The Battle Of The War

Since the introduction of gunpowder into Europe, it has gone on to dominate warfare into the twentieth century. With the development of the first European guns in the fourteenth century, armies were given use of a weapon which was to radically alter most of the ways of making war which had been established during the Middle Ages, and changes began to be seen within only a few years. It is, however, questionable whether the nature of these early changes constituted a revolution in the methods of war, and even more so whether guns had by 1500 made a great deal of impact on the character of war as it had existed in 1300. In assessing whether a revolution had taken place (or at least whether one was in the process of happening) by 1500, it is

The Allied Forces underestimated the strength of the Turkish troops, and made many poor decisions such as the landing locations of the main fronts or the impracticality of the day one goals. Additionally, the maps distributed were outdated and not informative and this resulted in many soldiers getting lost and added to the confusion of the landing. The Campaign would have been more effective if the Allies had more precisely planned the Campaign, and taken into consideration the strength of the enemy and other aspects such as the terrain.

“Criticism is dangerous, because it wounds a person’s precious pride, hurts his sense of importance, and arouses resentment.” (Carnegie, 5) It was because of the discouragement the regiment gave themselves. As the battle became intense, soldiers began to retreat, another form of alarm. All the soldiers began to flee because of fear. Fear causes cowardice, causing the force to lose

Another source of problems in the Battle of Malvern Hill stemmed from poor evaluation of the enemy forces. Lee underestimated the effectiveness of Union artillery on the heights, morale of the enemy army, and misinformed of the nature of the enemy commander for this battle. These factors, combined with a misreading of the terrain, resulted in the costly tactical defeat at Malvern Hill.

Imagine being on a boat headed to Normandy, France with 160,000 other American, British and Canadian forces. There are planes flying overhead and there’s a tank on your boat and all the other boats have tanks. Then you hear your platoon leader saying “Men, we’re on our way to a heavily fortified beach head to take control of the beachhead. Securing the beachhead will help us stop Hitler’s plan to conquer the world for himself.” When they were at the beach they had to keep their heads low until the door opens and let the tank get through first so they could take cover behind it. “And men, good luck out there.”

Hood started out by having Brown and Cleburne to attack Wagner’s line of 3000 men. Wagner’s men were guarded by fieldworks put up before the Confederates had arrived, but since they were made in haste, they quickly collapsed. Wagner’s line let out a single volley of rifle fire before turning around and retreating to the main line. The Confederates were on the heels of the fleeing Federals, so the defending Federals couldn’t fire in fear of hitting their own. This inability to shoot caused a weak spot in the center of the Union line, so Brown, Cleburne, and French focused their troops on that spot. Within minutes, the Confederates had breached the line forty yards in, and Union soldiers quickly started retreating. It was looking to be a

Field Artillery played a significant role in many battles during the Civil War. The Battle of Malvern Hill is one such instance. Located in Henrico County VA, Malvern Hill sits South East of Richmond just north of the James River. This battle is part of The Peninsula Campaign (March-September 1862) and more specifically the Seven Days Battle. The Seven Days Battle was a series of six battles starting on June 25, 1862 at The Battle of Oak Grove and ending at Malvern Hill on July 1, 1862. During the battle, artillery in both armies had a drastic effect on the outcome whether good or bad. In this paper, we will discuss the initial disposition of troops as well as the challenges faced by each army, the actions taken once hostilities initiated and the outcome of the battle. In conclusion, we will discuss the lessons learned from this battle as it pertains to the Field Artillery as well as the relevance of the lessons learned to the modern day battlefield.

Moreover, though their Calvary was great it was foolish to send them off against archers though the men wound not be completely harmed by the arrows horses would be put into a panic and their own men would be trampled by their horses. The French had set themselves up for failure as the chaos in battle must have put “pressure of numbers and desperation [which evenly] caused the French to spill from their columns” resulting an unorganized and disastrous attack against the English.

On 15 January, Porter continued to be in position to provide their most massive bombardment yet in preparation for the attack. At noon, 1600 sailors and 400 marines executed the ground assault along the beach about a mile and a half north of the fort. By 1500 the marines’ new position was now unable to effectively provide cover for the ensuing assault and failed to keep the Confederate riflemen off the fort’s parapet. As 1500 passed, the sailors quickly became restless for the army’s attack signal. Not waiting for visual confirmation of the army’s attack as directed, 1600 sailors ran across the open beach, and the naval attack very quickly became a rout. The sailors with only their pistols and cutlasses were no match for the Confederate riflemen, canister, and grape. After only 20 minutes the assault was repulsed, with the men retreating in droves, leaving over three hundred dead or wounded sailors and marines. Many of the wounded were left to drown in the rising tide. This was not the outcome Admiral Porter’s had envisioned.

Due to the weakness of the leadership I would put it fairly low on the list of factors which contributed to the eventual allied victory. The allied battlefield tactics employed in the Crimean war were, surprisingly effective and appropriate, given the weakness of the leadership. The British infantrymen advanced in two deep lines, thus maximising the firepower of the new Enfield rifle which they were armed with. These tactics worked very well against the Russian infantry who had not changed there battlefield tactics for many years, they were still relying on the force of numbers in a dense, Napoleonic, column style attack to overwhelm their opponents.

Unfortunately, because of the weather and terrain conditions, many of the rounds were considered to have been duds (Wilson 1992). With the weather in the area being so terrible, when the round impacted the ground, instead of exploding as it did during the train up and preparation of the bombardment, the round would either bury itself in the mud or just churn up the ground it impacted. The training in the lead up to this battle and the preparations that were taken were ineffective. The reason for this was that the weather conditions that the allied force had trained for were not the same as the ones that the battle was conducted in. The rain was not factored into the training and preparation and due to this the dud rounds were blamed for the lack of effects on target of the British

Indians come from, Custer was as surprised as McCoy. McCoy’s unit was surrounded by NVA regulars before they knew it, and they where pissed. Nowhere to run or hide they prepared for battle, perhaps their last battle, but you could say that about every battle.

This contributed to the failure of the Schlieffen, as it created unnecessary loses to German platoons early on in the war. This could resulted in Germany not having the man-power to capture Paris as quickly as they had

The Grass Fight was a small battle during the Texas Revolution, fought between the Mexican Army and the Texan Army. The battle took place on November 26, 1835, just south of San Antonio de Bexar in the Mexican region of Texas. The Texas Revolution had officially

The order to charge cannons with just swords is foolish by itself, but the fact that no one spoke up or challenged it was also foolish because if someone had brought the fault to attention and persuaded the leader to come up with a better plan they would have survived and won the battle.