- Table View
- List View
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed as, and remains, a defensive alliance. It is axiomatic therefore, that in the event of a war in Europe, NATO forces would be initially on the defensive. It is also likely that the Warsaw Pact (WP) forces would use all the considerable means at their disposal to achieve their war aims, including air power, and in the past 50 years or so, air power has had a considerable, some would even say a decisive, role to play in the conduct of war. From the foregoing, it can be seen that NATO air defences would be a vital pillar in the overall defence of Western Europe and that should they fail, or be overcome, then the achievement of NATO war aims would be made very much more difficult. In this context, it would seem worthwhile to examine one of the very few air defence campaigns of the past that succeeded and to see what lessons can be learnt from it that have relevance for today.Arguably, the most notable example of a successful air defence campaign was the Battle of Britain, which took place in the summer and autumn of 1940. Many books articles, and reminiscences have been published about the struggle and this study does not intend to give a detailed blow-by-blow account but rather to analyse the campaign and highlight those aspects which seem of particular importance to the outcome of the battle. It may be that some of these illuminate the eternal verities of warfare and are therefore as important today as they ever were.
The German planning process for the 1941 invasion of Soviet Russia is analyzed through the presentation of the major plans developed from July 1940 until June 1941. The final plan is then critiqued within the context of the applicable Principles of War. The planning process was characterized by significant disagreements between Hitler, the German High Command and the Army High Command. The major points of contention relate to the selection of primary objectives and force deployment patterns. A set of conclusions is presented which argues that the planning process was faulty due to a number of assumptions which were generally held by the officers who were involved in the process.
Lt Col John J. Zentner's The Art of Wing Leadership and Aircrew Morale in Combat addresses the role that the air force wing commander plays in affecting the level of aircrew morale during combat. More specifically, Colonel Zentner's study seeks to identify and define those unique characteristics associated with leading airmen that sustain aircrew morale in the face of significant losses.Colonel Zentner defines aircrew morale as the enthusiasm and persistence with which an aviator flies combat missions. He then offers three historical case studies to establish a framework within which aircrew morale can be assessed. The first case study is of Maj Adolf Galland and Jagdgeschwader 26 during the Battle of Britain. The second case study considers Lt Col Joseph Laughlin and the 362d Fighter Group during the invasion of France in the summer of 1944. The third case study examines Col James R. McCarthy and the 43d Strategic Wing during Operation Linebacker II. Drawing heavily on the results of questionnaires and personal interviews, each case study is focused on the importance that aircrews ascribed to three general areas: individual needs, group cohesion, and unit esprit de corps.Colonel Zentner concludes that aircrew control over development of combat tactics was the single most important element affecting morale. This finding supports one of the fundamental truths about the employment of airpower, centralized control and decentralized execution that has become embedded in the airman's culture. In each of the three cases studied by the author, morale generally improved when the wing commander either displayed a personal flair for tactical innovation or allowed his subordinates to become innovative. Conversely, morale declined when higher headquarters placed burdensome and unsound restrictions on aircrew tactics.
In recent years the army has adopted rigorous programs which evaluate the competence and leadership abilities of its combat leaders. For the first time, senior leaders are being formally evaluated as they command their units in the simulated combat environment provided by the Battle Combat Training Program (BCTP). Preparation for BCTP will require introspection and thought as the commander develops his concept of the operation and establishes the vision to guide his organization. This paper can assist the commander in this effort by challenging his thought processes and by provoking him to find answers to the problems of command. It describes the Battle of Alam Halfa which was fought in North Africa in 1942. It is appropriate because its major participant, General Bernard Montgomery, had a uniquely "BCTP-type" mission. He was expected to assume command, imprint his methods and procedures on his army, and fight a major battle within a two-week period. The study includes an overview of the following: the situation in North Africa during the summer of 1942; the steps Montgomery took to prepare his force for battle; and the fighting itself. It concludes with an analysis of the battle using the AirLand Battle imperatives.
