Surfaces and Gaps, American Tradition/German Inovation?

[ScoutPL]

Since my last topic has somehow devolved into a discussion on whether or not the allies would have dropped the A-bomb on germany it will be interesting to see where this one goes...

A couple quick points I want to make about that last post: I'm an 11A, not 19 series. I did all my scouting on foot, in other words I found the enemy, I didnt just bump into him and hope for the best (sorry Cavscout). Germany may have been fighting on three fronts but they werent spread all over the globe and their lines of communication were extemely internalized compared to the US. And last of all, anyone who thinks I'm biased towards US over other allied nations can kiss my bum! Yes I am an american but I'm not stupid, prejudiced or uneducated. And when I say "us" I mean the western powers, chiefly because I am very much a product, militarily, of the WWII experiences and lessons learned by the US Army. I have served with units which traced their lineage back to units who fought in Sicily, Anzio, Normandy and Nijmegan. I was encouraged to view myself as part of that tradition. Certainly someone out of Great Britain or other european countries with a long military tradition (all of them) can appreciate that?

Anyway back to the post:

First a definition for the uneducated. Surfaces and Gaps is a concept of attack developed by the Germans in late 1917 as an attempt to break the gridlock of the western front. Actually termed Afrigstatatik (somebody grab that ref. book and help me with the spelling, I'm moving on). Its basic premise was that an army would send forward small groups or probes. Once these probes found a dug in enemy unit (a surface) they would conduct a feint or supporting attack to pin down the defender. Other units would, of course, meet little or no resistance (a gap). The reserve units would then be poured into these gaps. Their mission would be to get into the enmy's rear and do two things. One, they would roll up the enemy's flanks to widen the gap. Two, they would drive deeper and deeper into the enemy's rear, attacking his command and control nodes and his logistical centers, thereby causing a total collapse of his frontline. Prior to WWII the germans, taking advantage of the advances in tank and aircraft technology, expanded this into blitzkrieg. Which is basically the use of armor and air power to punch a hole into the enemy's line (the penetration phase) followed by more Armor, supported by strong air power to thrust deep into the enemy's rear (the exploitation phase). Slower motorized and foot infantry units were used to secure the flanks of the penetration and to clean up pockets of resistance left by the fast moving exploitation units.

Now, I have read a number of folks comments about how the Germans were obviously superior to the US because the US adopted so many of the German tactics and doctrines. I whole heartily disagree and these are my reasons:

Surfaces and Gaps at its most basic level advocates the use of strength against weakness. The european powers fighting WWI advocated a strength against strength doctrine since before Napolean. The french steadfast, fearless column, the mighty Forlorn Hope, the Brit consternation when dealing with the Boer, the French Prussian war of the late 1800's, all of these are examples of the strength vs. strength doctrine. So its of little wonder that the Machine gun would bring it all to a screeching halt in 1914 and everyone would turn into moles.

Now we turn to the US. When do you suppose the americans first started using strength against weakness tactics and doctrine? How about the revolutionary war or even the French and Indian? When you dont have enough strength to defeat your enemy in one big "decisive battle" (which the europeans were still pursueing in 1914) you have to attack him where you do have an advantage and that is usually at his weakest points. The americans learned this from the Native Americans and had totally assimulated it into their culture by the time they entered into armed conflict with the Europeans. By 1800 the american military were expert at attacking "gaps." And this tradition continued to be reinforced throughout US history. The Indian Wars were an extremely hard school for the US army, the Civil war even harder. Battles like Chancellorsville are perfect examples of its use, and battles like Cold Harbor are perfect examples of why its the only way, and the US military learned those lessons. When the Americans first arrived in France in 1917 they urged the allies to immediately go on the offensive. But the allies, weary after 4 years of butchery wanted to wait to build up the american presence. The Germans launched their offensive using the "new" tactic in early 1918 and it was a success. Notice I didnt use the term "complete success." The germans werent aware of how successsful their attack would be and werent able to support the attack with the material and logistical train necessary. On the other hand,when a few short months later the US forces launched their assault in the Meuse-Argonne region it was a complete success. And no it wasnt a success totally due to the lack of substantial german reserves, the american army suffered 120,00 casualties in a few weeks. But it was successful because after the penetration the US army (and Marines) were able to sustain their exploitation. The French actually told them to stop attacking short of the German border. The Americans came into theatre with a doctrine already in place that supported what had, basically, taken the germans 4 years to develop.

