Ranger Bill Hewitt examines the many influences the Civil War had upon future military history in this Gettysburg National MIlitary Park Winter Lecture.
I say this is incomplete information. A little time could be given or a new media person with a love for the park and its history could do a better job of filling in viewers who havent followed the series/previous videos or assume the audience knows more than any novice to this history. this man is tired of dealing with know it alls. and his diction and delivery convey as such.
I enjoyed this, but it could've been more streamlined. In other words, instead of telling all he's going to cover, saying "we'll come back to that" or "we'll talk about that later", .... just cover it now. The lecture was barely over an hour, and half of it was going over what's going to be gone over, lol. Again, I did enjoy it and I did learn.
Thank You NPS and Mr. Hewitt, for all the information in this video. It could have, and should have been researched better, coming from an establishment such as your own. Cartridges added little in the way of range. There best known addition to the battlefield, was reload speed, and weather resistance. Firing 4 million shells from artillery placed behind the lines, only added an obstacle course to the frontal assault challenges. As far as I know(and I don't know about the German tactics, near as well) Generals Bing and Curry, introduced the tactics of fire and maneuver, to the WW1 battlefield. Like I said Thank you
Douglas MacArthur is not a good example here. He didnt scatter his aircraft after Pearl Harbor, this caused great losses and helped result in the fall of the Philippines and Bataan. He was not very competent and very egotistical and greatly disliked by many in the Army. He wasnt responsible for Island hopping either, that was Nimitz and the Marines (mostly). Also, "maneuver warfare" was very popular in Europe before the First World War. The whole German attack on France was an outflanking maneuver, like Grant did repeatedly. Sure, it settled down into a seige, but that happened a lot in the Civil War too. I dont know if any Europeans paid attention to the US Civil War or not, but I dont quite understand what Rommel and Guderian learned from the US Civil War that they wouldnt have learned from the First World War.
You can learn something from one source that you could have leaned from another. It doesn't matter that you could have learned it somewhere else. You acknowledge (or don't) where or whom you learned it from. The presentor didn't present things the way some others would have or make some points that others would have mentioned. No two people will ever present history the same way.
Guderian and Rommel studied Liddell Hart who in turn studied the indirect approach described by the ranger in the talks. I m not sure about some of Mr Hewitt's conclusions though. EX Foch costing the Americans. The Western Front of World War 1 rather unique in that there was no room to make turning movements or an indirect approach. The entire front was fixed with no flanks and armies rapidly developed secondary and tertiary trenches to limit the damage if a breakthrough occurred. An indirect approach could be taken tactically by attacking the weakest sections of the line and attack past strongpoints which the Germans employed in their offensive of 1917 and 1918. But the problem of an indirect operational approach wasn't solved until the Germans did their blitzkreig which required fast moving, reliable armored vehicles and a modern supply train to do it.
+Michael Chung _"But the problem of an indirect operational approach wasn't solved until the Germans did their blitzkreig which required fast moving, reliable armored vehicles and a modern supply train to do it."_ The Germans achieved pretty much the same thing with their Stosstruppen in the first war. What was missing was not so much vehicles and supplies as communications. Not until tactical radios became a reality was their any hope of command control in a mobile situation, and without command control there is little hope of a decisive exploitation of a breakthrough.
@@michaelsommers2356 You make a good point, but Mr. Chung makes a very valid one. The Stosstruppen out-ran their heavy weapons; the tanks provided that, and the radios, of course; your own point.
I've been saying for years McArthur should have been cashiered for his "preparations" for the immanent Japanese attack they knew was probably coming. Look at what happened to Husband Kimmel & General Short at Pearl.
The speaker says that Guderian and Rommel didn't have to overcome anything in their country which is just plain wrong. Prior to the (even to the Germans) astonishing successes of 1939-40 the concept of mobile warfare was disputed among high ranking officers, a lot of who'm were deeply conservative.
can't deal with the delivery. idk how many lectures this man had today, but he was not giving a well packaged lecture here. tax dollars at work. "railroads."
Recites a quote, but doesn't identify who said it. Said Grant twice, instead of Meade once and Grant once. Mr. Hewitt needs to clean up his presentation. He's a little too cavalier in his approach.
Very minor criticsm and Mr Hewitt ,and others, have much to orate in order. Find these talks and the battle walks very interesting....and I'm from U.K.!!! Have visited Gettysburg and looking to go again as found it a fascinating battleground plus it is a lovely town. I have had a judge ,in summing up and presenting his verdict, get the names of the parties wrong but you cannot interrupt to correct to illustrate that errors are made by many experienced people.
As always, Bill Hewitt represents the best of the Park Ranger Historians. Keep these posts coming. Invaluable to all future history students.
I say this is incomplete information. A little time could be given or a new media person with a love for the park and its history could do a better job of filling in viewers who havent followed the series/previous videos or assume the audience knows more than any novice to this history. this man is tired of dealing with know it alls. and his diction and delivery convey as such.
seriously. this dude is boring and looks like he has coffee breath.
