DOCSLIB.ORG

The Creation of Artillery Hell by Major Albert A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Creation of Artillery Hell by Major Albert A The Battle of Antietam: The Creation of Artillery Hell by Major Albert A. Mrozek, Jr. Though the Union and Confederate artilleries each had advantages and disadvantages in the Battle of Antietam in September of 1862, the artillery with the most initiative and superior fire support coordination prevailed. That artillery perservered, though outnumbered, and withstood counterbattery Hell, though the enemy's execution of the missions was classic. The prevailing artillery's leaders had more quickly learned organization and Virginia, 1915). In effect, artillery had command and control lessons from previous campaigns, making their become crew-served weapons for the guns more agile to lessen the effects of the enemy's massed fires and infantry instead of a true combat arm. more responsive with close support. As both sides organized large armies with sizeable artillery forces, officers turned to the Napoleonic model of organization and tactics. Napoleon t the outset of the Civil War, both offset the inferiority of Confederate created groups of artillery for his divisions the Union and Confederate artillery at the Battle of Antietam and may and a mass of reserve artillery for the Aarmies grappled with the problem well have saved the Confederate Army entire army. The army commander could of employing large artillery forces from defeat in that battle. commit the reserve artillery at the critical effectively and efficiently. During the Before 1861, artillery in the United time and place in the battle to blast a hole in first year of the war, both armies States consisted of individual batteries the enemy infantry ranks. The French attempted to solve the problem by scattered throughout the country. As a infantry then exploited the breach (Wise). implementing artillery organizational and result, artillery expertise had diminished Under this system, French artillery was a command and control modifications. to little more than the technical aspects of potent offensive weapon. By 1862, the Army of Northern Virginia managing a battery. Tactics had reverted Improvements in armaments, however, had organized its artillery into battalions to the pre-Napoleonic stage of assigning precluded the direct adoption of the under the command of field grade chiefs of batteries to brigades and even sections to Napoleonic model. The increased range of artillery. The improved fire support regiments (Jennings C. Wise, The Long rifled small arms meant artillery could no coordination afforded by this innovation Arm of Lee, J.P. Bell Company, Lynchburg, longer close within canister range of 30 Field Artillery the infantry ranks. The maximum effective range of canister was 300 meters, but the rifled Civil War musket could hit a target at 500 meters (L. Van Loan Naisawald, Grape and Canister, Oxford University Press, New York, 1960). At the same time, rifling increased artillery ranges for shell projectiles. Rifled guns had a wider zone of fire, so dispersed pieces could now mass fire. This development made it inefficient to hold a group of guns out of action until the critical time in the battle (Wise). Combat experience eventually produced a doctrine for artillery. When on the offense, artillery concentrated on the enemy's artillery. In the defense, the enemy's infantry became the primary A Battery Going into Action at the Battle of Antietam. The Union and Confederate artilleries faced each other along Antietam Creek near Sharpsburg, Maryland, in September 1862. target. In either case, massed fire coordinated with the maneuver of infantry was the key to success (Naisawald). At the First Battle of Bull Run (July, artillery in their divisions, although 1861), Pendleton's successful control of brigade commanders still controlled Confederate the massed fires of three batteries showed batteries when they were assigned to both the practicality of Colonel brigades (Wise). Developments Alexander's ideas and the value of an Between Second Bull Run and the In the summer of 1861, Colonel E. P. artillery reserve (Wise). As a result, the Maryland Campaign, a second major Alexander organized five batteries of Confederate Army was reorganized to artillery reorganization took place. An artillery into a battalion, an artillery field two battalions of reserve artillery in artillery battalion was attached to each formation previously unknown (Wise). February 1862. division. A reserve was planned for each Despite Alexander's persistent advocation The ineffectiveness of the Confederate corps, and a general reserve was of the tactical utility of artillery battalions, artillery organization and command and maintained