Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 12/17/2001 8:07:06 PM EDT
How about some history. [url]www.2id.org/heartbreakridge.htm[/url] Would this battle be fought differently today?? Benjamin
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 8:12:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2001 8:04:20 PM EDT by Benjamin0001]
And the Map [url]www.2id.org/hb.htm[/url] Benjamin
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 7:32:29 PM EDT
Dunno about your questions, but do think it's funny that in the Clink Eastwood movie of the same name the Army's accomplishments are attributed to the Marines. I'm surprised somebody didn't get pissed off about that one.
Link Posted: 12/20/2001 1:53:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By marvl: Dunno about your questions, but do think it's funny that in the Clink Eastwood movie of the same name the Army's accomplishments are attributed to the Marines. I'm surprised somebody didn't get pissed off about that one.
View Quote
The Eastwood character and his buddy, the Master Sergeant, were in the Army before they became Marines, or so the Master Sergeant said in one of the scenes at the bar.
Link Posted: 12/20/2001 1:54:24 PM EDT
Well, Benjamin, I would hope so. Here’s my take on why things didn’t go to well during the month of September. There was no coordination between the attacks of the three regiments. There was no attempt to interdict enemy re-supply or reinforcement. Last, but not least, there were way too many day time attacks that had no components of feints or decoy attacks. Granted, everyone knew that 2nd ID was attacking the ridge line as that was their part of the Kansas Line to control, but they should’ve made attempts to fool the North Koreans (and later on the Chinese) into thinking that some hill tops were more important to the Americans than other hill tops. What would this have done for the Americans? It would’ve caused the North Koreans to put off the decisions as to where to concentrate the fire of their Artillery and where to reinforce their positions. The longer a Defender puts off those decisions, or better yet, if he gets them wrong, generally the better it is for the Attacker. The old phrase “he who hesitates is lost” is applicable here. Apparently with the change of command in the 2nd ID, Maj. Gen. Young put in a plan to correct those deficiencies, and success was his, as they say. (It’s all spelled out in the History at the link provided.) As to why I think that a battle like this would be fought differently is 1) we have historical example of what worked and what didn’t, and 2) since the signing of the Air-Land Battle Doctrine in 1985, we have a different doctrinal approach. Stating it simply, a theorist would call Gen. DeShazo’s approach “Attrition Warfare”, while Gen. Young’s style would be called “Maneuver Warfare.” Today, the U.S. is favoring more of a Maneuver style of warfare.
Top Top