year 1356. At the battle of Poiters he smashed the French army with a devastating flank attack, a very rare maneuver at the time. Edward captured the French king and inflicted devastating losses that the French were never able to fully recover from during the remainder of the war
Edward married his first cousin Joan of Kent in 1360, gaining absolution from the Pope for marrying a blood relative. The king made his son his regent in Aquitaine, and the prince held court in Bordeaux.
Pedro of Castile, king of Spain exiled by his brother during the Castilian Civil War, came to Bordeaux to seek the Prince’s help. Promising the lordship of Biscay if Edward would help him regain his throne, he convinced Edward, and the Black Prince went to war. At the battle of Najera Edward again destroyed his foes and returned Pedro of Castile to his throne (for a time).
Unfortunately while on this campaign Edward became ill and died nine years later of the same illness. The legacy of Edward still lives on however, and he is remembered today as one of the military geniuses of the medieval period. Edward struck terror in the heart of his foes, and love in the hearts of his men. He defeated his enemies, and was usually courteous to those he conquered. Truly, these are the marks of a great commander.
BBC: Man survived both atomic bombings March 25, 2009
Posted by knightofrook in Battle, World War II, military, war.Tags: hiroshima, Japan, nagasaki, nuclear war, nuke, Tsutomu Yamaguchi, World War II, Yamaguchi
add a comment
Mr Yamaguchi had the bad luck to be in Hiroshima and then Nagasaki
|
Japan has certified a man aged 93 as the only known survivor of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both hit by atomic bombs towards the end of World War II.
Tsutomu Yamaguchi was in Hiroshima on a business trip on 6 August 1945 when a US plane dropped the first atomic bomb.
He suffered serious burns and spent a night there before returning to his home city of Nagasaki just before it was bombed on 9 August.
He said he hoped his experience held a lesson of peace for future generations.
‘Horrifying history’
It was already recorded that Mr Yamaguchi had survived the Nagasaki bomb but on Tuesday officials recognised that he had been in Hiroshima as well.
More than 200,000 people were killed in the two atomic bombings
|
Certification as a hibakusha or radiation survivor qualifies Japanese citizens for government compensation, including medical check-ups, and funeral costs.
His double dose of atomic bombs, however, does not mean Mr Yamaguchi’s compensation will increase, a Nagasaki city official said.
“My double radiation exposure is now an official government record,” Mr Yamaguchi told reporters.
“It can tell the younger generation the horrifying history of the atomic bombings even after I die.”
About 140,000 people were killed in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki.
Many survivors fell sick with radiation-related illnesses, including cancers, for years after the bombings.
Book Review: How Hitler Could Have Won World War Two By Bevin Alexander March 18, 2009
Posted by knightofrook in Battle, Book Review, Strategy, World War II, military, war.Tags: adolf hitler, Bevin Alexander, book, Book Review, books, El Alamein, Erwin Rommel, history, Hitler, how hitler could have won world war II, military history, Strategy, war, warfare, World War II
1 comment so far
From the German conquest of France to Hitler’s suicide, Bevin Alexander takes the reader through the second world war in Europe to paint a strikingly clear picture characteristic of his writings. “How Hitler Could Have Won World War Two” goes through the important military decisions made through the war, showing missed opportunities and strategic blunders that brought the thousand year Reich to a premature close. In spite of the fact that people enjoy the thought that Hitler’s defeat was inevitable, Mr. Alexander shows in this work that Hitler very well could have – and almost did win the war.
Personally I thought the book to be a very good one. It goes well beyond ‘what if’ history and shows exactly how just a few changes could have won Hitler the war. As a military strategist/historian wannabe it sheds an interesting light on the war, showing how a nation can bring about its own destruction. As a Christian the book is much more meaningful.
Although Mr. Alexander makes no reference to God in his book it is impossible to separate the amazing Providences of God from any historical narrative. To read the book from this perspective leads me to one conclusion that we all should thank God for: it was only His divine intervention that saved the world from a ‘thousand year Reich’. If Hitler had only listened to some of his top commanders the world would be very different today. The battle of El Alamein is the most amazing and obvious providence of all. Alexander shows how in this battle Erwin Rommel very nearly changed the course of history in spite of Hitler’s blunders, but was thwarted by a simple mistake and a few hours.
This book is absolutly a worth while read, and I recommend it to anyone interested in the second world war. It will change your perspective of the war.