The Second Front: Grand Strategy And Civil-Military Relations Of Western Allies And The USSR, 1938-1945by Captain Denys Schur
The debate about grand strategy in the Second World War has scarcely ended even in the 21st Century. The present study examines the classical issue of the grand strategy in Europe and the anti-Hitler coalition as concerns the US-UK-Soviet exchange about the Second Front. The great phenomenon of the Second World War was the creation of an unprecedented military alliance between the western powers and the Soviet Union. Due to mutual antagonism, inter-Allied cooperation during the Second World War was very complicated and at times extremely tense. Perhaps the most acute disagreement in the relationship between the Allies was the "Second Front" controversy. Despite desperate Soviet demands to open the Second Front as soon as possible, the Western Allies launched a massive cross-channel operation in the northwestern Europe only in June 1944. This thesis analyses the reasons why it took the western powers so long to organize and execute such an operation and its implications for the post-war order. The detailed analysis of the grand strategy during the Second World War is one of the ways to comprehend the violent 20th Century amid the carnage of the 21st Century and its own problems of grand strategy.
The planning and execution of Operation Weserübung was the first major joint operation of its kind in history utilizing naval, ground, air, and airborne forces. Its conduct proves to be one of the most noteworthy applications of operational art and the principles of war during all of World War II. The principles of surprise and security were the most critical in the German success. The German planning taking into account and exploiting the operational factors of time, space and force are another key element in why this operation is worthy of further analysis and study. Additionally, the operational lessons learned that could be applied from the belligerents' experiences further illustrate several important lessons that can apply today. From the Germans we saw the importance of planning around apparent disadvantages, command and control as it relates to operational objectives and commanders intent, and the importance of initiative in military operations. From the British, the pitfalls of mirror imaging and a lack of decisiveness can prove fatal in military operations. Lastly, from the Norwegian side we see the importance of national defense for maintaining a nations' own self-determination against outside belligerents.
All opening gambits in WWII were initiated by surprise (Denmark and Norway, France and the Low Countries, Russia and Pearl Harbor). The early war period provides an excellent laboratory for the study of the art of surprise and deception and offers many lessons for today's military planner. Surprise and, to a lesser degree, deception have long been recognized as elements of combat power. This study examines surprise and deception from the perspective of major military operations and campaigns with specific focus on the North Africa Campaign between 1940 and 1942. This was the first active theater of war for the Allies, and surprise and deception were frequently used by both sides. This study examines selected key battles of the North African Campaign, focusing on the achievement of surprise through deception. The scope of this effort includes the doctrinal thinking and development that occurred during the inter-war period and presents theories which show a relationship between that preparation and successes in the Campaign. The author suggests that the lessons learned from this critical period in history are relevant for contemporary military thinking.
The appeasement of Nazi Germany by the western democracies during the 1930s and the subsequent outbreak of World War II have been a major referent experience for U.S. foreign policymakers since 1945. From Harry Truman's response to the outbreak of the Korean War to George W. Bush's decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein, American presidents have repeatedly affirmed the "lesson" of Munich and invoked it to justify actual or threatened uses of force. However, the conclusion that the democracies could easily have stopped Hitler before he plunged the world into war and holocaust, but lacked the will to do so, does not survive serious scrutiny. Appeasement proved to be a horribly misguided policy against Hitler, but this conclusion is clear only in hindsight - i.e., through the lens of subsequent events.Dr. Jeffrey Record takes a fresh look at appeasement within the context of the political and military environments in which British and French leaders operated during the 1930s. He examines the nature of appeasement, the factors underlying Anglo-French policies toward Hitler from 1933 to 1939, and the reasons for the failure of those policies. He finds that Anglo-French security choices were neither simple nor obvious, that hindsight has distorted judgments on those choices, that Hitler remains without equal as a state threat, and that invocations of the Munich analogy should always be closely examined.
