Electronic Warfare

Electronic warfare is, perhaps, the most stealth form of warfare in existence. Electronic warfare uses the electromagnetic spectrum in order to spy upon assumed threats, suspicious countries, and various forms of intelligence. The beauty of electronic warfare is that this type of intelligence gathering goes largely unnoticed since there are hardly any signs of interference.

Electronic warfare is also referred to as “electronic support,” and this type of intelligence is truly crucial to any country. By using electronic support, one country can gain top secret information about another country without a trace, which allows for an intricate understanding of military plots and communications. As much as electronic warfare can be used to spy on an enemy, it can also be a very effective means of attack when it is used as a form of defense.

An electronic attack uses the same electromagnetic spectrum in order to effectively cut off communications. Armies can use basic forms of electronic attacks including jamming, deception, and active cancellation in order to scramble or confused electronic forms of communications, which can be devastating to an unsuspecting enemy. Various forms of equipment can also be used in order to carry out an electronic attack including chaffing, towed decoys, balloons, radar reflectors, winged decoys, and various stealth operations. Most other forms of electronic attack are considered to be “classified,” so as to avoid detection.

Of course, modes of electronic protection exist, but with ever changing technology these forms of protection are often useless. Most countries use some form of electronic warfare in order to gain knowledge of another country, or to fight a war more effectively. Electronic warfare may seem vague and uncertain, but those are the very elements that make this type of warfare so effective.

Space Warfare

The very term “space warfare” seems an impossibility. The idea that war can occur in space appears to be a mere fragment of science fiction, or simply something that hasn’t happened yet. However, space warfare is alive and well, although it has not advanced to the level of Star Wars just yet. Space warfare refers to any sort of combat that is set in outer space, but this means that space warfare also takes into consideration “ground to space warfare,” which includes the very realistic invention of satellites.

When satellites are mentioned in everyday conversation they often refer to television stations, or to photographs taken from the latest space expedition. Most people do not consider satellites to be an active part of warfare, and yet they are truly dire to North America. Any sort of combat aimed at attacking various satellites strewn throughout space is known as space warfare, and successfully annihilating a string of satellites within space can effectively devastate entire countries.

Throughout the history of the world, space warfare has only had a few chances to gain recognition. During the 1980s, a USAF (United States Air Force) pilot aimed at a communications satellite and was able to knock the satellite out of space, but this was intentional and it occurred during training sessions. A similar incident occurred in 2007 when China tested their missile capabilities in order to wipe out an out of order satellite orbiting their country. Although both of these examples were intentional and under supervision, the very fact that satellites can effectively be reached and destroyed is a concept that simply didn’t exist many years ago.

Currently, space warfare (and the act of knocking satellites out of space) is prohibited under various international treaties. Some speculated that space warfare will become commonplace throughout the near future, and many countries test international treaties on a consistent basis with the threat of nuclear weaponry. For now, space warfare remains a remnant of science fiction, but countries have shown that they are capable of conducting such warfare if need be. Unlike other types of warfare, space warfare is largely unknown and unexplored, which leaves a whole new section of the earth available for potential combat.

Air Warfare

Today, aerial warfare is dependent upon open air space and advanced technology; although, aerial warfare wasn’t always so high-tech. Aerial warfare has been in existence since the 18th century and has been used in one way or another by virtually every country and every great empire since the first use of airspace in ancient China.

Records show that the Chinese used kites in order to spy on enemies sometime around the 2nd or 3rd century. The Chinese also developed ways in which to use hot air balloons and Kongming lanterns in order to effectively correspond between troops. This method proved to be very successful until the purpose of the kite, lantern, and balloons were discovered, which prompted enemies to intercept them. Since the Chinese used aerial warfare with much triumph for a number of years, Europeans began to pick up the trend by adapting the hot air balloon to include tethered balloons.

When Europe began using tethered balloons during wars, the rest of the world picked up on this tactic and even the United States used balloons during the Civil War in order to view various battlefield images. The United States felt that balloons would provide troops with better maps (through a bird’s eye view), so that they could effectively wipe out the enemy. Of course, since balloons are relatively lightweight, many disadvantages came along with balloon usage, and eventually the balloon was abandoned in light of better, more advanced, aerial technologies.

Today, aerial warfare pertains to nearly everything that can fly in and around air space. In particularly, missiles, airplanes, cargo planes, various guns, and numerous helicopters are considered to be weapons used in aerial warfare. Although the trend began with ancient China, the world has come a long way from hot air balloons and lanterns.

Urban Warfare

Urban warfare might not present any dire environmental difficulties, but urban warfare tends to be largely avoided due to many civilian causalities and complications. Urban warfare literally means the act of bringing troops into a town or city in order to seek out an enemy. Although urban warfare is not the first choice of any military, sometimes this type of warfare simply cannot be avoided.

One perfect example of a war fought in an urban setting is World War II. Many aspects of WWII were fought amidst civilians and entire cities were destroyed. Stalingrad and Warsaw were completely annihilated, and many civilians were killed. Thankfully, today, many countries have laws against urban warfare. Often militaries must abide by restrictions that insist upon minimal urban warfare, and some countries do not allow this sort of military tactic at all.

As with any kind of warfare, urban warfare has its drawbacks not relating to civilian causalities. Troops must learn to effectively maneuver a 3D atmosphere, and be able to find their way in and out of various complicated structures. Due to these difficulties, those that engage in urban warfare must use sewer tunnels, subways, and snipers in order to keep buildings in tact, but still seek out the intended target. Often, those that are attacking have the disadvantage if they do not know a home or building all that well. Meanwhile, those that are hiding tend to have full advantage since they know how to “disappear.”

Urban warfare is not largely used in today’s military world, but when it comes down to it wars are fought in any place that is deemed necessary. When enemies are hiding, those that seek them must adapt to any situation or environment, even if it means ransacking an entire city.