In the interwar years there is plenty of evidence which suggest the US army was well aware of and was studying the surfaces/gaps-penetration/exploitation doctrine. Why do you think they poured so much into developing a tank that was fast and mobile? Or took such care in developing a TD program? They were already planning their own type of blitzkrieg. The political situation hampered this preperation greatly and it wasnt until the late thirties that it was really brought into fruition. The US still had a lot of lessons to learn of course. But they were by a long shot tactical lessons. The doctrine had been in place and developed for over 200 years, it was just mechanization that really brought it to the forefront.

The development of the AirLand Battle doctrine of the 80's is just another permutation of an American tradition. NOT a German innovation.

[Guest Pillar]

What about the Russians?

Fionn would be quick to jump into this thread, but since he isn't here I'll have to ask the question myself.

What did the Russians do? What did they add?

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar:

What about the Russians?

Fionn would be quick to jump into this thread, but since he isn't here I'll have to ask the question myself.

What did the Russians do? What did they add? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They added the concept of defense in depth to nullify the "Surfaces and Gaps" style attack.

While on the offensive, they developed what was later called the "Operational Maneuver Group" which is basically an exploitation force. Its sole mission was to tear up enemy rear areas after a breakthrough by other troops. It was to be fast moving with a fairly short logisitcal "tail", the idea being that they would carry most of their critical supplies with them and capture the rest (to maintain momentum). A decent example of this in WWII is Peiper's Kampfgruppe in the Ardennes.

------------------

Cats aren't clean, they're covered with cat spit.

[Henri]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutPL:

The development of the AirLand Battle doctrine of the 80's is just another permutation of an American tradition. NOT a German innovation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have posted a great description of maneuvr warfare and its history. However there are a few points of contention.

It is generally recognized (even by the Germans) that the basic ideas for modern maneuver warfare and Blitzkrieg came from the British (Fuller, for example), but it was the Germans who saw its potential and exploited it first.Most American specialists also credit the Germans for originating the ideas.

Your claim that the US Army has continually been using the concepts of "strength against weakness" runs directly contrary to writings of some of those who are considered the top experts on these questions in the US. Leonhard in his book "The Art of Maneuver" castigates the US Army for basing its airland battle doctrine on concepts contrary to the idea of "strength against weakness", as does Lind in his "Maneuver Warfare Handbook". Lind DOES give credit to the Marines for adopting the tenets of maneuver warfare, which he attributes to the fact that the Marines expect to often fight at a numerical disadvantage.

So if you are going to claim that the US military is the initiator of maneuver warfare concepts, you are going to argue with practically every writer about the subject since WW2, and if you are going to claim that it has been the doctrine of the US Army since WW2, you are going to have to argue with Leonhard and Lind as well as with other writers on the subject.

This is not to say that for example US Civil War Generals and some WW2 Generals like Patton did not use the concepts of maneuver warfare, which in their essence date back at least to Sun Tzu; but to claim that the modern concepts of maneuver warfare is an American invention flies in the face of conventional wisdom and therefore requires a lot of evidence.

Henri

[Henri]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IntelWeenie:

While on the offensive, they developed what was later called the "Operational Maneuver Group" which is basically an exploitation force. Its sole mission was to tear up enemy rear areas after a breakthrough by other troops. It was to be fast moving with a fairly short logisitcal "tail", the idea being that they would carry most of their critical supplies with them and capture the rest (to maintain momentum). A decent example of this in WWII is Peiper's Kampfgruppe in the Ardennes.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, and a Soviet example as early as Autumn 1941 is the actions of Katutov's battle group deep behind German lines, where the best-known action was the ambush and quasi-destruction of the 4th Panzer Division on the road to Moscow.

