text
stringlengths 333
651k
| id
stringlengths 47
47
| metadata
dict |
|---|---|---|
Solar water disinfection ( ‘ SoDis ‘ ) is a type of portable water purification that uses solar energy to make biologically-contaminated (eg bacteria, viruses, protozoa and worms) water safe to drink. Water contaminated with non-biological agents such as toxic chemicals or heavy metals require additional steps to make the water safe to drink.
Solar water disinfection is produced by solar photovoltaic panels, heat ( solar thermal ) and solar ultraviolet light collection.
Disinfection using the effects of electricity generated by electrolytic processes, which causes the production of electrolytic disinfection. A second approach uses stored solar electricity from a battery, and operates at night or at low light levels to power an ultraviolet lamp to perform secondary solar ultraviolet water disinfection.
Solar thermal water disinfection uses heat from the Sun to heat water to 70-100 ° C for a short period of time. A number of approaches exist here. Solar heat collectors can have lenses in front of them, or use reflectors. They can also use different levels of insulation or glazing. In addition, some solar thermal water disinfection processes are batch-based, while others (through-flow solar thermal disinfection) operate almost continuously while the sun shines. Water heated to temperatures below 100 ° C is generally referred to as Pasteurized water.
The ultraviolet part of sunlight can also kill pathogens in water. The SODIS method uses a combination of UV light and high temperature (solar thermal) for disinfecting water using only sunlightand PET plastic bottles. SODIS is a free and effective method for decentralized water treatment , and is generally recommended by the World Health Organization as a viable method for household water treatment and safe storage. SODIS is already applied in many developing countries . : 55 Educational pamphlets on the method are available in many languages, each equivalent to the English-language version.
Exposure to sunlight has been shown to inactivate diarrhea -causing organisms in polluted drinking water . The inactivation of pathogenic organisms is attributed to the UV-A (wavelength 320-400 nm) part of the sunlight, which reacts with oxygen dissolved in the water and produces highly reactive forms of oxygen (oxygen free radicals and hydrogen peroxides ) that damage pathogens, while it also interferes with metabolism and destroys bacterial cell structures; and the full band of solar energy (from infrared to UV) heats the water.
At a water temperature of about 30 ° C (86 ° F), a solar irradiance threshold of at least 500 W / m 2 (all spectral light) is required for about 5 hours for SODIS to be efficient. This dose contains energy of 555 Wh / m 2 in the range of UV-A and violet light, 350-450 nm, corresponding to 6 hours of mid-latitude (European) midday summer sunshine.
At water temperatures higher than 45 ° C (113 ° F), synergistic effects of UV radiation and temperature further enhance disinfection efficiency. Above 50 ° C (122 ° F), the bacterial count drops three times faster.
Process for household application
Guides for the household use of SODIS describe the process.
Coloredless, transparent PET water or gold pop bottles of 2 liter or smaller size with few surface scratches are selected for use. Glass bottles are also suitable. Any labels are removed and the bottles are washed before the first use. Water from possibly-contaminated sources is in the bottles, using the clearest water possible. Where the turbidity is higher than 30 NTU it is necessary to filter or precipitate out particulatesprior to exposure to the sunlight. Filters are locally made from stretched fabric over inverted bottles with the bottoms cut off. In order to improve oxygen saturation, the guides recommend that bottles be filled with three-quarters, shaken for 20 seconds (with the cap on), then filled completely, recapped, and checked for clarity.
The filled bottles are then exposed to the fullest possible sunlight. If they are placed on a sloped Sun-facing reflective metal surface. A corrugated metal roof (or, rather, it is compared to thatched roof). Overhanging structures or plants that shade the bottles must be avoided, as they reduce both illumination and heating. After sufficient time, the treated water can be consumed directly from the bottle or poured into clean drinking cups. The risk of re-contamination is minimized if the water is stored in the bottles. Refilling and storage in other containers increases the risk of contamination.
|Weather conditions||Minimum treatment duration|
|Sunny (less than 50% cloud cover)||6 hours|
|Cloudy (50-100% cloudy, little to no rain)||2 days|
|Continuous rainfall||Unsatisfactory performance;
use rainwater harvesting
The most favorable regions for the SODIS method are located between 15 ° N and 35 ° N, and also 15 ° S and 35 ° S. These regions have high levels of solar radiation, with over 90% of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface as direct radiation. The second most favorable region between latitudes 15 ° N and 15 ° S. These regions have high levels of scattered radiation, with about 2500 hours of sunshine annually.
