RE: World War I Book

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: World War I Book

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918 >> RE: World War I Book

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: World War I Book - 1/30/2008 3:44:07 AM

Disintegration

Posts: 27
Joined: 10/17/2007
Status: offline

Impressive, yes, but not enough.

I was brought up in the Cult of Lee and still find the man very admirable in many ways. But ultimately, his strategic vision fell short. Gettysburg wasn't a plan to win the war, it was a gesture. Lee could not hit on any strategy that, if successfully pursued, would win the war for the South. (Much of that, of course, wasn't his fault: he had little if any control over the loss of Tennessee and the Mississippi which is what really doomed the South.)

Like Hannibal, he won battle after battle but they only prolongued the war rather than bringing it closer to a conclusion. Also like the Japanese in WW2, they faced political systems that were more likely to increase their resolve with every setback than to decrease it (although the ACW is the most marginal in this regard... the Union was nowhere near as implacable as Rome or the post-Pearl Harbor US). They lacked the military means to win a quick decisive victory and lacked the material and political means to win a long war of attrition.

The 1918 offensives were somewhat different, but IMO Ludendorff's failing was the same as Schlieffen's: the plan was theoretically a war-winner, but the means at his disposal were not capable of executing the plan as written even under the best possible circumstances. Schlieffen's (and Moltke's) painstaking logistical plans and studies simply could not deliver the required number of troops at the place and time the plan marked as decisive - the road net and available transport could not carry them.

And if Ludendorff was to win he had to keep up the momentum of relentless attacks, but the only way he could be sure to keep winning was to react to events, to follow the path of least resistance, rather than to stay fixed on the goals that would beat the Allies. It was either continue to make suceesful attacks that led nowhere in particular, or mount a losing attack that would win the war if successful. To quote a line from a bad movie, the only way to win was not to play. However, after the war, he couldn't admit that his gamble was doomed from the outset, so he had to invent a fictitious narrative to explain the defeat.

Haig et al had what you'd think would be an easier task: to argue that their eventual success justified the losses. However, poking holes in his defense didn't implicate Sacred National Honour the way disagreeing with Ludendorff would.

It's instrumental to note what happened to Longstreet after he published his memoirs.

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 31

RE: World War I Book - 1/30/2008 4:21:59 AM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

The South was looking for a Diplomatic end at best in my humble opinion, a stalemate was not going to achieve that. The North would never tolerate an equal partner or a possible foe.�I think that the string of victories Lee won were quite amazing and though prolonging the Civil War he would have fought for the Yanks if Virginia would've joined the other side. His loyalty was there... Just doing is job...

The havoc wreaked upon the South as I have lived there a great deal of time is still evident today. The Tactics founded by such players as Sherman still are visible there century and half later. Nothing was changed but the decimation�and death.�Freedom was never achieved, slavery was still present.�The South still hated the North it was beaten like a child into submission rather than�gently brought to understand a friendship or relationship�

I think Gettysburg would not have achieved a victory, but could have achieved something. A few more like it...insight fear into the North.... one can never tell what it takes to break a nation, but perhaps it was a last desperate act and nothing would matter same as the Germans but with less hope of a favorable outcome

I think that war redefined wars...� as for WW1 as you pointed out so clearly, the CP found itself in the same boat or rather Germany. She may have never won but negotiated�better terms for herself. All�but what you wrote is all I've really read of value on the last German offensive in the West, and�all that I heard is that the Germans ran out of steam and were low on morale. Though pretty much had everything else they needed. Insightful...��

On LongStreet what you spoke of is published on-line, not my favorite subject anymore but I still dabble
http://www.wtj.com/archives/longstreet/

< Message edited by wargamer123 -- 1/30/2008 4:25:10 AM >

(in reply to Disintegration)

Post #: 32

RE: World War I Book - 1/30/2008 6:40:43 AM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

There is a very good book that can shed some light on the question of the German Army;s effectiveness; A Genius For War, by Colonel T. N. Dupuy (U.S. Army, Ret.)- printed in 1977. The book covers the the development of the German General Staff, and its effects on the Army's operations. There are effectiveness ratios reflecting losses in both offensive and defensive situations. The conclusion of the study is clear; the German Army was by far a superior organization, unit for unit, compared to any of its adversaries.

