The battle of Mons was one of the first interactions between the British and German forces in World War I. This battle ended with a clear, although heavily battered victory for the German First Army. Although the British fought valiantly and with fewer casualties than those of their German antagonist; the outcome of this battle could have been altered. Through the use of proper intelligence preparation of the battle field, and human intelligence, the outcome could have been a British victory. Over the remainder of this paper, I will explain how the battle was fought and lost, how the improper planning of the Allied forces directly caused the loss in this battle and how proper implementation of scouts as human intelligence could have given enough warning to change the outcome even with the poor planning. The battle of Mons began on 23 August 1914 in the early morning hours. The British Expeditionary Forces (BFE) attempted to hold the line of the Mons-Conde Canal against the German 1st Army. This battle took place as a part of the Battle of Frontiers, in which the German armies and the Allied armies clashed along the France/ Belgian and France/ German borders. The BEF were stationed to the left of the Allied line stretching from Alsace-Lorraine in the east to Mons and Charleroi in the south. The BEF in this area consisted of II Corps lining the Mons-Conde Canal and I Corps positioned to the right along the Mons–Beaumont Road. The German 1st army was in position to invade
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
The battle of the bulge was Hitler's last chance to win the war or at least make the allies go for a treaty. He did this because his forces were being pushed back into Germany and soon they would run out of supplies and other resources for war. Hitler thought of this bold plan when he recalled how a German hero Frederick the great was facing defeat, Frederick went on a offensive attack at his foe who had superior numbers but the bold moved worked and Hitler thought he could do the same thing.
This paper will examine the British and American Southern Loyalist defeat in the Battle of Kings Mountain and discuss the assumptions the British made including loyalist support, logistic support, and terrain advantage.
“Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.” - President Franklin D. Roosevelt. December 7th 1941 marked an event in history that everyone in the world looks back to. On that date the Imperial Japanese Navy surprised attacked the American port of Pearl Harbor in Honolulu, Hawaii. This marked the beginning of World War II for America. World War II was the bloodiest war in history with over 60 million deaths. World War II started in Europe when an Nazi controlled Germany invaded Poland on September 1st, 1939. Great Britain entered the war soon after along with the rest of her (Great Britain's) allies
The Meuse-Argonne offensive of World War I began in the fall of 1918. The offensive began in the dawn of 26 September 1918 and concluded on 11 November 1918 after forty-seven days. The massive and bloody offensive pitted the newly formed American Expeditionary Force (AEF) referred to its allies as the “Doughboys” led by General John "Black Jack" Pershing against a heavily fortified German force entrenched between the Meuse River and Argonne Forest located northwest of Verdun in the Alsace-Lorraine region. The battle became the bloodiest and deadliest in the Army’s history. This battle analysis will examine the Meuse-Argonne offensive.
The Second Battle of Ypres took place from April 22nd to May 25th 1915 and is distinguishable for Canadians as being the first battle in which Canadians troops fought in during the First World War. The battle marked the first Canadian victory and has become popularly known as the first site of mass use of chlorine gas on the Western Front. But the battle does not have to exist solely in the confines of the First World War. The battle and its effects impacted not only the immediate outcome of the war but rather spurred a shift in war tactics and Canadian enthusiasm to its troops. Essentially, the Second Battle of Ypres was vital to the First World War because of its maintained the strategic placement for the Western allies, but it is also important in a wider context through its ability to set a precedent for future battles with modern chemical warfare, and through the effect it had on the home front to boost Canadian support overseas. To begin, I will first summarize the battle and the context Ypres to give an overall understanding of the situation leading into the battle. In suit, I will examine the strategic advantage Ypres had with respect to its ability to protect the ports of northern Europe and its establishment of a buffer zone between Great Britain and Germany. Secondly, I will examine the battle as a pivotal moment for the future of modern warfare as the Germans breeched international code with their use of chlorine gas. Thirdly, I will demonstrate how the
This was to be a joint operation between British, French and American forces. Though it was not the actual boundaries, the Meuse River and the Argonne Forrest restricted much of the U.S. 1st Army’s maneuverability between them. This area was comprised of a very dense and thick vegetation with few roads for heavy equipment and supplies to flow forth once the offensive began; therefore this was to be used to the Allied Powers advantage. The Germans would be attacked all along the front from British, French, and American forces simultaneously.