Mountain Warfare

If you have ever climbed a mountain, you should know how hard it is to breathe and walk at high altitudes. Imagine trying to fight amidst mountain tops and search for enemies inside of crevices and caves – all the while trying to combat changing temperatures and frequent storms. All in all, mountain warfare is simply not an easy task.

Mountain warfare first began in the Alps, where men would teeter on the edge of a rock and attempt to fight their enemy without falling. Everything that a mountain is made up of equals travesty for a mere human trying to conquer it. Avalanches, extreme cold, snow, landslides, rocks, sub-zero temperatures – the list of weapons tucked beneath Mother Nature’s shield is vast and daunting. Not only do soldiers tend to have a hard time conquering a mountain, rescuers and suppliers must also be able to scour mountainsides in order to find their troops. Often, helicopters simply cannot land in deep crevices or on the side of a mountain with a dangerous pitch.

World War I saw the tactics of mountain warfare in full force. Various nations had enormous mountain and peaks that had to be fought upon, which meant trouble for the other side. The Austro-Hungarian front was largely based within the mountains as they fought to keep Italian troops out of their country. Often, those that know the mountains they live in have a great advantage over those that have never set foot upon a mountain top. The Austro-Hungarians were largely prepared to fight Italians with basic equipment and careful planning in order to protect their bodies from extreme cold. Needless to say, the Italians were not expecting frostbite or avalanches as their troops perished one by one.

Mountain warfare, like desert or arctic warfare, only works in favor of those that know the terrain fairly well. Troops that enter into extreme conditions can only hope that they have come well prepared. Then again, to those that seek the shelter of a mountain top, only Mother Nature can decide which side will win this sort of treacherous battle.

Sub-Aquatic Warfare

Sub-Aquatic warfare tends to conjure up images of various spy movies. The idea behind sub-aquatic warfare is to hide a large potion of a ship under water in order to protect it from surface fire. Sub aquatic warfare can also refer to naval divers that are used to destroy enemy mine warfare that may reside underneath the sea’s surface.

Sub-Aquatic warfare is thought to be an invention that occurred during the Civil War. A man by the name of John Ericcson devised a monitor that could be used to view enemy positions while under water. Although the idea was a sound one, Ericcson’s monitor ships were largely unsuccessful and were largely abandoned by the navy. Though Ericcson failed at his dream while he was alive, his basic principles are used today in order to assist in riverine warfare and shore bombardment.

In fact, sub-aquatic warfare is an integral part of today’s everyday naval operations. Throughout many countries various land mines exist that are underneath the sea’s surface. Although these mines may be out of the vision – and therefore out of the thoughts – of most citizens, naval divers work to remove these mines in order to ensure public safety. There has also been a lot of speculation as to the usage of land mines, since many of these mines are largely forgotten once a war is through. Many countries claim that they no longer use such weaponry, but many land mines still exist throughout the world’s oceans.

Sub-aquatic warfare is a really ingenious way of ensuring that no ships are attacked or approached unknowingly. Ericcson was far ahead of his time when he invented the monitor concept during the Civil War, only his design was not specifically suitable for the sea (he was not a seaman himself). This type of warfare is not only interesting, it is also highly secretive in today’s world, though many aspects of sub-aquatic warfare still exist.

Naval Warfare

Although naval warfare is as it sounds (a war fought amidst a large body of water), naval warfare tactics may not be quite as obvious. Almost every country across the world has some form of a navy, and successful naval combat is crucial to almost any fight.

The concept of a naval fleet is not a new one, and its principles extend all the back to the dark ages – almost 3,000 years of naval combat can be traced throughout history. Great leaders throughout time have utilized their position near or on the sea in order to gain a stronger foothold against their opponents.

Historians have found records dating back to the barbarian invasions that detail battles fought within the Adriatic Sea. Following the barbarians, the Byzantine Navy is one of the most memorable naval fleets relating to their conflict with the 7th century Arab fleets. From there, many other accounts of naval fleets saving the day can be found woven through history, and naval combat is just as important today.

Currently, naval warfare consists largely of a hide-and-seek game. It is crucial that one side not view the other while trying to scope out enemy naval positions. The navy heavily depends upon the term “fire and movement,” which can only occur if the enemy has not spotted attacking ships. Once a fleet of enemy ships is spotted, submarines can then emerge in order to attack, but up until that point, all that lives beneath the sea must remain quiet in order for a successful ambush to occur.

Any country that does not have some portion of the ocean is a country with a large disadvantage. Naval warfare is one of the most important aspects of any military operation, and nearly every country has learned to fight amidst rolling tides and red skies.

Mobile Warfare

Mobile warfare is often confused with guerrilla warfare, but as the inventor of mobile warfare – Mao Zedong – often stated, there is a difference between the two types of military tactics. Mobile warfare is the type of warfare that involves an element of surprise. Those partaking in mobile warfare will often attack when the enemy is least expecting it, which is a method of war that Mao used in order to keep his largely visible troops on the offensive.

Mobile warfare attempts to focus on the movement of the enemy, and (to a large extent) this type of warfare can be classified as psychological since the main purpose is to catch the opponent off guard. For example, troops engaged in mobile warfare will often surprise an enemy and continue to fight off enemy troops until no soldier remains. Mobile troops will aim to cut off enemy strongholds and take advantage of opponent weakness due to a surprise attack.

Mobile warfare has been used throughout history as a very effective way of eliminating an opponent. The very concept of warfare is based upon careful planning, and highly calculated maneuvering. When an attacked decided to use mobile warfare, every plan and scheme on the other side of the fence largely tends to go out the window, allowing for the attacker to swiftly move in and systematically pick off the opponent. Mobile warfare is often used today in order to fight many battles on many different battlegrounds, which makes this military tactic one of the best out there.