It has been many years since I read this book (I just went to see if I still had it in my library-I have it in my lap as I type), so I can't raddle off statistics. I will have some time in a few days to post some good (infuriating?) stuff. I do recall the primary reason for the creation of the General Staff (a branch of the army) was to "institutionalize military excellence"-this they did. By the time of WW1 it had been in existence for about 90 years. It was banned by the victors of WW1 (did they view it as a threat?

), but in fact, continued in secrecy. The superiority of German arms ( unit by unit/action by action) in WW2 had nothing to do with Nazi ideals, but with the skill and dedication of true military professionals of the General Staff (the vast majority of whom were junior officers).

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 33

RE: World War I Book - 1/30/2008 11:03:50 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

Mosier also points out that BEF losses from July through November were over 100,000 men killed, over three times as many as the Somme offensive of 1916.

Have been looking for something special to deal to this little gem....the Commonwealth War Graves Commision - that well known bastion of the official line - gives 125,000 British and Empire dead (from 420,000 casualties total) for the Somme...you can find the figure in a pdf they publish on the graves at http://www.cwgc.org/admin/files/cwgc_thiepval.pdf. They give French losses as approx 200,000, and German as approx 600,000....yep....those figures are wildly reduced on the allied side to make them lower than the Germa total......

Pretty much tells me all I need to know about Mosier.

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 34

RE: World War I Book - 1/30/2008 3:15:56 PM

Jestre

Posts: 180
Joined: 8/8/2006
From: Rhode Island
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

quote:

Mosier also points out that BEF losses from July through November were over 100,000 men killed, over three times as many as the Somme offensive of 1916.

Have been looking for something special to deal to this little gem....the Commonwealth War Graves Commision - that well known bastion of the official line - gives 125,000 British and Empire dead (from 420,000 casualties total) for the Somme...you can find the figure in a pdf they publish on the graves at http://www.cwgc.org/admin/files/cwgc_thiepval.pdf.� They give French losses as approx 200,000, and German as approx 600,000....yep....those figures are wildly reduced on the allied side to make them lower than the Germa total......

Pretty much tells me all I need to know about Mosier.

I don't think anyone ever needed to tell you anything about Mosier.... on anyone making any argument you have already made your mind up on.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 35

RE: World War I Book - 1/30/2008 3:22:49 PM

Jestre

Posts: 180
Joined: 8/8/2006
From: Rhode Island
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

quote:

Mosier also points out that BEF losses from July through November were over 100,000 men killed, over three times as many as the Somme offensive of 1916.

Have been looking for something special to deal to this little gem....the Commonwealth War Graves Commision - that well known bastion of the official line - gives 125,000 British and Empire dead (from 420,000 casualties total) for the Somme...you can find the figure in a pdf they publish on the graves at http://www.cwgc.org/admin/files/cwgc_thiepval.pdf.� They give French losses as approx 200,000, and German as approx 600,000....yep....those figures are wildly reduced on the allied side to make them lower than the Germa total......

Pretty much tells me all I need to know about Mosier.

Okay...let me get this straight.... the British/French Somme offensive resulted in 325,000 Brit-French losses and 600,000 German losses..... Wow you really got me there..... obviously Mosier is on drugs and the Somme was a massive victory for the Allies...

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 36

RE: World War I Book - 1/30/2008 4:30:37 PM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

at Stalingrad I'll bet you my bottom dollar that the ratio of dead was in the ballpark of at LEAST 2 to 1 Russians dying to Germans

doesn't mean anything, deathtolls hurt France/England/USA/Russia less than they hurt Germany

For the info provided about the German General Staff. Tend to think of the Origins of Germany in Prussia, often regarded as an Army without a Nation? Perhaps forced to fight more hardcore in order to establish a country. Unlike the French who could always fall back on what they had... The Germans had very old Military Tradition with Brandenburg on... As the British had a very hardcoded Naval tradition, even with Nelson who was still studied and practiced in the 20th naval engagements.

Fight enough war, soil your boots enough and you'll be adept at it.. The German General Staff was good but for it's time, sort of like the USA's West Point

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jestre

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

quote:

Mosier also points out that BEF losses from July through November were over 100,000 men killed, over three times as many as the Somme offensive of 1916.

