US Armored Doctrine 1919-1942, Part 1.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- Continuing on this series of videos supporting the WW2 Channel, this is part one of a two-part look at how the US Army ended up with the armored force with which it entered combat in North Africa.
Sources include:
Forging the Thunderbolt (Gillie)
Men on Iron Ponies (Morton)
Greasy Automatons and the Horsey Set (Tedesco)
A number of Center of Military History documents to include
A few other things I've forgotten about, but the above will get you 90% of the way there.
Public facebook page:
/ thechieftainarmor
Improved-Computer-And-Scout Car Fund:
Patreon: / the_chieftain
Direct Paypal paypal.me/thec...
Christie Tank Video
• The US Army's Christie...
1930 Cavalry Journal.
mcoepublic.blo...
1939 Cavalry Journal
mcoepublic.blo...
Soviet doctrine video.
• The Development of Sov...
Interview with Ken Estes on USMC tank history
• Chieftain's Armoured V...
Assessment of USMC light tanks.
• A Less-Awful Marmon-He...
Very good video Nick, but I'm sad the only mention of Sereno Brett is from the poorly resourced Mechanized Force days. In the 1920s and 30s Brett and other Infantry Tank service officers, namely Major Ralph Jones, called for modernization and for more armor-centric units in the same tone as Parsons. In the early 1930s, Brett and Jones wrote several Infantry Jounral articles together that became so vocal that the Infantry Chief, Major General Fuqua, considered it a near mutinity. Fuqua's response was the move the tank school from Meade to Benning, send Sereno Brett to tank over a light infantry battalion all the way in Hawaii (Brett's first pure infantry assignment since 1917), and reassigned Jones to Nebrask and eventual highly encouraged retirement. Brett would only stay in Hawaii for a litte bit until he was brought back to be Chaffee's Chief of Staff of the 7th Mechanized Cavalry Brigade. When Chaffee went to D.C. for the Congressional authorization of the Armored Force, Brett was along to support the briefings. Brett, who was already in pretty bad shape for tanking for over 20 years by this point, would transition to the Chief of Staff of the 1st Armored Division, then Chief of Staff of the Armored Force/Fort Knox. After calling in some favors, Brett was transferred to help organize the 5th Armored Division but was seriously injured in a tank rollover at the Desert Training Center. Brett was finally medically retired but continued to advise his long time friend, Dwight Eisenhower, during the war. The two had met on the 1919 transcontinental motor convoy.
Pinning this one. I knew I was giving him some short shrift, but honestly I hadn't found much about him in whatever I was reading.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Just a quick note....at 17:25 you are speaking of Adna Chaffee but the image is of Patton
@@hyfy-tr2jy Well, crap. Must have overlaid the filename when I was saving and didn't catch it in the review. I'll put the right picture up in Part 2.
@@TheChieftainsHatch And here was me thinking that Chaffee must have been old man Patton's long-lost twin love child.
@@Splodge542 for all we know, he might be
"I agree that the horse seems irreplaceable in the forward line of troops. After all, if your logistical tail is interdicted and you're out of supply . . . you can't eat a tank." -Friedrich Paulus (just kidding)
Paulus perhaps.
"No no, he has a point..." -The Axis
Fredric (Jose) Paulus
Carica? CARICA-The Italians in east Africa and Russia
Friedrich “Jose” Paulus probably said that while waiting for orders from his Adolf H. to breakout.
The difficulty American producers had with European drawings and plans was not due to units, it was due to a different style. Americans used datum points or lines and dimensioned drawings with tolerances. Europeans used scale drawings without dimensions. The American system was good for mass production and quality control with (relatively) lower skilled workers, whereas the European system required skilled craftsmen to custom fit every part. This is why Americans had to build a prototype from plans and fix that unit, take it all apart again, and then make new drawings before entering into full scale production.
Interesting note
I'm an engineer and never thought about that, because it's not an issue nowerdays. 👍
About five years ago I found some drawings for a ppsh 41. I put it in CAD just because it's cool. Many parts were not fitting. I didn't finish the project and thought this were just bad plas.
Also, european drawings use different projection than american drawings (generally)
@@piritskenyer
We still do.
