Is this true?

[Zippy Morocco]

I read that a German officer was an observer in JEB Stuart's Invinceables. At that time cannon were permanently emplaced for a battle. Stuart pulled his with horses to where he thought most effective. He used them with great efect.
When the officer returned to Germany he wrote a book about Stuart's tactics. General Hasso von Manteuffel read the book and designed the blitxkrieg from Stuart's use of mobile cannon

 

[thomas aagaard]

Interesting sir, which nation is doing the 'mythmaking'? The author of the paper is a Lt Col of the German Army.

good point, so it would be more correct that he falls for American mythmaking... about how the civil war was both the first modern and first total war.

He uses James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom as his main sources for the war in general.
A book that would not pass a Danish 9th grad history exam. Since it fails at the most basic historical rule. Give sources for your claims and especially your quotes.
Like "get those shoes" about why the csa did what they did on July 1st 1863... with no source... inventing a quote I guess he got from the movie. (the move on the 30th of June was about "supplies, especially shoes". The 1st was a recon in force... to pick a fight.)

Then he makes this claim:
"The Union was nearly economically self-sufficient and oriented to the development of commerce and industry."

A typical claim that is simply not true. Sure the north was more industrialized then the south.
But both had agriculturally based economies... and he clearly don't understand just how many firearms the north imported from Europe

And so on.
Now since it is from 2000, it is sort of understandable that he give us the common popular understanding of the civil war of the time... but that simply makes it sort of obsolete.



And now that I looked at it again I can only wonder about how this text even passed the exam...
Only explanation I can think of is that the thesis committee chair know nothing about Prussian / European military history of the period.

From a very quick look I noticed a number of factual wrong claims.

Pickets charge was on the 4th of july 1863... according to him.
Sure it is most lily a typo, but it still don't look good.

The length of the 1864 war against Denmark he claim was 2 month...
When it was 3 month of active fighting, then about 2 month of peace talks, that failed.
Then about 2 weeks of more fighting before more peace talks.

He also claim that the Dreyse was not introduced until 1866.
When it was officially introduced in 1841, but not issued until after 1848... and even if production was slow it was issued to all infantry by 1861.

So a factual wrong claim that undermine every claim he makes about the modernity of civil war firepower.

He in effect make the claim that the civil war saw more modern weapons, when that is simply not true compared to what was in use in 1864... and especially not compared to 1870... (most of the published works he use in German was published post 1870)

And he claim that because of this the Germans failed to learn a important lesson about modern firepower.
This is the typical American claim that the European powers should have learned some lessons from the civil war and thereby avoided the horror's of trench warfare in 1914-1918.

When in fact the 1870-71 war had way more modern small arms and artillery...

Also the real change btw was when artillery became able to fire much faster indirectly... a chance that happened after both wars.
(And the russian-japanese war, and the Balkan wars proved that frontal assault could still work... even if they where costly)

 

[thomas aagaard]

Blitzkrieg was a new idea to replace the traditional Schlieffen Plan (1914 - infantry, cavalry, artillery) with fast-moving tanks supported by accompanying infantry and air support in place of artillery.

By 1939 the Luftwaffe was focused on the operational level. So hitting supply routs, troops concentrations, HQs, railroads and similar.
Even the Stuka was not able to reliably hit something like a bunker, much less a moving tank. They did in fact not have any real procedure for close air support when the war started.

Spoiler: If that topic got interest I will suggest this video

 

[thomas aagaard]

"Fast Heinz" Guderian is the name you all are looking for.

Was he part of the process? yes,
Did he invent it? no... he was just better at the post war publicity.

Again, the Germans did not have a doctrine called blitzkrieg.

Spoiler: again if one got a interest in how the Germans won in may 1940, I will suggest this series from the "world war 2" youtube channel.

 

[Old Soldier]

By 1939 the Luftwaffe was focused on the operational level. So hitting supply routs, troops concentrations, HQs, railroads and similar.
Even the Stuka was not able to reliably hit something like a bunker, much less a moving tank. They did in fact not have any real procedure for close air support when the war started.