for the army. old habits died hard. When Brigadier control became apparent on the Virginia To improve command and control, each General William N. Pendleton was Peninsula during the Peninsula Campaign battalion, whether divisional, corps or appointed Chief of Artillery of the (17 March to 2 September 1862). The general reserve artillery, was placed under Confederate Army in Virginia, he promptly infantry commanders who controlled the the command of a field grade officer. In assigned batteries to brigades (Wise). direct support artillery overlooked the divisions, the field grade officer coordination and thought in terms of commanding the battalion was also the pressing the battle with their troops. Also, division chief of artillery, the principle Longstreet's Corps the artillery frequently moved at the rear artillery advisor to the commander (Wise). McLaw's Division 1 Battalion of 5 Batteries of the march column (Wise). When The combined artillery expertise and Anderson's Division 1 Battalion of 4 Batteries enemy contact was made, the artillery had command authority of the chief of artillery Jones' Division 1 Battery no time to provide preparation or made him an effective fire support Walker's Division 2 Batteries (1 per Brigade) counterbattery fires before its fields of coordinator for the division. Hood's Division 1 Battalion of 3 Batteries fire were masked by the advancing These changes were not fully Evan's Brigade 1 Battery infantry (Wise). implemented for the Battle of Antietam. Corps Artillery 1 Battalion of 4 Batteries In his memoirs, Colonel Alexander D.R. Jones' division had only one battery of 1 Battalion of 6 Batteries wrote, "Perhaps our greatest deficiency at artillery, and the two brigades in Walker's this period was in the artillery service. division still had their own batteries (Jay Jackson's Corps None of our batteries were combined into Luvaas and Harold W. Nelson, The US E well's Division 1 Battalion of 3 Batteries battalions, but each infantry brigade had a Army War College Guide to the Battle of A.P. Hill's Division 1 Battalion of 4 Batteries battery attached to it. There were no field Antietam, Harper and Row, New York, Jackson's Division 1 Battalion of 7 Batteries officers of artillery charged with 1987). Also, the order of battle shows no D.H. Hill's Division 1 Battalion of 4 Batteries combining batteries and massing them to reserve battalion for Jackson's corps. Cavalry Division 1 Battalion of 3 Batteries concentrate heavy fire upon important However, Jeb Stuart's horse artillery, under points" (Wise). Chief of Artillery John Pelham, capably Reserve Artillery 1 Battalion of 5 Batteries General Pendleton also noted the filled the role of Jackson's reserve artillery 1 Battalion of 4 Batteries deficiencies. When Robert E. Lee (Luvaas and Nelson). assumed command of the Confederate Artillery Organization for the Army of Northern Virginia at the Battle of Antietam. Army in June 1862 and reorganized it, Union Developments This organization doesn't include the many of Pendleton's recommendations batteries at Harper's Ferry or those guarding were implemented. In addition to the When General George B. McClellan the Potomac fords. general army reserve, division reserves assumed command of the Army of the were created. Additionally, division chiefs Potomac in July 1861, his artillery of artillery were given control of all the batteries were assigned to brigades and August 1992 31 regiments (Naisawald). As part of his chiefs of artillery administrative remained alive and well in the Union McClellan's reorganization of the army, authority only. Furthermore, no staffs Army. Major William F. Barry, the Union Chief were authorized to assist the chiefs of Even after Union field grade artillery of Artillery, undertook the task of artillery (Naisawald). officers gained experience during the revamping the artillery. Each division was The problem was further magnified Peninsula Campaign, McClellan did not assigned four batteries. Additionally, an because the division chiefs of artillery authorize higher artillery staffs and artillery reserve for the army numbering were also battery commanders. In battle, commands. These positions were not 100 guns was formed. If divisions were these officers were required to command considered necessary because they were organized into corps, at least half of the their own batteries and locate positions perceived to be unneeded in the past divisional artillery would constitute the for the other batteries in the division (Naisawald). corps reserve (Naisawald). (Naisawald). These two huge As the Army of the Potomac marched McClellan's changes created a sound responsibilities were more than most toward western Maryland to meet the artillery organization throughout the