Although datum points, dimensions and tolerances are being used (currently studying to become a mechanical engineer, I can't even conceive of a drawing without explicit dimensions and tolerances 😅)
30 odd years ago, I, too, was shocked to discover, my beloved "E-tool" was, in fact, on the books as Intrenching. No, I did not begin calling it an I-tool.
WTF?! It should be spelled Īntrenching, but some idiot ate the line.
@@johnd2058 that's line warfare to ya ;)
@@SonsOfLorgar Better than raw rat meat, don't ask how I know.
I-tool is a great name, somebody trademark it before apple does
The word Is Entrenching, like entraining or enplanining
Well done, Chieftain! I'm honored that you used and cited my old thesis, "Greasy Automatons and the Horsey Set." I look forward to Part II.
It was very thoroughly researched, I'm not averse to letting someone else do the hard work!
Inject that military history directly into my veins!
The discussion videos on WW2 armor doctrine are always great, and this is no exception.
Being a native of Chihuahua, I can understand why would the top brass in the american army would have been very skeptical about the capabilities of mechanized units given the terrain they had operate in during the Punitive expedition, we´re talking about very mountainous terrain couple with huge canyons and the like, confronting an enemy that was for the most part operating with guerrilla tactics, it would have been seen like a huge waste and their experience with the few armored cars they brought for the fighting, it seems they didn´t come with a good impression regarding armored units, understandable given the context.
Per your point, and as intended by The Chieftain, this episode sure helped me to understand the US military's repeated assessments that the horse was not possible to replace on their most likely battlefield. Are pack animals still used locally for anything or have they pretty much been replaced by ATVs and other modern vehs ?
@@hughbeastodonnell3733 Mostly vehicles but it depends and varies by individual, indigenous tribes because they still unfortunately remain very poor, are still very dependent on pack animals, but for the most part it´s vehicles driving around, but this can be a detriment, the deeper you get into the mountains, the harder it becomes to get readily available spare parts... you can get them but you're probably going to have to order them from one of the urban centers and it can be some time before they get to you, don't expect next day delivery up in the mountains.
Also the terrain is a lot more difficult than people assume it is. Chihuahua´s geography resembles something more akin to Afghanistan´s terrain and if Afghanistan's terrain is still a huge logistical problem today, imagine in Pershing time it would have been a complete nightmare, to the point that some parts are only readily accessible by air, unless you´re willing to do a 18+ hr drive through mountain side dirt roads with huge precipices to the sides only to drive a couple hundred miles to reach your intended location.
Thanks for pointing out Afghanistan; 75+ years of improvements in equipment, and there were still regions accessible only by helicopter or horse.
People still tend to be overoptimistic about what mechanization can do for you. There are some places where you really can't get anywhere by vehicle unless you stay on roads, and that's not always where the enemy is. The US has had issues with this in the past.
I'm always glad to see more Chieftain content.
For those tempted to scoff at cavalry as a reconaissance tool in low intensity conflict, remember Portugal and South Africa used it to very good effect in the 1970's. Against large forces, bad idea. To just occupy and patrol terrain in remote areas, great.
American Special Forces were even using horses to get around Afghanistan in the early days of the invasion. I suspect an army could find uses for relatively large horse cavalry units even today - its just that no one has the money and manpower laying around to spare on such niche forces.
Isn't this why the Marines keep KLR650's? It's only a couple of mph faster than an off-road horse, either, so it slots right in.
It seems to me a horse is a perfect target for a sniper or a light machine gun. Difficult to armour or conceal with the silhouette size of a Jeep . Taller with a guy on its back. Anti personnel mines might not be ineffective either.
@@cheyannei5983 they still have that? Always wanted one back in my dirt bike money pit days
@@dustyak79 AFAIK, yes, but they only ever had a few
I have been waiting for this for so long! I just rewatched the Soviet and Italian videos last night! Thank you for all of the great content.
Wonderfully engaging and thoughtful content as always.
Holy hell finally it's here ! I'm actually genuinely excited to watch this cheers from Australia Chief 👍
Finally what we all have been waiting for!!!! Thanks Chieftain. Smashed the like button immediately.
"US Armored Doctrine 1919-1942", or, How many machine guns will fit?
