Recently how outsiders in Slim and Tuker came from the Indian Army caught my attention. Tuker understood the value of professionalism in the inter-war years. Also, Slim was a gifted and intelligent leader. But I wonder if how the people not overly tied to the establishment are the best performers is a historical norm and not an aberration.
For instance, Ulysses S. Grant wasn't cut from the same cloth as other generals during the U.S. Civil War but was a strategic thinker.
Yes, agree. 1920/30s suggests that it was the collective intellectual environment, and firm leadership from the top, together with a coherent framework for thinking about warfighting, which is key. Where there is no direction or where leaders fudge the key issues (because 'there is no money' etc) home grown talent simply can't enjoy the environment necessary to thrive. We discovered that there were lots of brilliant minds in the British and Indian Armies of the time, but they had zero strategic direction. It simply wasn't true that the Army was full of blimps or dunderheads, but the strategic environment for thinking about delivering success in a modern warfighting environment simply didn't exist.
Jun 12, 2023·edited Jun 12, 2023Liked by Dr Robert Lyman MBE
A very timely contribution - for Australia also. Having just published the Defence Strategic Review, a bet has been made about what type of conflict won’t happen in future - the type that arguably occurred against Britain - including Australia - in Malaya and to Britain in France. At relatively low cost, combined arms brigades could be maintained to insure against contingencies. Not doing so incurs strategic risk that is observable by an adversary.
Recently how outsiders in Slim and Tuker came from the Indian Army caught my attention. Tuker understood the value of professionalism in the inter-war years. Also, Slim was a gifted and intelligent leader. But I wonder if how the people not overly tied to the establishment are the best performers is a historical norm and not an aberration.
For instance, Ulysses S. Grant wasn't cut from the same cloth as other generals during the U.S. Civil War but was a strategic thinker.
Yes, agree. 1920/30s suggests that it was the collective intellectual environment, and firm leadership from the top, together with a coherent framework for thinking about warfighting, which is key. Where there is no direction or where leaders fudge the key issues (because 'there is no money' etc) home grown talent simply can't enjoy the environment necessary to thrive. We discovered that there were lots of brilliant minds in the British and Indian Armies of the time, but they had zero strategic direction. It simply wasn't true that the Army was full of blimps or dunderheads, but the strategic environment for thinking about delivering success in a modern warfighting environment simply didn't exist.
A very timely contribution - for Australia also. Having just published the Defence Strategic Review, a bet has been made about what type of conflict won’t happen in future - the type that arguably occurred against Britain - including Australia - in Malaya and to Britain in France. At relatively low cost, combined arms brigades could be maintained to insure against contingencies. Not doing so incurs strategic risk that is observable by an adversary.
Completely agree Ross
A work which appears to have all the makings of an Opus Magnum. I eagerly await.