AP: Less body armor might be the answer in Afghanistan March 12, 2009
Posted by knightofrook in Battle, military.Tags: Afganistan, american military, current wars, Iraq, marine, marine corp, marines, military, modern war, war, warfare
1 comment so far
WASHINGTON (AP) — Heavy layers of body armor, a proven lifesaver of U.S. troops, also may be an impediment to winning the fight in Afghanistan. where 17,000 additional American forces are being sent to quell rising violence.
Weighing as much as 34 pounds each, the protective vests hinder American forces hunting down more agile insurgents who use the country’s rugged peaks and valleys to their advantage, according to military officials.
The proper balance between troop safety and mobility will be examined this week during a series of oversight hearings by the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. Beginning Tuesday, senior Army and Marine Corps leaders are scheduled to testify on a wide range of subjects, including force protection, readiness levels and ergonomic injuries.
When body armor is added to the assault rifles, ammunition, water and other essential gear troops are required to carry, they can be lugging as much as 80 pounds into combat. Besides moving more slowly, overburdened troops tire more quickly and are prone to orthopedic injuries that can take them out of action, the officials say.
But convincing a war-weary public of a less-is-more approach won’t be easy, they acknowledge. If a commander decides the gear shouldn’t be used for a particular mission and a service member is killed, there could be a backlash, said Jean Malone, deputy director of experiment plans at the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab in Quantico, Va.
“We’ve got to have the internal fortitude to come back and say: ‘We have the data. We made the right decision. We can’t guarantee you that nobody will die in this war,’” he said.
Paring down the amount of armor could actually make troops safer on the battlefield, officials say. Speed and maneuverability give them the best chance of killing or capturing the Taliban and other militants before they can set roadside bombs or get in position for an ambush.
“Being able to maneuver and fight and chase down a fleeing enemy; that’s actually where your protection is (versus) armoring up and being more static,” said Brig. Gen. Tim Hanifen, deputy commanding general of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command at Quantico.
The loads carried by modern American troops are equivalent to those “the medieval knight wore into and out of battle back in the year 1000 until about the 16th century,” he said.
Bomb-resistant vehicles that are light and nimble enough to handle Afghanistan’s primitive roads are also needed, according to Hanifen. Trucks that worked well in Iraq, which has a comparatively sophisticated transportation network, may be less suitable in harsher terrains.
As troop levels are surging in Afghanistan, so are roadside bomb attacks, according to the Pentagon’s Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.
In January and February, 52 IED attacks in Afghanistan killed 32 coalition troops and wounded 96 more, according to preliminary figures from the organization. During the same two months in 2008, 21 IED attacks killed 10 troops and wounded 39.
Body armor has become a focus of Marine Corps efforts to lighten troop loads because it weighs so much more than the other gear. The standard kit consists of hardened composite plates inserted into a ballistic vest. The vest and plates protect the upper body from armor-piercing bullets and shrapnel.
Personal armor made of substantially lighter composite materials that are more effective than current models won’t be available for several years. So the Marine Corps is looking for near-term solutions.
The Marine Corps is buying 65,000 vests called “scalable plate carriers” that weigh under 20 pounds. The carrier, which uses the same plates as the standard vest, doesn’t cover as much of the torso. About 14,000 of the plate carriers have been fielded and the feedback has been positive, according to Marine Corps officials.
Over the next two weeks, the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab is conducting an experiment at Camp Pendleton, Calif., to assess the risks of using less armor. The results of the trials will help guide battlefield commanders who make the final call on what gear troops should use.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gOaLrFDNvu9EwD6zCikADUdE4f2AD96R13802
LT. CMDR. CHRISTOPHER E. VAN AVERY’S 12 New Principles of War February 6, 2009
Posted by knightofrook in Battle, Strategy, military, war.Tags: armed forces journal, Battle, military, principles of war, Strategy, tactics, war, warfare
1 comment so far
I know it’s an old article, but I thought it was worth posting.
12 new principles of warfare
BY LT. CMDR. CHRISTOPHER E. VAN AVERY
Now that dramatic improvements in weaponry, communications, sensors and even the utility of individual combatants have been demonstrated in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is clear that America must revise and expand its principles of war to effectively plan and execute the more expansive and complex warfare of the future battlefield.