Aka: United States military doctrine.
Or as I call it, DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA!
Well, if you take out the radio, we can fit 2 in the rear turret bustle, we can replace the assistant driver with another 2, cuz no one likes a back seat driver. From there, I think 2 coax will fit on both sides of the gun. Oh, Jeffery, go ask the driver if he would like a mg in his position as well, I know driving can get boring sometimes. Ok, coffee break and we will cover placement of mgs out the left side of the hull.
I know it's a giant meme but a pintle 30 cal welded to practically any unarmored vehicle (ie, jeep) has a lot of suppression value. Add "your targets can't shoot first or shoot back" and all of a sudden some kind of 360-degree machine gun or 37-45mm behind armor is incredibly appealing.
Seriously, the JLTV is almost literally an armored Jeep with the option for an armored weapon system mount. The need and utility has not changed in the past 100 years.
The Lee gets a lot of rough-housing on... rightly. But look at the Pz II's, the half-tracks, the vehicles and infantry equipment; in the moment, the decision-making wasn't bad so much as without foresight. Luckily, we had some determined soldiers and officers with a sense of direction to guide us to good vehicles.
M2 Medium my beloved
I really enjoy these videos. I’ve been waiting for the U.S. doctrine one! It is certainly interesting seeing how the U.S. was planning to fight the war. Also, I love the “Bizarre metric system to Freedom Units” joke!
Funny how US doctrine prewar was basically gun-ho, literally!
Yep. Freedom Units for the win!
@@bugwar5545 roflmao! No.
What Joke?
The sheer scale of serioisnes he said it I didn't even fucking notice till I read this
Nick, I am extremely grateful to have access to such quality content at basically no cost. I am also a wee bit thrilled inside to know you visited the DEBOSSgarage Frankenstein truck/tank thing. Anyway, thank you sir. And thank you for your military service.
Always look forward to your talks. At first I was skeptical; how much could one guy know? But every time I listen I am more impressed with what I see and hear. I’ve made the study of US Army history and equipment my life’s work, coupled with 32 years in tanks - crewing on M47s, various M48s and M60s, and finally early M1IPs; not to mention Master Gunner qualifications. Very rarely do you mention something I disagree with, but when you do you always back it up and satisfy my concerns. For instance, my father was a horse CAV trooper (bugler) pre-WW2 and everything you said today is spot-on with his and his friends’ stories and what I’ve read. And in the past when you’ve used my friends and acquaintances as your subject matter experts, it really set you apart.
Nice job! Always looking forward to your next talk; getting in to why we had “Tank Destroyers” is going to be interesting!
The man is a legend in the National Guard. Big Army missed their shot by not actively recruiting him. I'm in the 278th ACR(completely different Unit) and his name comes up on occasion.
@@HeinzGuderian_ I’m glad he didn’t go RA; he wouldn’t have time to do what he does
@@HeinzGuderian_ How did that happen? I've spoken to the previous Regimental CO (COL(P) Bowlin), but that was too recently for anything to filter down, and he didn't seem to have any familiarity with me.
Besides, my being a good Guardsman doesn't mean I'd be successful in Big Army. I hate PT for starters.
@@macqnj107 To this day, I have no idea how Pete Mansoor managed to write his book on the US Army's infantry divisions in WW2. Then again, for a few years prior to publication he was a professor of history at USAMA, so maybe he found some time there.
@@TheChieftainsHatch It's like they say..."Do you want to talk to the guy in charge or the ones who know what's going on"?
A lot of us play WoT at home and talk about your videos when we get together. We do loooong ATs every year . I'm in their Shadow Platoon(MI Co). We're in Maryland so we only play with the others during AT. I retire next Tuesday due to age.
I think its a miracle we even got a tank like the Sherman. With this kind of brilliant cavalry thinking he US was probably far more likely to have ended with something as equally bad as Italian or Japanese armor.
Italian armor wasn't that bad at time of release the problem was industry couldn't replace the old designs. Compare the m13 to the Matilda 1 or mk IV light
Would be interesting to see how those people would react to beeing served with the full specs for a non US combined arms batallion anno 2021 both it's composition, and specs of each piece of equipment and intended tactics...
