16.04.2015 Views

synarchy movement of empire book ii - Pierre Beaudry's Galactic ...

synarchy movement of empire book ii - Pierre Beaudry's Galactic ...

synarchy movement of empire book ii - Pierre Beaudry's Galactic ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

military, {artillery} was a rear echelon power, dependent on the infantry<br />

which was making the assault on the front line. De Gaulle had deliberately<br />

chosen that expression to identify his idea because he knew it would act like<br />

a grenade dropped inside <strong>of</strong> a foxhole the old general staff. In Petain's mind,<br />

the idea <strong>of</strong> {assault artillery} was a contradiction in terms: it was the<br />

equivalent <strong>of</strong> inverting the traditional roles <strong>of</strong> artillery and infantry, that is,<br />

putting the infantry in the rear and the artillery on the front lines. The whole<br />

thing was back assward.<br />

As a result, for Petain, artillery could never represent an assault<br />

capability. For him artillery was a means <strong>of</strong> supporting the infantry and<br />

shooting only when the infantry identified the targets for them to clear out.<br />

Artillery, from that standpoint, had the exclusive role <strong>of</strong> being an infantry<br />

support unit. However, Petain's silly tactical inverted relationship between<br />

infantry and artillery came from his pessimistic view that artillery was a<br />

defensive firepower. It was more a means to stop the enemy advance, than a<br />

means <strong>of</strong> advancing onto the enemy. The Maginot Line was filled with<br />

artillery power. Both Generals Foch and Weygand had this same axiomatic<br />

weakness as Petain.<br />

There was, however, one old general with a young mind, General<br />

Jean-Baptiste Estienne, known as {the father <strong>of</strong> the tank}, who thought that<br />

if tanks were to team up with planes, this would revolutionize warfare. Tank<br />

commander Charles de Gaulle proved that General Estienne was right. In<br />

1934, following the lead <strong>of</strong> Estienne, de Gaulle advocated the creation <strong>of</strong> an<br />

independent armored mechanized force <strong>of</strong> 100,000 men, 4,000 tanks, and<br />

8,000 trucks advancing day or night at a pace <strong>of</strong> 5o kilometers a day through<br />

enemy territory. This was the idea <strong>of</strong> the mechanized {assault artillery}.<br />

The Commander <strong>of</strong> the German armies under Hindenburg, General<br />

Ludendorff, wrote in his memoires <strong>of</strong> the great defeat <strong>of</strong> his army by the<br />

French tank attack on August 8, 1918. Ludendorff called it "the Black Day<br />

<strong>of</strong> the German Army in this war." He wrote: "The British and French<br />

attacked between Albert and Moreuil with strong forces <strong>of</strong> tanks, in which<br />

they alone were superior. They broke through deeply in our front. Our<br />

divisions were completely overrun… The employment <strong>of</strong> tanks in massive<br />

quantities proved to be our worst enemy. The eight <strong>of</strong> August brought the<br />

end <strong>of</strong> our capacity to fight on." Thus, it was Estienne and de Gaulle's tank<br />

strategic warfare, which made the decisive victory <strong>of</strong> World War I!<br />

60

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!