Before the war, the Soviets had developed their own theory of deep penetration under the aegis of Lobashevsky (I forgot the exact name), who was killed during the Stalin purges. In the initial stages of the war, the shortage of competent officers due to the purges made it impossible to apply these methods in a consistent manner except for a few exceptions such as Katutov's battle group, but as the Soviet military gathered experience, they began to be able to do it better and better (not to mention their observation of German methods -as Manstein once said after a bad experience, "They are learning fast!").

As early as the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942, the Soviets showed that they had mastered the tenets of maneuver warfare and of deep penetrations. Contrary to popular misconceptions, the two total forces were about equal in numbers (about 1 million on each side), and the Soviets were aided by a number of catastrophic mistakes on the part of the German High Command.

As the later Operation Mars showed, the Soviets DID on occasion over-extend themselves, but contrary to cold-war stereotypes heralded by cold war politics, the Russian Army was not a mindless juggernaut who used overwhelming human wave attacks to win the war. In the two most critical battles of the war (Stalingrad and Kursk), the forces were evenly matched in numbers. Yes, the Germans might have won if they had acted differently, but they didn't and they lost, and the Soviets won by using their forces more effectively.

Henri

[Dick Reece]

Hi Guys ,

This is excellent reading,and I thank you for the post,Scout.Henri has made some valid points regarding your assertions.I would like to point out though,Henri,that as far as individual American leaders go,our [that is,American]history of this use of maneuver goes further back than the Civil War.George Washington used this tactic throughout the Revolutionary war.If you study it in depth,you come to realize that GW was one hell of a strategist and tactician,with a phenominal patience and fortitude that helped him eventually succeed.Let's keep this thread going,it is very informative,and I'm sure there are many sides and examples as yet to be presented.

Dick

[Guest Germanboy]

And the word you are looking for is 'Angriffstaktik' attack tactics.

------------------

Andreas

[The DesertFox]

Since Dick mentioned Washington

Something to think about:

Of all the great heroes of War for Independence, no one has been more persistently ignored than General Friedrich Wilhelm Von Steuben. The majority of history books and textbooks in American classrooms devote little space to this great man. What is even more distressing is that when questioned, we find that today's students know hardly anything about this remarkable individual. But upon investigation of the cold facts surrounding the victory of independence, no other individual besides Washington showed such ability, perseverance and devotion to the great cause of liberty than Von Steuben.

It was the veteran Von Steuben who trained the army, created it's discipline, prepared it's victories, and subsequently identified himself closely with the new born republic as a public-spirited citizen.

It is safe to say that with out Von Steuben's invaluable assistance, experience and wise counsel, the history of our country might perhaps read very differently. General Von Steuben has never been given adequate credit for the tremendous service he rendered our country. A true American in every sense of the word, he should be remembered as one of the most heroic figures in American history.

Quote from: http://www.steubensociety.org/monum.html

Cheers

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[Dick Reece]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The DesertFox:

Since Dick mentioned Washington

Something to think about:

Of all the great heroes of War for Independence, no one has been more persistently ignored than General Friedrich Wilhelm Von Steuben. The majority of history books and textbooks in American classrooms devote little space to this great man. What is even more distressing is that when questioned, we find that today's students know hardly anything about this remarkable individual. But upon investigation of the cold facts surrounding the victory of independence, no other individual besides Washington showed such ability, perseverance and devotion to the great cause of liberty than Von Steuben.

It was the veteran Von Steuben who trained the army, created it's discipline, prepared it's victories, and subsequently identified himself closely with the new born republic as a public-spirited citizen.

It is safe to say that with out Von Steuben's invaluable assistance, experience and wise counsel, the history of our country might perhaps read very differently. General Von Steuben has never been given adequate credit for the tremendous service he rendered our country. A true American in every sense of the word, he should be remembered as one of the most heroic figures in American history.