@@TheAngelobarker well, not really. Most italian tanks were "too little, too late" improvements, each new design almost able to fight with the tanks the Allied were already replacing with a better one.
Sure, slow production forced to keep the "decent tank for one year ago" way into "decent tank maybe two-years-ago".
But still, every italian tank was sub-par in the very moment it left the assembly line, as in the field there is already a bigger, more armed, thicker skinned new allied tank.
@@TheAngelobarker I think the same could be said for Soviet armor. Good in its days. Too bad for both of them that day was in the mid 30's, not WW2.
Tbh, from this cavalry heavy thinking, I am impress that US Army did not go in British direction (and use) of cruiser and infantry tank.
3:58. That's probably the most adorable tank picture I've ever seen.
"Rolling around with tanks with a dozen machine guns." How far was I off the mark?
My father was a member of the 14th regiment 2nd calvary div. on an exercise in Arizonia December 1941
So what I can tell from this, is that the majority of the discussion around Tanks and Cavalry in the US in the 1930s went like this:
"Shall we get rid of Horses, in favour of Tanks?"
"Neigh!"
You're welcome, I'll see myself out.
Is that an actual quote? (Not the Neigh part, obviously.)
Lol 😂
@@jasonhenry8067 Who knows? Maybe the horses had something to say about it too! 🐎
Before I watch this I need to say how much I look forward to these long form pieces. Very much appreciated sir.
"Freedom Units" haha, that's superb, I'm definitely going to adopt that phrase! I love these doctrine videos, they give such a great insight and I'm always amazed at how deep into the '30s we get and yet so many countries have either regressed or are still fine tuning WWI doctrines. If nothing else, it's a reminder of the old maxim "necessity is the mother of invention"
well, it was, for basically everyone, the last "Big war" that you could look at for reference as to how two large industrialised nations might fight. what conflicts that happened in the 20s and early 30s were generally fought with at least one side, and often both, lacking full modern industrial equipment, so its hard to draw conclusions about a new western front form them, or at least be certain that any conclusions would carry over. For example, while motor vehicle techology had improved, they were still clearly not capable of dealing with mud on the scale of Passchendaele or the Somme, so the ability of a motor dependant force to conduct ops in and through a static battlezone like the expected new western front was questionable.
plus, budgets being what they were, a most armies were still using ww1 era equipment in large quantites during the 30s. aircraft were still biplanes with open cockpits until almost the outbreak of war, most armies still had bolt action rifles as the main infantry weapon, and tanks were only slowly growing beyond the armoured pillbox/MG proof scout car types of late ww1. given the mostly simmilar weaponry in use, its not a huge suprise the general consensus was that the Next War was going to be another attritional stalemate.
The punitive expedition into Mexico wasn't really fighting Villistas as there really were no Villistas at the time. Villa's army had pretty much been destroyed prior to his raid into the US. In fact Villa's raid was most likely an attempt to lure the US into Mexico with the idea that they would blunder around pissing everyone off. This would give Carranza (the guy the US was supporting) two bad options: either denounce the US invasion and risk loosing US support, or support the US invasion and loose the support of the Mexican people. Villa liked to play up the simple bandito image, but he was actually a pretty shrewd political player. In the end, the punitive expedition helped Villa recruit a new army.
It really was a smart political play. The U.S. was not exactly Mexico's friend at the time.
Do you watch 'Der Kraut'?
So he just raided the US alone with a couple of buddies? Clearly he had some men left.
Great video i really enjoy the honesty and the work you put into researching the subject. Was in the 82nd Airborne Division as a Combat Engineer i layer alot of wire for tank traps but i was a light engineer and worked with the Infantry most of the time. 86-89. But again love the content always! I live in North Texas.
Saw an interesting picture on line which was captioned as the US Secretary of War riding on a tracked model-T with a mark 8 tank sitting in the background
the application of horse cavalry somewhat echo the soviet debate ,
both Pershing and Budienny had solid experience with moving in large space with tenuous supply lines over few bad roads
of course mechanization would win but in an initial phase ,
the question was why replacing something cheap , familiar with a proven performance for something strange , expensive and using thingies of dubious reliability
13:15 In Poland of this period no one dared to talk about deletion of the horse - only about support them with motors.