Local education in the use of SODIS is important to avoid confusion between PET and other bottle materials. Applying SODIS without proper assessment of existing hygienic practices and diarrhea incidence. Community trainers must be trained first.
SODIS is an effective method for treating water where fuel or cookers are unavailable or prohibitively expensive. Even where fuel is available, SODIS is a more economical and environmentally friendly option. The application of SODIS is not available, or if the water is highly turbid . In fact, if the water is highly turbid, SODIS can not be used alone; additional filtering is then necessary.
A basic field test to determine if the water is too turbid for the SODIS method to work properly is the newspaper test. For the newspaper test the user has to fill the empty bottle. If the letters are readable, the water can be used for the SODIS method. If the letters are not readable then the turbidity of the water can not be exceeded 30 NTU, and the water must be pretreated.
In theory, the method could be used in disaster relief or refugee camps. However, supplying bottles can be more difficult than providing equivalent disinfecting tablets containing chlorine, bromine, gold iodine. In addition, in some circumstances, it may be difficult to guarantee that the water will be left in the sun for the necessary time.
Other methods for household water treatment (eg, chlorination) differ filtration procedures or flocculation / disinfection. The selection of the appropriate method should be based on the criteria of effectiveness, the co-occurrence of other types of pollution (turbidity, chemical pollutants), treatment costs, labor input and convenience, and the user’s preference.
When the water is highly turbid, SODIS can not be used alone; Additional filtering or flocculation is then necessary to clarify the priority of SODIS treatment. Recent work has shown that common table salt (NaCl) is an effective flocculation agent for decreasing turbidity for the SODIS method in some types of soil. This method could be used to increase the cost of SODIS could be used for low cost.
SODIS may alternatively be implemented using plastic bags. SODIS bags have been found to be more effective than SODIS bottles. SODIS bottles with a water layer of 1 cm to 6 cm SODIS bottles, and treat Vibrio cholerae more effectively. It is assumed that this is because of the surface area to volume ratio in SODIS bags. In remote regions, they are not widely available and can not be shipped in a very small area. Bags can be packed more densely than bottles, and can be shipped to other countries. The disadvantages of using plastic bags are more often than not, they are more difficult to handle when they are watered, and they typically require that the water be transferred to a second container for drinking.
Another important benefit of water treatment is the use of water-related devices. Point-of-use means that the water is treated in the same way to handle container, thus decreasing the risk of secondary water contamination.
If the water bottles are not left in the Sun for the proper length of time, the water may not be safe to drink and could cause illness. If sunlight is needed, it is necessary to have a good weather.
The following issues should also be considered:
- Bottle material
- Some glass or PVC materials may prevent ultraviolet light from reaching the water. Commercially available bottles made of PET are recommended. The handling is much more convenient in the box of PET bottles. Polycarbonate (resin identification code 7) blocks all UVA and UVB rays, and therefore should not be used. Bottles that are clear, green lemon / lime soda pop bottles.
- Aging of plastic bottles
- SODIS efficiency depends on the physical condition of the plastic bottles, with scratches and other signs of reducing the efficiency of SODIS. Heavily scratched or old, blind bottles should be replaced.
- Shape of containers
- The intensity of the UV radiation decreases with increasing water depth. At a water depth of 10 cm (4 inches) and moderate turbidity of 26 NTU, UV-A radiation is reduced to 50%. PET soft drink is the most practical application for the SODIS application.
- Sunlight produces highly reactive forms of oxygen (oxygen free radicals and hydrogen peroxides) in the water. These reactive molecules contribute to the destruction process of microorganisms. Under normal conditions (rivers, creeks, wells, ponds, taps) water contains sufficient oxygen (more than 3 mg / L of oxygen) and does not have to be aerated before the application of SODIS.
