|
Post by quincannon on Nov 19, 2016 23:48:55 GMT
Granted the rifle that has extended range, and the gun or howitzer that has increased deadly effects is the main concern of the soldier.
That was not what made modern war modern though. In war you only do three things, shoot, move, and communicate.
The increased abilities of more modern weapons only extended the battle space, and extending the battle space is an evolutionary process, starting with the sling shot thrown rock, and evolving into the drone launched precision guided missile.
The moving and communicating though was a leap forward that allowed the possibility to wage total war on a continental scale, with command and control exercised over distances that were heretofore impossible, from a centralized location. I cannot over-emphasize centralized command and control, that could be exercised in a timely manner, hours if not minutes, vice, days, weeks, and sometimes months.
While the shooting was evolutionary, the moving and communicating were revolutionary. You are confusing the study of battle as evidenced by being centered on musketry, and the King of Battle, while you are neglecting the study of WAR, and you did say modern war.
|
|
|
Post by chardvc on Nov 20, 2016 8:45:38 GMT
Dave: Nathan Bedford Forrest was an operational and tactical genius, and as I said earlier in this thread, is one of the top three American horse soldiers of all time in my opinion. He was also: A slave trader. Strike One. A founding member of the KKK. Strike Two. Was responsible for the murder of 500 or more Union prisoners of war at Fort Pillow. Opinions differ on if he ordered or participated in this, but the fact remains that they were his troops that murdered these prisoners, and he as the commander is responsible. We hung Japanese and German officers for the same thing following World War II. Strike Three. The words distasteful, and mentally unbalanced moron stand. Why do you think the American Army places so much emphasis on honesty and integrity, along with having rigid standards of conduct? The American Civil War was the first modern war for three reasons, none of which had anything to do with firepower. 1) The telegraph. 2) The Railroads. 3) Adoption of a policy of total war, a formalized recognition that the means of war, were just as important as the men and method. Total war though was not a new concept, rather a forgotten one. For example, I think Richard the Lionheart in Palestine and William the Conqueror in the north of England both realised (for differing reasons) the need to completely destroy the opposition in order to make sure that they could not support a rival army or rise again (neither achieved what they thought they would). Maybe by the end of the 14th century in Europe Total war was lost in the "chivalrous age" and only made brief re-appearances usually against those felt to be "inferior" until the ACW and even then only in parts until the most recent conflicts. The psychology of what someone regards as acceptable in war has evolved, changed and re-evolved several times. I guess having made the leap to organised killing the method, and the limit is only governed by the imagination and the technical ability available.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Nov 20, 2016 10:45:34 GMT
Yeah Mark, "The Harrying of the North" it was called, no wonder they English people gave him the name "William the Bastard"
The worst kind of total war is still taking place today as Putin and Assad lay siege to Aleppo, what I find ironic about this is the way the Russians make sure that the world never forgets about what the Germans did during the siege of Leningrad in WW2, but they are doing the same or even worse in Syria and Aleppo is a prime example.
I think as well that the North knew that the south was low on everything, for example it was not as industrious as the north and was suffering because of the blockage, so to destroy what meager supplies they had would really hurt them.
I suppose one way of looking at it is that this war like all wars, was doing no one any good, so lets get it over with and if total war is the quickest way to do it, then lets get on with. So you can see other examples in history were armies have fought wars with one hand tied behind their backs, and how it makes it a long drawn out affair.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 20, 2016 17:35:10 GMT
I know just enough about British history to get me in deep trouble with Englishmen. That said I will bypass both Dick and Willie.
Total war, as Mark relates, was not new, it was just new to us.
We judge war most often by the happenings on the battlefield. Quite natural, for there it is a game of intellect, and we are drawn to that by nature.
Wars though are not won on the battlefield. Wars on won in the factories, the workshops, the highways, the byways, the railways and rail yards, the control of rivers,sea lanes, and lately the air lanes. They are won by the skill and productivity of the worker, just as much as the soldier. They are won by the crops in the fields, and productivity of the soil. They in short are won by logistics, and the economic engine that drives logistics.
In the ACW the productivity of the South was abysmal. The only real crop they had was cotton, and you cannot eat cotton. They could not feed themselves. They could not arm themselves. They had no martial infrastructure, even for the most basic of goods that sustain the soldier.
Therefore if you look back again at DIME (Diplomacy-Information-Military-Economics)as the basic elements of strategy, you see just how much of a no-brainer, waging war on sustainment was.
Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Nov 20, 2016 20:11:19 GMT
The Spanish didn't do a bad job destroying south America, in fact the Dutch, Portuguese, French and Belgians are all guilty of similar stuff, but for some reason the English (well British) get singled out.
|
|
|
Post by chardvc on Nov 21, 2016 8:49:38 GMT
Two things Ian: 1) I think we (not uniquely, but certainly more vociferously) feel guilty about it, and 2) set ourselves up as whiter than white and then get quite rightly condemned for our arrogance when we're proved not to be.