army, officers could accomplish effectively. invading Confederate Army, it absorbed but the command and control of artillery Compounding the problem were division the former army of John Pope. This act remained inadequate. Because most Union commanders who rarely relinquished created a new artillery problem. The two field grade artillery officers were control of their batteries to their chiefs of corps (I and XII) added to McClellan's inexperienced with artillery tactics above the artillery. The old system of infantry army had all of their batteries organized battery level, McClellan decided to grant commanders controlling the artillery into a corps artillery (Luvaas and Nelson). Brigadier General Henry J. Hunt, McClellan's new chief of artillery, reassigned the batteries of I Corps to the divisions, but the organization of XII Corps was left intact (Naisawald).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 38Th Infantry Regiment - Command Report - May - September 1953
    Korean War 38th Infantry Regiment - Command Report - May - September 1953 2nd Infantry Division Korean War Project Record: USA-159 Folder: 060011 Box: 06 File: 11 National Archives and Records Administration College Park, Maryland Records: United States Army Unit Name: Second Infantry Division Record Group: RG407 Editor: Hal Barker Korean War Project P.O. Box 180190 Dallas, TX 75218-0190 http://www.koreanwar.org Korean War Project 2ID-00401194 ~/~\\""'~~-_--'.-!""'. -•-•t..., . ..., .. ..., ... _,r·~·~i -~ \ DEQLASSIFIED I J \ ~·~·· ·. :L'Y·- SECRET ..__... ' ~~~URITJ INFQRMA TION~ ~--~.! .,._/ : HEADQUARTERS 38th Intantry Reg:lment APO 248 15 J~e 1953 SUBJl!XlT: CCIIIID.a.Di Report .for May 1953 THRUa Chief of .Army Field Forces Fort Monroe, Virginia TO: The Adjutant Genera]. Department of the Army' Washington 25, D. c. In compliance with paragraph 4 Special .Regulations 525-45-l Department of · the Amy, Washington 25, D. c., dated 24 March 1953 the following comani report is submitted: a. Section It Unit Activities. A.s the period opened, the 38th Intantey Regiment was continuing the develop.. ment ar.d improvement of defensive positions on LilE KAl6.AS. On 3 May 1953 tbe Regiment moved to a new reserve position at Yami-ri (CT48.312'7), Korea, where preparations were made to conduct a vigorous ani aggressive training progr8)11. The 2rrl Infantry Division comucted a commalrl post exercise on 21 May 1953 for all headquarters down to aiX1 including battalion. One (1) rifie platoon was attached to IX Corps for a security mission at IX Corps rear. During the period necessary reconnaissame ani planning were accaaplished for the formulation or IX Corps counterattack plans "Iboker I, II, fii and IV".
    [Show full text]
  • Civil War Generals Buried in Spring Grove Cemetery by James Barnett
    Spring Grove Cemetery, once characterized as blending "the elegance of a park with the pensive beauty of a burial-place," is the final resting- place of forty Cincinnatians who were generals during the Civil War. Forty For the Union: Civil War Generals Buried in Spring Grove Cemetery by James Barnett f the forty Civil War generals who are buried in Spring Grove Cemetery, twenty-three had advanced from no military experience whatsoever to attain the highest rank in the Union Army. This remarkable feat underscores the nature of the Northern army that suppressed the rebellion of the Confed- erate states during the years 1861 to 1865. Initially, it was a force of "inspired volunteers" rather than a standing army in the European tradition. Only seven of these forty leaders were graduates of West Point: Jacob Ammen, Joshua H. Bates, Sidney Burbank, Kenner Garrard, Joseph Hooker, Alexander McCook, and Godfrey Weitzel. Four of these seven —Burbank, Garrard, Mc- Cook, and Weitzel —were in the regular army at the outbreak of the war; the other three volunteered when the war started. Only four of the forty generals had ever been in combat before: William H. Lytle, August Moor, and Joseph Hooker served in the Mexican War, and William H. Baldwin fought under Giuseppe Garibaldi in the Italian civil war. This lack of professional soldiers did not come about by chance. When the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, its delegates, who possessed a vast knowledge of European history, were determined not to create a legal basis for a standing army. The founding fathers believed that the stand- ing armies belonging to royalty were responsible for the endless bloody wars that plagued Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter One: the Campaign for Chattanooga, June to November 1863
