Major-General Sir Percy Hobart

#3
Remarkable indeed it shows that unconventional thinking is key to winning any war. AARSE does quite rightly take the pi** of those who do specialist jobs (Humour is key), we take the mick out of everyone, it is the one thing that sets us apart from the rest, it happens take it on the chin and get on with it! A trait that is good to be proud of.
 
#5
hackle said:
Completely new to me is the "British Army Officers 1939-1945" site linked to on that page, this being Hobart's entry: LINK, with much unit and formation history to be found on the same site.
Yes for me too, it is the first time I have come across that site and it looks excellent.

Saludos Amigos
Zapata
 
#6
Don't forget the Daddy of them all. Major 'Boney' Fuller and his Plan 1919.

Even Guderian acknowledges Fuller as the father of Blitzkrieg and subsequent modern armoured warfare.
 
#7
GDav said:
Don't forget the Daddy of them all. Major 'Boney' Fuller and his Plan 1919.

Even Guderian acknowledges Fuller as the father of Blitzkrieg and subsequent modern armoured warfare.
I am not at all well up on First World War history, but I have heard that there has been some new historical thinking on the First World War that disputes the "Lions led by Donkeys" evaluation and also challenges the belief that the German Armys were never effectively threatened by the Allies on the Western Front. This thinking apparently centres on the idea that the relatively small British professional Army was effectively wiped out in the early phase of the War and the new civilian conscript Army could only be used in what was effectively a War of attrition lacking the abilities of the regular troops but by 1918 the British had re-constituted a fully professional Army from the conscripts and had the strategys and tactics and professional soldiers to inflict crippleing blows on the German forces. Really as I know very little about the First World War, I can not say what is the truth of this but they are interesting arguments all the same.

Saludos Amigos
Zapata
 
#8
I have just finished watching the Channel 4 WW I documentry on DVD, based on the works of Professor Hew Strachen.
In the first episode they make the point that Germany knew they had to win a quick war for their industrial and agricultural capacity could not support a long war.
Immediately they conquered lands they started stripping then of resourses and manpower which was shipped back to the Fatherland.
It was partly this attitude that led the French in perticular to demand the vicious 'Reparations' that are often said to have led to WW II twenty years later.
john
 
#9
Zapata_rides! said:
GDav said:
Don't forget the Daddy of them all. Major 'Boney' Fuller and his Plan 1919.

Even Guderian acknowledges Fuller as the father of Blitzkrieg and subsequent modern armoured warfare.
I am not at all well up on First World War history, but I have heard that there has been some new historical thinking on the First World War that disputes the "Lions led Donkeys" evaluation and also challenges the belief that the German Armys were never effectively threatened by the Allies on the Western Front. This thinking apparently centres on the idea that the relatively small British professional Army was effectively wiped out in the early phase of the War and the new civilian conscript Army could only be used in what was effectively a War of attrition lacking the abilities of the regular troops but by 1918 the British had re-constituted a fully professional Army from the conscripts and had the strategys and tactics and professional soldiers to inflict crippleing blows on the German forces. Really as I know very little about the First World War, I can not say what is the truth of this but they are interesting arguments all the same.

Saludos Amigos
Zapata
I certainly couldn't argue with a word you've posted. That is the current media angle and it's one I've been in support of since I read enough to form a considered opinion.

You should read up on Fuller, honestly. You'd be surprised. His Plan 1919 wasn't needed for obvious reasons but it was his display of tactics in the inter-war years which inspired Guderian and others.
 
#10
"Sir Archibald Wavell dismissed Hobart into retirement in 1940, based on hostile War Office information due to his "unconventional" ideas about armoured warfare. Hobart joined the Home Guard as a corporal"

I like the fact that even as a Brigadier they would not let him straight into the Sgts' Mess.
 
#11
#12
GDav said:
Don't forget the Daddy of them all. Major 'Boney' Fuller and his Plan 1919.

You should read up on Fuller, honestly. You'd be surprised. His Plan 1919 wasn't needed for obvious reasons but it was his display of tactics in the inter-war years which inspired Guderian and others.
Thanx for pointing me in that direction GDav, much appreciated!

The following publication is re-printed in an on-line edition, gratis.

Generalship

Its Diseases and Their Cure

A Study of
The Personal Factor in Command

Major-General J.F.C. Fuller

Military Service Publishing Co.
Harrisburg, Pa.

COPYRIGHT 1936 BY
MILITARY SERVICE PUBLISHING COMPANY
HARRISBURG, PA.

Pirst Printing in the United States of America
March, 1936
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Fuller/Fuller.asp

The following publication is re-printed in an on-line edition, gratis.

The Foundations of
the Science of War
By Colonel J. F. C. Fuller, D.S.O.