There is a great quote by the US historian in summing up WWII in "The World at War": "what did Britain get out of the war?, not much perhaps a moral hold as the country that stood up to Hitler." (I paraphrase). That could be said about the period from the Restoration to Suez. Stood up to Slavery, for Freedom, for Liberty but at times chose some bizarre ways of going about it. But in doing so we shouted so loud and long that others rightly said "yes but...".
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Nov 21, 2016 13:29:09 GMT
Mark, a lot of bad stuff happened years ago and many countries as well as us are guilty, but that was the sign of the times in which leaders and governments from all over Europe, strove to pinch as much wealth as possible from these poor god forsaken countries.
But what made it worse was that all of this wealth was kept by the chosen few and the normal Brit saw none of it and if he complained he got the same treatment as the natives of these countries.
After we gave up the empire, the locals from these countries started doing what they do now and start killing each other and instead of having their own beautiful country, they have a hell hole full of corruption and ruled by murders.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Nov 21, 2016 16:19:17 GMT
Yan That is a very good point about how the average Brit failed to see any benefit from Global conquests. I always think of the poor "Jack Tar" of the Royal Navy who often was the victim of the "Press Gangs." These individuals were taken away from homes and families and sent around the world. Few if any ever received much of the prize money always dangled in front of them as an inducement.
These sailors were often condemned to sail the seas for years as each time their ship paid off they were shipped over to another vessel. American fought the War of 1812 partially because of their sailors being pressed into the Royal Navy. This policy went out of favor after the Napoleonic Wars eventually being outlawed on the 1830's.
In some ways impressment was very similar to slavery in that it took away a man's freedom, took him away from his family and his term and time of service was decided by his owners in the Admiralty. Ironically the Slave Trade Act of 1807 outlawed the slave trade but not slavery itself which was officially banned in the 1830's. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Nov 21, 2016 16:36:36 GMT
Yes Dave the cities were full of slums and the workers got nothing. Going back on how the big bad Brits are looked at in the developing world and even when the British Government are cutting public services to the bone, we still find the cash to help prop up countries like China and India, even though they spend millions on nuclear weapons; linkSorry to take the topic off course.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Nov 21, 2016 19:16:49 GMT
Why Hell Yan, we support the UN so we can have the ambassadors, representatives and their staffs stay here at our expense and have them insult us with diplomatic immunity thrown in too boot! Only in America could we see such happenings being tolerated. When it was created the UN was a good idea but sadly we have allowed smaller nations to be the leaders of this organization which has not benefited the US or democracy and mankind in my shallow opinion.
As to supporting other nations, we have set all the records especially during WW II with the Soviet Union, Great Britain and her Commonwealth Nations and other nations yet this was a necessary effort and needed to be done. One of the little thought of benefits to Japan and German after the War was we rebuilt their manufacturing infrastructure which was far modern than America's. I do not want to slight France which came to our aid when we were a young country fighting the world's greatest navy and standing army. We repaid that effort in part in 1917
We have always sent supplies, logistical support and funds to nations experiencing natural disasters which we should do as we have been greatly Blessed by God. Our citizens have always had the will to assist others in distress and it is so ingrained in our nation's psyche that it will always be an American trait! Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Nov 21, 2016 20:31:07 GMT
They are on about closing our fire station, shutting our police station at the weekends and cutting back the opening hours on our library, because of the austerity measures brought in by Westminster to save money, they say that we are in debt to the tune of trillions, but they still give millions away. So in reality some of my tax money is going to China as our fire station closes, mad!
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Nov 21, 2016 22:18:19 GMT
Perhaps we should get back to on topic and move off topic conversation to PM?
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Nov 21, 2016 22:57:29 GMT
Ooooooooooooppppppppps! It is Yan's fault! I will move back to an on topic discussion.
Both Stuart and Custer were romantic fools playing at a deadly game called war. They were flamboyant in dress and temperament and both thought of themselves as gallant knights from the days of yore. Edgar Allan Poe's Eldorado always reminded me of Stuart and Custer would fit just as well: "Gaily bedight, A gallant knight, In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of Eldorado..." Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Nov 22, 2016 13:25:56 GMT
I was tricked into it Beth, and led down the garden path.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Nov 22, 2016 21:09:51 GMT
Excuses, excuses-but thanks for the mention of a garden path you reminded me of something I wanted to google about the Epping Forest (way, way off topic). It's not that your conversation isn't extremely interesting mind you, it's just wandering a bit off topic for a Civil War thread. Perhaps we can return to the subject of total war in the context of the Civil War?
Here is something I was wondering, often times the Northern campaign through the south is viewed through the eyes that the Northerners were more barbaric and not gentlemanly enough which is why they brought the war to the citizens instead of keeping it on the battlefield. Personally I wonder if the South had had the resources, would they have waged a similar campaign to win the war. I was thinking of course after Gettysburg. I need to go back and watch those videos from (I believe) the War College about what the plan for that swing North entailed.
|
|