Quote from: http://www.steubensociety.org/monum.html

Cheers

Helge

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Helge my friend ,

You are right of course,I had completely forgotten !!!My God,he taught them close order drill,and brought them from a state of mere roughened,starving rabble rousers to a more soldierly countenance.He was admired by them all, and I remember reading that he taught them something very unique as well, but I can't remember what it was.Yes, the contributions of Steuben and the French Marquis should always be remembered whenever discussing American History.It is proof that America is really just a melting pot of many Nations and cultures.

Dick

[Jeff Heidman]

The biggest problem with the entire "WE invented this doctrine!" argument is that it promoted the idea that some group has a superior doctrine, and there is not anything to be learned from others. This inevitably results in someone coming along and proving you different.

The reality is that the Germans stole shamelessly from the Brits, the Americans stole shamelessly from the Germans, etc., etc. The evolution of military doctrine is not a linear event, and there is no group or nation that can claim a lions share of the credit for whatever the latest and greatest perceived doctrine might be.

Jeff Heidman

[CavScout]

What do people mean by "maneuver warfare"? We hear "the Germans did this" or "the Russians did that" and the same for the Americans, Brits and so on BUT in WWII the great many battles and campaigns were more along the typical "cauldron battles" of older times, simply souround the enemy and wear him down by attrition. A smuch as people laud the Germans with the concept of "blitzkrieg", they used it but once in taking France.

I guess I ask again what do people mean when they say "maneuver warfare"?

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutPL:

A couple quick points I want to make about that last post: I'm an 11A, not 19 series. I did all my scouting on foot, in other words I found the enemy, I didnt just bump into him and hope for the best (sorry Cavscout). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have done PLENTY of foot recon!

Besides even infantry follow 19Ds!

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 10-11-2000).]

[CavScout]

Good point ScoutPL.

[ScoutPL]

Henry, henry, henry...

Where in my post did I state that the US was solely responsible for developing modern manuever warfare doctrine? My long diatribe was simply to explain why I think guys who assert that US WWII doctrine is a direct copy of german WWII doctrine are totally wrong. First of all, its real hard to copy a doctrine that you only learn anything about from expereincing it and all the other reasons I've posted. The US is the great amalgamator, the great assimulator. Can it be anything else when its made of people from all over the planet? I never make the claim you accuse me of. I simply argued that the basic tenets of maneuver warfare have always been an american military tradition, regardless of whether the scholars and doctrine writers called it that.

[Tiger]

Your logic is flawed and can be broken down by thoughtful arguments. This and your other post show a preponderance that you pick and choose concepts and ideas which support your arguments while ignoring and dismissing those which are supported by various noted authors, historians, and theorists which are generally accepted as researched fact. Some of your ideas seem questionable, such as the Americans learning tactics from the Indian wars and tying this into some pseudo-tradition that leads to Americans as the originators of Blitzkrieg. This "ongoing tradition" might hold water if all wars were fought by the same soldiers and if these traditions were never influenced by other factors:

Any army of any time period has to re-learn how to fight a war. Usage and theories from past conflicts fall into general disuse over time, and have to be re-learned & re-invented all over again, using new technologies and ideas. You can argue all the way back to when man first picked up a rock or stick and bashed another man on the head if you wish to lean on tradition.

I fail to see what the point is of claiming "we invented this tactic or that tactic" has concerning WWII. What matters is not who invented it but who used it effectively and this can be broken down endlessly by date and locations, with various influencing factors such as manpower, supply, politics, religion, ideology, military thought, etc. Most learned historians and military theorists support the claim that during WWII, Germany was the first to use Blitzkrieg; the combined usage of tanks, infantry, artillery, and air support into an intergrated combat force. The Allies picked up on this concept and it is invariably still in use today in whatever modified form it is, by more than one country. This is not surprising considering how effective it worked in WWII. The Germans gained great experience with the tactics of Blizkrieg during the Spanish Civil War. They employed it throughout WWII on various fronts until they lost the capability to do so, both tactically and strategically.