Jungle Warfare

Only Tarzan would choose to fight in the jungle -- and even then, he would only fight for the love of Jane. Jungle Warfare tends to be one of the most difficult types of warfare out there, and those that survive a jungle war do it based upon excellent skills and superb tactics. Jungle warfare involves rigid mental capabilities, and a guerrilla-type attitude due to the torturous terrain.

Some believe that jungle warfare tactics can largely be attributed to early British soldiers who fought with primitive equipment and few men. Jungle warfare is usually fought within very close quarters, but due to various environmental types of camouflage (trees, weeds, mud) jungle warfare is often a loosing battle. One great example of jungle warfare was the Vietnam War, which turned out to be a devastating war for American troops. However, since the time of Vietnam, military units have been largely trained in the art of jungle warfare, and tactics have been tremendously improved. Various tactics involved in jungle warfare include combat tracking, close-quarter fighting, small team operations, and tree jumping – all essential jungle war skills.

As previously mentioned, jungle warfare is often a psychological game. Enemies can easily hide in trees, under ground, or right in front of an attacking soldier. The smallest sound, or slightest movement from an animal can result in widespread panic, which may be the reason why the Vietnam War saw so many soldiers returning home from the war “shell shocked.” Today, most countries attempt to avoid this type of warfare, but special jungle units do exist within the United States (Green Berets), Brazil (Jungle Infantry Brigade), and Argentina (Cazadores del Monte). Jungle warfare takes more than skill, this type of war takes strong will.

Desert Warfare

In great contrast to arctic warfare exists desert warfare. Desert wars are an extreme measure of stamina and preparedness. Desert wars have many drawbacks that may not be considered from the vantage point of home viewers, or casual war observers. Desert wars are the type of wars that are fought in today’s world, and although these wars are widely covered by media, a desert war is a whole different ballgame that often goes unmentioned.

If an arctic battlefield is the worst kind of terrain possible in which to fight a war, desert terrain comes in a very close second. Because desert environments can be largely unpredictable, those that are not familiar with a desert land can be at a great disadvantage. Although various military tactics, maps, and intelligence may try to prepare troops for battle amidst sand and storms, soldiers can be largely unprepared when it comes to dealing with desert attributes that only natives know about. Those that fight behind the desert’s shield are largely those that have the upper hand.

Special equipment is needed in order to successfully fight a desert war. Desert wars can largely be won from an aerial advantage, which will give an attacker a birds eye view of the large, difficult, land. Desert equipment includes helicopters, various other types of aircraft, special camouflage, tanks, landmines, and excellent fighting tactics specifically designed for desert warfare.

Fighting a war within a desert can be tricky and exhausting. Desert warfare is often avoided at all costs unless it is absolutely necessary. Often, those that fight within desert lands are facing a sort of battle that is largely volatile.

Who is Bud Feuer?

Bud is a retired newspaper journalist and history writer with sixty years experience in the publishing field. He is a World War Two U.S. Navy Veteran and was involved in the earliest forms of infrared technology during his service. His post-war civilian career began with his job as a newspaper feature writer and has since blossomed into his accomplished resume of more than a dozen published books and several hundred magazine articles.

Bud’s Latest Projects

Bud is currently working on two World War One projects. He is interested in receiving letters, photos, and diary material from relatives of the brave soldiers who served in the Dardanelles Campaign of 1915 and with the U.S. 91^st Aero Squadron from 1918 to 1919. Also, for a project dealing with the 1920s, he would like to hear from anyone who has interesting stories about relatives who lived during that decade -- particularly newspapermen, politicians, and gangsters.

Arctic Warfare

War is by no means fought under ideal conditions, or it wouldn’t be called war. Most wars are fought amidst mud, rain, and many other elements, but no type of warfare quite compares to the treacheries that encompass the idea behind arctic warfare. The principles of arctic warfare are really quite simple, but the actual task of war amidst arctic conditions tends to be extremely difficult.

Arctic wars are fought amidst snowy, icy, and extremely cold terrain. Although most people think of foot soldiers when they think of war, arctic warfare also involves large, frozen, bodies of water when the naval fighters take part in this sort of combat. Arctic warfare is also known as “winter warfare,” but this name tends to be a bit of a misnomer given the fact that winter is not always a valid month in many cold regions of the world. Arctic warfare can take place on either mountainous or prairie-like land, but neither type of land exclusively, which is why arctic warfare should not be confused with alpine warfare.

Arctic warfare tends to take place, most of the time, in Northern and Eastern Europe. Various countries have been involved in this sort of warfare ranging from Sweden and Denmark to Russia and Finland. One famous example of arctic warfare is the ski troops that were deployed by the Finnish Army in 1939. Often times, those wars fought within severely cold areas must be adapted to the environment. Equipment used during other, warmer, wars will often malfunction during arctic wars, therefore, the devices used vary greatly.

Imagine the dangers that come along with arctic warfare. Sometimes, during such cold battle, the enemy is only a minor issue. Many soldier freeze to death without proper gear, and many battles would simply be lost if it were not for specialized equipment. Troops must use special camouflage, tents, sleeping bags, heaters, and fuel. Additionally, arctic warfare depends upon various forms of transportation including skis, snowshoes and specially studded tires.

Although arctic warfare may not come to mind when you think of a battlefield, arctic wars have been fought throughout the centuries. When it comes to war, warmer climates are optimal, but when the war must be fought on frozen ground, arctic warfare tactics tend to be the only logical solution.

The Men of Apollo 1

On the memorial at Cape Canaveral, Florida dedicated to the astronauts of Apollo 1 the following words are inscribed: “They gave their lives in service to their country in the ongoing exploration of humankind’s final frontier. Remember them not for how they died but for those ideals for which they lived.”.

High praise indeed for United States Air Force Lt. Colonels Virgil I. Grissom and Edward H. White and United States Navy Lt. Commander Roger B. Chaffee, the 3 men who died in the tragic fire onboard the capsule of Apollo 1 during a final training exercise in January 1967.