@@b4thebb Maybe the park should hire you to skip around flank markers and discuss Lee and his band of fugitives robbing American farms.
Grant was very very good. Thr more I read the more I like
Man! That is one _steep_ auditorium!
I enjoyed this, but it could've been more streamlined. In other words, instead of telling all he's going to cover, saying "we'll come back to that" or "we'll talk about that later", .... just cover it now. The lecture was barely over an hour, and half of it was going over what's going to be gone over, lol.
Again, I did enjoy it and I did learn.
He tries to come off a straightforward speaker, but he meanders a lot.
Talking more about The Spanish American War as a precursor would have made the talk better.
Thank You NPS and Mr. Hewitt, for all the information in this video. It could have, and should have been researched better, coming from an establishment such as your own. Cartridges added little in the way of range. There best known addition to the battlefield, was reload speed, and weather resistance. Firing 4 million shells from artillery placed behind the lines, only added an obstacle course to the frontal assault challenges. As far as I know(and I don't know about the German tactics, near as well) Generals Bing and Curry, introduced the tactics of fire and maneuver, to the WW1 battlefield. Like I said Thank you
But still, an informative presentation.
Douglas MacArthur is not a good example here. He didnt scatter his aircraft after Pearl Harbor, this caused great losses and helped result in the fall of the Philippines and Bataan. He was not very competent and very egotistical and greatly disliked by many in the Army. He wasnt responsible for Island hopping either, that was Nimitz and the Marines (mostly).
Also, "maneuver warfare" was very popular in Europe before the First World War. The whole German attack on France was an outflanking maneuver, like Grant did repeatedly. Sure, it settled down into a seige, but that happened a lot in the Civil War too.
I dont know if any Europeans paid attention to the US Civil War or not, but I dont quite understand what Rommel and Guderian learned from the US Civil War that they wouldnt have learned from the First World War.
You can learn something from one source that you could have leaned from another. It doesn't matter that you could have learned it somewhere else. You acknowledge (or don't) where or whom you learned it from. The presentor didn't present things the way some others would have or make some points that others would have mentioned. No two people will ever present history the same way.
Guderian and Rommel studied Liddell Hart who in turn studied the indirect approach described by the ranger in the talks.
I m not sure about some of Mr Hewitt's conclusions though. EX Foch costing the Americans. The Western Front of World War 1 rather unique in that there was no room to make turning movements or an indirect approach. The entire front was fixed with no flanks and armies rapidly developed secondary and tertiary trenches to limit the damage if a breakthrough occurred.
An indirect approach could be taken tactically by attacking the weakest sections of the line and attack past strongpoints which the Germans employed in their offensive of 1917 and 1918. But the problem of an indirect operational approach wasn't solved until the Germans did their blitzkreig which required fast moving, reliable armored vehicles and a modern supply train to do it.
+Michael Chung _"But the problem of an indirect operational approach wasn't solved until the Germans did their blitzkreig which required fast moving, reliable armored vehicles and a modern supply train to do it."_
The Germans achieved pretty much the same thing with their Stosstruppen in the first war. What was missing was not so much vehicles and supplies as communications. Not until tactical radios became a reality was their any hope of command control in a mobile situation, and without command control there is little hope of a decisive exploitation of a breakthrough.
@@michaelsommers2356 You make a good point, but Mr. Chung makes a very valid one. The Stosstruppen out-ran their heavy weapons; the tanks provided that, and the radios, of course; your own point.
I've been saying for years McArthur should have been cashiered for his "preparations" for the immanent Japanese attack they knew was probably coming. Look at what happened to Husband Kimmel & General Short at Pearl.
Misunderstands progress regarding munitions. He should research 17th-18th cent. European technology.
The speaker says that Guderian and Rommel didn't have to overcome anything in their country which is just plain wrong. Prior to the (even to the Germans) astonishing successes of 1939-40 the concept of mobile warfare was disputed among high ranking officers, a lot of who'm were deeply conservative.
Ahistorical. Assumption of cause and correlation - the tendency to rely on tertiary sources. Like a bad social studies class in high school.
can't deal with the delivery. idk how many lectures this man had today, but he was not giving a well packaged lecture here. tax dollars at work. "railroads."
Boring and Meandering
Recites a quote, but doesn't identify who said it. Said Grant twice, instead of Meade once and Grant once. Mr. Hewitt needs to clean up his presentation. He's a little too cavalier in his approach.
Very minor criticsm and Mr Hewitt ,and others, have much to orate in order.
Find these talks and the battle walks very interesting....and I'm from U.K.!!!
Have visited Gettysburg and looking to go again as found it a fascinating battleground plus it is a lovely town.
I have had a judge ,in summing up and presenting his verdict, get the names of the parties wrong but you cannot interrupt to correct to illustrate that errors are made by many experienced people.
Not to mention boring and Meandering
the most boring history lecture ever with ZERO educational value!