Lessons of Military History
Barabara Tuchman's wonderful book, 'The March of Folly', defines folly as the pursuit of policy contrary to self interest. She asks a very reasonable question- why would well-intentioned, intelligent people, with access to good information, do things that are harmful to their own interests? The answers, done by historical example, include an inability to see that conditions have changed, a selective acceptance of data, fear of altering the status quo, fear of being a contrary voice in a power setting.
All these problems operate today, as they have throughout history. A little military history for a moment.
In NApoleonic times, a musket had an effective range of less than 100 yards. That is difficult for us to understand today, when even hand guns have a range triple that. There is a famous (well, famous among us military history geeks) Prussian experiment where they put a battalion (about 500 men) in combat formation and had them fire at a battalion size canvas target at various ranges. The results are stunning.
At 100 yards, there were 2% hits, at 75 yards 25% hits, at 50 yards 50% hits, at 20 yards, 80% hits. Even at 20 yards the best trained infantry in the world missed 20% of the time. The famous quote 'don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes' acquires new meaning in light of this data.
Napoleon developed the ordre mixte, a combination of line and column at battalion level which changed infantry tactics as then known, but he became distressingly fond of using plain column tactics as the quality of his infantry declined. Column assault we recognize well today- a group of infantry about 20 men wide and 50-100 men deep simply walks right up to and through the enemy line. Little in the way of firepower, but tremendous penetration ability.
Baron Jomini wrote a book in 1820 about tactics based on his nearly 20 years with Napoleon. It became a part of nearly every military college's teaching, including West Point. By the 1850s, however, muskets had become rifled, increasing their effective range to 300 yards. At 3 shots per minute, it became next to impossible for infantry in any mass to assault a line that was intact.
The generals of the American Civil War had to learn that fact the very hard way. All the catastrophic defeats of the Civil War involve efforts to assault in column a line defended by soldiers with rifled muskets. The results were predictable- 7,000 casualties in an hour at Malvern Hill in 1862, 8,000 at Pickett's Charge in 1863, 5700 at Fredericksburg, 7,000 in 30 minutes at Cold Harbor. The tighter the assaulting infantry was packed, the more they lost, completely contrary to what these generals' texts had taught them.
It took until 1916 to learn how to deal with massed firepower. Both sides of WW1 lost millions of men assaulting trenches defended by machine guns and barbed wire in massed infantry columns. The two solutions- Hutier infiltration tactics by the Germans and the tank by the British- remain the basis of infantry tactics today.
There remain calls for the democrats to pass their health care bill by reconciliation. The democrats are aware they are despised, but appear to be interpreting the cause as a lack of action. If only they can pass a bill, they will be liked again. Some make remarkably condescending remarks about how people will not remember how the bill was passed at election time, but will be reaping the benefits of the bill.
This 'analysis' has all the markings of folly to me, and reminds me of the determined effort of generals to prove what they had learned in school was still applicable on a battlefield that was fundamentally changed.
Evan Bayh complains about constant campaigning. That is the reality. The 24 hour news cycle and 200 channels aren't going anywhere. There's no purpose in complaining about it. And there's no points for cynically manipulating it. The 'summits' called with republican leaders, to be televised, are going to be dog and pony shows, designed to make one side or the other look good on TV.
Every poll shows broad dislike for the health care bill, and utter contempt for congress, with only 8% feeling that anyone deserves re-election. Democrats interpret that as dislike for inaction not their policies. Could it be that both are true? It seems to me that conditions on the ground have changed. People are not stupid, and although to watch TV is to be misinformed rather than uninformed, there is enough information out there to make people despise not simply the bill but the whole way of doing business.
A couple of days ago I said that if the democrats remain in a dichotomous structure of passing this bill versus nothing they would be crushed. The majority of those polled want a fresh start, exactly what republicans are calling for. Could it be that, instead of worrying about whether a good idea was republican or democratic, that congress might impress everyone if both sides sat down and used all the good ideas to draw up a new bill, more limited in scope and truly bi-partisan?
Our politics are stuck in a WW1 stalemate, with both sides persisting in tactics from another time. Like generals, they are going to have to learn to work differently in the new conditions, or be replaced just as those generals were.