- Leaching of bottle material
- There has been some concern about the question of whether or not it is possible for them to be toxic or not toxic. The Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research -have Examined the diffusion of adipates and phthalates (DEHA and DEHP ) from new and reused PET-bottles in the water During solar exposure. The levels of concentrations found in the water after a 17 hours in 60 ° C (140 ° F) water were far below WHOGuidelines for drinking water and the same magnitude as the concentrations of phthalate and adipate found in high-quality tap water. Concerns about the general use of PET-bottles were also expressed by researchers from the University of Heidelberg on the release of antimony from PETs. However, the antimony concentrations found in the bottles are orders of magnitude below WHO and national guidelines for antimony concentrations in drinking water. In addition , SODIS is not included in this policy.
- Regrowth of bacteria
- Once removed from sunlight, the remaining bacteria may still be reproduced in the dark. A 2010 study showed that adding just 10 parts per million of hydrogen peroxide is effective in preventing the regrowth of wild Salmonella .
- Toxic chemicals
- Solar water disinfection does not remove toxic chemicals that may be present in the water, such as factory waste.
Health impact, diarrhea reduction
According to the World Health Organization , more than two million people per year of preventable water-borne diseases, and one billion people.
It has been shown that the SODIS method (and other methods of household water treatment) can be effectively removed from the water. However, infectious diseases are also transmitted through other pathways, ie due to a general lack of sanitation and hygiene. Studies on the reduction of diarrhea among SODIS users show reduction values of 30-80%.
The effectiveness of the SODIS was first discovered by Aftim Acra, of the American University of Beirut in the early 1980s. Follow-up Was Conducted By the research groups of Martin Wegelinat the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag) and Kevin McGuigan at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland . Clinical control trials were pioneered by Ronan Conroy of the RCSI team in collaboration with Michael Elmore-Meegan . ICROSS
A joint research project on SODIS was implemented by the following institutions:
- Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI), Ireland (coordination)
- University of Ulster (UU), United Kingdom
- CSIR Environmentek, South Africa, EAWAG, Switzerland
- The Institute of Water and Sanitation Development ( IWSD ), Zimbabwe
- Plataforma Solar from Almería (CIEMAT-PSA), Spain
- University of Leicester (UL), United Kingdom
- The International Commission for the Relief of Suffering and Starvation ( ICROSS ), Kenya
- University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Spain
- Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Sciences and Technology (Eawag), Switzerland
The project is a multi-country study in Zimbabwe , South Africa and Kenya .
Other developments include the development of a continuous flow disinfection unit and solar disinfection with titanium dioxide film over glass cylinders, which prevents the bacterial regrowth of coliforms after SODIS.
Research has shown that a number of low-cost additives are capable of accelerating SODIS and that additives might make more efficient and acceptable to users. A 2008 study showed that powdered seeds of five natural vegetables (peas, beans and lentils) – Vigna unguiculata (cowpea), Phaseolus mung (black lentil), Glycine max (soybean), Pisum sativum (green pea), and Arachis hypogaea(peanut) -when evaluated as natural flocculants for the removal of turbidity, were as effective as alum and superior for clarification in that the optimum dosage was low (1 g / L), flocculation was rapid (7-25 minutes, depending on the seed used) and the water hardness and pH was essentially unaltered. Later studies have used chestnuts , oak acorns, and Moringa oleifera (drumstick tree) for the same purpose.
Other researches have been used to increase the production of oxygen radicals under solar UV-A. Recently, researchers at the National Center for Sensor Research and the Biomedical Diagnostics Institute at Dublin City University have developed an inexpensive printable UV dosimeter for SODIS applications that can be read using a mobile phone. The camera of the phone is used to acquire an image of the sensor and custom software running on the phone analyzes the sensor color to provide a quantitative measurement of UV dose.
In isolated regions the effect of wood smoke increases lung disease. Research groups have found that boiling water is neglected due to the difficulty of gathering wood, which is scarce in many areas. When presented with basic household water treatment options, they are shown to be a preference for SODIS method or other basic water treatment methods.
The Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG), SODIS promotion projects in 33 countries including Bhutan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, DR Congo, Ecuador , El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Laos, Malawi, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Togo, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
SODIS projects are funded by, among others, the SOLAQUA Foundation , several Lions Clubs , Rotary Clubs, Migros , and the Michel Comte Water Foundation.
SODIS has also been applied in several communities in Brazil, one of them being Prainha do Canto Verde , Beberibe west of Fortaleza . There has been a good deal of success with the SODIS method, since the temperature is more than 40 ° C (104 ° F) and there is a limited amount of shade. [ quote needed ]
One of the most important things to consider for public health workers reaching out to communities in need of affordable, cost effective, and sustainable water treatment methods is teaching the importance of water quality in the context of health promotion and disease prevention while educating about methods Themselves. Although it may be difficult to use these methods of treatment, it may be necessary to treat these conditions.
- Appropriate technology
- Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation
- Water Pasteurization Indicator
- Jump up^ Household water treatment and safe storage . World Health Organization http://www.who.int/household_water/research/technologies_intro/en/ . Retrieved 6 June 2016 . Missing or empty( help )
- ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Meierhofer R Wegelin million (October 2002). Solar water disinfection – A guide for the application of SODIS (PDF) . Swiss Federal Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (EAWAG) Department of Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries (SANDEC). ISBN 3-906484-24-6 .
- ^ Jump up to:a b “Training material” . Swiss Federal Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (EAWAG) Department of Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries (SANDEC) . Retrieved 1 February 2010 .
- Jump up^ “How does it work?” (PDF) . sodis.ch . Retrieved 1 February 2010 .
- Jump up^ Limitations of SODIS ArchivedOctober 11, 2010, at theWayback Machine.
- Jump up^ “Treating turbid water” . World Health Organization . 2010 . Retrieved 30 November 2010 .
- Jump up^ Clasen T (2009). Scaling Up Household Water Treatment Among Low-Income Populations (PDF) . World Health Organization.
- Jump up^ B. Dawney and JM Pearce “Optimizing Solar Water Disinfection (SODIS) by Method Decreasing Turbidity with NaCl”,The Journal of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene for Development2 (2) pp. 87-94 (2012). open access
- Jump up^ B. Dawney, C. Cheng, R. Winkler, JM Pearce. Evaluating the geographical viability of the solar water disinfection (SODIS) method by decreasing turbidity with NaCl: A case study of South Sudan. Applied Clay Science99: 194-200 (2014). open access soonDOI: 10.1016 / j.clay.2014.06.032
- ^ Jump up to:a b “Plastic Bags for Water Treatment: A New Approach to Solar Disinfection of Drinking Water” . University of British Columbia (Vancouver). 2011.
- Jump up^ Mintz E; Bartram J; Lochery P; Wegelin M (2001). “Not just a drop in the bucket: Expanding access to point-of-use water treatment systems” . American Journal of Public Health . 91 (10): 1565-1570. doi : 10.2105 / ajph.91.10.1565 . PMC 1446826 . PMID 11574307 .
- Jump up^ “Plastic Packaging Resins” (PDF) . American Chemistry Council.
- Jump up^ “SODIS Technical Note # 2 Materials: Plastic versus Glass Bottles” . sodis.ch. 20 October 1998. Archived from the original on June 24, 2009 . Retrieved 1 February 2010 .
- Jump up^ “Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality” (PDF) . World Health Organization. pp. 304-6.
- Jump up^ Kohler M, Wolfensberger M. “Migration of organic components from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles to water” (PDF) . Swiss Federal Institute for Materials Testing and Research (EMPA). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-09-21.
- Jump up^ William Shotyk Michael Krachler & Bin Chen (2006). “Contamination of Canadian and European bottled waters with antimony from PET containers”. Journal of Environmental Monitoring . 8 (2): 288-292. doi : 10.1039 / b517844b . PMID 16470261 . Lay summary .
- Jump up^ “Bottled Water Contaminated with Antimony from PET” (Press release). University of Heidelberg. January 26, 2006.