On 21 June 1941 Churchill relieved General Archibald Wavell from command in the Middle East. This action followed a series of set-backs in the theatre during which Churchill had direct dealings with Wavell. Given the significant internal conflict within the British High Command during World War I, this action by Churchill was seen as symptomatic of yet another poor political/military relationship.A close examination of the British national command structure shows that while there was certainly inter-personal conflict between Churchill and his Chiefs of Staff, they still maintained an effective relationship. Churchill's strong personality, and penchant for becoming involved in military matters, may have reduced the potential effectiveness of this relationship but it still remained effective none-the-less.The relationship between Wavell and the British High Command was similarly effective, despite personal conflict between him and Churchill. The High Command provided Wavell with broad strategic guidance, the resources to implement it, and allowed him a relatively free hand to do so. It was only when he strayed from strategic guidance that he came into conflict with the High Command.Following a brilliant opening series of campaigns in North and East Africa, Wavell lost his broad strategic vision. He allowed part of his limited forces to be dissipated to Greece at a critical time, while under-estimating the implications of German intervention in North Africa. He then failed to appreciate the strategic implications of Axis threats to both Iraq and to Syria, and finally he allowed himself to be pressured into a premature counter offensive in the Western Desert. It is argued that it was these errors which caused Wavell's dismissal, and not a failing in the political/military interface.
Crossing a river against a defending enemy force is a difficult and complex task for any army. History has shown that preparation is necessary to avoid disasters during this type of operation. In 2003, the Third Infantry Division crossed the Euphrates River because it was prepared for this task and possessed the necessary equipment. Since then, no other divisions or corps has executed river crossing operations.While the United States Army focused on counterinsurgency operations during the last twelve years, it underwent significant changes to adapt to meet the adversities on the battlefield. It transformed its war-fighting organizations, trained its corps and divisions with computer simulations, and relegated field training to brigade and below units. In addition, its current doctrine now refers to river crossings as the deliberate wet gap crossing. Because of these changes, many questions arose as to the present corps and divisions' preparedness to do large-scale operations, to include its ability to plan, prepare, and execute the deliberate wet gap crossing. If called today, could these organizations conduct this complex operation? Examining river crossings in Europe during the Second World War was appropriate for insight into how the previous generation of corps and divisions prepared and executed such a complex task. After analyzing how these units were able to cross the numerous waterways in Europe, the present Army should consider reassessing its doctrine, training, and organization and equipment to prepare its units for future deliberate wet gap crossings.
In armored force circles the inter-war years are sometimes referred to as the "lean years." The abolishment of the separate Tank Corps in 1920, the Depression Era budget constraints and a lack of national strategic vision have caused a mistaken belief that little attention was paid to the development of armored force structure and doctrine in this critical time period. In fact the evidence points to the contrary. Rather than development by a kick start in 1940, the evidence illustrates an evolution of armored doctrine and force structure. The process started immediately upon return from World War I by a core of tank visionaries and advocates. The fruits of their labors were realized in 1940 when war demanded the rapid fielding of armored divisions. The fact that fourteen divisions were fielded in four years, when none had existed previously, is testimony to their efforts. This paper is told from their perspective. In the face of significant institutional obstacles these tank advocates responded to a higher calling. The inter-war period has parallels for us today. Once again we have declared victory, are downsizing our force structure and slashing our defense budget. Will we retain and encourage within our ranks visionaries and advocates to prepare our military for future conflict as we enter a new "lean years" era?
Urban terrain presents significant tactical challenges to attacking armies, limiting weapons effects and mobility while disrupting formations and command and control. The human terrain in cities creates a tactical dilemma, placing large civilian populations in close proximity to the fighting. The issue of restraint in urban warfare has been described as a modern phenomenon, with urban warfare in World War II characterized as unlimited. In April 1945, however, the Canadian Army limited its firepower while attacking the city of Groningen, Netherlands to limit damage and civilian casualties. This thesis examines the reasons for these restraints and the methods used to balance those restraints with accomplishment of the mission. The Canadians limited their use of force for political reasons based on intent from the British. They accomplished their mission due to intelligence gained from the friendly population, local fire superiority gained by tanks and flamethrowers, and the ineffectiveness of the poorly organized and equipped German defense. This thesis provides a historical case study of the reasons for restraint in urban warfare and the tactical challenges associated with such limitations.