    CHAPTER ONE: THE CAMPAIGN FOR CHATTANOOGA, JUNE TO NOVEMBER 1863 Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park commemorates and preserves the sites of important and bloody contests fought in the fall of 1863. A key prize in the fighting was Chattanooga, Tennessee, an important transportation hub and the gateway to Georgia and Alabama. In the Battle of Chickamauga (September 18-20, 1863), the Confederate Army of Tennessee soundly beat the Federal Army of the Cumberland and sent it in full retreat back to Chattanooga. After a brief siege, the reinforced Federals broke the Confeder- ate grip on the city in a series of engagements, known collectively as the Battles for Chatta- nooga. In action at Brown’s Ferry, Wauhatchie, and Lookout Mountain, Union forces eased the pressure on the city. Then, on November 25, 1863, Federal troops achieved an unex- pected breakthrough at Missionary Ridge just southeast of Chattanooga, forcing the Con- federates to fall back on Dalton, Georgia, and paving the way for General William T. Sherman’s advance into Georgia in the spring of 1864. These battles having been the sub- ject of exhaustive study, this context contains only the information needed to evaluate sur- viving historic structures in the park. Following the Battle of Stones River (December 31, 1862-January 2, 1863), the Federal Army of the Cumberland, commanded by Major General William S. Rosecrans, spent five and one-half months at Murfreesboro, Tennessee, reorganizing and resupplying in preparation for a further advance into Tennessee (Figure 2). General Braxton Bragg’s Confederate Army of Tennessee was concentrated in the Tullahoma, Tennessee, area.
    [Show full text]
  • Lincoln's Role in the Gettysburg Campaign
    LINCOLN'S ROLE IN THE GETTYSBURG CAMPAIGN By EDWIN B. CODDINGTON* MOST of you need not be reminded that the battle of Gettys- burg was fought on the first three days of July, 1863, just when Grant's siege of Vicksburg was coming to a successful con- clusion. On July 4. even as Lee's and Meade's men lay panting from their exertions on the slopes of Seminary and Cemetery Ridges, the defenders of the mighty fortress on the Mississippi were laying down their arms. Independence Day, 1863, was, for the Union, truly a Glorious Fourth. But the occurrence of these two great victories at almost the same time raised a question then which has persisted up to the present: If the triumph at Vicksburg was decisive, why was not the one at Gettysburg equally so? Lincoln maintained that it should have been, and this paper is concerned with the soundness of his supposition. The Gettysburg Campaign was the direct outcome of the battle of Chancellorsville, which took place the first week in May. There General Robert E. Lee won a victory which, according to the bookmaker's odds, should have belonged to Major General "Fight- ing Joe" Hooker, if only because Hooker's army outnumbered the Confederates two to one and was better equipped. The story of the Chancel'orsville Campaign is too long and complicated to be told here. It is enough to say that Hooker's initial moves sur- prised his opponent, General Lee, but when Lee refused to react to his strategy in the way he anticipated, Hooker lost his nerve and from then on did everything wrong.
    [Show full text]
  • The Battle of Sailor's Creek
    THE BATTLE OF SAILOR’S CREEK: A STUDY IN LEADERSHIP A Thesis by CLOYD ALLEN SMITH JR. Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS December 2005 Major Subject: History THE BATTLE OF SAILOR’S CREEK: A STUDY IN LEADERSHIP A Thesis by CLOYD ALLEN SMITH JR. Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Approved by: Chair of Committee, Joseph Dawson Committee Members, James Bradford Joseph Cerami Head of Department, Walter L. Buenger December 2005 Major Subject: History iii ABSTRACT The Battle of Sailor’s Creek: A Study in Leadership. (December 2005) Cloyd Allen Smith Jr., B.A., Slippery Rock University Chair: Dr. Joseph Dawson The Battle of Sailor’s Creek, 6 April 1865, has been overshadowed by Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Court House several days later, yet it is an example of the Union military war machine reaching its apex of war making ability during the Civil War. Through Ulysses S. Grant’s leadership and that of his subordinates, the Union armies, specifically that of the Army of the Potomac, had been transformed into a highly motivated, organized and responsive tool of war, led by confident leaders who understood their commander’s intent and were able to execute on that intent with audacious initiative in the absence of further orders. After Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia escaped from Petersburg and Richmond on 2 April 1865, Grant’s forces chased after Lee’s forces with the intent of destroying the mighty and once feared iv protector of the Confederate States in the hopes of bringing a swift end to the long war.
