1 Attachment(s)
Halleck's use of the term "operations"
HT to Pete for going back to the Civil War histories of the later 1800s, which brought to mind Halleck as a US military author of 1860 and earlier.
First this, from NYT of 1863, "REPORT OF MAJ.-GEN. HALLECK.; A Review of the Military Operations of the Past Year. SYNOPSIS OF THE REPORT." (Published: December 12, 1863), which provides some examples of what he meant by operations:
Quote:
Gen. HALLECK then briefly recounts the minor operations of the Army of the Potomac up to the battle of Rappahannock Station, but gives no new facts. The operations in Western Virginia have been mainly of a defensive character, in repelling raids and breaking up guerrilla bands.
The force in the Department of North Carolina during the past year has been too small for any important operations against the enemy, and has acted mostly on the defensive. But HILL's operations against FOSTER in North Carolina, as well as LONGSTREET's against PECK in Virginia, were entirely unsuccessful.
Gen. GILLMORE's operations before Charleston are recited at some length, with this comment:
"Gen. GILLMORE's operations have been characterized by great professional skill and boldness. He has overcome difficulties almost unknown in modern sieges. Indeed, his operations on Morris Island constitute almost a new era in the science of engineering and gunnery. Since the capture of Forts Wagner and Gregg he has enlarged these works, and established powerful batteries which effectually command Fort Sumter, and can render efficient aid to any naval attack upon Charleston. They also control the entrance to the harbor."
In the Department of the Gulf operations have been generally successful. The preliminary movements to the siege of Port Hudson are given at length. On the 8th of July the place unconditionally surrendered. We captured 6,233 prisoners, 51 pieces of artillery, two steamers, 4,400 pounds of cannon-powder, 5,000 small arms, 150,000 rounds of ammunition, &c. Our loss from the 3d to the 30th of May, including the assault of the 27th, as reported, was about 1,000.
Halleck was a writer (both of things military and things internationally legal). His discussion of operations just before the Civil War is found in Henry Wager Halleck, Military Art and Science, 1860, 449 pages (ca. 10mb download from Google Books), beginning at pdf p.45:
Attachment 1354
but more in depth at pp.51-58 (of pdf) - looks a lot like Jomini.
That is part of Chapter 2, Strategy, so it seems to this reader that Halleck saw operations as a subset of strategy, involving planning and execution of those plans via campaigns in each theatre of operations - as opposed to the larger application of strategy in the theatre of war.
Regards
Mike
We'll have to agree to disagree, then -
no big deal.
BTW: I'm not contending that Halleck and Mahan were into a "new area of military terminology" - from what I can see (and from Halleck's bibliography in his Strategy chapter - and I positing that everyone who comments on Halleck and Mahan will have at least skimmed through their stategy chapters), they were lifting these concepts from earlier writers.
Regards
Mike
Earlier Discussion of Operational Level
Click here for a previous discussion of the Operational level of war. You'll have to scroll down almost to the end to find it.
A couple more Google Books
John Bigelow, The principles of strategy: illustrated mainly from American campaigns (1891; 200 pages) (Google Books, 11mb download);
and Sir Edward Bruce Hamley, The operations of war: explained and illustrated (1866; 438 pages) (Google Books, 17b download); cited by Wilf in an earlier post.
I haven't downloaded either - projects for tomorrow.
Briefly back to Halleck and Mahan (similar to Jomini), their divisions of:
1. Theatre of war (singular and with an overriding strategy for the war - which can be global or more limited),
2. Theatre(s) of operations - depends on an "army" or "armies", and if "armies" whether they act in concert (thus, one theatre) or not (thus, multi-theatres), and
3. Zone(s) of operations - divisions of the "theatre of operations";
and other terms of art dealing with operations, suggest to this reader that to them (1) operations and campaigns, their planning and execution, were a subset of strategy; and (2) that (1) links the strategy for the war to grand tactics and tactics involved in individual engagements.
In essence, the picture I get is that operations and campaigns are the way to string together the individual combats into a necklace of pearls leading to the ultimate rare pearl (the end goal that culminates the strategy for the war).
Jomini (ch III vs ch IV in his Art of War) clearly distinguishes between Strategy (including operations and campaigns, planning and execution) in ch III and Grand Tactics and Battles (including Tactics) in ch IV. Halleck and Mahan followed Jomini in that regard.
Regards
Mike