The military strategy utilized by two great World War Two U.S. Navy leaders will provide an insight into the evolution of the strategy process. This paper will examine two Pacific Theater leaders involved in the early employment of a relatively new naval weapon system, the aircraft carrier. Carrier air power was virtually untested at the beginning of the second world war and eventually developed into a most formidable battle tool. The Battle of Coral Sea provided a basis for carrier tactics employed in later engagements such as the Battle of Midway. The military strategy of Admiral Raymond A. Spruance will be examined with respect to the Battle of Midway. Midway was the first major decisive naval battle where the outcome was decided on the basis of aircraft carrier operations alone. The battle was fought against a numerically superior force during the period that the Japanese Navy was strongly on the offensive.Next, the military strategy of Admiral William F. Halsey as utilized during the Battle for Leyte Gulf will be reviewed with a continuing focus on carrier air power. Leyte Gulf was a complex group of four battles involving carrier air as well as land based air power, surface engagements and invasion forces. The battle was fought against a Japanese on force with relatively few remaining carrier air resources. Also, it was fought from an American offensive position, as U.S. forces pressed toward Japan through the Philippines.Finally, an analysis of the strategy used by these two great warriors will be made within the context of the ACSC strategy process model in an effort to increase the understanding of the process of strategy and its derivation. A brief look at selected principles of war is also included in an effort to correlate abstract thought strategy and the conduct of war with actual warfighting experiences.
As the United States enters into the 21st century, it will face new and different challenges that will be more complex than those encountered in the past. Evolutions in doctrine, training, and equipment modernization, influenced by informational and technological advances, will enhance U.S. ability to accomplish national objectives. Valuable lessons learned can be realized by studying past operations that failed to understand the threat and capitalize on friendly capabilities. The Battle of Savo Island in August 1942 is one such event. This short but violent naval engagement, a daring Japanese night surface attack conducted at the beginning of the Guadalcanal campaign on 9 August 1942, was a significant tactical victory for the Imperial Japanese Fleet and has been called the worst blue water defeat in the U.S. Navy's history. This paper will address the shortcomings at Savo Island, particularly in terms of intelligence, command and control, training, force protection, and leadership and discuss these concepts as they apply to current and future operations in the 21st century.
In the late 1930's, an aggressive and innovative rearmament program in Nazi Germany gave rise to the tactics of vertical envelopment. Pioneering the use of gliders as troop carriers, parachutists, and the air landing of reinforcements to exploit tactical success, the German Wehrmacht used the new technique of airborne warfare with startling success as part of the Blitzkrieg campaign against the Low Countries and France in 1940.-When the tactical doctrine used to seize bridges, strong points and road junctions in Fall Gelb was transferred to the seizure of an entire island that was heavily defended in 1941, however, the German airborne effectively committed suicide.-In ten days in May 1941, half the airborne forces in the entire German army were killed or wounded on Crete. Hitler wrongly ascribed the disaster to a playing out of the surprise factor, and banned further parachute operations until 1943.-The right conclusions were arrived at by the commander of the German airborne himself, General Kurt Student, in post-battle analysis. His own insistence on faulty tactics was devastating...The German innovation of vertical envelopment in the 1930's was as revolutionary to modern military tactics as the simultaneous development of the integrated combined arms offensive known today as the Blitzkrieg. In putting Billy Mitchell's ideas into practice, Luftwaffe General Student demonstrated vision, innovative thinking and practical military skill. Poor intelligence and reliance on his "spreading oil drops" tactics for the deployment of his paratroopers, the Fallschirmtruppe, on Crete, however, led directly to their removal as a significant weapon from the German arsenal in World War II.