We return to Polish Cavalry briefly in part 2, actually.
Funny to hear how the US Army was playing internal politics and struggling to give Armour a place within the Army. We tend to forget that before WW2, the US was not considered a major world-power.
Looking forward to part 2!
I enjoy these deep dives into history. It’s very interesting to see how something developed.
Outstanding!
Great as always.
It might have been nearly but it still had me transfixed. Thanks for an excellent video.
2nd from top shelf ,far right. i did not expect to see that on the shelf of someone like you
Here is an alternate title: "From Horse power to Horsepower"
Pt 2.
Hoarse power to whores power.
I always have wondered why they didn’t just make the cavalry troops into anti-tank troops/tank hunters. All they would of had to do is provide them with anti-tank weapons such as magnetic charges, sticky booms. petrol booms, AT rifles, Bazookas, PIAT’S. Horse would of made them so much more mobile and with trucks/horses trailers able to keep up with there own tanks. Also horse 🐎 would of been useful in night attacks on tanks.
I haven’t uploaded part 2 yet, how have you seen it?
Thank you for your time & effort. I absorb all WW 2 Documentaries especially those on Armor. Great Watch while Learning.
Love the history lesson. Thank you.
Thank you. For this historical gem.
Seems like I've been waiting years for this.
Thanks for the first half Nicholas & please don't take too long on the second (I'm OK with a week or two...).
From what I remember of 19th century US cavalry experience/doctrine the US was very "Dragoon minded" (they planned on dismounting to fight with perhaps a mounted flanking force/reserve), from what I remember the Russians were also thinking along similar lines back then. It looks like the early experiments had some issues with getting them to the action, but considered the "dismounts" as more than glorified camp guards and having integral artillery (or at least fire support and a "base of fire") which made the transition to combined arms natural. There doesn't seem to be nearly as big a split as that which birthed the "royal tank force". The infantry just want some armored support, and the cavalry want all arms available to them, and they both wanted more money.
The pre Great War British Yeomanry cavalry were trained as mounted infantry not mounted shock troops and needed extensive retraining when mobilised and brigaded with the Regular Cavwy. So that they could operate interchangeably. Then they ended up spending 1915 fighting dismounted in trenches before shipping off to the Middle East as mounted infantry; where they engaged in shock attacks with their pointed sticks. Thus we see that the was a role for horsed troops, but few opportunities to have the right sort in the right place at the right time. In the end in France in the 1918 ‘hundred days’ they operated as shock troops to take sites where the enemy was not yet engaged by the advancing infantry and then dismounted to hold them until said infantry had plodded up to them. One presumes that the USA doctrine writers had observed and noted the same. Mr Patton was fond of the pointed stick and something of an expert in it’s use I believe.
For Russia being mostly undeveloped sounds good
Rest of Europe had roads
Wow, if you can remember that you must be super old!
The focus on dragoons was probably from Civil War and Indian war experience. Mounted cavalry mostly got slaughtered on those battlefields while dismounted infantry (usually armed with early breechloaders/repeaters) acquitted their selves quite well.
@@Fulcrum205 I think US cavalry has always been more dragoons than anything else. I don't think we ever had heavy cavalry or lancers or anything like that.
Wonderful! I have been waiting a long time. Perfect perfect timing as I have been re-watching the videos on the other nations development for the third time this week and it's fresh in my mind.
Converting metric to freedom units-- priceless!
"It was a mess that was fixed at the last minute by determined men..."
Has the Army ever done it differently?
This is the US military we are talking about here. The answer is a resounding no. For example, the Navy was using ships from the war well into the 80s not counting the Battleships. Some of them were unmodified or barely modified. See also most of the LSTs.
US Doctrine 1919: Tanks, what are those?
How many gallons of water do they hold. Horses drink a lot!
Great video, lots of great info and it was engaging. Well done!
I was hoping Men on Iron Ponies would be sourced and/or referenced, and I was not disappointed. Excellent book. Another recommended book on the Cavalry aspect of this era, and particularly the employment of Cavalry in the ETO would be Sabers Through the Reich, though it is a bit more technical and overstated in it's subject.
