At 01:19 PM 1/31/2002 +1100, you wrote:
> > Behalf Of John Garcia
> > One problem the West Point graduates had was in adjusting to the new
> > circumstances on the battlefield. The formative experience for
> > most of the
> > generals in the Civil War was the Mexican War (in which many served as
> > junior officers.) This war was fought mainly in the European
> > style; that is
> > to say armies were maneuvered to gain a superior position against the
> > enemy. At times, this involved flanking movements to threaten the enemy's
> > rear. At other times, it meant gathering a superior number of
> > troops facing
> > a weak point in the enemy's lines. The enemy was at first bombarded by
> > artillery, and the infantry moved forward under the artillery's
> > cover. When
> > the infantry moved into musket range, they dressed their lines
> > (moved into
> > more or less a straight line), and began to fire their muskets at
> > the same
> > time into the enemy's ranks ("volley fire"). During this time, artillery
> > continued to bombard the enemy's lines. When the attacking commanders saw
> > that the enemy's soldiers were faltering, they ordered the
> > bayonet attack.
>
>Snip
>
>
> > The Civil War was, in many ways, the end of traditional European war and
> > the beginning of modern, industrialized warfare. Unfortunately, the
> > Franco-Prussian war was fought a few years later in the outmoded European
> > style, and Europe's military leaders either ignored or forgot the lessons
> > of the Civil War. Come WWI they sent their men against trenches and
> > breastworks in close-order assault, and their men were butchered.
>
>
>Just working my way through the Brin-L backlog, which is why this is late.
>
>Anyway, one of the major reasons for the success of Australian troops in WW1
>was that almost all of the Australian Generals were Civil War enthusiasts.
>Australia's two main Generals, John Monash in France and Harry Chauvel in
>the Middle East, could go chapter and verse about Civil War battles. The
>campaigns of Lee, Stuart, Jackson and Sherman were favoured reading.
>
>Chauvel commanded possibly the only effective cavalry force of WW1 - which
>were largely Light Horse/Mounted Rifles rather than true cavalry, anyway -
>so was able to conduct a very different type of war to that in France and
>Belgium. His use of armoured cars and aircraft as well as fast moving
>(albeit horse powered) infantry were forerunners of the desert warfare
>tactics of WW2.
>
>Monash, though, commanded in France and was regarded as one of the most
>innovative and successful generals in the British forces. A meticulous
>planner, he was able to eventually break the trench warfare stalemate and
>create a war of movement in late 1918. His use of tanks, artillery, infantry
>and aircraft was a direct influence on the theories of Liddle-Hart that
>everyone except the Germans and Russians ignored after WW1.
>
>Australians had been slaughtered in the full frontal attacks in France and
>Belgium in 1916, just like everyone else. The stupid part about WW1, though,
>was that Civil War style tactics were used in the South African (Boer) War
>of 1899-03, by both sides. Including British generals like Hamilton
>(Gallipoli) and Haig (France/Belgium) both of whom promptly seem to have
>forgotten those lessons in 1914-18.
>
>Brett
Strange how I can find no mention of Generals Monash or Chauvel in my
histories of WWI (I have Keegan's The First World War; Marshall's World War
I; and Liddell-Hart's The Real War 1914-1918). Admittedly, no historian can
cover all personalities and aspects of a particular war, and other division
and corps commanders are also not covered, but this is a bit bothersome.
I'll have to do some digging to improve my knowledge of these two men.
Monash seems to be one of that rare breed of general: the person who can
adapt to changing circumstances. Thanks for bringing him to my attention.
(The fact that Monash and Chauvel are not mentioned in general histories of
the war [at least the ones I own], kinda confirms a suspicion of mine that
Australian troops and their generals receive short shrift in non-Australian
histories. For example, in the WWII Pacific Theatre, General Sir Thomas
Blaney performed outstanding work organizing, training and leading his
country's troops. Yet he is barely mentioned in the general histories.)
john