In one of the largest battle ever fought by the United States Army, with just over 600,000 Soldiers involved, it was very difficult to place any location or unit ahead of another in order of importance. The reality is that two crucial stands on the front line are what doomed the German attacks to complete
But as the British and Hessian forces would soon find out, “these harassing tactics were difficult to endure, but having to live in poor accommodations in a cold, damp foreign land” made in virtually impossible to remain disciplined to fight within their ranks, as loss of men and loss of morale declined drastically because of harsh weather conditions . The British may indeed have had the advantage when it came to numbers of soldiers, discipline in training, well-educated and experienced officers and soldiers, and many supplemental soldiers, such as the Hessian forces compared to the American army, but they failed to calculate in other factors for which they failed to recognize. Their demise and downfall in the war was not calculating in their strategic plans that they were in a foreign land, far away from their homeland, away from easily accessible supplies, resources, and replacement soldiers. Without these necessities in a well-designed, the British forces destined themselves to fail at winning the
The post D-Day Allied assault that swept through France was halted by Hitler’s unexpected counter-attack through the Ardennes, resulting in a confrontation named the Battle of the Bulge.
In “The Face of Battle,” John Keegan analyzed the experiences of the individuals involved in the battles of the Somme and Waterloo; he thoroughly examined the advancements of industrialization in warfare and battle strategy between 1815 and 1916. The industrialization of modern warfare during the battle of the Somme, while progressive, was very much still in its experimental stages. While the inventions during this time period were later evolved into much more useful products, it seems as though the organized warfare in Waterloo was much more effective; the soldier’s mediocre training for the Somme was obvious in the chaotic events that occurred. While each battle was disastrous in their own ways, industrialization certainly improved means of warfare and the experience that the soldiers had.
The development of the allied military strategy in World War II (WWII) presented challenges for the U.S. and Great Britain as they worked together to defeat the Axis powers. First, this paper will review the environment at the time of WWII when Admiral Stark penned the “Plan Dog” memorandum and MAJ Wedemeyer’s War Defense Team put together the “Victory Plan”. Next, it will look at the advantages and disadvantages of coalition operations with supporting examples. Then, a review of two major meetings between U.S. and Great Britain will identify what strategic decisions were made and the effects they have on the war. Finally, this paper will explore the foundations of strategy (Clausewitz and Sun Tzu) by which the allied forces used and
In this essay I will explain why I think The Battle of Britain was the
Leading into the Fall of 1914, tactics on both sides of the line involved the rapid mobilization, maneuver and envelopment of the opposing side.10 Pre-1914 doctrine took little into account the effects of emerging new technology and their impact on both defensive and offensive operations. This disconnect between doctrine and technology contributed to the failure of early offensive operations in the Fall of 1914 and resulted in staggering casualties.11 Both sides developed doctrine that took into effect the unique terrain and technology that had been developed prior and during World War I. However by the end of the war, a combination of flexibility, decentralized control, and counterattack at every echelon made the German defensive system the most effective.12 This “elastic defense” had three unique characteristics; dedicated counter-attack force at all levels, decentralized command and control, fluid defensive belts and integrated artillery support at the Division level. Under this new doctrine, Corps headquarters had the role sustaining subordinate units, but not directing their actions during battle.13 This defense-in-depth and the lessons learned during the Verdun battles of 1918 were so successful that British forces adopted many of the German tactics with a special emphasis on their counterattack capability.10 Utilizing the new doctrine, by August 1918, Germany had made substantial gains, however had
This mission command analysis evaluates the battle of Team Desobry at the town of Noville, Belgium. These events took place 18-19 December 1944, and later impacted the battle fought at Bastogne during World War II. It is the goal of this review to discuss and analyze three mission command principles displayed during this battle: Create shared understanding, exercise disciplined initiative, and the acceptance of prudent risk. One of the main characters that took part in this story was the 20th Armored Infantry Battalion, 10th Armored Division. The commanding officer of this element was Major William R. Desobry. During the events of World War II, the German forces were trying to gain control of the Ardennes to cut off the allies’ supply lines in order to isolate British forces from the American troops. A pivotal task for German forces to attain this goal was to gain access and take control of the Belgian town of Bastogne. However, an important strategic stepping stone to get there was Noville, which is just seven kilometers northeast of Bastogne. Two main reasons made Noville such a critical location for the Germans: First, it had a junction of roads that were important for displacement of German forces to the West. Second, it provided an alternative road to access Bastogne from the north.1
The Battle of Britain in 1940 In the summer of 1940, the German Luftwaffe attempted to win air superiority over southern Britain and the English Channel by destroying the Royal Air Force and the British aircraft industry. This attempt came to be known as the Battle of Britain, and victory over the RAF was seen by the Germans as absolutely essential if they were eventually to mount an invasion of the British Isles. The Germans had overrun Belgium, the Netherlands and northern France in May 1940, using the Blitzkrieg ('Lightning War') technique that relied, among other things, on close coordination between ground troops and the air force.