Spoiler: If that topic got interest I will suggest this video

True, but what was the original plan, the theory?

 

[Old Soldier]

And he claim that because of this the Germans failed to learn a important lesson about modern firepower.
This is the typical American claim that the European powers should have learned some lessons from the civil war and thereby avoided the horror's of trench warfare in 1914-1918.

The reason WW1 developed the way it did was simple, defence was engineered, attack was not. The German front line from 1915 was being engineered as the Battle of the Marne (1914) was being fought, followed by a massive retreat to those defense works. They could not be flanked since that line went from neutral border (North Sea/ Netherlands) to neutral border (Switzerland). They were thinking ahead. Unfortunately for the Allies, their artillery ensured that the same engineering could not be used on immediately opposing Allied lines. Their first line of defence was based on the machinegun firing from bunkers over open ground. Attack was on foot across open ground. Their artillery commanded not just the battlefield ('open ground') but a large proportion of the area behind that open ground. So any preparation or retreat could be seriously battered. Nothing like that was seen in the Civil War which was primarily a war of manoever. Cavalry was pretty useless in WW1 after the Marne given the ground and situation. That was the lesson learned by the Germans - give them little room to manoever.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

good point, so it would be more correct that he falls for American mythmaking…And now that I looked at it again I can only wonder about how this text even passed the exam...
Only explanation I can think of is that the thesis committee chair know nothing about Prussian / European military history of the period.

As someone who has firsthand experience in American postgraduate education, I would put a lot of money on this being the case.

I was in a midsize history program at a research university. My MA topic covered the cultural aspects of the first three German regiments in Ohio. My committee consisted of a 19th century americanist who still teaches about how the civil war was the first modern war and how destructive the introduction of the rifled musket was, an early 20th century Germanist whose focus was religion, and a Western military historian whose focus is post-World War Two.

They all admitted that my topic was so far afield from their knowledge base that they wouldn't be able to provide expertise on the subject. But as long as I employ the historian's strategies we had learned I would be fine.

Problem is, that system is based on trust. I could have literally written anything, made up quotes, edited lyrics to songs to better fit my narrative. No one would have been the wiser. But unfortunately, others are not so studious or honest. Another student in my cohort wrote about an equally obscure topic, and their committee was equally uneducated about it. But this student wrote their paper entirely with AI, and were awarded an MA anyway, because the professors did not have the expertise to identify it.

Of the five students in my cohort, only one had a professor on their committee with any degree of expertise on the topic the student chose.

American universities are so tied to the dollar, and have been for so long, that I really don't put a whole lot of stock in MA or PHD papers on their face anymore. It's very sad. It's possible that these dissertations are spot on, or completely bunk. No way to know without looking up and confirming all the sources.

Your take certainly seems reasonable though based on what you've said in your previous posts.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

He uses James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom as his main sources for the war in general.
A book that would not pass a Danish 9th grad history exam.

Danish high school is apparently much tougher than American high school. American university for that matter, where McPherson was assigned reading for my Civil War & Reconstruction class.

 

[BillO]

NO. US Army tanks were basically used for infantry support as the foot artillery used to be. 'Heavy' cavalry had all but vanished from European armies by this time. The US Army was starting that in 1860.

Blitzkrieg was a new idea to replace the traditional Schlieffen Plan (1914 - infantry, cavalry, artillery) with fast-moving tanks supported by accompanying infantry and air support in place of artillery. The 'old' infantry and artillery followed up to occupy land or to defeat any heavily defended areas which were avoided and bypassed by the more mobile Panzers. Blitzkrieg cannot be easily compared to older warfare tactics and strategies.

The Brits used slow, heavily armored 'Infantry Tanks' to support infantry (Matilda, Churchill) and 'cruiser tanks' - fast and more lightly armored to replace all cavalry (Crusader, Cromwell), developing new tactics and vehicles as they went on ending in the 'medium tank' concept. (Can support infantry directly as well as take on enemy armor and defended positions)

Good morning, I have read this and can find nothing in it to complain about. Congratulations, well done. I sometimes, in my attempts to be brief and not end up writing a treatise in the replies, leave too much out and I think that is what happened here. I was thinking about the German tactic of pushing their tanks with close support to break into the opposing rear lines and wreck havoc. I didn't explain myself very well and I apologize.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Danish high school is apparently much tougher than American high school. American university for that matter, where McPherson was assigned reading for my Civil War & Reconstruction class.

