OCS History Exam With Correct Answers
6. The Art of War, Interaction of War and Politics and/or Interaction of the Levels of War
--For each of the following battle and/or campaign pairings, discuss their comparative
operational and/or strategic impact: - ANSWER-(a) Battle of Lake Okeechobee and
Wanat;(b) the Monterrey and Mexico City Campaigns;(c) the Maryland and Gettysburg
Campaigns;and (d) the 1864 Atlanta Campaign and the US 1900 elections.
(a) Battle of Lake Okeechobee (1837) and Wanat (2008) - ANSWER-Lake
Okeechobee:
Operational impact: failure, poor with disease and heat
Strategic impact: Fail, did not meet war aim to get seminoles out of FL
Wanat:
Operational impact: It was a successful tactical defense.
Strategic impact: Operational retreat. Wins at Okeechobee and Wanat did not aid war
aims.
(b) the Monterrey (1846) and Mexico City Campaigns (1847) - ANSWER-Hybrid wars
good both tactical wins, defeat guerilla threats. Did war aims affect fortunes v. Mexican
hybrid forces? Yes.
Monterrey:
Operational impact: Zachary Taylor logistical problems, poor prep and planning, caused
him to slow down, undisciplined troops, poor legitimacy, uprising with the locals
Strategic impact: disaster, did not end the war bout it could have according to president
Polk
Mexico City Campaigns: Scott
Operational impact: Scott took care of locals, disciplined troops, good legitimacy, US
army took better care of the locals than their own government, good prep and planning
Strategic impact: good, helped end the war
(c) the Maryland (1862) and Gettysburg Campaigns (1863) - ANSWER-Both had good
strategic impact for Union
Maryland:
Operational impact: Lee's goal was to make Maryland part of the Confederacy and to
get European support for war (but could not). Fought McClellan's army and retreated.
Strategic impact: both sides massive losses but ultimately strategic union victory.
Lincoln puts out emancipation proclamation
Gettysburg:
Operational impact: Lee's artillery was disorganized, he had poor supply lines, and was
low on ammo. Meade's army and artillery were organized, Lee wanted to get a big win
Strategic impact: Lee was unable to get his victory in the north but was able to keep the
Union out of the South thus the Confederates remained in the war
,(d) the 1864 Atlanta Campaign and the US 1900 elections - ANSWER-Atlanta
Campaign and 1900 elections both support war aims
Atlanta Campaign:
Operational impact: Confederates wanted to inflict a big loss on the Union specifically
during election time. 1864 was a rough year for the Union and power is starting to
decline, Good use of maneuver for Sherman. Strategic Impact: Confederates failed
because Lincoln wins presidency anyway due to Sherman's victories but Sherman
himself was strategically unsuccessful because he was supposed to destroy the
Confederate army of Tennessee and instead they retreated
Failed to reunify country
US 1900 elections:
Operational impact: Filipino rebels wanted to inflict a big loss on US specifically during
election time
Strategic impact: Filipinos failed because elections were in two years and rebels got
destroyed hard by the US. US supports war and McKinley wins reelection
(a) the British at Bunker Hill (1775) and Pershing's Lake Lanao March (1899-1913); -
ANSWER-British at Bunker Hill:
Operational impact: Tactical victory for the British but the British insisted on terrible
formations which resulted in easy routing. Violated maneuver, surprise, security,
economy of force, mass, and legitimacy. they moved up a hill with no cover or
concealment
Strategic impact: British aims were to display a show of force against patriots but they
destroyed their legitimacy with their very poor performance at Bunker Hill
Pershing's Lake Lanao March
Operational impact: Pershing used diplomacy more so than he did conflict but did not
hesitate to use conflict when it was necessary
Strategic impact: General Pershing gained tremendous support from the US and the
locals in his diplomatic dealings with the Moros and decreased hostilities. Moros
respected his combat prowess for beating them and he learned about their culture.
(b) Trenton (1776)/Princeton (1777) and Midway (1942) - ANSWER-Both hurt enemies
strategic expectations
Trenton/Princeton:
Operational Impact: Small Battles, Low Cost, good timing, security, economy of forces,
surprise
Trenton: Washington crossing Delaware on Christmas day
Princeton: Washington used deception on Cornwallis
Strategic impact: Big Strategic Impact, Washington was able to retain his Army, Moral
boost and perseverance, increased legitimacy.
