"The Gallant Hours"

I've got another WWII movie I watched recently that I literally stumbled on.  It is from 1960 called "The Gallant Hours" staring James Cagney.  It is about Flt. Adm. William Halsey.  As much as it is called for to use Halsey's nickname "Bull" for this review, I will refrain since I heard Halsey said he hated that name.

"The Gallant Hours" is about Halsey assuming command in SOUWESPAC and his conduct during the battle of Guadalcanal from 8 October - 1 December 1942.  It is quite a narrative, though inaccurate at times.  Cagney also plays a much more subdued Halsey.  For instance, at the beginning of the film, Cagney gets notice he will take command and simply passes the message to his staff.  In reality, Halsey was heard to have said the famous quote "Jesus Christ and General Jackson!  This is the hottest potato they ever handed me."  Additionally, near the end of the film, Cagney orchestrates the "assassination" of Japanese Admiral Irosoku Yamamoto, when the actual event took place nearly six months after the movie was set (April 1943).  It also has a few dryer moments, such as Cagney playing out the famous November 11, 1942 Naval Battle of Guadalcanal in his head that could have been done without, but hey, I didn't make the film.

The movie, however, does have its good points. There is no actual combat on screen.  It is more a story of Halsey's command from a rear area, and the strategic planning Halsey and his staff undertook to make a successful Guadalcanal campaign.  Cagney knew when to act boldly and when to hold his hand.  I think it also shows the singularity of command:  everyone could give advice, but only Halsey could make the final call.  It is a lonely place to be in command, especially the higher level of command.  Even Cagney said of Halsey's famous "Attack!  Repeat!  Attack!" order:  "It is easy to order an attack, especially when you aren't the one doing the attacking."  Indeed, that is never more true in warfare.  It also showed Halsey surrounded by his staff and having the right people for the job.  Additionally, Halsey also trusted the people with their boots on the ground.  In my mind, this is more like Halsey's WWII counterpart, Adm. Raymond Spruance, whom I admire, but I'm sure Halsey had his moments as well.

For all its inaccuracies, I still highly recommend this film.  Personally, I'd love to see a new Midway movie and also a film about the life of Spruance.  That would be phenomenal.

Memorial Day Origins

Note:  This was written on my wife's PC around Memorial Day and of course it is now posted much later.  I still hope you all enjoy.

 

On this Memorial Day weekend, I feel led to share a story of local lore that I hope you all will enjoy.  During the American Civil War, one of the multitudes of actions taking place occurred on June 9^th, 1864 just south of Petersburg, VA.  While most of the regular Confederate troops in Petersburg were facing east against advancing Union infantry, a column of Union cavalry approached Petersburg from the south along the Jerusalem Plank Road (modern US 301 or Crater Road).  The only troops available to stop this advance were literally personally armed citizens.  Only around 200 citizens were poised to stop or stall over 1,300 Union cavalry.  These citizens had the advantage of strong field fortifications as well as a single obsolete artillery piece while the Union cavalry had none.  These 200 citizens sustained losses, but gained valuable time to allow Confederate cavalry to drive the Union cavalry out of Petersburg.  This battle gained the title of “The Battle of Old Men and Young Boys” since they were the ones who fought the fight.

During the next few weeks while the armies pulled back from fighting, the local populace lionized their fallen citizens at nearby Blandford Cemetery.  Several funerals were held at the local churches with the burials taking place at the cemetery.  Less than ten days later, the troops returned and put Petersburg under the crosshairs of war for the next nine months.

When the armies left, they left behind their dead.  While the Union army had the Quartermaster Corps to remove the dead and established Military Cemeteries, the Confederates had no system to inter their dead.  So the ladies of Petersburg set out to collect all the remains of the fallen southern soldiers.  They kicked off their efforts on June 9^th, 1866, one year after the Battle of Old Men and Young Boys.  One of the men who attended the ceremony was Maj. Gen. John A. Logan, a Union general.  He observed the ceremony, called Remembrance Day and decided that the Union veterans deserved a ceremony of their own.  Logan was also in charge of the Grand Army of the Republic (G.A.R.) and the largest veterans group in the U.S.  He lobbied and got the Memorial Day holiday observed on the last Monday in May.

By the way, the ladies got the funding going in 1870 or so to reinter the Confederate dead.  They believed that they would find 5,000 remains and the project would take a year.  25,000 remains and fifteen years later, the process was completed.  So the next phase was to restore Blandford Church as a monument to the Confederate dead.  They did so with the help of Louis Comfort Tiffany’s famous glass manufacturing company to create stained glass for all the windows of the church.  Every state that provided Confederate troops to the war effort was invited to sponsor a window.  The only one that did not was Kentucky, only because they were focusing on more local monuments.  The church stands to this day as only one of four buildings with all Tiffany stained glass windows in them.  This lovely church has personal significance to me because it was where my lovely bride and I were wed.  We couldn’t find a more beautiful or historic location to have our wedding.