- Jump up^ Sciacca F, Rengifo-Herrera JA, Wet J, Pulgarin C (2010-01-08). Dramatic enhancement of solar disinfection (SODIS) of wild Salmonella sp., In bottles by H (2) O (2). Chemosphere (Epub ahead of print) . 78 (9): 1186-91. doi :10.1016 / j.chemosphere.2009.12.001 . PMID 20060566 .
- Jump up^ “Household water treatment and safe storage” . Retrieved 30 November2010 .
- Jump up^ The WHO and UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and Sanitation (2000). Global water supply and sanitation assessment 2000 report . Geneva: World Health Organization . ISBN 92-4-156202-1 .
- Jump up^ RM Conroy, Elmore-Meegan M, Joyce T, McGuigan KG, J Barnes (1996). “Solar disinfection of drinking water and diarrhoea in Maasai children: a controlled field trial”. Lancet . 348 (9043): 1695-7. doi : 10.1016 / S0140-6736 (96) 02309-4 . PMID 8973432 .
- Jump up^ RM Conroy, ME Meegan, Joyce T, McGuigan K, J Barnes (October 1999). “Solar disinfection of water reduces diarrhoeal disease: an update” . Archives of Disease in Childhood . 81 (4): 337-8. doi : 10.1136 / adc.81.4.337 . PMC 1718112 . PMID 10490440 .
- Jump up^ RM Conroy, ME Meegan, Joyce T, McGuigan K, J Barnes (October 2001). “Solar disinfection of drinking water protects against cholera in children under 6 years of age” . Archives of Disease in Childhood . 85 (4): 293-5. doi :10.1136 / adc.85.4.293 . PMC 1718943 . PMID 11567937 .
- Jump up^ Rose A, Roy S, Abraham V, et al. (February 2006). “Solar disinfection of water for diarrhoeal prevention in southern India” . Archives of Disease in Childhood . 91 (2): 139-41. doi : 10.1136 / adc.2005.077867 . PMC 2082686 . PMID 16403847 .
- Jump up^ LF Caslake, DJ Connolly, Menon V, CM Duncanson, Rojas R, Tavakoli J (February 2004). “Disinfection of contaminated water by using solar irradiation” . Appl. About. Microbiol . 70 (2): 1145-50. doi : 10.1128 / AEM.70.2.1145-1150.2004 . PMC 348911 . PMID 14766599 .
- Jump up^ Gelover S, Gomez LA, Reyes K, Teresa Leal M (October 2006). “A practical demonstration of water disinfection using TiO2 films and sunlight”. Water Res . 40 (17): 3274-80. doi : 10.1016 / j.waste.2006.07.006 . PMID 16949121 .
- Jump up^ MB Fisher, Keenan CR, Nelson KL, Voelker BM (March 2008). “Speeding up solar disinfection (SODIS): effects of hydrogen peroxide, temperature, pH, and copper plus ascorbate on the photoinactivation of E. coli”. J Water Health . 6 (1): 35-51. doi : 10.2166 / wh.2007.005 . PMID 17998606 .
- Jump up^ Mbogo SA (March 2008). “A novel technology to improve drinking water quality using natural treatment methods in rural Tanzania”. J Environ Health . 70 (7): 46-50. PMID 18348392 .
- Jump up^ Šćiban M, Klašnja M, Antov M, Škrbić B (2009). “Removal of water turbidity by natural coagulants obtained from chestnut and acorn”. Bioresource technology . 100 (24): 6639-43. doi : 10.1016 / j.biortech.2009.06.047 . PMID 19604691 .
- Jump up^ Nkurunziza, T; Nduwayezu, JB; Banadda, EN; Nhapi, I (2009). “The effect of turbidity and Moringa oleifera concentration on the effectiveness of coagulation in water treatment”. Water Science and Technology . 59 (8): 1551-8. doi : 10.2166 / wst.2009.155 . PMID 19403968 .
