|
Post by loucapitano on Apr 10, 2012 18:28:28 GMT -5
My Goodness, What have I started? Chuck and Herb and all, we're really not as far apart as might appear. I could never praise Travis the military tactitician leader. I simply admire his guts, however foolhardy, for trying to hold a broken down mission against a professional army of thousands. I find interesting your argument that it has taken 150 years to correct our deficiencies. My reading of history tells me deficiencies have continued for thousands of years. Of course, I would prefer to stand with professionally trained armies. History is rife with such armies led by the likes of Rameses and Leonidas and Caesar. History is also rife with the amateurs like Joshua and Joan of Arc and Daniel Boone. I will say this. I've never faced combat, so it's easier for me to accept the mythology of battle. Those of you who have faced it have my total admiration because you see it for what it really is. Deadly! Let's keep this thread going. There's lots more to be said. Lou from Long Island
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 10, 2012 18:46:35 GMT -5
Lou: The reforms began as a result of the "overall" miserable performance of the Army in the Spanish American War. These are the so called Root Reforms which for the first time in our history mandated that "non-regular" units be organized and equiped in an identical manner as their Regular counterparts. That was at the turn of the last century. As time went on through both world wars Korea, and Vietnam more and more deficiences surfaced in the area of leadership, professional education, and the entire gamut of issues surrounding readiness and training. These reforms are a continuing process, and we are far from the finish line, but at least we now understand that all of the assumptions about the universality of native leadership qualities residing in the more well to do are indeed false.
I also admire Travis for his guts. I admire his leadership qualities simply for his ability to hold those folks together for thirteen days in what was known to all as a very bad situation. Those things were never in question in my mind. What is in question is a society that would by then prevelent standards give a man with absolutely no training command of a group of men and send that group into combat, and think it was OK.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Apr 12, 2012 14:44:44 GMT -5
Chuck - I agree 100%. It's a shame the Army reforms after 1898 didn't begin prior to 1860. Even though well trained professionals were availalble, militia/volunteer units could still choose a colonel and march off to war (slaughter.) I think we've learned the value of professional leadership, even then there's a tendency to train the military to fight the "last" war, rather than the next. It appears the recent success of the small special operation units will be vital to future conflicts. But who knows? War with Iran or North Korea could require huge numbers of "boots on the ground." Thanks for the info on the Spainish American War Root Reforms. We saw much better unit cohesion and discipline during WWI. To my knowledge, no volunteer regiments like the "Rough Riders" were allowed to participate. Would you give credit for that to Pershing? I understand the military had another round of self examination after Korea and Viet Nam. Are they continuing for Iraq and Aphganistan? Personally I think the military is doing much better than the civilians who called them into action. But perhaps I'm getting too political.
I feel like Smitty. "I've got to get back to the Alamo!"
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 12, 2012 15:56:34 GMT -5
Lou: First and foremost armies are a reflection of the societies they serve. The attitudes of the 19th Century society, was carried over into the Army. Remember in the 19th Century there were the rich and fairly well educated, the merchant class, and the great majority the very poor and agricultural classes. We touched on this in the Titanic thread, and that New Yorker piece that someone (I forget who) posted. With the turn of the century we shed some of the ideas that had served, if not well, but served us anyway. There was also an explosion in military technology on land and sea, and soon to be in the air. All of these things plus the realization that we did not really have an army, we had a constabulary that was fattened in time of war. It just no longer worked.
Teddy tried to raise a Rough Rider Division for the Great War. Not sure who thought better of it, but I don't believe it was Pershing. Probably March with a whisper in his ear from Wilson.
As for today, I think we have come a very long way. We are though, in my view, not only not there yet, but I don't believe we are as good as we think we are. The nature of combat remains pretty much the same, close with and kill. It is the nature of war, and the idea of what constitutes war that is evolving.
|
|
|
Post by jamesg on Apr 13, 2012 22:59:29 GMT -5
American Military Attitude: I found this You Guys might find Interesting
Lyman Draper on Militia 1790s Tenn,
" Everyman considered himself a solider. He Had a Horse and Rifle, which he knew how to use, and always ready at short notice to join his Fellows in an a emergency. All had a common interest, and that most vital, their homes, their families, and everything dear to man. Thus a feeling among them a pride of tacit league and covenant, which regarded most binding. When fighting came on, everyone fought for himself, officers a well as men. The Best Officers were those who fought the best; as among the Indians, the Officers were leaders rather than commanders, Command was more nominal than real. In fighting, it was always expected that Officer would lead on, any failure to do this would be considered a mark of cowardice, and the Officer Cashiered, not by any court-marshal but acclamation. It would surprise men of this generation to see the power of these leaders exercised over their followers. It was the power conferred by God and nature, much more effective than on Parchment."
Less than 40years later in Texas Attitudes seem the same.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 14, 2012 8:22:08 GMT -5
Bowie did quite well with an organization (I hesitate to use that word) such as you describe at San Saba. And there is found in some men at the time natural leadership abilities that are schooled in the classroom of the frontier. In fact there is no question about it. The question comes when this same system is thrust into combat in the big leagues facing organized disciplined armies with well established systems of command and control. It, I would think, is like taking my nine year old grandson off the sandlot, where he is this very morning, and asking him to play first base in Yankee Stadium.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Apr 15, 2012 13:38:53 GMT -5
That's a very good point you made Chuck. What is 21st Century War? It sometimes seems less nation against nation and more tribe against tribe and nations dividing or uniting. It doesn't appear to have changed much in 5000 years, except the leap in technology enabling both personal and impersonal death and destruction like never before. "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?"
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 15, 2012 20:52:08 GMT -5
Lou: I think the honest answer to that question is that we don't quite know. War is still possible across the spectrum of conflict, but I think that common sense for the present suggests that any war we engage in will be nearer to the low end of that spectrum than the high. Beyond that your guess, anyones guess is as good as anything I could provide.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Apr 15, 2012 22:23:27 GMT -5
We're going far afield here.
The problem as I see it, Lou, is we hope any wars we fight are toward the lower end of the spectrum. We have 3 big advantages in my opinion, the first of these is for three decades we probably have trained harder and more realistically than anybody else, ie we have a qualitative edge over our likely opponents. Secondly, we gave a technological edge, over most, this is however a two edge sword because we are now heavily reliant on that edge, electronic/computer warfare waged by a technologically smart enemy could make some key systems vulnerable. Even some small states such as Serbia have caused problems in the past. Our 3rd big advantage is our NCO corps, we have highly competent and intelligent sergeants. It's something that a lot of our potential enemies don't have, and because of their very nature won't have.
While these all are good things no matter the level of warfare, their effect is multiplied at the lower levels. At the higher levels, material and numbers weigh more. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Apr 16, 2012 9:57:24 GMT -5
We're going far afield here. This thread went off track halfway through page one ;D No use worrying about it at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 16, 2012 11:20:12 GMT -5
We're going far afield here. This thread went off track halfway through page one ;D No use worrying about it at this point. Herb-when they started yelling "Viva Santa Anna!" and the buglar sound the called to attention and then the attack. That is when it started. I hope this helps! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Apr 16, 2012 16:29:07 GMT -5
At least no one yelled, "Viva, Max". Oops. I guess I just did.
|
|