    [Show full text]
  • Satin Army Corps System
    THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS SYSTEM IN THE UNION ARMY Allan Satin, Cincinnati Civil War Round Table, [email protected] © Allan Satin & Cincinnati Civil War Round Table, 2010, www.cincinnaticwrt.org At the end of the American Civil War, the Union Army was organized into army corps each with its own unique number which remained with it even if the corps was transferred from one army to another. How did this system develop in the Union Army? The United States Regular Army had no field commands larger than a regiment when the Civil War broke out in April 1861. Regiments were assigned to geographical departments with no intervening level of command. With the expansion of the armies resulting from the recruitment of the volunteer forces, command levels between the regimental and departmental levels were clearly required. At first, those departments with large enough field forces organized their new regiments into brigades (e.g. May 28 in the Department of Washington). As the forces became larger, divisions were formed (June 11 in the Department of Pennsylvania). The first major campaign was fought with armies organized into divisions (First Bull Run). Military men in the United States were familiar with the corps d’armée system as it had existed in the armies of Napoleon, but conservative commanders such as George B. McClellan and Don Carlos Buell were reluctant to form army corps in the armies under their command. McClellan wanted to postpone the creation of army corps until he had tested his divisional commanders through active operations to see which of them would be capable of commanding at the army corps level.
    [Show full text]
  • Spearhead of Patton's Third Army Is Anything but a One-Man Book
    XII CORPS SPEARHEAD OF PATTON’S THIRD ARMY [14 March 1945 to 9 May 1945] by LT COL GEORGE DYER Formerly Liaison Officer and Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff Headquarters, XII U S ARMY CORPS CONTENTS FRONT MATTER INTRODUCTION 1. Background: the XII Corps History Association 2. General Policy and Form of the Writing 3. Credits 4. Character of XII Corps ABBREVIATIONS BASIC MAP SYMBOLS PICTURES PINUPS LILI MARLEEN CHAPTER 13 - SECOND MOSELLE. 14 MARCH 45 - 22 MARCH 45 1. The Real "Operation Grab" 2. Six Divisions 3. The Nahe 4. Simmern and Bad Kreuznach 5. Wind-up of the Palatinate Campaign CHAPTER 14 - FIRST ASSAULT CROSSING OF THE RHINE. 22 MARCH – 26 MARCH 45 1. Preliminary 2. The Fifth Infantry Division's Great Day 3. US Army Engineers – and the U.S. Navy 4. All-out Support for the Bridgehead 5. Darmstadt, Frankfurt, and the Main 6. Payoff CHAPTER 15 - FROM THE RHINE TO CZECHOSLOVAKIA. 26 MARCH 45 – 22 APRIL 45 1. End of a Banner Month 2. The Strange Case of the 6th SS Mountain Division 3. Gotha and Ohrdruff 4. Peculiar Treasures 5. Salted Gold 6. Germany Cut in Two 7. To Kronach and Bayreuth CHAPTER 16 - AUSTRIA – AND VE-DAY. 22 APRIL 45 – 9 MAY 45 1. Grafenwohr 2. Into Austria; and the Myth of the "National Redoubt" 3. The Last Week of Battle 4. End of the 11th Panzer Division; the "Werewolves," and Others 5. Plan Eclipse 6. "Death Marches" and "Death Camps" 7. The Russians, and VE-Day Introduction 1. Background: the XII Corps History Association During the summer of 1945 headquarters of XII U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • A Short History of Army Intelligence
