FutureTank
Banned Member
Yes, I should have said South Vietnamese and Allied troops...the perception being that it was a 'US' war
Great Commanders in History
- Thread starter fieldmarshal
- Start date
- Status
Actually, to be even more specific. It was a tactic devised by Giap. He termed it the tactic of "holding on to the enemy's belt".
It ("holding on to the enemy's belt") failed as a tactic against the australians at Long Tan because
- they (VC) weren't able to close with sufficient persistence
- the kiwis dropped arty with impreccable precision close to australian forces
- the americans dropped arty to the rear
yep,well done 161 Bty RNZ Arty. Tactics evolve with every battle. Being flexible is another great atribute of successfull comanders.
FutureTank
Banned Member
With all due respect we were speaking of Rommel and Normandy! I made a slip, but I am aware of Long Tan. I doubt here was the technology to place accurate fire like that in WW2 since I have read of many accounts in different armies where artillery fires were not accurate and where FF from own air forces were not infrequent.
However to be even more specific
Giap didn't devise anything. Everything he knew he learned from his university days where he supposedly was an admirer of Napoleon 1er. The tactic was used even then when skirmishers tried to get so close to the enemy that guns would have to fire on them, and therefore be prevented from firing on the formed troops behind.The practice of placing close barrages as defensive fires was well known even in WW1, and probably the best exponent in this was Monash, but he was an engineer and a career (militia) artillerymen by training and service and not a political scientist with a revolutionary bent
Even so, as I understand it took Monash considerable effort to get everyone to work to his precise planning so the fires and infantry movements never 'met'. This was not always, if ever possible in small unit actions in South Vietnam. Giap's troops were simply applying what they had been taught either by the French in combat, or by the Chinese/Russian advisers. The Chinese learned this from Russians of course who had plenty of expereience with artillery.
I suspect that in Rommel's case there was another factor to the tactic. The Americans and Canadians in particular were considered green troops, and it was thought that early experience of close combat would force them to rout. Unfortunately much of German troops in Normandy were not exactly Eastern Front veterans themselves, and they were subjected to not insignificant amount of concentrated firepower just like on the Eastern Front. The Americans and Canadians also displayed good fighting spirit even in the early hours of D-Day.
It seems to me that Rommel was made into a 'great commander' by his Commonwealth opponents in the desert where he was able to outperform for a certain time less able Allied commanders with less flexible doctrine, and was used for propaganda to show that the Commonwealth troops overcame the best Hitler had, assuming Hitler would send his best to such an isolated theatre.
In Germany, as my reading suggests, Rommel was seen as a careerist and an opportunist. He was neither the most gifted or respected officer, nor if he had been he would have been sent to the Eastern Front. The British were seen (maybe mistakenly) as a spent force, and the North African campaign as a 'crutch' for Italians since in Berlin no one ever supposed it was possible for Rommel to advance to India! There was a faint hope that if The British were forced to withdraw to Iraq, Turkey may join the Axis, which is why Libya was fought over, but Egypt had to be held.
With all due respect we were speaking of Rommel and Normandy! I made a slip, but I am aware of Long Tan. I doubt here was the technology to place accurate fire like that in WW2 since I have read of many accounts in different armies where artillery fires were not accurate and where FF from own air forces were not infrequent.
However to be even more specific
- your ref was towards the tactic against Sth Vietnamese and Americans - thats not a WW2 reference - its Vietnam
- the accuracy was there - 161 were laying arty virtually on top. training training training beats technology in lots of environments. esp hot environments. 161 trained for close support. It was the americans that the ANZACs were initially worried about as they'd never worked closely with them on arty support. As it was, the american did its job in the rear. 161 saved those blokes from being over-run. The recent admissions (2006) by the Local NV commander that holding the belt failed due to superior ANZAC craft work and tight local arty reinforces it.
- wrt to the VietCong and VietMinh tactic - of "holding the belt" - it was most definitely Giap. He wasn't an idiot and is probably one of the most successful 20th Century tacticians we've seen.. Everything he did was an improvement on things he studied. Shaka Zulu never studied Cannae, but he developed flanking via the "buffalo horn" in absentia of being on a roman battlefield. Shaka was an original, so was Giap.
- There are some post Vietnam navel gazing debriefs that the US Army did - they certainly accord the finessing and implementation of "holding the belt" as being a Giap child.
FutureTank
Banned Member
Yes, I just didn't intend for a major exploration of the subject so my fault
- wrt to the VietCong and VietMinh tactic - of "holding the belt" - it was most definitely Giap. He wasn't an idiot and is probably one of the most successful 20th Century tacticians we've seen.. Everything he did was an improvement on things he studied. Shaka Zulu never studied Cannae, but he developed flanking via the "buffalo horn" in absentia of being on a roman battlefield. Shaka was an original, so was Giap.[/QUOTE]
"Holding the belt" is a wrestling term, from Turkey I think. It literally involves holding the opponent's belt. Holding the belt prevents throwing punches, forcing the tactic to be reduced to wrestling. It is still the practice across the Balkans and South-Eastern Europe in general. There was very little originality in what the North Vietnamese in general, and Giap in particular did during the conflict, either against the French or the South Vietnamese and US forces.