No I don't believe it is harder or that Danish students are better at say, STEM then Americans.

But Iam pretty sure the Danish educational system from 1st gad to university is just much more focused on teaching methodology and critical thinking.

The point of that exam (in 9th grade, so last year of primary school) actually has less to do with history, since you can pretty much pick what ever topic you like... and more to do with that.

So the central requirement to pass is that you can present the events you picked in a understandable manner (in writing and then verbally in a presentation) and back up your claims with sources.
Using popular history and secondary sources in general is just fine... But random websites are obviously problematic unless you can defend why it is trustworthy.

But as mentioned, if there is one thing you can't do, it is to quote a person, without giving a source.
(like McPherson do when he claim that Gettysburg started over shoes on the 1st of July)

And it is part of the general focus in all classes to make sure we have a population that is well versed in this... not only in regard to history, but politics, the news in general, commercials and when you get a mail with a financial offer that sounds too good to be true...
Pretty important skills in todays world. (just like when I was in school in the 1990ties)


I wrote about the civil war and It have been years since I re-read it, but Iam pretty sure I claimed that Gettysburg did start over shoes, that the federal cavalry had repeaters, that Lee should just have followed Longstreet plans and that the civil war was the first modern war... All things I strongly disagree with today (or know are simply wrong in the case of the repeaters)

 

[Old Soldier]

Good morning, I have read this and can find nothing in it to complain about. Congratulations, well done. I sometimes, in my attempts to be brief and not end up writing a treatise in the replies, leave too much out and I think that is what happened here. I was thinking about the German tactic of pushing their tanks with close support to break into the opposing rear lines and wreck havoc. I didn't explain myself very well and I apologize.

This is not a place for theses because you always find someone who has a different approach to events. My study is small arms and tactics, not strategy and detail of supply. My specialism is the supply of arms from England. We ALL make the mistake sometimes because our historical knowledge comes from different sources and view points and, as our friend @thomas aagaard suggests, different 'myths' or understandings. THAT is what makes this site ... fun. A different way of thinking.

 

[Trooper "D"]

GERMAN OBSERVATIONS AND EVALUATIONS OF THE U.S. CIVIL WAR: A STUDY IN LESSONS NOT LEARNED
KAY BRINKMANN, LTC, GERMAN ARMY
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College
MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE
Fort Leavenworth Kansas
2000
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student author and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to this study should include the foregoing statement.)

ABSTRACT
Helmuth von Moltke's alleged statement the U.S. Civil War was an affair in which two armed mobs chased each other around the country and from which no lessons could be learned underlines a grave misjudgment of this war in contemporary Germany. Today, however, the American Civil War is recognized as the first modern war. It produced a number of lessons across the strategic operational and tactical levels that shaped the face of war. But the German observers failed to draw significant conclusions at the time. A wide variety of reasons inhibited a thorough and unbiased analysis. This study aims to analyze the German observations and to arrive at the causes that led to the underestimation and disregard of the lessons from the Civil War. The thesis provides a sketch of the Civil War and the situation of contemporary Germany. It then examines the German observers and their evaluations. Thereafter, the author reflects selected essential lessons of the war against the contemporary German military evolution. In a final step the conclusions of these sections will merge into an analysis of the causes, which prevented the German army from arriving at the lessons of the U.S. Civil War.

https://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/api/collection/p4013coll2/id/481/download

HTHs,
USS ALASKA

You know that the Crimean War had much of the modern "firsts" first don't you?

 

[Trooper "D"]

good point, so it would be more correct that he falls for American mythmaking... about how the civil war was both the first modern and first total war.