Perhaps an even greater testament to their courage and statement regarding how their ultimate sacrifice has helped to bring about the world of technology and spaceflight that we now live in is given by former NASA flight director Chris Kraft when he says that “I don’t think that we would have gotten to the moon in the ‘60s if we had not had the fire.”

Kraft believes that due to the loss of these 3 Americans a much greater emphasis on safety and a stronger commitment to fulfilling the mission of manned moon landings came about which eventually resulted in the successful July 1969 landing of the Eagle on the surface of the moon. As a sign of respect, each of the three has a crater on the moon named after them.

It seems ironic that by their deaths these American heroes actually accomplished far more than they could have had they not lost their lives in the doomed Apollo 1. Americans collectively got a tremendous sense of fulfillment and inspiration from the successful moon landings. It can be argued that the technological advances that we enjoy today, not only in making space flight safer but in everyday life, can be traced to the resolve that came from the horrendous outcome of that flawed test back in 1967.

John C. Fremont - The Pathfinder

In addition to being a well known American military officer, politician, and world-famous explorer the Southern born John Charles Fremont (January 21, 1813 – July 13, 1890) was also opposed to slavery before it was fashionable.

Along with his other accomplishments in his long and distinguished career in service to his nation, Fremont is credited with being the man who "captured" California for the United States. This came about due to President James Polk's adherence to the belief that America had a so-called "Manifest Destiny" to expand literally from sea to sea. To fulfill this destiny it would be necessary to annex the Mexican held California.

Under the guise of protecting American interests and citizens in the Southwest, Polk was able in 1946 to persuade Congress to declare war on the virtually bankrupt and totally disorganized Mexico; thus legitimizing the Mexican-American War. While many future Civil War Generals, and even a couple of future Presidents (Taylor and Grant), cut their military teeth during the brief conflict, Fremont was also able to capitalize on the fame he achieved by capturing Santa Barbara and with almost no bloodshed at all persuaded the defending Mexican General to surrender his forces, effectively ending the war.

Fremont was appointed Military Governor of the newly acquired California territory which led to one of his rivals who happened to be his military superior filing mutiny charges against Fremont. Although convicted of the crime, he was quickly pardoned and served as one of California's first senators. Unfortunately when he ran for President as the first Republican candidate he finished second in the three way race, many feel due to lingering animosity about his activities during the Mexican-American War. In fact, he was unable to carry his adopted home state of California due to the bad will generated by the war.

Oliver Hazard Perry – The Hero of Lake Erie

"We have met the enemy and they are ours; two ships, two brigs, one schooner and one sloop" read the battle report submitted by Oliver Hazard Perry (August 23, 1785 – August 23, 1819), older brother of the famous Commodore Matthew C. Perry, after his remarkable victory over the supposedly superior British Navy on Lake Erie on September 10, 1813 during the War of 1812.

The son of a United States Navy Captain and related on his mother’s side to the hero of the First War of Scottish Independence, Sir William Wallace (whose exploits opposing Edward I of England have currently been popularized in the Mel Gibson film “Braveheart”) Perry was born to both sail and fight.

During the decisive battle of Lake Erie, which ended with the entire Ohio Valley being completely secure from British invasion, Perry’s flagship was so badly damaged that he had to row more than ½ mile in a small boat through a heavy barrage of enemy fire to transfer command to another vessel in his fleet. On that epic trip he carried his battle flag which bore more famous words “Dont Give Up The Ship” (sic).

The successful outcome of the battle for Lake Erie also made the British vulnerable to an American invasion into Canada which surely figured into their decision to seek peace with the United States rather than risk further damage to their empire.

Tragically, Perry’s life was ended on his 34th birthday not by enemy cannon fire but by the bite of a South American insect which had given him Yellow Fever during an expedition to Venezuela. Certainly this brave American sailor would have left more marks on history had he lived longer but what he did accomplish will not ever be forgotten by a grateful nation which might have disappeared from the face of the earth had he failed to protect Lake Erie.

Matthew Calbraith Perry - "The Father of the Steam Navy"

More than 150 years ago Commodore Matthew Perry of the United States Navy achieved lasting fame as the man who was able to open up US trade with the isolated and fertile land of Japan without actually firing a shot. Certainly this non-violent achievement as a result of his almost non-stop negotiations, with the implied threat of military force always on the table, is how most Americans remember Commodore Perry and earns him his place in military history.

However, long before he was deployed by then President Millard Fillmore to secure favorable trade terms with the Japanese, Perry had enjoyed a long and distinguished Naval career. Coming from a family of sailors; his father was the former privateer turned US Naval Captain Christopher Raymond Perry and his older brother the well respected Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry, known as the “Hero of Lake Erie” for his War of 1812 exploits; the younger Perry was anxious to see action in the War of 1812 but other than assisting in the sinking of a British ship during the build-up to the actual declaration of war, he saw little actual fighting.

While the “persuasion” of Japan to open its ports to US vessels is of incomparable historical value Perry was also an outspoken proponent of steam power, so much so that he was dubbed “The Father of the Steam Navy” for his insistence on the value of developing and deploying steam powered vessels. Arguably, this aspect of his many gifts to posterity may have had a much greater long-term impact not only on the United States Navy, as well as other navies of the world, but on the world of shipping as a whole.

America’s “Ace of Aces”

When Wilbur and Orville Wright successfully demonstrated the first machine capable of self-sustained flight on that windy Kitty Hawk day over 100 years ago they could hardly imagined how the result of their tinkerings would change the world. The radical changes brought about by powered flight also included dramatic modifications in mankind’s age old preoccupation with war.

In four major wars since the proving grounds of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina some 60,000 American pilots have flown wartime missions, of these only around 1,400 have achieved the title of “Ace”. To become designated as such a pilot must have at least 5 confirmed enemy kills of opposing aircraft. Originally referred to as “dogfights” due to the propensity of the earliest fliers to circle one another seeking an advantage, much as canines do when challenged by another dog, as times have changed so has the terminology of aerial combat. Now we refer to close-range duels between opposing “Knights of the Sky” as air-to-air combat but the goal remains the same, gain a decisive advantage and destroy the enemy plane.