-john

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger:

The Germans gained great experience with the tactics of Blizkrieg during the Spanish Civil War. They employed it throughout WWII on various fronts until they lost the capability to do so, both tactically and strategically.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. The Germans used "Blizkrieg" once in any campaign and that was in taking France. The invasion of Russia, Poland and others were the typical "cauldron" battle, i.e. surround the enemy and destroy him. I think the notion of "Blizkrieg" is throw around way too much.

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The european powers fighting WWI advocated a strength against strength doctrine since before Napolean.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, I don't buy this for a minute. Frederick advicated strength vs weakness and applied it with good effect at Leuthen and Rossbach (didn't always work... K?lin, Kunersdorf). Napoleon advicated strength vs weakness, that was the whole point of the Bataillon Carr?... mass your strength against the enemy's weak points. The strategy of the Allies in 1813 (War of Liberation) was one of destruction in detail... catch the French when the are not concentrated and destroy the parts. The "German" wars of the mid to late 1800s were all conducted with strength vs weakness. Bizmarck delibrately goaded the French into starting a war when they had no chance of mobilizing their army before the Germans could. I think you have to go back to the War of Spanish Succession to find the Europeans advocating strength vs strength, and that was due to the fact that marching in step was not used, and that made units difficult to maneuver on the battlefield.

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The development of the AirLand Battle doctrine of the 80's is just another permutation of an American tradition. NOT a German innovation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The AirLand battle doctrine was developed by the US Marine Corps during the period between the wars. The Germans were so impressed with the effects of Marine close air support, that they developed their own doctrine from it. The rest of the US Military did not truely adopt it until after Vietnam.

[Four Stringer]

You know, I thought I had a decent grip on military history before I came in here. Well, another bubble burst.

Please, if at all possible, mention books that back up your arguments. I have a lot of reading to catch up on.

Kudos to all for keeping this discussion flame free and informative.

------------------

I used to have a life, now I have CM.

[ScoutPL]

I would like to put up a post and not have it misconstrued and twisted around into an argument I never made. But then I'm prone to wishful thinking...

Bottom line: US WWII doctrine is not a copy of German WWII doctrine. You cant read about the German blitzkrieg in the New York Times in 1940, then adopt the doctrine, apply it, implement it, teach it, and practice it by 1942. Just cant be done guys. And the US went into WWII using combined arms warfare. I KNOW no one can dispute that fact! Ever read anything about the wargames the US army conducted in the 1930's? Combined arms doctrine was there before Poland/France. Thats all I'm saying. Quite putting words in my mouth. Some of my examples may have been weak, I'll admit to that. But this isnt a thesis paper, its just random thoughts (only slightly more serious then the old Saturday Night Live skits). Dont take what I write and turn it into something its not.

[Tiger]

From your posts ScoutPL, the only person who keeps arguing that the US has copied the German tactical doctrine from WWII is you. You ask for an argument by putting forth that America was the actual originator of combined arms tactical doctrine. Some people disagree with you; When they disagree with you I think you're assuming that means they're saying the US copied. As in "if the US didn't originate it, then it's being inferred that they copied" (American Nationalism here?).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And the US went into WWII using combined arms warfare. I KNOW no one can dispute that fact!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll try and dispute this fact:

As far as America being the forerunner and first to use combined arms, I disagree. The US army, all through WWII, fought against creating a seperate tank arm and tried to keep armor tied to infantry. This was old-style thinking. This was not a tradition of combined arms innovation. The combined arms doctrine requires seperate branches of the military so you have something to combine in the first place, not hobbled and subordinant to another branch. This is not conjector, it's fact according to US military history during WWII.