He uses James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom as his main sources for the war in general.
A book that would not pass a Danish 9th grad history exam. Since it fails at the most basic historical rule. Give sources for your claims and especially your quotes.
Like "get those shoes" about why the csa did what they did on July 1st 1863... with no source... inventing a quote I guess he got from the movie. (the move on the 30th of June was about "supplies, especially shoes". The 1st was a recon in force... to pick a fight.)

Then he makes this claim:
"The Union was nearly economically self-sufficient and oriented to the development of commerce and industry."

A typical claim that is simply not true. Sure the north was more industrialized then the south.
But both had agriculturally based economies... and he clearly don't understand just how many firearms the north imported from Europe

And so on.
Now since it is from 2000, it is sort of understandable that he give us the common popular understanding of the civil war of the time... but that simply makes it sort of obsolete.



And now that I looked at it again I can only wonder about how this text even passed the exam...
Only explanation I can think of is that the thesis committee chair know nothing about Prussian / European military history of the period.

From a very quick look I noticed a number of factual wrong claims.

Pickets charge was on the 4th of july 1863... according to him.
Sure it is most lily a typo, but it still don't look good.

The length of the 1864 war against Denmark he claim was 2 month...
When it was 3 month of active fighting, then about 2 month of peace talks, that failed.
Then about 2 weeks of more fighting before more peace talks.

He also claim that the Dreyse was not introduced until 1866.
When it was officially introduced in 1841, but not issued until after 1848... and even if production was slow it was issued to all infantry by 1861.

So a factual wrong claim that undermine every claim he makes about the modernity of civil war firepower.

He in effect make the claim that the civil war saw more modern weapons, when that is simply not true compared to what was in use in 1864... and especially not compared to 1870... (most of the published works he use in German was published post 1870)

And he claim that because of this the Germans failed to learn a important lesson about modern firepower.
This is the typical American claim that the European powers should have learned some lessons from the civil war and thereby avoided the horror's of trench warfare in 1914-1918.

When in fact the 1870-71 war had way more modern small arms and artillery...

Also the real change btw was when artillery became able to fire much faster indirectly... a chance that happened after both wars.
(And the russian-japanese war, and the Balkan wars proved that frontal assault could still work... even if they where costly)

The horrors of trench warfare have been around for centuries. Maybe the fact that photography captured much of the carnage of the trenches in the ACW makes people assume trenches and earthen forts and Chavoux De Fries and mining/countermining and artillery barrages were somehow new to the world from the US/CSA War of Secession: 1861-1865. The other things is our US school system had a habit of Amerocentricism from the Cold War years and declined steadily since. High schoolers are graduating without the ability to write cursively. Hand writing. How do they provide a signature for the love of Pete?!
Anyway, I agree with your post.
Cheers!

 

[Old Soldier]

Trenches were always part of siege warfare. The surrounding troops had to have some shelter from projectiles, be they arrows, stones, ball, bullet or greek fire from bows, crossbows, guns or catapults. The aim was to defeat the enemies fortifications - walls, mounds or forts. WW1 was exactly the same but on a less imposing scale. Walls were no longer any protection so they were not built. Even sapping and mining had it's equivalent in the ancient warfare plan - a good sap could colapse walls and if that did not worm a mine would work - but not the same astoday - no explosives. You 'undermined' the walls and propped the 'roof' with timber to protect your miners. Then you set a good fire and beat a retreat. As the fire weakened the props, they collapsed, bringing the wall down with them. The Greeks and Romans used this method.

There was very little that was 'new' in the Civil War because anything that was new was poorly used, mainly due to lack of experience by commanders and lack of training by soldiers. Marksmanship was not ingrained as the change from musket to rifle was not paricularly evident, as it had been in Europe, mainly because of the fact that the changeover happened during the war and there was little change in tactics and the need to get men into the field as soon as possible. The same could apply to artillery. Counter-battery fire had always been high in priority. Artillery could only HELP to win battles - battles were won mainly by infantry, sometimes by cavalry. Breech-loading small arms had little effect because they were not in widespread use and often not of sufficient power to cause many casualties. Maritime raiding vessels were nothing new. John Paul Jones was good at it, as was Sir Francis Drake, amongst many others. The US Navy was not noted for fleet battles at this time