Have been looking for something special to deal to this little gem....the Commonwealth War Graves Commision - that well known bastion of the official line - gives 125,000 British and Empire dead (from 420,000 casualties total) for the Somme...you can find the figure in a pdf they publish on the graves at http://www.cwgc.org/admin/files/cwgc_thiepval.pdf.� They give French losses as approx 200,000, and German as approx 600,000....yep....those figures are wildly reduced on the allied side to make them lower than the Germa total......

Pretty much tells me all I need to know about Mosier.

Okay...let me get this straight.... the British/French Somme offensive resulted in 325,000 Brit-French losses and 600,000 German losses..... Wow you really got me there..... obviously Mosier is on drugs and the Somme was a massive victory for the Allies...

(in reply to Jestre)

Post #: 37

RE: World War I Book - 1/30/2008 8:59:39 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jestre

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

quote:

Mosier also points out that BEF losses from July through November were over 100,000 men killed, over three times as many as the Somme offensive of 1916.

Have been looking for something special to deal to this little gem....the Commonwealth War Graves Commision - that well known bastion of the official line - gives 125,000 British and Empire dead (from 420,000 casualties total) for the Somme...you can find the figure in a pdf they publish on the graves at http://www.cwgc.org/admin/files/cwgc_thiepval.pdf.� They give French losses as approx 200,000, and German as approx 600,000....yep....those figures are wildly reduced on the allied side to make them lower than the Germa total......

Pretty much tells me all I need to know about Mosier.

Okay...let me get this straight.... the British/French Somme offensive resulted in 325,000 Brit-French losses and 600,000 German losses..... Wow you really got me there..... obviously Mosier is on drugs and the Somme was a massive victory for the Allies...

No, he's stating that the British/French suffered approx. 620k casualties during the Somme and the Germans suffered approx. 600k.

I may have a somewhat revisionist view, but I look at the Somme (in addition to Verdun) as the death of any offensive potential for the German army in the West, hence an Allied victory.

(in reply to Jestre)

Post #: 38

RE: World War I Book - 1/30/2008 9:35:23 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

I enjoyed reading Mosier's book, but it's been a year or so since I read it so I my recall may not be 100% accurate. I did have problems w/ a couple of things.

He overstates the effectiveness of the AEF. Everything that I've read shows them to be year or two behind the BEF and the French in terms of tactics: unnecessarily dense formations, c&c, inadequate amounts of artillery and prep, etc. (although the US did have a shortage of heavy caliber guns that was not really their fault or under their control). The BEF and the French had taken several years and suffered enormous losses while learning to better coordinate inf/arty fire and movement, improve communications, decentralization of command to allow for quicker response, removing the emphasis from the reg/bat to the company/platoon as the relevant tactical formation, effective use of air power. . . the list is too long to continue. The AEF was somewhat indifferent to the lessons learned and suffered accordingly. Mosier usually explains the high casualties suffered by the AEF as the Germans fighting in that area and retreating against everyone else.

As stated in my previous post, he declares the Somme as some sort of German victory. I don't see how that is possible.

He basically states that BEF was over as an effective fighting force after Somme, Flanders and the 1918 Spring offensives. Yet this was same force that was most innovate and effective (my opinion only) of all of the forces in the West during the Fall 18 offensives. Mosier certainly didn't go into any great detail explaining the arse kicking of the Black Day.

There are others, but I'm in rambling mode now.

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 39

RE: World War I Book - 1/30/2008 11:02:08 PM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jestre

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

quote:

Mosier also points out that BEF losses from July through November were over 100,000 men killed, over three times as many as the Somme offensive of 1916.

.... gives 125,000 British and Empire dead (from 420,000 casualties total) for the Somme........� They give French losses as approx 200,000, and German as approx 600,000....

Okay...let me get this straight.... the British/French Somme offensive resulted in 325,000 Brit-French losses and 600,000 German losses..... Wow you really got me there..... obviously Mosier is on drugs and the Somme was a massive victory for the Allies...

Primary school arithmatic would tell you that allied casualties total 625,000 vs the 600,000 for the Germans.

And that 125,000 dead on the Somme is not 1/3rd of 100,000 dead in 1914 as you claimed.

so yes...I think we really got you there

(in reply to Jestre)

Post #: 40

RE: World War I Book - 1/31/2008 2:50:38 AM

arichbourg

Posts: 32
Joined: 7/2/2005
Status: offline

Having finished the book now, I do agree that the last chapters are a little silly. If he had taken the time to more fully develop the points, instead of getting all emotional, it would have been bettter.