A Stonewall Jackson "What if"

I’m sorry for lack of posts recently, but when the Internet connection at home doesn’t work and now you have to transpose to the library’s computer, fun times indeed.  At an hour at a time, I don’t want to be constrained by time.

This blog has been on my mind since early May and I’ve been pondering it for a while.  Back in early May (the 10^th I believe), someone asked on Facebook the question whether Jackson’s death would have changed the Civil War.  The answer choices was yes; no, but it certainly didn’t help; and no.  Most of the answers were yes or no with the caveat.  At the time I posted, I was the only person who said no.  This got me thinking of all points of view on this.

There were a few other folks who posted on both, so I do have a place to start.  The yes folks went with the standard “Gettysburg” answer, and this does deserve a little respect and insight.  If Jackson were alive, it is indeed possible.  Lee would not have reorganized his army and with Jackson in command, things may or may not have been different at Gettysburg.  There is precedence that Jackson may have engaged the Federals on the first day of Gettysburg (assuming events continued as followed).  Heck, there may not have even been a battle at Gettysburg if Jackson were alive.  But assuming the events continued and it was Jackson in command the first day instead of Hill and Ewell, I do believe it would have made a difference.  Jackson would not have allowed his corps to be spread out (ex. 2^nd Manassas) and probably could have overwhelmed Buford’s and Reynolds’ troops.  He could have also taken Cemetery Hill, unlike Ewell, mainly due to his inspirational leadership and his understanding of Lee’s “suggestive” orders.  Even more believe that Jackson would have prevented Pickett’s Charge.  While this is a bit thin, again, this all depends on events occurring as we know them.  Jackson may have “advised” Lee to not invade the North, but simply threaten Washington as he did the previous summer after Manassas.    

Why I ended up saying No is very simple.  I think Lee wrecked his army in 1862 by his desperate campaign around Richmond in the Seven Days Battles.  The situation was only made worse by the remaining 1862 campaigns and 1863.  Looking at casualties, Lee’s army sustained 20,000+ casualties during the Seven Days, 10,000+ for the 2^nd Manassas Campaign, 12,000+ for Antietam Campaign, 5,000+ for Fredericksburg and 12,000+ for Chancellorsville.  Those are some massive casualty rates.  What makes it worse is the casualty rates among officers.  Lee could ill afford to many casualties and you have to examine how many of these battles were offensive in nature for the Confederates:

Seven Days Battles (necessity in order to save Richmond, but truly excessive casualties)

2nd Manassas Campaign (again, offensive in nature, but still could have been avoided by defensive fight)

Antietam (not offensive in tactical nature, but strategic offensive)

Chancellorsville (truly aggresive and losses showed it)

Lee had one mission during the Civil War and it was the same as his ancestor (by marriage) from the Revolution...not lose.  He didn't have to score the knockout blow, he didn't have to conquer the North, he just had to outlast the Northern populace (like the colonies did to England).  But what made this notion change during the 80 odd years?  One man...Napoleon Bonaparte.  Napoleon scored decisive victories time and time again, but it ended up costing him, such as Lee.  The Grande Armee of 1805 was not the same force by 1812 or even 1809 because of Napoleon's excessively aggressive tactics.  Napoleon conscripted "allies" in order to sustain his army for so long; Lee could not.  What Lee had in terms of population was it.  Additionally, and to me this is most important, Napoleon still lost.  It may have taken the Allied coalitions nearly twenty years, but ultimately they triumphed and forced Napoleon into exile.  Didn't Lee think about this as he studied Napoleon's command and battles?

If you want further proof, take a look at my attached link.  Great empirical study of Lee and Grant's command styles.

Silver Bayonet: The operation that lost America Vietnam

I'd like to apologize for the lack of posts lately.  I didn't think it was that long, but I will also confess I've had a bit of History burnout lately.  I've also been binging on history movies in watching some good history movies to critique them.  Good stuff though...

One of my movies I wanted to watch "We Were Soldiers" I haven't gotten around to yet (namely because I don't own it and was waiting to borrow it).  So instead, I decided to reread the book "We Were Soldiers Once...and Young" by Lt. Gen. Harold "Hal" Moore and Joseph Galloway.  Excellent read and top notch combat narrative if I say so myself.

It is my opinion that the United States lost the conflict in Vietnam on November 17, 1965 and here's why I say that.  Examining Silver Bayonet (the operation into the Ia Drang Valley) in mid November 1965 will shed some light on this assessment.

