As another Lame Cherry exclusive in matter anti matter.
Everyone quite popularly believes they have it in them to be a general.
What kind of general though?
Some generals are like Eisenhower who do better at soothing coalition warfare. Other generals like Patton are best as field marshals directly over their forces. Some predicate the ability of both in a Grant.
Warfare though is no secret to success and below General Sheridan reveals the simplicity of warfare, that if all employ it, they may win, and the "may" is the caveat for there is more and General Sheridan knows this.
"The movements of the different armies and corps being dictated and governed by the same general laws that have so long obtained, simplicity of combination and manoeuvre, and the concentration of a numerically superior force at the vital point."
Personal Memoirs of P. H. Sheridan, General, United States Army
I remained in Paris till the latter part of March. .........I visited the fortifications for the defense of the city, and found them to be exceptionally heavy; so strong, indeed, that it would have been very hard to carry the place by a general assault. The Germans, knowing the character of the works, had refrained from the sacrifice of life that such an attempt must entail, though they well knew that many of the forts were manned by unseasoned soldiers.
With only a combat here and there , to tighten their lines or repulse a sortie, they wisely preferred to wait till starvation should do the work with little loss and absolute certainty.
Personal Memoirs of P. H. Sheridan, General, United States Army
The two above methods are the sound protocols of warfare. One is blitzkrieg and the other is seige warfare. Both of which take intelligence to know when to move and when to stay, for moving not soon enough develops a seige and moving too late causes mass slaughter of your forces on the enemy's works.
Militaries require devotion to fatherland, motherland, cause or leader. The Germans were devoted in the Franco Prussian War to their leaders. They turned out in unison, and they marched in unison, and when the French accepted battle with inferior force and were beaten, the German confidence grew while the French confidence sagged, causing the German victory to be obtained sooner, rather than later.
The Spanish Conquistador against the superior Latin American Indians violated the superior numbers mandate. The English of Henry V violated the superior numbers against the French. The Greeks violated the superior numbers against the Perisans several times.
There is a rule that in attacking any force one must have 7 to 1 superior odds in attacking. The Americans in the Iraq Wars violated this against Sadam Hussein's forces and the ignorant mocked as much the fall off in the 3rd largest army in the world in Iraq to others, but it all has to do with key elements in the nuance of battle.
The Confederates were often of less numbers, but had greater intelligence, greater faith in their leaders, and greater mobility.
There was a moment in the close of the Civil War in which General Sheridan had deployed General Custer's division at Petersburg which was then attacked by General Pickett. Custer's division was armed with repeating rifles and threw up a devastating fire which shattered the Confederates.
The British in their "mad minute" did the same against the Germans in World War I as they were firing their rifles so fast and furious that the Germans thought they had come across massed machine guns.
General George Patton violated almost every military doctrine in his campaigns in World War II. His adage of "grab them by the nose and then kick them in the pants" was the doctrine of Nathan Bedford Forest of the Confederate Cavalry in "hit em on the end" or Thomas Stonewall Jackson in "moving a smaller force on flank would roll up a larger force".
The German military did not know what to do with General Patton as he was surprising them in moving his tanks over mountains in his own blitzkrieg. Patton used air cover for intelligence and bombing strikes, along with his tanks and infantry in constant motion.
He comprehended that by attacking, the enemy was reacting to him, and it lessened the casualties he would experience.
From the Conquistadors, to Alexander to Patton, none of the military commanders were fools, nor was General Sheridan foolish even in hard situations which mauled his troops. None ever attacked obliterating forces on suicide missions, although some in Sheridan's case were the most difficult in high losses which could not be helped as a divisional commander.
Sheridan never repeated those losses again when he was in command of his own Army.
The feel of battle is and the ground on which to fight is vital. One of the issues I have from chess to battle is the oldest of adages in "tidying up my battlefield". One must be ever vigilent in deployment of your troops in lines, the softening up of the enemy's lines in blowing holes in them, and when the attack comes to overwhelm the enemy, so it stops fighting quickly and is more interested in fleeing.
You must be as equally aware of not over extending your forces so they will not be counter attacked, and know where your enemy is most likely to regroup, and be ready to hit them as hard there to smash all resistance or you will have worse days ahead.
In reference to Sadam Husseins Iraq I War, I recall as a youngster looking at the field of Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Mom was with me as I was yelling at the television set how Saddam had concentrated his forces at Kuwait, which left his entire left and flank exposed to an American end run.
Bombing had pinned the Iraqi's down and when it came time to make the end run, the Americans ran in complete rout.
When the Iraqi reinforcements came up in the Soviet T 58's, it was a matter that the American M 1 tank simply had a quicker targeting system of approximately 10 seconds which was the margin of victory in that equal engagement.
Quartermaster, speed, supply, effective use of numbers and concentration of weaponry with organized deployment in lines connecting or anchored to prevent flanking operations, with adequate breastworks which now require 4th Dimensional warfare..........do not overlook space in hypersonic rods or pulse weapons, as the human soldier is now an obsolete instrument of warfare in only by ingenuity of brain matter holding the edge on machine and computer abilities.
In 21st century warfare, the human is but a worm and as useless as one compared to hypersonic munitions and cyber functions.
The Germans in 1868 relied upon the local populations for shelter and food, not having long supply trains. The Americans in 2002 relied on long fuel supply trains. The poisoning of food and water supply would have negated the German advance as much as the disruption of the American supply of fuel would have negated their military.
There is always weakness in every powerful system and the fluidity of combat requires an essence of the feel of battle to direct effective victory and holding that victory after it is gained.
This lesson concludes.
agtG