Before redefining the principles of war for future conflicts, three questions must be answered. First, how has the revolution in military affairs (RMA) affected military capability, and how will it affect capability in the future? Second, what types of conflicts and enemies should America expect to confront over the next quarter-century? And third, who will be cooperating with America in military operations of the future? Even these seemingly simple questions have complex answers and significant caveats that must be recognized……READ FULL ARTICLE
Trenton December 30, 2008
Posted by knightofrook in Battle, Strategy, military, war.Tags: american military history, american revolution, Battle, battle of trenton, George Washington, history, military history, revolution, revolutionary war, Strategy, tactics, trenton, war, warfare, washington
2 comments
Washington had just been defeated in his New York campaign, his men’s enlistments were almost up, their spirits were crushed, and the Continental Congress was quickly losing faith in their general. It was late December, it was cold, and time to go into winter quarters. The American Revolution looked like nothing more than a lost cause, a weak uprising to be quickly stamped out by the most powerful army in the world. But the tide of war was about to turn.
Trenton was garrisoned by 1,400 hessian soldiers, it was isolated, and under the delusion that the Americans were in no position to make an attack. Washington knew he badly needed a victory, and recognized the opportunity Trenton offered. Washington decided he was going to attack the unsuspecting force.
In order to get to Trenton the Americans had to cross the Delaware; the crossing began on the night of December 25, Christmas day. The weather was not good; as soon as the crossing began a storm broke out and made crossing next to impossible. It took fully three hours to get the force across. Sullivan sent word to general Washington that his men’s muskets were unable to fire due to exposure to the storm. Washington replied “Tell General Sullivan to use the bayonet. I am resolved to take Trenton.”
On the side of the Hessians things were more pleasant (for the time being). They made a very big deal of Christmas, and had a party (drinks all around!). Because of the storm the Hessian commander, Colonel Johann Rall did not send out scouts. The results were devastating.
Washington’s method of attack was also masterful. They were not just going to attack them while they were unsuspecting, they were going to surround them (see map below).
Battle of Trenton
The attack commenced at 8:00 AM December the 26th. The Hessians were caught completely off guard. They attempted to organize a resistance and a counter stroke, but the flanking fire prevented them from doing so. In only ninety minutes the fight was over. The Hessians never stood a chance.
Americans had only seven casualties. The Hessians suffered one hundred and five casualties, about six hundred escaped, the rest were captured.
Trenton is a perfect example of supreme generalship. One may wonder why I say this, after all, the Hessians never stood a chance. But the fact that the Hessians didn’t have chance is what makes it such an example of what a commander should do. Striking at a weak, isolated and unexpected position is what wins wars. A generals job is not to give the enemy a sporting chance, but to win wars as quickly and efficiently as possible. The successful general is the commander who can follow the advice of the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu, and “avoid strength by striking at weakness”. Trenton is an example of just that.
The Difference Between Strategy and Tactics November 10, 2008
Posted by knightofrook in Battle, Strategy.Tags: army, Battle, military, Strategy, tactics, war, warfare
1 comment so far
A lot of people get confused about the difference between a strategy and a tactic. Since these are two words that I use often on this blog I shall explain the difference between the two. The difference is simple, easy to understand, but gets confused far too often.
Strategy comes from the Greek word Stratēgos meaning “the art of the general”. Our word strategy is not limited to military affairs, but is also used in business and politics, among other things. Strategy refers to the overall plan of accomplishing a goal. In a military example, the strategy would be the method of waging the war or campaign.
Tactics comes from the Greek word Taktikē meaning “The art of organizing an army”. Tactics are used to win an engagement or battle, not a war. Tactics are the methods of fulfilling the strategy.
Strategy without tactics is nothing more than a thought, an idea trapped within a man’s head. Strategy guides tactics so that men do not die in vain. Tactics without strategy is nothing more than pointless bloodshed. Therefore, the two are in need of each other. They sustain each other. One is useless without the other, and the man who understand this is well on his way to avoiding many grievous errors that have occurred in history.
Think of it this way: Strategy=Big; Tactic=Small.
American trained Iraqi troops about to board a UH-60. Through the use of helicopters, these troops are able catch insurgents off guard and raid their positions.
Defend, then Attack! August 5, 2008
Posted by knightofrook in Battle, Strategy.Tags: Battle, Strategy, tactics, war, warfare
add a comment
Attack, attack, attack, offense, offense, offense, these are the things that strategists try to achieve. When presented with an option of defending and attacking, most people decide to attack without the slightest bit reflection. Since the attacking party has the advantage (in theory), attack then is the best policy at all times. Isn’t it?
During the War Between the States, Thomas Stonewall Jackson, during the second battle of Manassas, did something that isn’t common: he chose a defensive position on purpose. Because rifles during the war had a longer range than rifles had ever before that time, men in trenches or behind barricades etc. could pick off attacking soldiers, before they could ever reach the position they were trying to assault. Frontal and direct assaults didn’t usually work for that reason (five our of every six frontal attacks failing) but many commanders didn’t understand that, and that would account for the numerous deaths. Jackson did understand it, and during the second battle of Manassas he showed that he did. He took up a defensive position; the enemy attacked him, and was defeated.
From my own experience with wars waged with little plastic men, and even chess, when you’re outnumbered, outgunned, or don’t have enough leverage to force a win by an attack, you don’t even try to attack, you defend. ‘What’s the point’ you might ask? ‘After all, it’s the offense that scores points!’ If you can gain a superior weapon, or tactical system, or even something that’s just different and unexpected, you can lure the enemy into attacking you, be defeated by your forces that are standing on the defensive, and then you in your turn your defense into offense, and attack an enemy that has been weakened by their fruitless assaults.
In the magnificent seven, (one of my favorite movies), the question was asked how seven gun men, and a little village could keep the villain Calaveras away. The answer was to “Lower the odds”. Now what the gunfighter had in mind was a surprise attack, the opposite of what we are talking about, but the basic reasoning is the same: the reason why you defend first, and then attack, is to simply “lower the odds” for when you attack.
Sometimes it’s best to make an ambush, or to strike first, but at other times it is best to defend. What defines what you should do is simply what you can do. If you do not have the manpower to drive back the enemies assault, then you should not defend, unless you have a superior weapon of some kind.
A few days ago I fought a ‘war’ on this very principal of defend and then attack, I was outnumbered and outgunned by the enemy (commanded by a friend of mine), I decided that he held to strong a position, and too many guns to attack him. So I laid out bait, a few jeeps and tanks and men, sort of out of the way, but ripe for attack. What were unseen were the snipers, armed with rocket launchers that were hidden in a mountain over looking the place. He took the bait, sent in an air raid to destroy my jeeps, munitions, and whatever else I put there, and was shot down by my snipers. He made a few similar attacks, all of them fruitless and self-destructive, until I had the greater manpower and weapons, and had shot down every plane in his air force. Now that the defending was done, and the odds had been lowered, it was time for me to win the game. I launched an assault against him, in it I smashed his navy, took the high ground, and burned his fortress, and forced him to surrender.
Defending and then attacking is a very effective method, but do not forget that while defending, you must have a reason to believe that you will defend successfully. You must gain a superior tactical system, such as fighting behind trenches and barricades, or ambush, or even better, gain a superior weapon! And remember what defines superior might simply mean to be different in a way that’s unexpected. Defend, lower the odds, then attack, and crush the enemy!
Mea Culpa July 29, 2008
Posted by knightofrook in Battle.Tags: Battle, tactics, warfare
3 comments
Mea cupla is a Latin phrase meaning “My Fault”, and is commonly used among Catholics during their confessions. The reason I have titled my post this, is because this is a confession: I screwed up.
A few days ago, a few friends of ours came to visit, some of the kids and I got to playing a little game: whacking each other with sticks and throwing walnuts. My little sister and I were on one team, and everyone else were on another team. We were trying to take their position behind a fallen log in a woods, but we were outnumbered, and the position was very strong. I came up with a plan, I was going to hold one place and strike another. One of us was going to continue fighting on the front, while the other would pretend to leave the combat zone to go get something, but in reality would go around and strike the rear of the enemy, catching them unsuspected, and thus take the position. Sounds like a good plan right? It’s a great plan! So why is my post titled ‘Mea Culpa’? When I carried out the plan, I made a fatal mistake: I left my little sister to hold their position, while I made the decisive hit in the rear, simply because I didn’t trust her. The problem was, as soon as I left the combat zone to make my sweep, she was captured.
The good news was that I still caught them by surprise when I approached their position from the back, what ensued was a fierce fight, I managed to capture their position in the end though, and stole all their ammunition. On the down side, they discovered my stock piles of walnuts, and acquired them. Another problem, was that after I took their position, they refused to surrender, but were rather outraged that I had “cheated” by taking them by surprise, thus, they kept on fighting. I was outnumbered and surrounded but I managed to hold onto my position in their fort that I had stolen.
It ended in draw, but I can’t help but think if I had only sent my sister to make the maneuver, we might have been able to shake them up enough to force a surrender, but, we live and learn.