Midway:
Operational impact: Japanese violated simplicity and spread their defensive perimeter
along Midway but when US fighter pilots attacked they didn't know where they were
coming from nor where US ships were located so they could not effectively set up an
offensive or a proper defensive line. The US was able to decrypt Japanese LOC so the
, US knew where the Japanese were located. SECURITY AND SURPRISE SEVERELY
VIOLATED
Strategic impact: Japanese retreated because the US continued to use fighter pilots
against the Japanese carriers while the Japanese did not know where the US was
coming from
(c) Kings Mountain (1780) and Horseshoe Bend (1814); - ANSWER-Kings Mountain:
huge operational and strategic impact
Operational impact: major impact, British had bad cover and concealment while patriots
had great cover and concealment, Patriots fighting an uphill battle and win, Tories well
silhouetted against the crest of the mountain
Strategic impact: major impact, Tories failed to break patriot moale and perseverance
instead tired themselves out
Horseshoe Bend:
Operational impact: major impact, Red sticks did not have unity of command and used
interior lines poorly. Jackson was trying to break through obstacle with frontal attack but
cherokees got bored and found an unprotected side and used that to flank the red sticks
and destroy them
Strategic impact: Major strategic impact, ends the creek war with US being victorious
(d) the US at Wanat (2008) and Kamdesh (2009). - ANSWER-Insurgents driven away in
both, U.S. retreated in both. Both places had similar terrain. US at Wanat: In a bowl
surrounded by mountains, successful tactical defense but a operational/strategic retreat.
US at Kamdesh- Almost the same exact story as at Wanat.
--Compare the following hybrid-war situations:
1780-1781 Revolutionary War Southern Theater, Mexican War (1846-1848), Civil War
(1861-1865), and/or Vietnam War (1955-1975). - ANSWER-a. 1780-1781 Revolutionary
War Southern Theater
- Did local guerillas win? Yes. Generally local guerillas won despite the Brits
conventional forces performance.
- Used hybrid forces and won. Local guerilla efforts won, their regular armies did not.
Local forces used a hybrid approach. Brits wanted to control the entire south.
b. Mexican War
The U.S. did not want to control all of Mexico. Only looked to keep some of it. Benefits
someone fighting a hybrid war enemy. Did local guerillas win in spite of a regular army?
NO, guerillas lost.
Did war US aims affect fortunes v. Mexican hybrid forces efforts? YES- Limited aims,
limited Mexican resistance to US effort. Most Mexicans did not care about other parts of
Mexico. The fact that the
U.S. limited war aim definitely affected the reaction of locals in the region. It helped the
US get their war aim since most people in Mexico would rather take the money for a
region they are not tied to than face an invasion.
c. Civil War
6. The Art of War, Interaction of War and Politics and/or Interaction of the Levels of War
--For each of the following battle and/or campaign pairings, discuss their comparative
operational and/or strategic impact: - ANSWER-(a) Battle of Lake Okeechobee and
Wanat;(b) the Monterrey and Mexico City Campaigns;(c) the Maryland and Gettysburg
Campaigns;and (d) the 1864 Atlanta Campaign and the US 1900 elections.
(a) Battle of Lake Okeechobee (1837) and Wanat (2008) - ANSWER-Lake
Okeechobee:
Operational impact: failure, poor with disease and heat
Strategic impact: Fail, did not meet war aim to get seminoles out of FL
Wanat:
Operational impact: It was a successful tactical defense.
Strategic impact: Operational retreat. Wins at Okeechobee and Wanat did not aid war
aims.
(b) the Monterrey (1846) and Mexico City Campaigns (1847) - ANSWER-Hybrid wars
good both tactical wins, defeat guerilla threats. Did war aims affect fortunes v. Mexican
hybrid forces? Yes.
Monterrey:
Operational impact: Zachary Taylor logistical problems, poor prep and planning, caused
him to slow down, undisciplined troops, poor legitimacy, uprising with the locals
Strategic impact: disaster, did not end the war bout it could have according to president
Polk
Mexico City Campaigns: Scott
Operational impact: Scott took care of locals, disciplined troops, good legitimacy, US
army took better care of the locals than their own government, good prep and planning
Strategic impact: good, helped end the war
(c) the Maryland (1862) and Gettysburg Campaigns (1863) - ANSWER-Both had good
strategic impact for Union
Maryland:
Operational impact: Lee's goal was to make Maryland part of the Confederacy and to
get European support for war (but could not). Fought McClellan's army and retreated.
Strategic impact: both sides massive losses but ultimately strategic union victory.