- Jump up^ Byrne JA; Fernandez-Ibañez PA; Dunlop PSM; Alrousan DMA; Hamilton JWJ (2011). Photocatalytic Enhancement for Solar Disinfection of Water: A Review. International Journal of Photoenergy . 2011 : 1-12. doi : 10.1155 / 2011/798051 .
- Jump up^ Copperwhite, R; McDonagh, C; O’Driscoll, S (2011). “A Phone-Based UV-Dosimeter Camera for Monitoring the Solar Disinfection (SODIS) of Water”. IEEE Sensors Journal . 12 (5): 1425-1426. doi : 10.1109 / JSEN.2011.2172938 .
- Jump up^ Contact addresses and case studies of the projects coordinated by the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG) are available atsodis.ch.
- Jump up^ “SOLAQUA” . Wegelin & Co. Archived from the original on 2008-05-04
|
<urn:uuid:59c93f56-6d2e-4209-8c34-c4b2b7e862ea>
|
{
"dataset": "HuggingFaceFW/fineweb-edu",
"dump": "CC-MAIN-2018-09",
"file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-09/segments/1518891814290.11/warc/CC-MAIN-20180222200259-20180222220259-00207.warc.gz",
"int_score": 4,
"language": "en",
"language_score": 0.8593295216560364,
"score": 3.734375,
"token_count": 5638,
"url": "http://www.durabilit.eu/solar-water-disinfection/"
}
|
These days, we’re often warned about the dangers of hacking and data theft, or reminded of the need to protect our vital documents, sensitive information, and credentials by encryption, when they’re transmitted over the internet or an unprotected network. But what does that mean, exactly?
Well, in simple terms, encryption is the process of taking a recognizable item (such as a written message, list of figures. or an image) and scrambling it so that it becomes unrecognizable to everyone except the person or entity intended to recognize it – who of course must have a key for unscrambling what’s been done to make it unrecognizable.
Though the results may look random to the casual observer, encryption isn’t a haphazard process. There are established mechanisms and systematic techniques. And yes – there’s mathematics involved.
Math and Matrices in Encryption
What’s commonly referred to as an encryption algorithm is really just a collection of operations performed on the elements (alphabet letters, numbers, bits of digital data, etc.) making up an object to be scrambled or encrypted. Typically, these operations will manifest as some kind of mathematical or geometric formula, governing how the component parts of an original object are dispersed to make up its encrypted counterpart.
As encryption is all about making the original source material indecipherable or unrecognizable, these mathematical functions typically involve moving its constituent elements around (shifting them to different positions), or replacing them with something else (substitution). Matrix functions are ideal for this, which is why they’re involved in many of the more advanced encryption techniques.
Doing the Rounds
The more sophisticated or advanced an encryption technique becomes, the more complex its encryption algorithm must be. You’d logically expect this to mean that the algorithm would have to consist of many operations of great complexity – and to a certain extent, this is true.
This brings us to the concept of a “round”. In cryptography, a round is made up of a number of algorithmic building blocks (mathematical functions, matrix transformations, etc.) strung together to create a function that’s run multiple times on source material to encrypt it according to a specific cipher or encryption algorithm.
The number of rounds performed on the source equates to how many times the information passes through the algorithm before it’s considered to have been sufficiently encrypted.
When encrypting data for digital transmission, we’re dealing with bits or bytes of information. A block cipher is an encryption algorithm which acts on a fixed-length group of bits, which is referred to as a block. This is why encryption algorithms are said to be 128-bit, 192-bit, 256-bit, and so on.
A block cipher’s transformations are specified by a symmetric encryption key, and many are performed by specifying a round which is then run multiple times.
The Feistel Cipher is a design model which formed the basis of many different block ciphers. Cryptographic systems based on Feistel use the same algorithm for encrypting and decrypting data.
Typically, the encryption process for a Feistel Cipher imposes multiple rounds of processing onto the plain text of the source. Each round involves a substitution step, followed by a permutation step.
DES and Triple DES
The Data Encryption Standard (DES) is a symmetric-key block cipher derived from the Feistel model. It was published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and uses a 16-round Feistel structure operating on a block size of 64 bits.