In the history of modern warfare, Weserübung Nord, the German invasion of Norway in 1940, occupies a distinguished station as the first campaign "jointly" planned and executed by ground, sea, and air forces. This paper examines the origins, concept, and planning of Weserübung Nord, as well as the execution of the landings. Brief attention is given to the defense of the landings against Allied counterstrokes and to issues associated with unified planning and direction. The origins of the campaign are found in the German naval experience in the First World War, interwar naval strategy debates, and the persona of Grand Admiral Erich Raeder, who was determined to secure a decisive role for the German Navy in the Second World War. Raeder capitalized on the fortuitous opportunities the Russo-Finnish War and the Norwegian traitor Vidkun Quisling presented to win Hitler over to his naval plans. Raeder and the Navy heavily influenced the concept development and planning of the campaign in concert with the High Command of the (German) Armed Forces, which also had a vested organizational interest in a military solution of the Norwegian issue. In executing Weserübung Nord, the German Armed Forces encountered major problems only at Oslo and Narvik. However, the operational-level success of the campaign tends to draw attention away from fundamental problems regarding unified planning and direction which emerged during the preparation and execution of the campaign."When the first [German] mountain troops in parachutes were dropped behind Narvik, it occurred that one fell directly in the water. The General [Dietl] came up to him as a petty officer was pulling him out of the water.""So soldier, how do you end up here?""With the help of the three branches of the Armed Forces, Herr General," shouted the man quick-wittedly, "the Army sent me up here, the Air Force transported me, and the Navy pulled me out of the water."-General Dietl: das Leben eines Soldaten
How Did The Advancement Of Weapons Technology Prior To World War One: Influence The Rapid Evolution Of German Infantry Tactics And Command And Control From 1914 To 1918?by Major Daniel T. Lathrop
The fact that there has been significant evolution in infantry tactics during the past century is taken for granted. Also, it is well documented that the predominant advancements in tactics took place between 1914 and 1918, during World War One, rooted within the German army. However, the cause and effect that initiated this rapid evolution is somewhat unclear. Was this advancement solely due to the inspiration of one or more German commanders of the time? Was this advancement in tactics a Revolution in Military Affairs? Or, was this merely an evolution in tactics resulting from advancements in fire power due to technology improvements in infantry weapons such as the machine gun, infantry rifle, field artillery, etc.Prior to World War I the German army had studied and toyed with new tactics off and on. By 1914 they were still practicing traditional tactics against the Allies. The use of these tactics against the massive destructive capability of modern weapons available to both sides at the start of the war caused enormous numbers of casualties. The German army, in comparison to the Allies, was limited in numbers of soldiers and material and could not afford to continue to keep up with the high attrition rate. Necessity being the mother of invention, the Germans acted aggressively in finding a way to defeat the advanced firepower that emerged during the war. Through experimentation and training they developed the famous "Storm Troops" that momentarily broke the deadlock near the end of the war. After World War I these new tactics were taken up by other forces around the world and eventually led to German Blitzkrieg tactics of World War Two.
Since the end of the Cold War, the worldview is that the US is presently the only superpower. The expectation, within the Department of Defense and the world's other military institutions, is that this status will exist for the next twenty years or until the year 2020. Even as the world's only superpower, the U. military has adopted a formal approach to joint and coalition warfare as the methodology to fight future military conflicts. This is for two reasons. The first reason is to gain world and national political consensus and legitimacy for any operation requiring the use of US military forces. The second reason is even the military resources of the US are limited and we must conduct military operations as part of a joint coalition force in order to reach our and the coalition's political endstate.This monograph asks the question: Can tactical victories guarantee the accomplishment of the coalition's operational aim? This monograph will use the example of the Afrika Korps in North Africa to answer this question. The purpose of the monograph is to show the outcome when a more militarily capable member of a coalition dictates the conduct of military operations. This consideration is relevant to the US Army due to our superpower status and our military capabilities relative to the rest of the world's military organizations. The monograph will show that Rommel's reliance on the tactical level of war and his lack of an operational understanding of what he was attempting to accomplish lead to their defeat in North Africa. Rommel's conducted tactical operations because he was not trained for or capable of conducting operational art. Because of this, he failed to support the strategic and operational aims of the political and military leadership. He lacked the cognitive creativity and therefore, the tension to support his government. Rommel's opportunism led to many victories on the battlefield but ultimately had an adverse effect on the Axis war effort.