In World War I clearly the most famous and proficient American Ace was Eddie Rickenbacker who after recording his first “kill” on April 29, 1918 ended the war with a total of 26 confirmed enemy aircraft shot down. While the press dubbed him America’s “Ace of Aces” at the end of the war, his well deserved Medal of Honor was not awarded until 1930. Rickenbacker lived to see his record eclipsed in World War II but never lost the respect, love, and admiration of both the public and his comrades in the sky for his daring and death-defying exploits at a time when techniques for using air power to advantage in wartime were still being developed.

A Mighty Wartime Pen

Sitting in the relative safety and comfort of their own living rooms many Americans were encouraged to support the efforts of the GIs in the field not by the battlefield victories that were reported in the newspapers and on the radio during World War II but by a reporter who lived with the average citizen-soldiers actually fighting the war.

Ernie Pyle was born a farmer’s son in 1900 and had achieved a fair measure of journalistic success prior to the outbreak of the second world war, even becoming the managing editor of the Washington Daily News. However, after moving to London in 1940 to report on the effects of the German air blitz on the occupants of the city, he soon became "America's most widely read war correspondent." according to Time Magazine.

This achievement was due in part to his willingness to put himself in harm’s way, he went with the US Army to North Africa, Sicily, Italy and was with the Allied troops during the Normandy landings of D-Day, but more so his popularity with the folks “back home” was due in large measure to his style of writing from the viewpoint of the average soldier. He was able to capture and share with his readers the sacrifices that their sons were making while also humanizing the war with his first-hand glimpses of the humor, compassion, dignity, and bravery of the men that he was embedded with.

Probably no other reporter has ever been, nor will ever be, as popular with the troops as Pyle. He was considered one of them and enjoyed that distinction. Shortly before he was killed on a routine patrol by a on Okinawa in 1945 Pyle earned journalism’s highest award, the Pulitzer Prize for his wartime reporting.

As a testament to his popularity, he once wrote a column in which he argued that since airmen received extra money, “flight pay”, due to the hazardous nature of flying, the soldier in the field deserved what he termed “fight pay”. Shortly thereafter Congress passed what has been called the Ernie Pyle Bill which authorized an additional 50% of a soldier’s pay for serving in a combat zone.

Many feel that his contributions to the war effort were exceptionally helpful in maintaining morale, both at home and among the troops he lived with and died with.

The Hurry Up Man

While most military heroes are participants in actual combat occasionally a civilian will find a way to contribute to a military effort in such a manner as to be considered a “hero”. Henry Kaiser is just such a man.

Fittingly dubbed “The Hurry Up Man” by Time magazine after successfully completing the massive Boulder Dam building project 2 full years ahead of schedule, Henry Kaiser; businessman, engineer, and shipbuilder extraordinaire; is often overlooked by both WW II historians and the general public alike for his contributions to winning the war for the Allied powers.

With German submarines destroying an average of more than one cargo ship per day during the early years of the conflict Britain soon found itself unable to replace those vessels so vital for bringing cargo, men, ammunition, fuel, and other wartime supplies to the front lines. In near desperation, they asked the United States for assistance and America responded by tasking Kaiser with the job of developing a means of building and deploying ships capable of carrying up to 9,000 tons of cargo or 600 men at a rate previously unimaginable.

Applying his lifelong motto of “Never be afraid to do things in a new way” to the incredible challenge he faced, Kaiser was able; in just 3 years time; to so radically alter the traditional methods of shipbuilding that from the time that the first Liberty ship launched in September 1941 until the last floated majestically into the sea during the summer of 1944, the average time required to build one of these workhorse ships was reduced from around 150 days (considered extremely fast at the time) to an average of about 34 days from laying the keel to completing the interior furnishings. In fact, the SS Robert E. Peary was built in a still-record 4 days, 15 hours, and 29 seconds!

It is indeed fortunate for the world that we know today that Kaiser’s revolutionary assembly-line techniques were so successful as more than 10% of the 2,710 Liberty Ships built under his direction were sunk by the Axis. Even suffering that huge rate of loss, it is certain that without Kaiser’s cookie-cutter shipbuilding the final outcome of World War II would have been far different for the free world.

Scipio Africanus - Military Innovator and Early Diplomat

Publio Cornelius Scipio, (236 BC – 183 BC), known to history as Scipio Africanus, has been called arguably "the greatest general of the ancient world". Part of this tagging is due his remarkable defeat of Hannibal of Carthage and his awesome war elephants in 202 BC but it can also be fairly stated that part of his reputation was earned from his skillful diplomacy, which paved the way for later generals to become statesmen as well as soldiers. Add to the equation the fact that he never lost a battle and was able to inspire unequaled loyalty among his troops and you begin to understand some of his greatness.

So great was Scipio's ability to adapt tactics on the battlefield that during the decisive battle with Hannibal, which effectively ended the Second Punic War, he was able to kill some 20,000 of Hannibal's battle hardened troops while losing only about 500 or his own men. Clearly one of the more one-sided victories in military history and it cemented Scipio Africanus' place in Roman and world history. Always one to spot and exploit a weakness in his opponent, Scipio immediately turned his army towards Carthage after the battle and while he really didn’t have the resources to take or siege the city-state, his reputation and the totally defeated Hannibal’s insistence that resistance was futile forced capitulation and secured some 50 years of paying tribute to Rome’s treasury.

Titus Livius (59 BCE - 17 CE) whom many consider to be the greatest Roman historian for his masterpiece "The History of Rome from its Founding", states that Scipio Africanus was celebrated as much for achieving peace as he was for defeating Hannibal. Again, demonstrating how effective positive public relations could be for military heroes and paving the way for future soldier-statesmen to capitalize on their military conquests for political gain.