(in reply to Disintegration)

Post #: 41

RE: World War I Book - 2/1/2008 5:34:04 AM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargamer123

The German General Staff was good but for it's time, sort of like the USA's West Point

That is not remotely close to reality. There are a few obvious similarities, such as members of the organizations usually wore uniforms and discussed military stuff. West Point is a school, The German General Staff was a branch of the army, just like artillery, infantry, armor, quartermaster. One is a 4 year college with a commission as part of graduation, the other an assignment to a staff Branch that could last for over 30 years. During those 30 years, many schools would have been attended to keep up with requirements.

Prior to the General staff, the Prussian Army was heavily dependent on the skill of the king. If he was good, then everything was fine. If he was slightly inept, then you end up with a Jena. The creation of the General staff eliminated (or drastically reduced that problem) that problem.

There are many achievements that led to a modern military which were initiated by the General staff. Many of its brainchild's were adopted by other nations around the world.

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 42

RE: World War I Book - 2/1/2008 1:37:26 PM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Disintegration
I'll save my money for the remainder of Hew Strachan's series.

I can only recommend buying the series as well. I was captured by the first volume especially because although it is very detailed it is all put into en overall concept. I was especially captured by the war in the colonies and the overall reasons for fighting them especially for the Entente. I would never have suspected the global strategic importance for German colonies acting as wireless communication relays to commerce raiders and the threat it posed to British interests.

(in reply to Disintegration)

Post #: 43

RE: World War I Book - 2/1/2008 11:24:53 PM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Hjaco that's very remiss of you - all those peny packet colonies generally started life as coaling or watering stations - famously the Falklands - hte British battlecruisers were coaling htere when v Spee's Sqn came to raid it.

Use as wireless stations came later, but they were fortuitously placed!!

But even in hte days of sail ships needed somewhere to stop and refresh supplies after a long sail - so you have penny-packet "colonies" all over the place - like Goa in India, various around the coast of Africa, Pacific Islands, etc. Of course some of htem also gave commercial access to large "native" hinterlands - Macau, HongKong and Tsingtao in China are probably hte most obvious of those.

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 44

RE: World War I Book - 2/2/2008 1:12:52 AM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

Yes but that does not change the situation the British faced at outbreak of WW1.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 45

RE: World War I Book - 2/2/2008 1:30:15 AM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

Weird, I never heard mention of the GHC Before Luderndorf or Hindenburg beyond the bounds of WW1 or WW2. As if they were the Fathers?

I get the West Point relationship to the Long Standing Military Tradition and Upper Echelon Officers of the US Armed Forces, I stand corrected however. Perhaps more like the JCS but that's all the branch of services in a collective

quote:

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargamer123

The German General Staff was good but for it's time, sort of like the USA's West Point

That is not remotely close to reality. There are a few obvious similarities, such as members of the organizations usually wore uniforms and discussed military stuff. West Point is a school, The German General Staff was a branch of the army, just like artillery, infantry, armor, quartermaster. One is a 4 year college with a commission as part of graduation, the other an assignment to a staff Branch that could last for over 30 years. During those 30 years, many schools would have been attended to keep up with requirements.

Prior to the General staff, the Prussian Army was heavily dependent on the skill of the king. If he was good, then everything was fine. If he was slightly inept, then you end up with a Jena. The creation of the General staff eliminated (or drastically reduced that problem) that problem.

There are many achievements that led to a modern military which were initiated by the General staff. Many of its brainchild's were adopted by other nations around the world.

(in reply to 06 Maestro)

Post #: 46

RE: World War I Book - 2/2/2008 2:18:26 AM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

Well the German General Staff was unofficially created after the disaster at Jena in 1806 to Napoleon where initially the Prussians held the numerical advantage of some 35.000 men against a French Corps but due to failure in coordination and communications they ended up with fighting against some 90.000 men under Napoleon with a rather predictable outcome.

It was formally established after the victory over Napoleon in 1814.

After the German unification process it was actually Moltke (the elder) who brought professionalism to this institution which gave the Germans some unprecedented organizational superiority at that time - like the solid thrashing of the Danes (I am a Dane

)

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 47

RE: World War I Book - 2/3/2008 2:03:23 AM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

No one can doubt the Prowess of the Prussian and soon after German Army. Denmark, AustriaHungary, France all in one package. They really should've abstained from WW1.

