Conclusion
Legacy
Arguably the most important modern battle of the early twentieth century, the Meuse-Argonne Offensive marked a significant shift in warfare that would eventually influence the wars and battles that followed. Despite the unpreparedness and disorganization in some divisions, the American Expeditionary Forces used this offensive to incorporate the “hard lessons learned” during the months of combat and survival that preceded [1]. With this, American forces were able to adopt innovative open-warfare tactics and the newest weapon technology to help them lead the Allied forces to victory. With this change in character, however, we must also acknowledge that the nature of war remained consistent throughout, thus bringing greater attention to the humanity and rawness of combat.
AEF doctrine endorsed the use of infantry tactics that best suited survival on the modern battlefield. Through the use of cover, assault rushes, and fire-and-maneuver, American military doctrine changed the way flank attacks were conducted and enemy strong points were bypassed. The combination of open warfare with modern technology brought unprecedented damage along with heavy losses and risks [2]. When considering mass casualties, inadequate personnel policies, and poorly-trained leaders, the issue of a morality crisis comes to question, challenging us to understand why many men fled their positions or continued fighting. By establishing camaraderie, however, the “reassuring physical presence” of others proved to be a powerful tool that kept men on their feet and would continue to do so until the conflict was over [3].
AEF doctrine endorsed the use of infantry tactics that best suited survival on the modern battlefield. Through the use of cover, assault rushes, and fire-and-maneuver, American military doctrine changed the way flank attacks were conducted and enemy strong points were bypassed. The combination of open warfare with modern technology brought unprecedented damage along with heavy losses and risks [2]. When considering mass casualties, inadequate personnel policies, and poorly-trained leaders, the issue of a morality crisis comes to question, challenging us to understand why many men fled their positions or continued fighting. By establishing camaraderie, however, the “reassuring physical presence” of others proved to be a powerful tool that kept men on their feet and would continue to do so until the conflict was over [3].
Sources
- LaMonica, “Infantry Tactics in the Meuse-Argonne,” 358.
- LaMonica, “Infantry Tactics in the Meuse-Argonne,” 371.
- Hamner, “Combat,” 121.