Gaius Marius – General and Social Reformer

Gaius Marius (157 BC–January 13, 86 BC) is known to historians for being the uncle of Julius Caesar however less well known is how his reformation of the Roman army helped lead to the conditions in early Rome that allowed his more famous nephew to seize power and convert the Roman Republic to an Empire in the truest sense of the word.

In 107 BC Rome faced a serious manpower shortage due to its history of only recruiting soldiers from the landowning classes based on the assumption that these men would have more to lose should the army be defeated and therefore could be counted on to fight harder and to show more loyalty to their leaders. However, because the rich had been acquiring the land of the smaller property owners there were soon few families owning smaller acreages and therefore smaller numbers of potential soldiers to draw on.

With Rome literally overflowing with mobs of unemployed and landless men, Marius took the novel approach of recruiting a professional army from these ranks. With the promise of regular pay, a share in the spoils of conquered lands, and a retirement plan should they survive for 20 or 25 years in service, there was no shortage of men willing to sign on and soon Marius had a huge army at his disposal.

While this policy not only swelled the ranks of Rome's fighting forces it was also destined to change society as a whole as people whom formerly had no hope for bettering themselves now had the opportunity not only for steady employment but also were given the opportunity to achieve personal glory and earn fame. Another aspect of Marius' reforms was to begin promotion of capable and deserving officers from within the ranks based on their merit rather than granting leadership commissions through the traditional political appointment or sale of such rank.

Another key to the success of this revolutionary concept was that the state began to equip its soldiers and therefore all of its armies had an equal quality and quantity of equipment which allowed for more consistently effective battlefield maneuvering. This practice also helped to create a sense of equality among the formerly common folk of Rome and eventually led to civil war.

All in all, Marius should be considered a military hero not only for his notable success on the battlefield but also for his farsighted and effective reforms of the way armies were recruited.

The Incredible Military Career of Julius Caesar

Most of us recognize the name of Julius Caesar as one of the earliest and greatest rulers of the early Roman Empire. However, historians credit most of his political success to his outstanding military leadership abilities which resulted in his Legions conquering vast territories and subjecting them to Roman rule both before he became the undisputed Emperor and prior to assuming that post—a post that he achieved by successfully leading a Roman civil war in 49 BC.

War historians say that Caesar should be counted in the company of such military geniuses as Napoleon Bonaparte and Alexander the Great but often the details of his military triumphs are overshadowed by the drama of his political reign and eventual assassination.

10 years before seizing control of the government of Rome he was able to conquer all of modern day France, Germany, Switzerland, and Belgium. Often overcoming significant disadvantages in numbers and tactical position Caesar relied not only his cunning and the discipline that he had drilled into his Legions for his victories but also on his well deserved reputation for brutal treatment of conquered territories and captured peoples. For example in 52 BC he defeated the city of Avaricum and proceeded to order his troops to murder all 40,000 of the surviving inhabitants.

While such vicious acts struck terror in the hearts of Rome’s enemies and made later conquests simpler, most of the credit for his military success can probably be given to the exceptional loyalty shown him by his Legions. In an age when 20 miles of troop movement in a day was considered almost unattainable, his armies would sometimes cover twice that distance, drawing their stamina from their respect for Caesar.

Battle at Bloody Ridge

In late August of 1951, the Korean War was at a stalemate. The communist Korean People's Army of North Korea was engaging United Nations forces and the United States 2nd Infantry Division along a line a few miles north of the 38th parallel that divided the Korean peninsula. The two opposing forces clashed several times as they attempted to gain minor territorial advances along the line. One such skirmish was the Battle of Bloody Ridge.

The United Nations forces targeted the ridge of hills because they believed North Korea was using them as an observation point to launch artillery attacks on a U.N. supply road. The Republic of Korea Army, fighting under the United Nations banner, succeeded in capturing a large portion of the ridge only to be beaten back by a fierce North Korean counterattack.

A second U.N. offensive featured the U.S. 2nd Infantry Division. The North Koreans met the U.S. charge and held their ground for 10 days, only surrendering one of the hills. Heavy rains added to the misery, hampering supply chains and bogging down the entire operation.

More U.S. regiments joined the fray, continuing to pressure the North Koreans from the front while also moving to cut off any means of escape. But what really tipped the scales was American air support. The North Koreans simply had no answer for the relentless bombardment from above.

Fearing they were being outflanked, the North Koreans abandoned the ridge and set up new positions some 1,500 yards away, but not before suffering an estimated 15,000 casualties. The U.N. and U.S. forces lost a combined 2,700 men, contributing to the battle's grisly name.

Third Battle of Karthia

Originally thought to be an easy target, the Turkish peninsula of Gallipoli turned out to be a graveyard for Allied forces. From the initial landing through two subsequent attempts to capture the village of Krithia, the Allies suffered horrific casualties at the hands of the determined Turkish defenders under the leadership of German officer Liman von Sanders.

After their failure in the Second Battle of Krithia, the Allies regrouped and engaged in grueling trench warfare with the Turks over the next month without attempting another attack. But on June 4, 1915, the Allies launched their third major offensive, albeit with slightly different objectives.

Seizing Krithia and the nearby hill of Acha Baba were no longer feasible. Instead, Allied Regional Commander-in-Chief Sir Ian Hamilton set more modest goals, hoping to advance 800 yards. The plan called for the capture of the Turkish trenches and then an advancement of an additional 500 yards to establish a new trench line. Once the new trenches were secured, further assaults could be launched on Krithia.

Allied regional commander Aylmer Hunter-Weston, now promoted to lieutenant general, was once again in charge of the Allied forces, which now included not only the British 29th Division but also the Royal Naval Division and the 42nd Division.