Author of "Tanks in the Great War," " The Reformation of War," " Sir John Moore's System of Training," etc., etc.
The first Creature of God, in the workes of the Dayes, was the Light of the Sense ; the last was the Light of Reason. - FRANCIS BACON.

LONDON:
HUTCHINSON & CO. (Publishers), LTD.
PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.

Permission to reprint this publication was granted by Harold Ober Associates, agents for the estate of J. F. C. Fuller.

A MILITARY CLASSIC IMPRINT
U.S. ARMY COMMAND AND GENERAL STAFF COLLEGE PRESS
FORT LEAVENWORTH KANSAS

PREFACE
Major General John Frederick Charles Fuller was, and remains, the most brilliant, most stimulating, and most arrogant and aggravating military writer of the twentieth century. Fuller, an infantryman, first saw modern combat in the Boer War. During World War I, he was the GSO1 of the Tank Corps. Thereafter, he was one of the leading theorists of armored warfare in the 1920s and 1930s and wrote forty-five books on warfare, theoretical tracts, histories, and studies of generalship during an extraordinarily productive life as a molder of opinion on military affairs.

Fuller's books, like their author, could be exasperating, opinionated, and bright-all at the same time. Fuller retired as a major general but was largely unemployed after turning down command of the experimental armored force in the late 1920s over a matter that to him involved principle but to everyone else was of little consequence (having to do with ancillary administrative duties he was expected to accomplish). In the late 1930s, he became a supporter and adviser to Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists and only narrowly escaped internment when war broke out.

The Foundations of the Science of War is a compilation of material presented by Fuller when he was chief instructor, Staff College, Camberley. Dating from 1926, it is the culmination of his theoretical writings and an early attempt to fit mechanization into the fabric of European warfare. In this work, Fuller presents a comprehensive theory of war. While it does not reach the heights to which Fuller aspired, it retains the ability to stimulate and provoke thought seventy years after it first appeared.

Two excellent intellectual biographies of Fuller are available today: Anthony John Trythall, "Boney" Fuller Soldier, Strategist, and Miter 1898-1966, and Brian Holden Reid, J. F. C Fuller. Military Thinker. In addition, many of Fuller's books remain in print in commercial editions.

RICHARD M. SWAIN
Colonel, Field Artillery
Director, Combat Studies Institute
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/fuller2/fuller2.asp

Saludos Amigos
Zapata
 
#13
Fuller was a very interesting character, although his espousal of British Fascism indicates he was a little bit flawed in his (non-military) thinking.
 
#14
Zapata_rides! said:
the new civilian conscript Army
Not 100% true, the reforcements deploying to the front was roughly

1915 1st Line Territorials
1916 Kitcheners New Army
1917 2nd Line Territorials (these were recruited at the same time as the New Army but lack of instructors/equipment had delayed their training/deployment)

Conscription started in 1916 (I don't think these soldiers went to territorial units - territorials could only serve in territorial units - admin nightmare?), another problem facing the regular army was the transfer of its officers and instructors to the new army.
 
#15
Cuddles said:
Fuller was a very interesting character, although his espousal of British Fascism indicates he was a little bit flawed in his (non-military) thinking.
Cuddles the "Fascism" issue, certainly does not deserve to be brushed under the carpet and you are quite right to raise it. The only reason I did not make reference to it, is that though I had heard of Fuller and the part he played in developing armoured warfare theory, the references to Fuller's involvement with fascism in the materiel which I have read only amounted to a couple of lines about that issue, and it would be important to understand just what his involvement was and to place it, within the political, social and other factors with reference to the environment of the time before coming to a judgement on Fuller's relationship with Fascism but that said you Cuddles are quite to raise the possability that Fuller's involvement with Fascism does raise questions about his "non-military" ie political judgement.

Saludos Amigo
Zapata
 
#16
GDav said:
Don't forget the Daddy of them all. Major 'Boney' Fuller and his Plan 1919.

Even Guderian acknowledges Fuller as the father of Blitzkrieg and subsequent modern armoured warfare.
GDav, any sources on Plan 1919 for further reading? I know only of it in broadest outlines and google fails to provide anything much...
 
#17
björn said:
GDav said:
Don't forget the Daddy of them all. Major 'Boney' Fuller and his Plan 1919.

Even Guderian acknowledges Fuller as the father of Blitzkrieg and subsequent modern armoured warfare.
GDav, any sources on Plan 1919 for further reading? I know only of it in broadest outlines and google fails to provide anything much...
Allied strategic thinking crystallized in Plan 1919. Plan 1919 originated in a paper written by a junior staff officer in the British Army, J.F. C. Fuller. Fuller argued that, under the new conditions prevailing on the battlefield in late 1918, breaching a defense line or routing and encircling an enemy formation was no longer enough. Weakening the enemy by destroying his manpower and materiel—by attrition— was demonstrably too costly and uncertain. Instead, Fuller proposed, the Allies should try what would later be called a "decapitation" strategy in the Persian Gulf, a war directed at enemy command, control, and communications. With its head cut off, the body of the German army would flounder about spasmodically and ineffectually. Panic would set in, resistance would crumble, and the German war effort would rapidly collapse.
http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v2/v2n1/1919.html

http://www.chandelle-jah.com/

I think I saw something that said that the following book is related to Plan 1919

The last of the gentlemen's wars (Faber and Faber, London, 1937)
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/lhcma/summary/fu20-001.shtml

Bye the way if you are a gamer björn, you might like this

The game includes an optional "Storm Elsewhere" scenario where the Germans seek victory on other fronts and sit on the defensive in the West. In this scenario there are no stormtroopers and the burden of attack in on the allies. In addition Command No. 19 included a Plan 1919 variant which assumes the Germans held out through the winter and the Allies go for a final victory in 1919 using J.F.C. Fuller's plan. The variant adds new counters for the expanded tank corps for all nations and a bunch of additional US divisions that would have been available.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/30990

http://www.fanen.com/cosims/p--1_-1...d.html?feuid=7158cbbc94bdcbdfa06a294b1ca1c85a

http://www.gamefest.com/news/feature_detail/2655_0_3_0_C/

Saludos Amigos
Zapata
 
#18
björn said:
GDav said:
Don't forget the Daddy of them all. Major 'Boney' Fuller and his Plan 1919.

Even Guderian acknowledges Fuller as the father of Blitzkrieg and subsequent modern armoured warfare.
GDav, any sources on Plan 1919 for further reading? I know only of it in broadest outlines and google fails to provide anything much...
A number here Bjorn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_1919

http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/Bassford/Chapter15.htm

http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v2/v2n1/1919.html

These writings also bring another thinker into the equation. Basil Liddel-Hart.
 
#19
Zapata_rides! said:
I am not at all well up on First World War history, but I have heard that there has been some new historical thinking on the First World War that disputes the "Lions led by Donkeys" evaluation and also challenges the belief that the German Armys were never effectively threatened by the Allies on the Western Front.
"New" historical thinking goes back - at least - to 1989. Remember, firstly, that the British Army never came close to mutiny (unlike the French, Russians and ultimately the Germans) which speaks of very effective leadership at all levels, and secondly, that in 1918, after being driven back almost to Paris by the Boche between March and June, then responded over the 100 days to Nov 11, with an advance all the way to the German border. Lloyd-George's gutless acceptance of an Armistice instead of a proper victory pressed the pause button, and set the stage for Round 2 20 years later.

Want to know more? Try these for starters:

http://www.westernfront.co.uk/thegreatwar/articles/research/haig.htm
http://www.westernfront.co.uk/thegreatwar/articles/research/britishtacticssomme.htm

Books:
Battle Tactics of the Western Front: British Army's Art of Attack, 1916-18, by Paddy Griffith

Forgotten Victory: The First World War: Myths and Realities, by Gary Sheffield

Mud Blood and Poppycock by Maj Gordon Corrigan
 
#20
Stonker said:
Zapata_rides! said:
I am not at all well up on First World War history, but I have heard that there has been some new historical thinking on the First World War that disputes the "Lions led by Donkeys" evaluation and also challenges the belief that the German Armys were never effectively threatened by the Allies on the Western Front.
"New" historical thinking goes back - at least - to 1989. Remember, firstly, that the British Army never came close to mutiny (unlike the French, Russians and ultimately the Germans) which speaks of very effective leadership at all levels, and secondly, that in 1918, after being driven back almost to Paris by the Boche between March and June, then responded over the 100 days to Nov 11, with an advance all the way to the German border. Lloyd-George's gutless acceptance of an Armistice instead of a proper victory pressed the pause button, and set the stage for Round 2 20 years later.

Want to know more? Try these for starters:

http://www.westernfront.co.uk/thegreatwar/articles/research/haig.htm
http://www.westernfront.co.uk/thegreatwar/articles/research/britishtacticssomme.htm

Books:
Battle Tactics of the Western Front: British Army's Art of Attack, 1916-18, by Paddy Griffith

Forgotten Victory: The First World War: Myths and Realities, by Gary Sheffield

Mud Blood and Poppycock by Maj Gordon Corrigan
Lloyd George's government was a junior partner in the escapade. So you can't blame him or his war cabinet for the Weimar Republic.
 

Latest Threads

Top