You might have this already planned, but can you, at the very least, as a round-up episode, discuss how actually being in combat changed doctrine? For the other episodes, you only covered up to the start of WWII. Full episodes for each country would be great, but I would be a lot of work
Excellent video. I think giggling about "The Horsey Set" will tide me over until next week.
In fairness, horses would probably be more useful than the tankettes Europe was fussing over at the time...
In some regards perhaps, but not all. Horses are not great in remaining calm when under artillery bombardment, and nor are they particularly likely to accept being peppered with shrapnel.
Love this content Nick and collaboration with TT2 Channel.
Excited for this, glad it's here, will give a watch asap! Thanks!
Hello,
Newer to the channel and have really enjoyed the content you produce. Super fascinating and I appreciate all the time you put into it!
Welcome aboard!
Thank you for mentioning LtGen Harry Chauvel"s Desert Mounted Corps. 🇦🇺🐨🇦🇺
When people in El Paso want to visit the beach, they go to San Diego, not Galveston. That's how big Texas is.
In fairness, they are far nicer beaches in SD, even if the distances are similar.
1919-1941: "Add moar musheen gunz."
1942: "Oh, crap, add sum cannunz."
I wonder if Patton's comment about infantry in truck on porte, is a reference to fighting en portee while mounted on and from the truck using weapons over the sides, instead of using the truck as transport to the fight and then dismounting for combat on foot.
Think interwar period version of a 4x4 'technical' with maybe a machine gun, but more likely some guys with rifles in the back firing in all directions while they bounce along XD
That's exactly what I thought. I can't see any reason why he would specifically use a different term, unless he somehow forget that was already a thing. A portee gun can either be transported on or fired from a truck, so the latter is the only thing that really makes sense. Unless it's to carry them right to the front line like AFVs or something. Although both of those would really need to armored trucks to be viable at all, or the troops are just concentrated in a nice easy to hit target.
My grandfather was in the Punitive Expedition. I didn't realize what my mother was talking about until recently. One guy got shot in his arm, and he held it up shouting, "HERO!" 😀 Those were the days.
Very interesting. Keep up the good work please.
Excellent video as always.
Gen. Patton had a magical way with words, could you do a video (if you havnt already) on how maneuvers were done and if they used live rounds how did they simulate "hits"/"kills"
Great show, thank you chief.
Very informative and interesting, found it very educational
Fascinating , all this on the back of ww1 and the effects of wire and machine guns on flesh be it man or horse! Great show cheers
And yet infantry seemed to do okay in WW2. I mean they weren't slaughtered by the guns and wire. Because they figured out ways to work around it and avoid the stalemate. It wasn't by always having tanks leading every attack. Although they were generally needed in support, or at least assault guns or effective artillery support. But not all infantry had tanks backing them up every time they went in to fight, and still managed to advance and take objectives. Hell, 80% of the Wehrmacht wasnt even mechanized for transportation, you think they only ever followed the Panzer divisions into battle?
It's necessary to remember that the Infantry was using bolt-action rifles (not a lot of intense firepower) and machine guns were heavy and awkward. So mobility of scouting units was really a thing. But add LMGs and auto-loading rifles, and cavalry becomes just large, lightly armed targets.
Cavalry had been large lightly armed targets since about 1750….
Excellent video, and while I have no military background but like to cook; I'm struck by an old adage, "too many chefs in the kitchen". Also, the Three Stooges and the old gag, "who's on first". It is sometimes hard to fathom how we got anything done (not much different than gov/military today) and ended up being the winning side. I also find it humerus or interesting that so many of the horse cavalry stalwarts became staunch mechanized armor champions in WW2. "Withe age comes wisdom"? Maybe but I still remember the line, "Rommel you bloody bastard, I read your book". No idea if that's true, but it made a hell of scene.
You would love being a cook in the Army. The soldiers are always hungry and are very grateful for what you do!
@@LA_Commander That's how I like the people I feed; hungry and grateful. But I would miss my automatic potato peeler. :-)
Excellent Context for understanding what followed, thank you.
Neat to find out you did OCS at Ft. Meade. I'm in the SDARNG and go there quite a bit.