Shaka Zulu lived in the 19th century in South Africa. Cannae was one of the greatest victories by an North African military leader 1100 years prior. I would have been very surprised if it was not a standard fare in storytelling, particularly given the role of cattle in South African culture. Shaka was very unoriginal in that he sought to emulate a hero of his fairytales.
More like 2000 years prior.
I agree about the British and Rommel and the comparison with Vietnam. Rommel was undeniably a good general, but the British just made his job too easy. I just finished reading a book called "The Life and Death of the Afrika Korps" which neatly summarised the Desert campaign, and the number of times the British dispersed their armour, to have it destroyed piecemeal, had me groaning aloud by the end.
Likewise 'hugging the belt' wasn't exactly an inspired revolution in military tactics - it just had more success than it should have because like the British, the Americans dispersed their forces in places like Ia Drang and placed too much faith in air power and artillery.
Prussian General Moltke
He is a great example of a Great Commander buy leading the Prussian forces to victory against the Danish and Austrians in the 1860's.
Moltke was the first general of the period to see the true importance of railroads, the telegraph, and the breech loading rifle.
This allowed him lead the Prussian army to win dramatic battles against the Austrian Empire.
Oddly the last time he had directly lead any men in the army was when he was a Lt, and then finally lead troops again has the Supreme General.
He is a great example of a Great Commander buy leading the Prussian forces to victory against the Danish and Austrians in the 1860's.
Moltke was the first general of the period to see the true importance of railroads, the telegraph, and the breech loading rifle.
This allowed him lead the Prussian army to win dramatic battles against the Austrian Empire.
Oddly the last time he had directly lead any men in the army was when he was a Lt, and then finally lead troops again has the Supreme General.
General Ali
New Member
Saladin
Saladin United muslims lands and attacked the crusaders he should be one of the greatest commanders
Saladin United muslims lands and attacked the crusaders he should be one of the greatest commanders
Not only a great military commander but a very chivalrous one. His assistance to Richard I after he was wounded in battle by sending him fresh fruit and offering the services of his personal physician is well documented. According to Wikipedia for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin
Cheers
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
One major question though, were the improvements in kit (thin needle rifle) and in comunications (use of the telegram and railroads) directly contributed by moltke? Can the introduction of the M1 Garand rifle be directly atributed to Marshal? Sounds to me like an army wide aplication of an evolution in weapons technology, like the assault rifle would be later. The needle rifle was a huge advantage for the prussians, not just in rate of fire but in its ability to be loaded from the prone position, but i doubt the credit for it (appart from maybe his support for its introduction) can go to Moltke. Granted he ran the war from a centrel HQ in Berlin via the telegraph, and used railroads to mobilize quicker and move his armies to the frontier faster than his opponants. But these are just aplication's of evolving technology, and although show foresight are not all together that remarkable.
Ozzy
Moltke was first commander of the period to really understand the use these new technologies. Telegraph and trains had been around for at least two decades and in all conflicts except for maybe the U.S. Civil War they were never really used extensively. Though railroads in the U.S. Civil War were used to supply not carry and deploy troops. His greatness as a commander was to utilize every tool he had compared to foreign forces. The Austrians and later France seriously outnumbered Germany. His tactics and skills won the day.
Why do you think the Wehrmacht was so successful in the early part of the WW2. It was not because of better weaponry, but tactics in using the material they had. Superior intellect normally wins out against superior numbers.
Moltke was first commander of the period to really understand the use these new technologies. Telegraph and trains had been around for at least two decades and in all conflicts except for maybe the U.S. Civil War they were never really used extensively. Though railroads in the U.S. Civil War were used to supply not carry and deploy troops. His greatness as a commander was to utilize every tool he had compared to foreign forces. The Austrians and later France seriously outnumbered Germany. His tactics and skills won the day.
Why do you think the Wehrmacht was so successful in the early part of the WW2. It was not because of better weaponry, but tactics in using the material they had. Superior intellect normally wins out against superior numbers.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
True the use of the railroad was decicive in the franco prussian war. But as i said caould you directly atribute sucsess to moltke? All these advancements in operational and logistical doctorine were decicive i agree, but they were army wide advancements. Can you atribute the sucsess of the whermacht to manshtien or gudarian? Patially yes, but they weren't responsible for most of the advances by the whermacht, they may have consieved the plan that defated france or the use of tanks en mass, but were they responsible for the aplication of communications technology, close ties with the luftwaffe allowing interdiction and CAS, and a fast logistics train allowing for deep penitration? Can you atribute the digitisation of the US military to a single person?
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
dude you totaly missed my point, in fact you you helped it. Army wide doctorinal changes arn't usually atributed to one man, "commities" as manfred said usually do that.
General Ali
New Member
Alexander The Great
He has to be the greatest commander of all time conquered most of the world
He has to be the greatest commander of all time conquered most of the world
FutureTank
Banned Member
FutureTank
Banned Member
Because he is famous for.....???
General Ali
New Member
Hannibal Barca
Hannibal Barca One Master Of Tactics Nearly Destroyed Rome He Took It Down To His Knees
Hannibal Barca One Master Of Tactics Nearly Destroyed Rome He Took It Down To His Knees
- Status