The attack opened with an initial bombardment that did little to weaken the Turkish defenses. The ensuing Allied charge was met and largely repulsed, although the 42nd Division did manage to break through the center of the Turkish line, capture their trenches, and advance an additional 1000 yards. But Allied failures along both flanks eventually forced the 42nd Division to withdraw, with the Allies settling their new line a mere 250 yards beyond their original starting point, all while sustaining another 6,500 casualties. It was a third failure in three attempts for the Allies.

Second Battle of Krithia

When the British 29th Division landed on the peninsula of Gallipoli during World War I, they expected to encounter little resistance, planning on a swift, easy victory over the supposed indifferent Turkish defenders. They received a rude awakening upon their initial landing at Cape Helles, suffering extensive casualties during the landing and subsequent failure to capture the village of Krithia.

Allied regional Commander-in-Chief Sir Ian Hamilton saw Krithia and the nearby hill of Achi Baba as vital acquisitions to secure the Dardanelles Straits, which connect the Aegean Sea to the Sea of Marmara. Capturing the Dardanelles would go a long way to knocking the Ottoman Empire from the conflict. Determined to achieve the objective, local Allied commander Major General Aylmer Hunter-Weston regrouped his men after their first disastrous defeat and attempted a second attack on Krithia.

On May 6, 1915, only a little over a week after the first battle, Hunter-Weston orchestrated a second assault using the exact same plan as the first. A division of French soldiers was supposed to engage the right flank of the Turkish line, keeping the enemy pinned down while the British attacked the far left flank before pivoting and sweeping around to seize Krithia.

Yet despite reinforcements strengthening the Allied numbers, their second offensive met with the same fate as the first, as unfamiliarity with the rugged terrain, shortage of ammunition, and poor communication between the divisions doomed it from the start. While minor land was gained, a third of the Allied forces involved became casualties. The second crushing defeat forced a complete reexamination of the Gallipoli front, ominously foreboding future events.

First Battle of Krithia

On April 25, 1915, the British 29th Division, under the command of Major General Aylmer Hunter-Weston, landed on the beaches of Cape Helles at the Gallipoli peninsula in Turkey. The British had assumed an easy victory, thinking the Turkish defenders would be largely indifferent. They were misinformed.

The British were entirely unprepared for the fierce resistance they'd face. So determined were the Turkish fighters, the British grossly overestimated the enemy's total numbers, believing they were confronting at least two full divisions when in reality the British enjoyed a decisive three-to-one advantage in total manpower. That edge was drastically reduced after the initial encounters, with the British forces being cut from 20,000 to 14,000 during the deadly clashes.

Three days after landing, the British attempted to take the village of Krithia as well as a nearby hill called Achi Baba, which Commander-in-Chief Sir Ian Hamilton felt had supreme strategic value. Unfortunately for the Allies, by this time the Turks had received reinforcements, negating the earlier manpower advantage.

Hunter-Weston devised a complex plan to achieve his objective, scheming for a group of French fighters under General d'Amade to attack the right flank of the Turkish line while the British would engage the left flank. The two divisions were supposed to work in concert, with the French pinning the Turkish down on the right while the British would pivot and sweep around to capture Krithia from the rear. But poor communication and the rugged Turkish terrain combined to disrupt the Allied efforts, making the entire endeavor a colossal failure. The Combined Allied forces lost another 3,000 men before retreating back to their original trenches.

Exhausted and demoralized, the British learned a harsh lesson at the First Battle of Krithia.

Seige of Corinth

Thanks to some clever chicanery, Confederate commander General P.G.T. Beauregard managed to save his men from sure defeat and possible annihilation at the Siege of Corinth.

Still reeling from the horrific bloodshed of Shiloh, Union Major General Henry W. Halleck proceeded with extreme caution as he approached the town of Corinth, Mississippi, in late April of 1862. Halleck built entrenchments and protective fortifications after each advance. The precautions slowed the Union progress to a crawl, taking three weeks to move five miles. But by May 25, Halleck and his army of roughly 120,000 men were in position to lay siege to Corinth, cutting supply and communication lines to completely isolate the town.

Beauregard and his 65,000 men knew they were outnumbered and outmaneuvered. Yet the cagey Confederate general wasn't about to lead his men to slaughter. Knowing some would surely buckle under pressure and turn traitor, Beauregard ordered his men three days of rations and told them to prepare for battle. As expected, a few soldiers did surrender to Union forces, revealing the aspects of Beauregard's planned defensive. But little did Halleck realize Beauregard's true intentions.

With the Union readying for battle, Beauregard began secretly evacuating his men under the cover of night, using the Mobile and Ohio Railroad to move out heavy artillery, supplies, and the sick and wounded. When the trains pulled in, Beauregard had his men cheer as if reinforcements had arrived. He then had fake guns positioned along the defensive earthworks. Campfires burned all night. The buglers and drummers never ceased playing.

By the time Halleck's men advanced on Corinth, the Confederates were gone. The Union had laid siege to an empty town.

Battle of Five Forks

While the American Civil War officially ended on April 9, 1965, at Appomattox Court House, the South's fate was sealed eight days earlier at the Battle of Five Forks.

The term Five Forks refers to the intersection of five major roads southwest of Petersburg in Dinwiddie County, Virginia. Confederate General Robert E. Lee implored Major General George E. Pickett of his Army of Northern Virginia to hold Five Forks at all costs. Lee, who was entrenched outside Petersburg, knew that if Five Forks fell, he'd lose valuable supply lines and his last means of escape via the South Side Railroad. In response to Lee's request, Pickett prepared for battle, having his men hastily construct a defensive line of dirt and logs that stretched nearly two miles long in front of White Oak Road.

Major General Philip H. Sheridan was in charge of the approaching Union forces and intended to engage the Confederate line with his cavalry to keep it occupied, all the while amassing troops, under the command of Maj. Gen. Gouverneur K. Warren, for a massive assault on the left flank. But poor intelligence and erroneous maps led Warren to believe the Confederate left flank was significantly farther east than it was. Muddy ground and thick underbrush only added to the Union's misery.

