The Evolution of Operational Art. From Napoleon to the Present

(Tina Meador) #1

  1. Timothy K. Nenninger, ‘American Military Effectiveness in the First World War’, in
    Allan R. Millet and Williamson Murray (eds.),Military Effectiveness: Volume I: The
    First World War(Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman, 1987), 129–30.

  2. David Trask, ‘The Entry of the USA into the War and its Effects’, in Hew Strachan
    (ed.),World War I: A History(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 239–52.

  3. Allan R. Millett, ‘Cantigny, 28–31 May 1918’, in Charles E. Heller and William A. Stofft
    (eds.),America’s First Battles, 1776–1965(Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas,
    1986), 149–85.
    14.American Military History, 398.

  4. Ibid., 399.

  5. Trask, ‘Entry of USA into the War’, 43.
    17.American Military History, 403.

  6. Nenninger, ‘American Military Effectiveness’, 141.

  7. Millett, ‘Cantigny’, 180–1.

  8. Nenninger, ‘American Military Effectiveness’, 129.

  9. Ronal Spector, ‘The Military Effectiveness of the U.S. Armed Forces, 1919–1939’, in
    Allan R. Millet and Williamson Murray (eds.),Military Effectiveness: Volume II: The
    Interwar Period(Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman, 1990), 72.

  10. William O. Odom,After the Trenches: The Transformation of the U.S. Army, 1918–1939
    (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1999).

  11. Ibid., 121.

  12. General Service Schools,General Tactical Functions of Larger Units(Ft. Leavenworth,
    KS: General Service Schools, 1926), 1–2; cf. Nelson, ‘Origins of Operational Art’, 340.
    25.General Tactical Functions, 3; cf. Nelson, ‘Origins of Operational Art’, 340.
    26.The Principles of Strategy for an Independent Corps or Army in a Theater of Operations
    (Ft. Leavenworth, KS: Command and General Staff College, 1936), 37.

  13. William K. Naylor,The Principles of Strategy(Ft. Leavenworth, KS: General Service
    Schools, 1920); cf. Col. (ret.) Michael R. Matheny, ‘The Roots of American Opera-
    tional Art’ (unpublished paper).

  14. Naylor,Principles, 49, 106.

  15. Williamson Murray, ‘Strategic Bombing: The British, American, and German Experi-
    ences’, inMilitary Innovation, 107.

  16. Ibid., 115.

  17. Ibid., 123–5; Phillip S. Meilinger,Paths of Heaven: The Evolution of Airpower Theory
    (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press, 1997).

  18. Murray, ‘Strategic Bombing’, 126; and Richard R. Muller, ‘Close Air Support:
    The German, British, and American Experiences, 1918–1941’, inMilitary Innovation,
    144–90.

  19. Murray, ‘Strategic Bombing’, 127.

  20. Tami Davis Biddle,Rhetoric and Reality in Air Warfare: The Evolution of British and
    American Ideas about Strategic Bombing, 1914–1945(Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-
    sity Press, 2002).

  21. Holger H. Herwig, ‘Innovation Ignored: The Submarine Problem—Germany, Britain,
    and the United States, 1919–1939’, inMilitary Innovation, 154.

  22. Ibid., 255–6.

  23. Geoffrey Till, ‘Adopting the Aircraft Carrier: The British, American, and Japanese Case
    Studies’, inMilitary Innovation, 191–226.

  24. Barry Watts and Williamson Murray, ‘Military Innovation in Peacetime’, inMilitary
    Innovation, 399–400.


162 The Evolution of Operational Art
Free download pdf