Mehr lesen
Informationen zum Autor Robert Scales Klappentext "Bar none! the best book on fire support in the English language and one of the most accessible works on tactics I have ever read."-Bruce Gudmundsson! author of On Artillery The military of the United States is the world's strongest. Our armed forces are equipped with weapons of remarkable accuracy and unprecedented destructive power. In the Gulf War! allied forces used these weapons in what turned out to be a high-tech shooting gallery. The pinpoint accuracy of the sharpshooter's rifle is now routinely expected in the delivery of thousand pound bombs. Events in Somalia and the Balkans have aptly demonstrated! however! the profound limitations of firepower in limited conflicts of low intensity. Yet! these are the kinds of war we are most likely to encounter as we proceed down the path of the new world order. Robert Scales examines this problem through his analysis of the role of firepower in the wars in Indochina! the Soviet war in Afghanistan! the Falklands War! and the Gulf War. Chosen for the prestigious Marine Corps Commandant's Reading List! Firepower in Limited War is must reading for everyone interested in national defense and all military professionals. 1 Firepower in the American Way of War The Civil War was the first American conflict observed closely by professional European soldiers. Beginning in 1862, members of the Greater Prussian General Staff, as well as representatives from Great Britain and France, visited Union and Confederate field commands. The views of these men were remarkably alike—and uniformly unkind. They were appalled by what appeared to be a singular lack of field discipline on both sides. Colonel G. F. R. Henderson, eminent nineteenth century British military thinker and writer, noted in his biography of Stonewall Jackson, Neither was the fire of the Confederate infantry under the complete control of their officers, nor were their movements always characterized by order and regularity. It was seldom that men could be induced to refrain from answering shot for shot; there was an extraordinary waste of ammunition, there was much unnecessary noise, and the regiments were very apt to get out of hand. Observers noted that the Americans would rarely close with the enemy but chose instead to fight at ranges of a quarter mile or more and throw enormous quantities of lead at each other, often for hours without end. What these observers witnessed first hand has become immutably associated with the American way of war—the willingness of Americans to expend firepower freely to conserve human life. Americans have routinely emphasized the value of firepower in their military method for a number of reasons, some of them based on a continuing military practice that began in the Civil War, others, more complex, arising from the essence of American national character. America’s preoccupation with preserving the lives of its soldiers is deeply rooted in its liberal democracy. Jefferson’s elevation of life as one of the inalienable rights of an individual underscored the obligation felt by American political philosophers in the new republic to provide for the protection of its citizenry. The inherent value of human life has become a political and moral imperative carried down and amplified through generations and passed into the ethic of American military men. General Eisenhower, in his conversations with Marshal Zhukov, was struck by the different value that Soviet and American leaders placed on their soldiers’ lives. In one instance, Zhukov explained that minefields were best cleared by marching soldiers through them, reasoning that a few losses to mines were acceptable to maintain the momentum of the attack. Eisenhower noted in his memoirs that such methods, regardless of their tactical utility, had no place in the armies under his command. “Americans...