Most people (who haven't read the book) don't realize there were actually two separate engagements as part of Silver Bayonet:  battles for LZ X-Ray and Albany.  One was an NVA slaughter while one was an American massacre.  We Americans only hear about the US victory.  But why were we so resoundly defeated at LZ Albany?  Because we won at LZ X-Ray.  How did we win at X-Ray?  Two main reasons.  Training and firepower.

Lt. Col. Hal Moore's 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) was THE army test battalion for the airmobility concept.  Moore, Sgt. Maj. Basil Plumbley and Maj. Bruce Crandol (pilot) perfected how to work together as a team.  This consisted of the grunts on the ground to the pilots in the air to the Air Force forward air controller (FAC) Capt. Charlie Hastings providing air support to Captains Donald Davis and Bob Barker's artillery support, the operation was ironed out long before ever setting foot on X-Ray.  Between the wall of steel from LZ Falcon's arty, USN and USAF close support aircraft, it was difficult for NVA troops to break through US lines.  Yes indeed there were moments when the issue was in doubt, but Moore's training and reliance on his commanders and his gentle balancing allowed crises to pass.  Because of this, the Vietnamese commander Lt. Col. Nguyen Huu An realized that if he could get his forces close enough, the US couldn't use their artillery and air support, the Vietnamese could use their overwhelming numbers to butcher American troops.  Huu An even ordered his men to "grab the Americans by the belt" to show how close to get.

It worked the next day at LZ Albany.  With Moore's men airlifted out after Huu An pulled back, 1st Cavalry Division sent in two battalions, one was 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry under Lt. Col. Bob McDade.  McDade was a former staff officer, who commanded a mismashed battalion of troops with little airmobility training.  Essentially, they were the opposite of Moore's battalion in terms of training.  As they marched to a new LZ, Albany, they were ambushed in column and split apart.  On top of that, McDade hesitated to call down artillery and air support for fear (rightly so) of hitting his own men.  US arty and bombs did almost as much damage as the NVA.

The airmobilty concept was sound, but it could be defeated.  It required a HUGE support system that when it worked (X-Ray) could protect a heavily outnumbered US force from being overrun.  When that support system failed (Albany), it showed just how devastating that could be.

US Military History in Popular Culture

So another idea from my friend Dave is to tackle the fun topic of accuracy of American Military themed movies.  At first, I was taken aback.  Lately, movies have become much more attentive to accuracy, but some...well, we're not gonna go there.  May have to revisit some really baaaaaad history movies (Pearl Harbor...::vomits slightly in my mouth::), but we'll see.  So far, I've got a few in mind, going to be watching "Tora, Tora, Tora" again as well as "Midway," "Gods and Generals," and others if I can.  I look forward to watching some great and not so great films once again and critiquing them on their accuracy.

If you have any ideas for films, please feel free to comment.

Here's what I've got so far:

Midway
Tora, Tora, Tora
Gettysburg
Gods and Generals
John Adams (not fully a military film, but Adams does become a pirate!)
Band of Brothers
The Pacific
We Were Soldiers
The Patriot
Saving Private Ryan
Windtalkers
Jarhead
The Longest Day
Battle of the Bulge
A Bridge to Far
Black Hawk Down
The New World
The Great Escape
Great Raid
Flyboys
Glory
Thin Red Line
The Alamo (Not really American, but still a neat movie)
Sergeant York
The Green Berets
In Harm's Way
Sands of Iwo Jima
The Horse Soldiers
The Dirty Dozen
Pearl Harbor


I'm sure there are more, but this is a pretty comprehensive list.

Washington: The Great Military Genius?

I will admit, I've been on a World War II tear personally (I recently watched "The Pacific" and am reading accounts of two of the Marines profiled in that series about their experiences in that firestorm), but I didn't want this to be a purely WWII blog.  So I'm shifting gears and asking for input on America's first true military hero:  George Washington.

What made Washington so great?  Let's explore his experiences in war.  As a young twentysomething, he started the French and Indian War and accompanied Braddock on his infamous march of destiny into the Pennsylvania wilderness.  Unlike many of the contemporary British officers, he tasted defeat often early in his career and I believe this helped to forge the officer he would become.  To often, success surprisingly leads to an inability to be a great officer.  So to learn via failure is a great indicator of future success.  He also learned how failure can be a good thing.  If you look at Washington's record on the battlefield, he has really only two complete successes on the open battlefield:  Trenton and Princeton.  Monmouth can be considered a tactical and strategic victory, but he sustained higher losses than the British so that's a push in my mind.  Yorktown, while an important victory, was a siege, not an open field fight.  Look how many times Washington lost:  Brooklyn Heights, Kip's Bay, Brandywine Creek, Germantown.  He really doesn't have a good battlefield record, but realized something later generals (I'm singling out Napoleon and Lee here...trust me, I'm doing a post on Lee later about this) should have realized.  From a strategic perspective instead of fighting to win, Washington often fought not to lose.  How is that different?  Washington realized he would never be able to win America's independence outright...he didn't have the troops or resources.  But he could outlast the British government in England to the point where he could make the war to costly in blood and treasury for them to continue.  Ultimately, this would happen.  Yorktown led not to the end of the war because of the surrender of a British field army, rather, it ended due to the collapse of the wartime government (Americans call it an administration) at that time.  The new government simply sued for peace to end the fighting.