As Warren's divisions floundered about trying to find their true position on the battle field, Sheridan stepped in, personally spearheading the charge that splintered Pickett's left flank. The decisive blow decimated the Confederate line, killing, wounding, or capturing nearly a third of Pickett's 9,200 men. The crushing blow drove Lee from Petersburg, forcing him to retreat until his ultimate surrender at Appomattox.

Battle of Kessler's Cross Lanes

The Union's 7th Ohio Regiment, under the command of Col. Erastus Tyler, was encamped at Kessler's Cross Lanes in Nicholas County, Virginia, which is now present day West Virginia. Confederate Brig. Gen. John B. Floyd was leading a drive through Kanawha Valley when he discovered Tyler's camp. Floyd, using the element of surprise to his advantage, crossed the Gauley River and pounced on his unsuspecting foes.

Tyler and his Union soldiers were entirely unprepared for the assault. In the ensuing chaos, Floyd's men manhandled their Union counterparts, inflicting shocking carnage during the swift exchange. When the dust settled, the Union had suffered 245 casualties, all but depleting the entire regiment. Floyd's army took 40 casualties, making the outcome incredibly one-sided. Once the damage was done, Floyd and his men withdrew back to the river and assumed a defensive position.

The victory allowed Floyd and his men to await General Robert E. Lee, who arrived in western Virginia a month later to coordinate the armies of Floyd, Henry A. Wise, and William W. Loring.

Floyd, the United States Secretary of War under President James Buchanan, was a skillful politician and could have served the Confederacy well in such a capacity, but he chose to be a military leader instead. His strong convictions along with a sense of superiority from his earlier government post created considerable unrest among his fellow Confederate commanders, inciting a fierce quarrel with Wise. Lee attempted to mend fences, but petty jealousies and poor generalship doomed the remaining western Virginia campaign to failure.

Battle of Carthage

The first major land battle of the American Civil War, the Battle of Carthage was a Confederate victory even though not a single Confederate soldier took part in the struggle.

On July 5, 1861, federal commander Col. Franz Sigel led a group of roughly 1,000 Union soldiers into southwest Missouri to confront Missouri governor Claiborne F. Jackson, who had defied President Abraham Lincoln's request to send four military regiments to defeat the South. Jackson sympathized with the Confederate cause and intended to fight for it with his life.

While Sigel's army camped at Carthage, Missouri, Jackson assembled a makeshift force of about 6,000 Missouri State Guardsmen. Despite the superior numbers, Jackson's men were mostly disorganized, poorly-equipped volunteers with little or no fighting experience.

The two sides collided on an open prairie about 11 miles outside Carthage. Sigel opened his assault with artillery, which Jackson answered in kind. The opposing armies then engaged in several skirmishes, with Sigel's infantry troops pulling off a successful bayonet charge against Jackson's mounted cavalry. But Sigel became alarmed when he noticed a large contingent of Jackson's men entering the nearby woods. Fearing they were attempting to outflank him, Sigel ordered a retreat back to Carthage. Due to fatigue and poor supplies, Jackson's men didn't offer pursuit.

Jackson and his soldiers would later join up with Confederate troops marching north from Arkansas. The Battle of Carthage was hardly an overwhelming tactical or strategic win for the South, but it did allow Jackson to retain control on Southern Missouri, keeping the state in question for the early stages of the War.

The Battle of the Thames

The Battle of the Thames was a decisive American victory in the War of 1812, notable both for securing the Northwest frontier and for the death of legendary Indian chief Tecumseh.

American forces had scored a tremendous victory at the Battle of Lake Erie in September 1813, sending British General Henry Procter and his ally Tecumseh fleeing from their stronghold at Fort Malden. American General William Henry Harrison relentlessly pursued Procter across Ontario, despite Tecumseh often pleading with his British counterpart to stand and fight. Tecumseh finally got his wish when the two opposing forces clashed along the Thames River at Moraviantown.

Harrison's army numbered 3,500. Procter had about 800 British troops in his command, along with 500 American Indians under Tecumseh's rule. And conditions weren't good amongst the British soldiers. They were running out of supplies, energy, and ammunition, while Tecumseh and his braves' willingness to fight hinted at mutiny.

Fighting began on October 5, 1813, with Tecumseh attempting to flank the Americans. But a determined American charge up the middle overwhelmed the British, forcing many to flee or surrender. The Indian braves valiantly continued the fight, but became disorganized when Tecumseh was killed during battle. As American forces continued to amass, word of Tecumseh's death sent his braves into full retreat. Harrison proceeded to burn Moraviantown to cap the decisive triumph, effectively ending hostilities along the northwest front.

Harrison would use the popularity gained during the battle to win the Presidency in 1841. Richard Mentor Johnson, who is most often credited with slaying Tecumseh, used his fame to become Vice President under Martin Van Buren in 1837.

Siege of Tobruk

Few things in World War II inspired more fear than the sight of German Lieutenant General Erwin Rommel's Afrika Korps, a swift, powerful collection of mechanized terror that swept through Northern Africa, leaving devastation in its wake. Rommel's tank battalions seemed unstoppable. But they met their match in a group of determined Allied soldiers who became known as the Rats of Tobruk.

Tobruk, a port city along the Mediterranean Sea in northeastern Libya, was an Italian garrison until Allied forces captured it in January of 1941. Rommel was sent to reclaim the town and bore down on it with all his formidable might, leading a force of more than 35,000 strong. The Allied forces within Tobruk, led by the Australian 9^th Division, numbered roughly 14,000. What appeared to be a mismatch soon became one of the glorious Allied triumphs of the war.

The Allied forces deployed numerous tank traps and land mines in preparation for the impending assault. It was enough to stymie the German advance and neutralize the fearsome motorized march. With his tanks slowed, Rommel unleashed hell from above, ordering wave after wave of