In terms of Clausewitz' paradoxical trinity, the German counter insurgency in the occupied territories of the Soviet Union 1941-1944, did not achieve a sense of balance. The second two legs of the trinity, the play of chance and probability and the element of subordination, were subverted by primordial violence and enmity.Clausewitz offers his paradoxical trinity as a viable framework for analyzing the inherent complexities of warfare. The three interdependent, dynamic aspects of the trinity must be balanced against each other if a successful plan for war is to prevail. Additionally, Clausewitz addresses the dynamics of insurgencies and counter insurgencies. With these two analytical frameworks, an examination of a specific campaign becomes plausible.The German efforts to thwart the partisan uprising in the occupied territories of the Eastern Front from 1941-1944 reflected the interplay of the Clausewitz triad. Primordial violence was imbued in the German people as a result of National Socialist indoctrination. The play of chance and probability reflected the largely successful active and passive measures employed by the German armed forces behind German lines in the east. The element of subordination was manifested in the pernicious Nazi policies and directives that inevitably dictated the conduct of the armed forces.As a result of Hitler's imbalanced, irrational eastern strategy and sequent war on the partisans, primordial violence, enmity, and hatred superseded the other two legs of the trinity. Hitler's unlimited political and military objectives ultimately were incompatible with the German Army's ability to pragmatically prosecute the eastern war and pacify the population that supported the partisan resistance.
The Slovak National Uprising of 1944 is ignored and/or treated as a non-event in the Western historiography of World War II. The political climate during World War II and the Cold War that followed obscured and distorted the history and understanding of this revolt. The raising of the Iron Curtain in the 1990s removed the veil of secrecy from much of Eastern Europe's wartime history, and Western historians are exploring the new resources available, but coverage of Slovakia's story and uprising remains very limited. This work aims to fill some of the void.Fully understanding the uprising requires an analysis of a number of different viewpoints in order to avoid capture by the political views of the parties involved: the Slovaks, the Germans, or the Soviets. Each group had different plans and goals: the Slovaks found themselves precariously between the Allies and Germany, the Germans fought to maintain their strategic position in central Europe while the Soviets hoped to expand their influence through eastern and central Europe. Each group naturally interpreted events differently and acted accordingly. Ultimately the Germans crushed the Slovak rebellion.Events surrounding the uprising remain cloudy to this day. The Slovaks won only short-term political gains, but their Jewish and ethnic German populations paid a heavy price. The Germans won their last significant victory in the war and maintained their presence in Slovak territory until the very end. The Soviet Union suffered significant casualties, but saw Communist influence increase in the region. Recriminations swirl around the lack of Allied support and the duplicity of Stalin. Western historians have excluded coverage of the uprising in part to avoid embarrassment. Significantly, the Slovaks remain at odds among themselves about the importance and the meaning of the uprising.
As a result of the Allied bombing campaign against Nazi submarine bases during the Second World War, the cities of Brest, Lorient, and Saint Nazaire were nearly completely destroyed. Despite thousands of bombing missions, all three submarine bunkers still stand today. This monograph examines the effectiveness of the Allied bombing campaign against German submarine bases in Brittany by analyzing the campaign through the use of a design methodology. Research is broken down into three frames: the operational approach, the operational environment and the problem frame. The first frame provides an account of the bombing missions and effects. Next, an overview of the operational environment is conducted by exploring the historical context of Brittany, German construction efforts and Allied institutional barriers. The study concludes by examining the problem frame, which entails how the Allies perceived their operational problem and developed an approach based on their understanding. Ultimately, the Allies failed to accurately identify their problem and developed an ineffective approach towards defeating the threat. Had the Allies incorporated design thinking into their planning and execution, they may have developed an effective campaign towards defeating the Nazi U-boat threat rather than solving the wrong problem.
Critical German Submarine Operations Versus Allied Convoys During March 1943: An Operational Analysisby LCDR Bruce E. Grooms
German submarine operations against allied convoys, during March 1943 is critically analyzed from an operational perspective. The theater commander's operational scheme is dissected for the purpose of identifying lessons which can be applied to the planning and execution of today's theater operations. A brief historical account of the early phases of the war and the events and decisions which preceded the critical convoy battles will be followed by an analysis of the operational scheme employed by Admiral Dönitz. German victory during the spring offensive clearly demonstrated numerous operational successes, a reasonably well conceived operational plan, and proof positive of the potential for a larger scale victory. Yet history recorded Germany's ultimate defeat in the Battle of the Atlantic. This analysis identified three significant flaws which led to the German demise; first, strategic guidance and operational means were inadequately reconciled which prevented the proper execution of the operational plan; second, operational intelligence and reconnaissance were inadequately exploited; third, Germany failed to coordinate and execute joint operations between service arms, specifically the lack of air assets in support of vital U-boat operations. Clearly one must conclude a reasonable operational plan has marginal chance for success when strategic guidance and joint coordination are incompatible with theater objective accomplishment.