Another thing I think Washington learned was to care for his troops.  This is seen several times throughout the conflict.  First is the cleaning up of the camps in 1775.  He separated ill soldiers, tried to get them better rations and equipment.  While this was not always possible, his troops recognized this.  He appealed to them to continue the war after their victory at Trenton when many of them were due to go home at the end of the week.  Many people point to Saratoga as the turning point of the revolution.  If you ask me, there wouldn't be a Saratoga without a Trenton and a week later, Princeton.  These twin victories sustained the Revolution through its darkest hour.  Upon being forced out of Philadelphia and his failure to recapture the city, Washington set up the army at Valley Forge.  Furloughs were given to officers to go home for part of the winter and many did to escape the difficult conditions.  It would have been very easy for Washington to go home to Mount Vernon, where he had not seen in over three years.  But he stayed with his men, fought with Congress for clothing, pay, and food.  He improved sanitation and medical conditions as best he could.

Washington also recognized good subordinates, a must for any commander.  Granted, he made a huge collapse of faith in Benedict Arnold, but otherwise he chose solid second tier commanders such as Greene, Harry Lee, Wayne and Knox.  He also knew how to us the personnel sent to him by Congress.  Most were former European officers who exaggerated their own opinion of themselves, but a few stood out above the rest. Officers like Steuben (Inspector General), Kościuszko (engineer), and in highest regard, the Marquis de La Fayette.  These officers served Washington with distinction. 

Another area that I believe made Washington a good general was his pre-war experience in charge of Mount Vernon.  He had to run the plantation efficiently and effectively in order for it to succeed financially.  It helped with logistics and planning when it comes to operating an army.  Supply sometimes is harder to achieve than the actual combat tactics, so directing Mount Vernon's veritable army of slaves certainly helped make Washington a better army commander.

All these things came together in Washington to help him succeed where I believe other top ranked commanders in the Continental Army would not have.

Doing Britain's Dirty Work

I've been on a bit of a WWII tear, so please bear with me, I really plan for this to be an American Military History blog, but been inspired by a good friend of mine...thanks Dave.

A while back, I recently looked into the European Theater of Operations and made a startling realization about the British Army:  they let the "colonials" do all the dirty work.  Let's look shall we?

Canada -  Their troops got some pretty raw deals.  First, Dieppe.  I mean, the British select the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division for this raid on a port city.  They take serious losses...granted the Allied did learn a lot that would save Allied lives at Normandy two years later, but still, I think the Canucks got the short end of the stick.  Next, the 1st Canadian Army was assigned the far left flank of the Allied advance, although they were not on the left flank of the landing at Normandy (Juno, the middle British sector beach versus Sword, the leftmost beach).  It was their job to clear the Channel ports of German resistance (Le Havre, Dieppe, Boulogne, Calais, and Dunkirk).  For their big finale, the clearing of the Scheldt Estuary was left to the Canadians in fighting on Walchren Island.


New Zealand - The 2nd New Zealand Division was assigned to Europe and fought in Greece and Crete.  After being evacuated to Egypt, the division participated in the fight with Italy and Germany in the desert.  They played a major supporting role in El Alamein and ultimately worked to expel the Axis from the North African shore.  They were refitted during Sicily, but were sent to Italy and was involved in one of the most vicious assaults of the war at Monte Cassino.  They finally went on to help penetrate the Gothic Line in Italy.

Australia - They took some serious beatings in World War II.  They served in Greece, Crete and Egypt along with surrendering to the Japanese at Singapore.  One of the most difficult fights for the Aussies was the defense of Tobruk, the port in Libya in North Africa.  The Aussies were surrounded for nearly a year before being relieved, constantly harassed by air and on land, only getting supplied by the sea.  In 1941 it was the Australians who broke Rommel's back at El Alamein through ferocious fighting.

India - These troops made up the bulk of the 14th Army found in Burma.  They fought in the jungle and kept the Japanese out of India especially at the vicious jungle fights at Imphal and Kohima.  Their forces also helped liberate Burma through the unbearable jungles.

Sure makes me wonder what was Britain's motivation...expendable colonials?  Necessary Allies?  We may never know.  Just something to think about...