Lincoln puts out emancipation proclamation
Gettysburg:
Operational impact: Lee's artillery was disorganized, he had poor supply lines, and was
low on ammo. Meade's army and artillery were organized, Lee wanted to get a big win
Strategic impact: Lee was unable to get his victory in the north but was able to keep the
Union out of the South thus the Confederates remained in the war
,(d) the 1864 Atlanta Campaign and the US 1900 elections - ANSWER-Atlanta
Campaign and 1900 elections both support war aims
Atlanta Campaign:
Operational impact: Confederates wanted to inflict a big loss on the Union specifically
during election time. 1864 was a rough year for the Union and power is starting to
decline, Good use of maneuver for Sherman. Strategic Impact: Confederates failed
because Lincoln wins presidency anyway due to Sherman's victories but Sherman
himself was strategically unsuccessful because he was supposed to destroy the
Confederate army of Tennessee and instead they retreated
Failed to reunify country
US 1900 elections:
Operational impact: Filipino rebels wanted to inflict a big loss on US specifically during
election time
Strategic impact: Filipinos failed because elections were in two years and rebels got
destroyed hard by the US. US supports war and McKinley wins reelection
(a) the British at Bunker Hill (1775) and Pershing's Lake Lanao March (1899-1913); -
ANSWER-British at Bunker Hill:
Operational impact: Tactical victory for the British but the British insisted on terrible
formations which resulted in easy routing. Violated maneuver, surprise, security,
economy of force, mass, and legitimacy. they moved up a hill with no cover or
concealment
Strategic impact: British aims were to display a show of force against patriots but they
destroyed their legitimacy with their very poor performance at Bunker Hill
Pershing's Lake Lanao March
Operational impact: Pershing used diplomacy more so than he did conflict but did not
hesitate to use conflict when it was necessary
Strategic impact: General Pershing gained tremendous support from the US and the
locals in his diplomatic dealings with the Moros and decreased hostilities. Moros
respected his combat prowess for beating them and he learned about their culture.
(b) Trenton (1776)/Princeton (1777) and Midway (1942) - ANSWER-Both hurt enemies
strategic expectations
Trenton/Princeton:
Operational Impact: Small Battles, Low Cost, good timing, security, economy of forces,
surprise
Trenton: Washington crossing Delaware on Christmas day
Princeton: Washington used deception on Cornwallis
Strategic impact: Big Strategic Impact, Washington was able to retain his Army, Moral
boost and perseverance, increased legitimacy.
Midway:
Operational impact: Japanese violated simplicity and spread their defensive perimeter
along Midway but when US fighter pilots attacked they didn't know where they were
coming from nor where US ships were located so they could not effectively set up an
offensive or a proper defensive line. The US was able to decrypt Japanese LOC so the
, US knew where the Japanese were located. SECURITY AND SURPRISE SEVERELY
VIOLATED
Strategic impact: Japanese retreated because the US continued to use fighter pilots
against the Japanese carriers while the Japanese did not know where the US was
coming from
(c) Kings Mountain (1780) and Horseshoe Bend (1814); - ANSWER-Kings Mountain:
huge operational and strategic impact
Operational impact: major impact, British had bad cover and concealment while patriots
had great cover and concealment, Patriots fighting an uphill battle and win, Tories well
silhouetted against the crest of the mountain
Strategic impact: major impact, Tories failed to break patriot moale and perseverance
instead tired themselves out
Horseshoe Bend:
Operational impact: major impact, Red sticks did not have unity of command and used
interior lines poorly. Jackson was trying to break through obstacle with frontal attack but
cherokees got bored and found an unprotected side and used that to flank the red sticks
and destroy them
Strategic impact: Major strategic impact, ends the creek war with US being victorious
(d) the US at Wanat (2008) and Kamdesh (2009). - ANSWER-Insurgents driven away in
both, U.S. retreated in both. Both places had similar terrain. US at Wanat: In a bowl
surrounded by mountains, successful tactical defense but a operational/strategic retreat.
US at Kamdesh- Almost the same exact story as at Wanat.
--Compare the following hybrid-war situations:
1780-1781 Revolutionary War Southern Theater, Mexican War (1846-1848), Civil War
(1861-1865), and/or Vietnam War (1955-1975). - ANSWER-a. 1780-1781 Revolutionary
War Southern Theater
- Did local guerillas win? Yes. Generally local guerillas won despite the Brits
conventional forces performance.
- Used hybrid forces and won. Local guerilla efforts won, their regular armies did not.
Local forces used a hybrid approach. Brits wanted to control the entire south.
b. Mexican War
The U.S. did not want to control all of Mexico. Only looked to keep some of it. Benefits
someone fighting a hybrid war enemy. Did local guerillas win in spite of a regular army?
NO, guerillas lost.
Did war US aims affect fortunes v. Mexican hybrid forces efforts? YES- Limited aims,
limited Mexican resistance to US effort. Most Mexicans did not care about other parts of
Mexico. The fact that the
U.S. limited war aim definitely affected the reaction of locals in the region. It helped the
US get their war aim since most people in Mexico would rather take the money for a
region they are not tied to than face an invasion.
c. Civil War