The purpose of this study is to identify relationships between Nazi Macroeconomic policy and its ability to enable genocide. This study uses primary source documentation from newspapers, historical documents and published works to examine Nazi ideology as it relates to economics and macroeconomic policy. Accompanying this research is an analysis of steps the United States could have taken to stop or deter Nazi economic policy using the Mass Atrocities Prevention and Response Handbook's economic planning guidance.
The development of airpower can be traced to three key elements: thought, organization and technology. The Luftwaffe of World War II is no different. This paper will examine the Luftwaffe's thought, organization and technology as it pertains to maritime operations, or as the modern United States Air Force (USAF) calls it, Countersea Operations. These maritime operations will include direct support of the Kriegsmarine and independent Luftwaffe operations against the Allies. Luftwaffe thought will show that doctrinally the Luftwaffe was not as prepared for the maritime role its leaders thrust upon it, but flexibility and the application of the tenets of airpower provided the basis for adaptation. Also included will be an examination of the fierce rivalry between the Luftwaffe and Kreigsmarine senior leadership and how this interfered with the conduct of countersea operations. Luftwaffe organization during World War II provided a more than adequate basis for conducting the countersea campaign. The adaptability of the operational and support structure allowed the Luftwaffe to accomplish a variety of missions, even as their aircraft and weapons were proving deficient. Finally, the Luftwaffe was at the forefront of innovation in the field of aviation technology, including airframe and weapon development. Once again, interference by senior leadership and equipment teething problems combined with increasing Allied attacks cost the Luftwaffe precious time.
With the collapse of France in 1940, American (US) and British (UK) leadership became keenly aware that the continued security of their nations required the defeat of the Axis powers, particularly Germany. The Allies chose a strategy utilizing a combination of various military actions, most notably a combined bomber offensive (CBO). The CBO would be carried out through a combination of US daylight precision and UK night area bombing.The purpose of this paper is to show why the Allies chose this strategy and evaluate its success. To accomplish this task, the paper will first describe the events that brought about the conflict and the strategy. Crowl's Questions are used as a framework to analyze the factors that influence strategy development and adoption and will illustrate why Allied leaders chose this path. This is followed by a detailed description of the campaign. The principles of war (mass, objective, offensive, maneuver, surprise, security, simplicity, unity of command, and economy of force) are accepted as proven methods for employing forces in combat and are used to evaluate the CBO's effectiveness The paper closes with a summary of the findings and doctrinal implications.The paper will show the Allies adopted US daylight precision and UK night area bombing based on leadership's belief that it could most effectively reduce Germany's means of war and hasten its earliest possible defeat. The Allies successfully achieved this objective primarily through adherence to the principles of mass, objective, offensive, and maneuver.
Select your format based upon: 1) how you want to read your book, and 2) compatibility with your reading tool. To learn more about using Bookshare with your device, visit the Help Center.
Here is an overview of the specialized formats that Bookshare offers its members with links that go to the Help Center for more information.
- Bookshare Web Reader - a customized reading tool for Bookshare members offering all the features of DAISY with a single click of the "Read Now" link.
- DAISY (Digital Accessible Information System) - a digital book file format. DAISY books from Bookshare are DAISY 3.0 text files that work with just about every type of access technology that reads text. Books that contain images will have the download option of ‘DAISY Text with Images’.
- BRF (Braille Refreshable Format) - digital Braille for use with refreshable Braille devices and Braille embossers.
- MP3 (Mpeg audio layer 3) - Provides audio only with no text. These books are created with a text-to-speech engine and spoken by Kendra, a high quality synthetic voice from Ivona. Any device that supports MP3 playback is compatible.
- DAISY Audio - Similar to the Daisy 3.0 option above; however, this option uses MP3 files created with our text-to-speech engine that utilizes Ivonas Kendra voice. This format will work with Daisy Audio compatible players such as Victor Reader Stream and Read2Go.