You give an intresting argument but it may be tied too closely with national or personal pride. I put it to you that every army in every time period is in a constant learning process that never ends. It hinges on technological advances, politics, etc. Some get it sooner than others, some apply it better in practice than others at certain times.

-john

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 10-11-2000).]

[ScoutPL]

The last post is a perfect example of why I will probably never post to this discussion board again.

"From your posts ScoutPL, the only person who keeps arguing that the US has copied the German tactical doctrine from WWII is you."

As should be evident to anyone who bothered to look, I posted a note the other day wondering about why so many players liked playing the germans. A few folks stated that the germans were obviously superior since the americans had obviously copied their tactics from the germans in the first place. My arguments on this post were intended to refute that claim.

"You ask for an argument by putting forth that America was the actual originator of combined arms tactical doctrine."

I HAVE NEVER SAID THIS!!! ARRRRGGGHHH!!! My argument was simply that perhaps the germans werent the only ones thinking along the combined arms lines prior to 1940! I know enough about history to know better then to make such a blatant statement.

"I'll try and dispute this fact:

As far as America being the forerunner and first to use combined arms, I disagree. "

the rest of your post was a total waste of time since I'll readily and wholeheartedly agree with that statement. Sianora!

[Guest Pillar]

Scout isn't trying to say that the Americans had it "first" or thought of it all by themselves, he is trying to say the the Americans were not copying the Blitzkreigs of 1940.

Why isn't that clear to anyone?

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

ScoutPL does have some interesting observations. I'm not sure that his conclusions are correct, but the observations are more valid than I think some people have accepted. In Eisenhower's Lieutenents, Russell Weigley describes basically two historical patterns the U.S. Army used. The first pattern is the, for lack of a better term, Indian Wars pattern, where the military units are lightly armed, relatively small in number, and highly mobile. The second pattern is the (Northern)Civil War pattern, where the army consists of huge numbers of well-equipped troops who rely on numbers and brute force to accomplish victory across a broad front(which is not to say that you don't need good generals and good tactics; the North lost lots of battles in the first couple of years of the civil war to smaller confederate units).

It's easy to see the pre-war tanks such as the Stuart in the highly mobile Indiana-fighter tradition, and the army, of course, pretty much falls into the Civil War pattern.

Weigley's book, among other things, is a description of how the US decided to use the U.S. Grant-style broad front power approach to defeat Germany, and how this was, for various reasons (the logistics of getting materials overseas; the substantial difficulty of getting replacement riflemen in late '44 and '45, etc.) more difficult to accomplish than the planners beleived.

I think it's the existence of this broad-front strategy that undercuts the idea that the US had an organic blitzkrieg strategy; the US strategy in 1944 and afterwards was to apply pressure across a broad front and then try to push through an area that seems to be crumbling. In this context, the surfaces and gaps tactic is sort of "apples and oranges" because it is more a matter of tactics than of strategy -- both for the Germans in WWI (although the this new tactic made their general 1918 offensive much more potent) as well as for all sides in WWII. At the level of divisions and smaller, US units certainly looked for weaker areas to push through...but the overall American strategy was certainly not to break the German lines by a single concentrated thrust.

[CavScout]

Interesting post Andrew but I want to ask a question to this portion of your post.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

I think it's the existence of this broad-front strategy that undercuts the idea that the US had an organic blitzkrieg strategy; the US strategy in 1944 and afterwards was to apply pressure across a broad front and then try to push through an area that seems to be crumbling. In this context, the surfaces and gaps tactic is sort of "apples and oranges" because it is more a matter of tactics than of strategy -- both for the Germans in WWI (although the this new tactic made their general 1918 offensive much more potent) as well as for all sides in WWII. At the level of divisions and smaller, US units certainly looked for weaker areas to push through...but the overall American strategy was certainly not to break the German lines by a single concentrated thrust.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When you refer to "blitzkrieg strategy", what do you mean? How was the Allied "broad front" strategy different that the "broad front" the Germans embarked on in Russia?

I guess I am looking for what people mean when they say "blitzkrieg".