Ted
Barabara Tuchman's wonderful book, 'The March of Folly', defines folly as the pursuit of policy contrary to self interest. She asks a very reasonable question- why would well-intentioned, intelligent people, with access to good information, do things that are harmful to their own interests? The answers, done by historical example, include an inability to see that conditions have changed, a selective acceptance of data, fear of altering the status quo, fear of being a contrary voice in a power setting.
All these problems operate today, as they have throughout history. A little military history for a moment.
In NApoleonic times, a musket had an effective range of less than 100 yards. That is difficult for us to understand today, when even hand guns have a range triple that. There is a famous (well, famous among us military history geeks) Prussian experiment where they put a battalion (about 500 men) in combat formation and had them fire at a battalion size canvas target at various ranges. The results are stunning.
At 100 yards, there were 2% hits, at 75 yards 25% hits, at 50 yards 50% hits, at 20 yards, 80% hits. Even at 20 yards the best trained infantry in the world missed 20% of the time. The famous quote 'don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes' acquires new meaning in light of this data.
Napoleon developed the ordre mixte, a combination of line and column at battalion level which changed infantry tactics as then known, but he became distressingly fond of using plain column tactics as the quality of his infantry declined. Column assault we recognize well today- a group of infantry about 20 men wide and 50-100 men deep simply walks right up to and through the enemy line. Little in the way of firepower, but tremendous penetration ability.
Baron Jomini wrote a book in 1820 about tactics based on his nearly 20 years with Napoleon. It became a part of nearly every military college's teaching, including West Point. By the 1850s, however, muskets had become rifled, increasing their effective range to 300 yards. At 3 shots per minute, it became next to impossible for infantry in any mass to assault a line that was intact.
The generals of the American Civil War had to learn that fact the very hard way. All the catastrophic defeats of the Civil War involve efforts to assault in column a line defended by soldiers with rifled muskets. The results were predictable- 7,000 casualties in an hour at Malvern Hill in 1862, 8,000 at Pickett's Charge in 1863, 5700 at Fredericksburg, 7,000 in 30 minutes at Cold Harbor. The tighter the assaulting infantry was packed, the more they lost, completely contrary to what these generals' texts had taught them.
It took until 1916 to learn how to deal with massed firepower. Both sides of WW1 lost millions of men assaulting trenches defended by machine guns and barbed wire in massed infantry columns. The two solutions- Hutier infiltration tactics by the Germans and the tank by the British- remain the basis of infantry tactics today.
There remain calls for the democrats to pass their health care bill by reconciliation. The democrats are aware they are despised, but appear to be interpreting the cause as a lack of action. If only they can pass a bill, they will be liked again. Some make remarkably condescending remarks about how people will not remember how the bill was passed at election time, but will be reaping the benefits of the bill.
This 'analysis' has all the markings of folly to me, and reminds me of the determined effort of generals to prove what they had learned in school was still applicable on a battlefield that was fundamentally changed.
Evan Bayh complains about constant campaigning. That is the reality. The 24 hour news cycle and 200 channels aren't going anywhere. There's no purpose in complaining about it. And there's no points for cynically manipulating it. The 'summits' called with republican leaders, to be televised, are going to be dog and pony shows, designed to make one side or the other look good on TV.
Every poll shows broad dislike for the health care bill, and utter contempt for congress, with only 8% feeling that anyone deserves re-election. Democrats interpret that as dislike for inaction not their policies. Could it be that both are true? It seems to me that conditions on the ground have changed. People are not stupid, and although to watch TV is to be misinformed rather than uninformed, there is enough information out there to make people despise not simply the bill but the whole way of doing business.
A couple of days ago I said that if the democrats remain in a dichotomous structure of passing this bill versus nothing they would be crushed. The majority of those polled want a fresh start, exactly what republicans are calling for. Could it be that, instead of worrying about whether a good idea was republican or democratic, that congress might impress everyone if both sides sat down and used all the good ideas to draw up a new bill, more limited in scope and truly bi-partisan?
Our politics are stuck in a WW1 stalemate, with both sides persisting in tactics from another time. Like generals, they are going to have to learn to work differently in the new conditions, or be replaced just as those generals were.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment