1. DEFINE THE SUBJECT/EVALUATE THE SOURCES:
a. Define the Battle to be analyzed (where, who, when).
The Battle of the Kasserine Pass was a series of battles that began February 14, 1943 in Tunisia, which is found on Africa’s central north coast. The Kasserine pass is a gap in the Dorsal Mountains, which are part of the Atlas Mountain Range, two miles wide in west central Tunisia. This battle was between the Allied Forces lead by British General Bernard L. Montgomery and consisted of British, American and French troops that formed a defensive line against General Erwin Rommel and the Afrika Korps of the German Army.
2. REVIEW THE SETTING (SET THE STAGE):
a. Strategic/Operational Overview
The Battle of Kasserine Pass pitted the German 10th and 21st Panzer divisions against the Allied forces 8th
…show more content…
Army. Allied Forces had landed on the African north west coast pinning the German forces between them and the British forces that were pushing them west from Egypt and across Lybia. b. Study the area of operations. (1) Weather. Poor conditions prevailed during the winter with the rains turning the desert landscape into muddy and slick conditions. Sandstorms also provided cover allowing German forces to advance undetected. Conditions allowed for dust plumes to be created from moving vehicles. (2) Terrain. The terrain was a desert landscape with mountainous terrain with arid planes in between. The Aral Mountains were 70 miles from the coast and provided an all but impassible line except for several mountain passes that were defended by Allied troops c. Compare the principle antagonists (Operational/Tactical). (1) Size and composition. In the Battle of Kasserine Pass the allied forces were composed of approximately 30,000 men mobilized in support of Operation Torch. The German forces consisted of 22,000 men against 30,000 on the Allied side (Militaryhistory.about, 2016). (2) Technology. The main battle tank possessed by the Allied forces was the M4 Sherman with a 70 mm main gun, a towed 37 mm antitank gun, along with M3 halftracks and trucks for moving supplies. The main weapon used by the troops was the Model 1903 Springfield bolt action rifle, with the M1 Garand issued in limited numbers and the appearance of the bazooka antitank weapon. The main battle tank possessed by the Germans was the Mark III and IV tanks and some Tiger tanks with 88 mm artillery pieces, the bolt-action K98k Mauser carbines were issued to German troops (3) Doctrine and training. Allied training doctrine had not advanced with technology and as a result the American army was still training for WWI style of warfare. The political climate was such that the United State did not want to be drawn into another war in Europe. German forces were trained in small unit tactics infiltrating and bypassing known strong points while following troops to engage in battle with them.
This tactic along with the addition of a concentration of force, artillery and tanks, allowed troops to penetrate even deeper and disrupt enemy forces (miepvonsydow.wordpress.com, 2014).
(4) Logistical systems.
Allied supply chains were strained as they were trying to keep up with the demand of supporting two separate fronts and the distances they had to move.
Axis supply chains were strained because Hitler did not consider the Africa campaign to be of significant importance. Instead focusing on supplying the German eastern front as they battled the Russian Army. Only when the Germans surrendered to the Russians did the additional supplies get directed towards the African front.
(5) Intelligence.
Intelligence reports were ignored by General Fredendall on several occasions while he would bypass division and brigade commanders and direct troop movements down at the company level (Budiansky, 2011). Also intelligence reports suggested that there was only one Panzer division located to the south of their
location. General Rommel sent scouting troops forward to determine when enemy positions were located and what equipment they had. This allowed Rommel to determine which positions were the most vulnerable and allowed an attack on elevated positions first then turn towards the enemy forces located on the valley floor from both sides. (6) Condition and morale. At first the Allied morale was high, as troops landed during Operation Torch, they met little resistance and continued forward. However the Allied command had not coordinated between the American, British and French forces as well as in the American division assigning individual tasks on the battlefield that created an atmosphere of confusion and resulted in loss of confidence in the leadership from the soldiers under them (Stone, 2017). While Generals Rommel and Arnim struggled to get along personally, they were united in a common goal and were able to develop a cohesive plan that optimized the equipment and personnel at their disposal. This agreement was short lived as a result they failed to achieve a total operational victory that was possible if they had clearly defined their goals and agreed upon which objectives they wanted to accomplish German morale was low initially as they had just been defeated at El Alamein and Rommel was aware that he needed a victory on the battle field to boost his troop’s spirits. He was also aware that Allied forces had landed to his rear and his need to protect his limited supply line. (7) Command, control, and communications. General Eisenhower traveled to the front lines not only to assess the current situation on the battlefield but also as a morale booster to the troops. However he was headquartered in 400 miles away in Algiers and appointed Major-General Lucien Truscott Jnr to oversee operations but he was based out of Constantine which was 200 miles away from Tunisia. He in turn appointed Lieutenant-General Sir Kenneth Anderson, commander of the 1st British Army to run day to day operations of the front line. Lieutenant- General Anderson was hampered by the fact that a portion of his force, the 19th French Corps, would not take orders from anyone but General Alphonse Juin who commanded the French ground forces (Trueman, 2015). General Fredendall was placed in charge of the US 2nd corps who did not get along personally with General Anderson. This command structure created confusion amongst the troop under them on whose orders they were supposed to follow along with a general lack of leadership as General Fredendall refused to travel to the front lines. Instead choosing to remain at his headquarters he was having built 70-100 miles behind the front line. General Rommel, while continuing to face health issues, remained on the battle field, leading his troops directly into action. This leadership style inspired his troops and motivated them to press on even when they had limited supplies. By leading his troops directly, he was able to direct troop and equipment movements effectively. (8) Leadership. Allied General Fredendall was not focused on what was happening on the front lines. Instead he chose to give orders from his headquarters that were 70 miles or more behind by radio and looking at maps of the area (Zimmerman, 2013). Had he taken the time to assess the situation in person, he would have seen that his placement of his troops prevented them from being able to support each other. Even with their deep seated dislike with each other, Axis Generals Armin and Rommel with the help of Field Marshal Albert Kesselring developed a plan of attack. The battle plan was successful initially, allowing Rommel to penetrate deep into the Allied line. Only once he feared his supply line was in jeopardy and Von Arnim refusing to release an armored division for needed support did Rommel halt his advance. d. State the mission and describe initial disposition of the opposing forces. Allied forces were directed to hold the line in the Kasserine Pass until reinforcements could be moved into place and strengthen an over stretched defensive line. Axis forces seeing an opportunity to cut on over stretched Allied supply chain moved to improve their position and prevent fighting battles on both sides of their position.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the Battle of Kamdesh and provide an alternate outcome based on the utilization of intelligence and intelligence assets. Many battles could have had a different outcome if they would trust intelligence reports without needing to validate the intelligence with another source or simply have other intelligence assets available. The Battle of Kamdesh was certainly one of those battles. The battle started just before 0600 on October 3, 2009 on Combat Outpost (COP) Keating and nearby Observation Post (OP) Fritsche in the Kamdesh district of Nuristan Province, Afghanistan. About 70 Soldiers of Bravo Troop, 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, along with 30 Afghan National Army Soldiers (ANA), fought an enemy force of about 300 Anti-Afghan Forces (AAF) fighters. (Nordland, 2010) The battle took place in the Consolidation II portion of the Operation Enduring Freedom Campaign in Afghanistan. The AAF likely
Atkinson's passion is evident on every page. By the of the book, even the most diehard believer that North Africa was just a sideshow will see the logic in Atkinson's argument of the importance of the North African campaign as a critical first-step on the way to ending World War II.
The battle started when the British sixth air born division went in at ten minutes after midnight. They were the first troops to go into action. The second attack was by the eighty second in the one hundred and first division of air born attacks. They were less successful than the first division.
(1). The Battle of Arracourt took place in Arracourt, Lorraine Province, France. The Province of Lorraine was along the shortest route from Normandy to Germany through France. Arracourt was a small town located on the Mosselle River on the French and German border. The principle adversaries in the Battle of Arracourt were General George S. Patton’s 3rd U.S. Army led by the 4th Armored Division. The 3rd Army had more than 160,000 Soldier, 1,500 Artillery pieces, and 930 Sherman...
In this paper, I will provide a Battle Analysis and outline the events leading up to and surrounding the Battle of 73 Eastings (refers to a north-south grid line). In addition, I will describe how the United States Army’s (USA) 2nd Armored Calvary Regiment (ACR) defeated forces from the Iraqi Republican Guard (IRG) using speed, technology and superior combat power. Although some consider the Battle of 73 Eastings extremely successful, some consider it a failure due to the large amount of Iraqi forces that retreated towards Bagdad. Lastly, I will analyze how each side used their intelligence assets and what they could have used to change the outcome.
The prelude to the Battle of the Bulge began on a winter day in mid-December of 1944. Three powerful German divisions, were the last German offensives in the west at that time during World War II. They began after the Normandy invasion in June 1944. Allied had forces swept rapidly through France but became stalled along the German border earlier that year in September. On December 16, 1944 taking advantage of the weather, which kept the Allied aircraft on the ground, the Germans launched a counteroffensive through the semi-mountainous and heavily-forested Ardennes region in Germany, and advanced 31 miles into Belgium and northern Luxembourg near the Meuse River. Their goal was to trap four allied armies, divide the Americans and the British to force negotiated peace along the western front, and retake the vital seaport of Antwerp in Belgium. Thinking the Ardennes was the least likely spot for a German offensive, American staff commander chose to keep the thin line, so that manpower might concentrate on offensives north and south of the Ardennes known as the "bulge" in the Allied lines. These American lines were thinly held by three divisions in the Allied Army and part of a forth division, while fifth division was making a local attack and the sixth division was in reserve. Division sectors were more than double the width of normal defensive fronts, therefore there were more men scattered along a larger area. The German advance was halted near the Meuse River in late December. Even though the German Offensive achieved total surprise, nowhere did the American troops give ground without a fight. Within three days, the determined American stand and the arrival of powerful reinforcements insured that the ambitious German goal was far beyond reach. In snow and sub-freezing temperatures the Germans fell short of their interim objective- to reach the rambling Meuse River on the edge of the Ardennes. But they managed to avoid being cut off by an Allied Pincer movement.
Regular reconnaissance patrols, assisted by information gathered from aerial photography, meant that records of changes to the German defenses on the Ridge were always up-to-date. Tunnellers dug “subterranean” passages under the Ridge - a total of five kilometers in all on four levels - allowing the attacking troops to move close to their jumping-off positions in some safety. Once the battle had begun, these same tunnels allowed the wounded to be brought back under cover and also provided unseen and safe lines of communications. The Infantry attack was preceded by a powerful artillery bombardment, which lasted almost three weeks, involving about 1,000 guns, including huge, 15-inch howitzers. For the first two weeks, some guns were not fired at all, so that the Germans would not be able to locate their positions but eventually, these guns joined in the bombardment, too.
the lower grounds they could have used the trenches to take cover and have better aim of the adversary Union army.
The Allies went beyond simply supplying each other with rations, weapons, and equipment. This alliance allowed them to coordinate war efforts with each other. Timothy Stewart, a student of history at the University of Minnesota, stated in his essay Why the Allies Won World War II that “Had the British and Americans not found a way to work with the ideologically disparate Soviets, the outcome of the war likely would have been different indeed. The Allies coordinated their efforts through a central staff and thus managed to ensure that good decisions were being made” (6). Hitler, on the other hand, did not necessarily ally, so to speak, with the other Axis powers, nor did he cooperate well with his own staff....
The Battle for Castle Itter is known as one of the strangest battles to take place during World War II. French VIP’s were captured by the Waffen SS and held is Castle Itter but were rescued by an unlikely bunch; American and German Soldiers fighting side by side. The only reason this could take place was because of the fact the war was just days from being over.
...ilities of the tanks being penetrated were slim. Also there was an addition of an anti-craft gun which made it even more powerful and unstoppable (Slayton 103).
Warfare was in a state of transition. Older commanders and generals in the French and British militaries were very cavalry and infantry focused. These commanders believed that cavalry, infantry, and artillery would assure victory in any circumstance, against any foe. They clung to the static tactics of the bygone World War I era. World War I had been fought primarily on French soil, and the military as well as the government never wanted that to happen again, therefore they wanted to reinforce their main border against any future German. Little did they know that only twenty two years later they would be bested by German forces in a way that would shock the world. This research will be analyzing many important assumptions, oversights,...
It began to emerge the differences in tactics. The question was whether to continue so far the Supreme Allied Commander of the Allied Forces Europe, General Eisenhower’s tactics attacking on a broad front, or due to problems of supply to take just one mighty blow. In that period Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery developed a new operation plan, which would include the use of 1st Airborne Army (Lieutenant General Lewis H. Brereton), actually 1st Airborne Corps (Lieutenant General Frederick Browning). The Corps comprised of 82nd US Airborne Division (Brigadier General James M. Gavin), 101st US Airborne Division (Major General Maxwell D. Taylor), and 1st British Airborne Division (Major General Robert “Roy” E. Urquhart) supported with, under his command, 1st Polish Independent Parachute Brigade (Major General Stanislaw Sosabowski). These units should be dropped along the roa...
One of the causes of World War One was the Alliances. These were settlements or oaths to defend and help other countries. It was a thought that alliances would calm things down and make peace, and in case of war others would protect each other, so it would be harder to fight with that country. In 1914 the most powerful countries in Europe were divided into opposite Alliances, The Triple Alliance and the Central Powers or the Triple Entente. The Triple Alliance was made up of Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary. The Triple Entente was made up of Britain, France and Russia. European Alliances had a major part of being in the war. These two powers were very worried about being attacked after all of the tension from Nationalism, Imperialism and Militarism. To make sure these countries weren’t attacked and defeated these alliances were formed. Germany and Austria-Hungary made an alliance but they made it secretly in 1879, after this happened Italy joined this Dual Alliance to form the Triple Alliance because it was annoyed with France for stopping its plans to col...
There was many reasons this battle was particularly anomalous. One reason was that Americans and Germans fought together.“In early May 1945, American and German soldiers fought together against the Nazi SS to free prominent French prisoners of war. It is believed to be the only battle in the war in which Americans and Germans fought as allies” (Bell). This battle was during World War II where the U.S. and Germany abhorred each other. This was because the U. S. was fighting against Nazi Germany and not expecting and German armed forces to side with them during the war.