I'm eager to see many of the early US tanks in plastic ktis, like the M2 medium, T2 medium, Medium M1921/22 (as well as the British original), Mark VIII heavy and M1 Combat Car. At least Vargas makes the other weird earlies, like the Christie M1919.
The content the Chieftain provides here is already an entire audiobook.
Love the Aer LIngus BAe / DH146 beside the Ferdinand on the bookshelf
What were the favored horse breeds of the army in the 20's and 30's what purpose favored for the breeds? In mission types? Was a cost benefit analysis done concerning horses operations?
I know they liked Morgans in the late 19th century, don't see why they would change that. They are great all around horses.
So in 30 years, will the Chieftain be discussing Space Force doctrine 2019-2039?
Based on the military's obsession with diversity, no.
Wow. Considering how many were working at cross-purposes to one another, the lack of funding, and the lack of imagination to perceive oncoming threats and requirements (and that's not confined to just armored doctrine) - it's a miracle we survived WWII at all.
A WW2 British Armor officer wrote a book about using Stewart's in Africa. When they first got the tank and a driver couldn't throw the track his comment was 'it's a honey'. After 40 yrs I'm going to say the author's name was Griffiths.
likely Bob Crisp’s book, he claims his driver was hanging out with the Texan instructor too much.
Crisp, yes. So they test drove their new tank and tried to throw the tracks but couldn't. The test drivers verdict was that the Stewart 'was a honey'. And the name stuck.
Brilliant, as always, Sir!
Best thing since the Panzer II review.
What Panzer II review? He did the I, III and IV. I never saw a II or I would have been all over it.
Great history. People assume there was no place for horses in modern Armies but most armies in WWII relied on horses extensively. On the Eastern front, but German security troops and Soviets used horses extensively to cover the vast areas. There were never enough tanks or armored cars to go around and the mud often stopped all mechanical movement.
YES! These are my favorite type of video!
At 10:20 the images had me imagining US CAV raiding a German camp like they with in the Indian Wars
Back in the early 80's, my dad ran the armor school at Ft Knox. under General Dozier. That's the guy who was kidnapped by the Italian Communist terrorist group a little before that. This was right before the Abrams entered full production, so they were using M60's (I think the A3s). It's cool hearing about the history of armored force and doctrine in the US. My dad doesn't talk about it much, so I'm glad to learn about this stuff from another tanker.
I'm just now trying to catch up on these. My uncle was a Army Veterinarian and his job was to administer to the horses left that do odd jobs (an example is the horses that pull the dead to Arlington. his name is Tim Kennemer and he's quite good at what he does) which was late 90's early 2000ish. My memory of that time is hazy. I remember him telling me that he was going to start his own vet clinic because their just wasn't enough horse for the number of vets that were there. He was quite sad, now i know why. When you spend that kind of time with an animal that is as smart as a horse, they do become a friend.
You live in SA? We gotta get coffee! I'm new to the channel. Great stuff!
Great video on a subject we've all been waiting for, of course. Oh, and it's "Vee-yee-stahs", more or less.
To be fair, in some areas of the U.S. especially in the 1930’s the horse was the better options. Things changed dramatically in the next 10 years.
Still Edmonds was more of a visionary for the future and Patton was the romantic.
Unusual rivalry between elements of the US Army ?
You need to check the interservice rivalry between the Army and Navy of Imperial Japan.
You get the impression that while they were fighting the allies, they'd have been happier fighting each other. Cooperation was so bad that the Army built its own Navy !
He looked at Japan 6 months ago.
With all of the internal bickering between the various combat arms I wonder why the Chief of Staff did not act like the adult in the room and tell the children to sit down and shut up. Oh, wait. The CoS was MacArthur. Never mind carry on.
Worst kind of person in any organization: arrogant as hell and competence to back it up so you cant just dismiss him.
How many officers got relived crossing horse officers?