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 48

RE: World War I Book - 2/3/2008 4:38:01 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hjaco

Well the German General Staff was unofficially created after the disaster at Jena in 1806 to Napoleon where initially the Prussians held the numerical advantage of some 35.000 men against a French Corps but due to failure in coordination and communications they ended up with fighting against some 90.000 men under Napoleon with a rather predictable outcome.

It was established hten....but Iena was only part of hte day's fighting.

The twin battles of Iena-Auerstadt were fought only a few miles apart (8-10) - Bonaparte led most of the French army against about 1/3rd of the Prussian army under Prince Hohenlohe - the Prussians held fairly good defensive positions at the start, but Napoleon started with 50,000 men, rising to 90,000 during the day to Hohenlohe's 38,000, and defeated him fairly easily in the end.

Auerstadt was another story - Marshal Davout had only his own corps of about 27,000 men, and held off 65,000 men under the King of Prussia for the whole day - Napoleon at first couldn't believe it.

The failure of the Prussians to co-ordinate and their archaic command structure left a lasting impression on some up and coming officers - Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Clausewitz were all present!

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 49

RE: World War I Book - 2/3/2008 5:44:22 AM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

Unfortunately, I have yet to be able to settle down with A Genius for War=maybe tomorrow I can post a few good statistics. One thing I do recall is that Clausewitz was actually present at Jena and saw the mighty Prussian Army run away. Clausewitz did not hang (slang; continue to serve or stay with-sorry) with the Prussian government, so he never served with the French. He made his way to Russia and served in the Czars service until the "liberation" of Prussia. After that time he began to move up the chain in the army. IIRC, is was several years after the finale defeat of Napoleon that the General Staff was formed.
There are some funny tales in the book about the Germans interacting with Austrians and others in peace time. Young German officers were amazed at the frivolous attitude that their contemporaries held about their duties-attitudes that would get them bounced right out of the Prussian Army, if imitated. The new Prussian army set very high standards. It did not matter who your daddy was, what did matter was how well you performed your duties. The first professional NCO Corps was also a result of the General Staff. One of the sort of simple, but revolutionary ideas was task, conditions, and standards for all levels of soldiers. This created a real military machine that no one could match for a long time.
The disparity of losses in WW1 was not a fluke, one side was simply better at the business of war. Not infallible, of coarse. One of the most idiotic things was the mobilization of the officer training corps to break the Allied line as in Belgium in 1914-they were nearly annihilated. This was a great mistake that haunted the German command for a long time to come. I don't know how long it took to replace those losses, but it did cause a severe lack of junior officers for a good part of the war.

< Message edited by 06 Maestro -- 2/3/2008 5:51:47 AM >

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 50

RE: World War I Book - 2/3/2008 10:08:31 AM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro
One of the most idiotic things was the mobilization of the officer training corps to break the Allied line as in Belgium in 1914-they were nearly annihilated. This was a great mistake that haunted the German command for a long time to come. I don't know how long it took to replace those losses, but it did cause a severe lack of junior officers for a good part of the war.

Very interesting indeed. A German version of Stalins Army purges in 36'. Sure "only" the reserve officers but still. Shows stupidity is Universal

(in reply to 06 Maestro)

Post #: 51

RE: World War I Book - 2/3/2008 10:21:47 AM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
The failure of the Prussians to co-ordinate and their archaic command structure left a lasting impression on some up and coming officers - Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Clausewitz were all present!

Some more detailed information on the background: http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/Prussia/infantry/c_prussianinf.html

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 52

RE: World War I Book - 2/4/2008 12:36:57 AM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

Napoleon inspired a lot of fear. Any Senior Commander may have retreated in the face of a foe fearing they would be reprimanded by their King. I think battlefield iniative is something that takes a bit personal guts, failure would've meant some dire consequences...to commit those reserves to fail and then to have your King captured-killed. Some many Generals or Leaders err on the side of caution, losing the iniative, but how can you blame them. Few have the boldness to press forward and know when to do it.