    A Short History of Army Intelligence by Michael E. Bigelow, Command Historian, U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command Introduction On July 1, 2012, the Military Intelligence (MI) Branch turned fi fty years old. When it was established in 1962, it was the Army’s fi rst new branch since the Transportation Corps had been formed twenty years earlier. Today, it remains one of the youngest of the Army’s fi fteen basic branches (only Aviation and Special Forces are newer). Yet, while the MI Branch is a relatively recent addition, intelligence operations and functions in the Army stretch back to the Revolutionary War. This article will trace the development of Army Intelligence since the 18th century. This evolution was marked by a slow, but steady progress in establishing itself as a permanent and essential component of the Army and its operations. Army Intelligence in the Revolutionary War In July 1775, GEN George Washington assumed command of the newly established Continental Army near Boston, Massachusetts. Over the next eight years, he dem- onstrated a keen understanding of the importance of MI. Facing British forces that usually outmatched and often outnumbered his own, Washington needed good intelligence to exploit any weaknesses of his adversary while masking those of his own army. With intelligence so imperative to his army’s success, Washington acted as his own chief of intelligence and personally scrutinized the information that came into his headquarters. To gather information about the enemy, the American com- mander depended on the traditional intelligence sources avail- able in the 18th century: scouts and spies.
    [Show full text]
  • Inclusive Dates: 1918-1966 Restrictions: Collection
    COLLECTION SUMMARY SHEET GEORGE C. MARSHALL LIBRARY COLLECTION: Lucian K. Truscott, Jr. Papers MANUSCRIPT NUMBER: 20 INCLUSIVE DATES: 1918-1966 ACCESSION NUMBER: 20,85-10 RESTRICTIONS: None DONOR: Lucian K. Truscott, III LOCATIONS: Vault-upper level, map case DATE OF GIFT: 1966, 1985 COLLECTION REGISTER AVAILABLE: Yes SIZE: 10 linear feet BIOGRAPHICAL/HISTORICAL FEATURES: Lucian King Truscott, Jr. (1895-1965) was born in Chatfield, Texas. After teaching in Oklahoma schools for six years, in 1915 Truscott was assigned to Ft. Logan Roots Officers Training Camp. In 1917 he was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the Officers Reserve Corps. From there he served at a series of Southwestern and Western camps including Scofield Barracks, Hawaii; Camp Douglas, Arizona and Marfa, Texas. Fifteen years at Ft. Riley. Ft. Leavenworth and Ft. Myer as both iI1;structor and student prepared Truscott for his World War II service. In 1942 he was assigned to duty in the European Theater of Operations with headquarters in London, England, and in March 1943 was named Commanding General, 3rd Infantry Division, serving in this capacity in North Africa and Sicily. " I In January 1944 he became Deputy Commandy of the VI Corps, and in March of that year took command of the Corps in Italy. He later moved with it to France and in December 1944 he was announced as Commanding General of the Fifth Army in Italy. In October 1945 he succeeded General Patton as Commanding General of the Third Army in American Occupied Germany. FORMS OF MATERIAL: Correspondence Aides Diaries Memoranda Diaries Telephone Transcripts Clippings Operation Plans Memorabilia lvlaps Photographs MAJOR CORRESPONDENTS: Omar N.