Could you just IMAGINE what might've happened if the U.S. force that landed in Africa in the early 40s was composed of motorised horse cavalry instead of M3 mediums and infantry in M3 halftracks? 🤣
Also, 12:20, is that David Fletcher's mustache twitching with disgust that I'm sensing? :D
No one seems to realize the importance of the Louisiana and Carolinas Maneuvers in 1941, pre Pearl Harbor attack, where the US could basically discover, develop and train their armored forces in peace, while the US can also look across the pond at what the Germans and the British are doing in terms of maneuver and armored warfare, then applying the lessons to the Army's future ground combat seeing the static warfare of WWI with limited maneuvers and horse drawn logistic are outdated and mechanized and motorized warfare and logistics is the future. Developing yourself while in peace/ not at war was also as vital as learning from your mistakes in a war.
I would say this is the Army's version of the Navy's Fleet Problem exercises in 1930s-1940 where the Navy found out that carrier centered Navy is the way for the future of the US Navy and Battleships are getting outdated, when you can have hit and run tactics with carrier aircraft and can be more accurate at hitting enemy ships than old fashioned guns.
I feel like this is at least the third time I've heard of a country having an actual law against cavalry using tanks.
Why? When did the interwar lawmakers of multiple major countries get convinced or even briefed about this being a question worth answering?
Do you already have a video on that?
I do not, it seems to make little sense to me. I can only assume there was some branch lobbying.
Patton's idea of using horse cavalry to keep up with tanks is a fascinating proposal. Images of the Western Front would have looked different with troops of horse cavalry scouting for armored units, but it would also have placed larger demands for water in the North African and Italian campaigns -- horses need much more water than men. Also, what would horses have done in the misery of the winter of 1944-1945?
The first thirty minutes sounds like the old adage about the Army preparing diligently to fight the last war. It is difficult to keep up with all of those changing characters. Is that normal for a peacetime military, for officers to be moved around this much, or does this reflect the opinion of higher command regarding the importance of an armored force? I will be very interested, next week, in hearing about how events in Europe affected American doctrine in the lead-up to our involvement in the Second World War-in essence, when did we stop looking so much "inward," and start looking "outward." Very excellent piece, as usual; very much useful insight into what was going on-or not-in the US in between the wars.
So you are criticizing them for "preparing to fight the last war" because they essentially ignored WW1 in Europe and decided they would most likely be fighting in the Southwest US, and then you want to know how and when they smartened up a when they realized they yes, they probably were going back to Europe to fight in the exact same place again, so they had calculated wrong? Seems to me that the problem was that they _weren't_ planning to fight the last war again. Or chose the wrong one. But if you have a strict policy and public opinion totally against any involvement at all in foreign wars, why would you base your military and doctrine around a force for fighting foreign wars?
Take a drink each time The big fella says “Machine gun”.
Hey Chieftain, could you put the photos of the men or tanks or anything full-screen? I'm not saying you're ugly but it isn't necessary to see your face all the time. Bigger photo is better, one can see more clearly the details. And subtitles would also be nice, the names of the men and tanks are sometimes difficult to remember and spell correctly. Content itself is good, you just have to visualise the military history ;D
That's only about twice as much work, dozens of hours of editing on top of the research and lecture he prepared for you to enjoy for free. But some of us have short attention spans, we need pictures!
It may amaze you to know that most education in universities consists of people standing in front of a room and talking about the stuff. And you have to _listen_ . No pictures, no memes even. Don't know how anyone learns anything!
Even more amazing, for most of history these could be exciting events, widely publicized, they might pack rooms, people would travel hundreds of miles to listen to some guy talk about stuff he knew about. They might even _pay_ for it! Crazy, right?
Interesting talk. Thanks. Wasn't the picture shown as Chafee early on actually one of Patton?
Yeah, I must have overwritten the file or something. Fixing on Part 2.
@@TheChieftainsHatch We all do it. With your volume of output it's impressive it doesn't happen often. All that knowledge, and understanding too. Much appreciated. Cheers
Great vid.
Yay, you are back
I was watching this at 4 in the morning and I just woke up 12 and I can't remember rly watching it atleast I was only 12 minutes in and didn't have to re watch the whole thing
I think you have to read between the lines of what George Patton wrote in the Cavalry Journal. He had been frustrated by the post WWI Army biases and their lack of interest in Tanks. Seeing this attitude taken by the seniority led Command structure he gravitated back to the Cavalry. He took pains to praise the Cavalry of course. But many positive points about the usefulness of mechanized forces are written between the lines of these article's.