Nelson and Napoleon changed the face of 19th century warfare as their tactics were still studied and used decades if not centuries after their deaths

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 53

RE: World War I Book - 2/16/2008 12:43:01 AM

miral

Posts: 170
Joined: 12/20/2007
Status: offline

All I can say is be glad you have all these wonderful books to argue over. When I was in college around 1970 the number and quality of military history books on WWI and WWII were very limited and often only chronological rehashes. There was a lot of accepted wisdom that has since been challenged. Today we have a wave of great books challenging every accepted theory and offer huge amounts of facts and statistics uncovered in the last 40 years. Only problem is, so many cost so much. Has anyone read Robert Citino's book on the inherent deficiencies of the German Army stretching back to the 30 Years War, for example, (or rather, German Armies, before 1870)? I would love to do so, his thesis sounds most interesting, but the cost, the cost.

(in reply to Jestre)

Post #: 54

RE: World War I Book - 2/19/2008 1:19:38 AM

miral

Posts: 170
Joined: 12/20/2007
Status: offline

Col. Dupy's book, A Genius for War, is highly contentious among militarians and by no means universally accepted. His belief that you can quantify war mathematically is especially condemned by many. Dupuy is one of the leading exponents of the 'German army was best just overcome by mass' school; same as there is a school that says same thing about the Confederates. For a counter view see H.P. Willmott's The Great Crusade, one of whose main themes it to demonstrate, as he puts it, "my contempt...for the pernicious myth of German military excellence." Willmott also says, frequently, that the Germans know how to win battles but not wars, and winning wars is the primary proof of military excellence.

The Germans, like the Confederates, lost the war and then, for 2-3 generations, won the war in the history books. But in the past 20 years or so there has been a backlash against this and the counterview that the Allies, particularly the Russians after mid 1942 and the Union for most of the CW, had the superior military organizations, as well as more coherent strategies and an understanding of the interlocking nature of armies and industries and societies in moder, total wars.

(in reply to Disintegration)

Post #: 55

RE: World War I Book - 2/19/2008 1:45:19 AM

miral

Posts: 170
Joined: 12/20/2007
Status: offline

Mosier, well he is a contrarian to the core. Every book he has written is radically revisionist. Has some excellent qualities but I detect a bit of arrogant 'no body can really see the truth behind the official lies but me' attitude. Useful, but read him with care.

Also, he was not trained as a militarian historian. Now, there is nothing wrong with this but he writes about different wars in different time periods and it is pertinent to ask if, given the vast literatures available on all modern wars, anyone can master the materials. And I inherently distrust historians who base much of their arguments on a great gushing of statistics. As H.P. Willmott so trenchantly points out, war is not rational, nor is it conducted rationally, and statistics are an effort to force irrationality into a numbers straight jacket. Still, we always need radicals to challenge perceived wisdom.

My own opinion, for what, if anything, it is worth, is in agreement with Willmott's, when he speaks of the 'pernicious myth of German military excellence'. Ludendorf's theory was, 'attack and see what happens'. Brilliant! He reduced Strategy to tactics at its lowest level. Clauswitz was spinning in his grave when the Germans were conducting their 1918 Offensive. In truth, Ludendorf had no real Strategy at all. The Germans have always confused operational brilliance with strategy; hence, they keep losing wars. But in 1918 you could not even speak of operational brillance, just bashing away and following the line of least resistance. Ludendorf did not seem to realize that fighting the Brits, French and Americans was not the same thing as fighting the Czar's army. Ludendor did not seem to realize much at all. Astonishing that a dunderhead like him was defacto dictator of Germany for two years. So much for the supposed incredible ability of the German General Staff to produce superb examples of military officers.

(in reply to miral)

Post #: 56

RE: World War I Book - 2/19/2008 4:58:02 AM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

miral

The General Staff did win a couple of wars. You have to keep in mind that the last real/ somewhat independent Chief of the General Staff was relieved by Hitler in mid '42. They may still have lost the war due to the overall strategic situation, but it would have progressed in a very different manner. For starters, there would not have even been a "Barbarossa". They followed the leaders instructions. One side can loose a war for reasons other than lousy doctrines.

(in reply to miral)

Post #: 57

RE: World War I Book - 2/19/2008 7:42:05 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargamer123

Napoleon inspired a lot of fear.

I don't think so - respect certainly, but all sorts of commanders were prepared to take him on - such as teh incompetant Wrede who I think asttempted to stop the French after Leipzig with jsut 20,00 men or some similar small force - Napoleon said of him "Poor Wrede - even I can't make him a general" - wrede had previously served under Napoleon!

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 58