    [Show full text]
  • The Korean War
    N ATIO N AL A RCHIVES R ECORDS R ELATI N G TO The Korean War R EFE R ENCE I NFO R MAT I ON P A P E R 1 0 3 COMPILED BY REBEccA L. COLLIER N ATIO N AL A rc HIVES A N D R E C O R DS A DMI N IST R ATIO N W ASHI N GTO N , D C 2 0 0 3 N AT I ONAL A R CH I VES R ECO R DS R ELAT I NG TO The Korean War COMPILED BY REBEccA L. COLLIER R EFE R ENCE I NFO R MAT I ON P A P E R 103 N ATIO N AL A rc HIVES A N D R E C O R DS A DMI N IST R ATIO N W ASHI N GTO N , D C 2 0 0 3 United States. National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives records relating to the Korean War / compiled by Rebecca L. Collier.—Washington, DC : National Archives and Records Administration, 2003. p. ; 23 cm.—(Reference information paper ; 103) 1. United States. National Archives and Records Administration.—Catalogs. 2. Korean War, 1950-1953 — United States —Archival resources. I. Collier, Rebecca L. II. Title. COVER: ’‘Men of the 19th Infantry Regiment work their way over the snowy mountains about 10 miles north of Seoul, Korea, attempting to locate the enemy lines and positions, 01/03/1951.” (111-SC-355544) REFERENCE INFORMATION PAPER 103: NATIONAL ARCHIVES RECORDS RELATING TO THE KOREAN WAR Contents Preface ......................................................................................xi Part I INTRODUCTION SCOPE OF THE PAPER ........................................................................................................................1 OVERVIEW OF THE ISSUES .................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Patton and Logistics of the Third Army
    Document created: 20 March 03 Logistics and Patton’s Third Army Lessons for Today’s Logisticians Maj Jeffrey W. Decker Preface When conducting serious study of any operational campaign during World War II, the military student quickly realizes the central role logistics played in the overall war effort. Studying the operations of General George S. Patton and his Third United States Army during 1944-45 provides all members of the profession of arms—especially the joint logistician—valuable lessons in the art and science of logistics during hostilities. Future conflicts will not provide a two or three year "trial and error" logistics learning curve; rather, the existing sustainment infrastructure and its accompanying logisticians are what America’s armed forces will depend on when the fighting begins. My sincere thanks to Dr. Richard R. Muller for his guiding assistance completing this project. I also want to thank the United States Army Center of Military History for providing copies of the United States Army in World War II official histories and Lt Col (S) Clete Knaub for his editing advice and counsel. Finally, thanks go to my wife Misty for her support writing this paper; her grandfather, Mark Novick for his wisdom and guidance during the preparation of this project; and to his brother David, a veteran of the Third United States Army. I dedicate this project to him. Abstract George S. Patton and his Third Army waged a significant combined arms campaign on the Western Front during 1944-45. Both his military leadership and logistics acumen proved decisive against enemy forces from North Africa to the Rhine River.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington National Guard Pamphlet
    WASH ARNG PAM 870-1-7 WASH ANG PAM 210-1-7 WASHINGTON NATIONAL GUARD PAMPHLET THE OFFICIAL HISTORY OF THE WASHINGTON NATIONAL GUARD VOLUME 7 WASHINGTON NATIONAL GUARD IN POST WORLD WAR II HEADQUARTERS MILITARY DEPARTMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL CAMP MURRAY, TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98430 - i - THIS VOLUME IS A TRUE COPY THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT ROSTERS HEREIN HAVE BEEN REVISED BUT ONLY TO PUT EACH UNIT, IF POSSIBLE, WHOLLY ON A SINGLE PAGE AND TO ALPHABETIZE THE PERSONNEL THEREIN DIGITIZED VERSION CREATED BY WASHINGTON NATIONAL GUARD STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY - ii - INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME 7, HISTORY OF THE WASHINGTON NATIONAL GUARD BY MAJOR GENERAL HOWARD SAMUEL McGEE, THE ADJUTANT GENERAL Volume 7 of the History of the Washington National Guard covers the Washington National Guard in the Post World War II period, which includes the conflict in Korea. This conflict has been categorized as a "police action", not a war, therefore little has been published by the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army or by individuals. However, the material available to our historian is believed to be of such importance as to justify its publication in this volume of our official history. While Washington National Guard units did not actually serve in Korea during this "police action", our Air National Guard and certain artillery units were inducted into service to replace like regular air and army units withdrawn for service in Korea. However, many Washington men participated in the action as did the 2nd and 3rd Infantry Divisions, both of which had been stationed at Fort Lewis and other Washington military installations.
    [Show full text]