The key length for DES is 64 bits, but this is effectively reduced to 56 bits, as 8 of the 64 bits in the key aren’t used by the encryption algorithm, acting instead as check bits.
DES has some great strengths as a cipher. Any small changes made in the original plain text result in huge changes in the cipher text, once the algorithm is run. This is known as the “Avalanche Effect”. Each bit of cipher text also depends on many bits of plain text, making it more difficult to crack.
Difficult, but not impossible – and an improved variant known as Triple DES or 3-DES was adopted to address the vulnerability of DES to brute force attacks stemming from its relatively small key size. However, Triple DES was found to be too slow for practical applications.
The Advanced Encryption Standard AES
Hoping for an improvement on the performance of DES and Triple DES, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) started development of an Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) in 1997. This was to be the symmetric block cipher of choice for the US government in protecting classified information – and one that could be deployed in software and hardware across the world, for encrypting sensitive data.
NIST specified that the algorithm chosen for the AES should be a block cipher capable of handling 128 bit blocks, using keys sized at 128, 192, and 256 bits. It should also be resistant to attack, low-cost in terms of computational power and memory usage (the algorithm itself being released on a global, nonexclusive and royalty-free basis), and able to be deployed on a range of software and hardware platforms.
Fifteen symmetric key algorithm schemes were presented for analysis, from which five finalists were chosen, including:
- MARS, from an IBM Research team
- RC6, from RSA Security
- Rijndael, submitted by Joan Daemen and Vincent Rijmen, two Belgian cryptographers
- Serpent, submitted by Ross Anderson, Eli Biham and Lars Knudsen
- Twofish, submitted by researchers from Counterpane Internet Security
AES uses an iterative model, rather than the Feistel structure. Its basis is a “substitution–permutation network” consisting of a set of linked operations, some replacing inputs with specific outputs (substitution), and others shifting components of the plain text source around (permutation).
AES computations are performed on bytes, rather than bits, with 128 bits of a plain text block being treated as 16 bytes. These 16 bytes may be arranged in four columns and four rows, for processing as a matrix.
The Shift Row Transformation
The matrix function crucial to an AES cipher is known as a shift row transformation. As its name suggests, the function shifts the bytes in each row of a matrix by a certain offset, determined by the encryption algorithm.
For AES, the first row of the matrix is left unchanged. Each byte in the second row is shifted one position to the left. Bytes in the third and fourth rows are shifted by offsets of two and three, respectively. The shifting pattern for blocks of 128 bits and 192 bits is the same, with each row n being shifted left circular by n-1 bytes.
So for a 128-bit block (16 bytes under AES, a four by four matrix), the shift row transformation looks like this:
|1 5 9 13||1 5 9 13|
|2 6 10 14||6 10 14 2|
|3 7 11 15||11 15 3 7|
|4 8 12 16||16 4 8 12|
For 192 bits, the transformation takes this form:
|1 5 9 13 17 21||1 5 9 13 17 21|
|2 6 10 14 18 22||6 10 14 18 22 2|
|3 7 11 15 19 23||11 15 19 23 3 7|
|4 8 12 16 20 24||16 20 24 4 8 12|
The Rijndael Cipher
It was the Rijndael Cipher (whose name derives from the surnames of its creators, Rijmen and Daemen) that was ultimately selected as the basis for the new Advanced Encryption Standard (AES).
The cipher consists of a variable number of rounds: 9 if both the block and key are 128 bits long, and 11 if either the block or the key is 192 bits long, and neither one is longer than that. This doesn’t include an extra round performed at the end of the encryption, with one step omitted.
Rijndael also allows for encryption with 256-bit keys, in which case the shift row transformation looks like this:
|1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29||1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29|
|2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30||6 10 14 18 22 26 30 2|
|3 7 11 15 19 23 27 31||15 19 23 27 31 3 7 11|
|4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32||20 24 28 32 4 8 12 16|
Each regular round involves four steps:
- A Byte Substitution
- The Shift Row transformation
- A Mix Column step, where matrix multiplication is performed
- An Add Round Key, where a logical operation known as XOR is performed
The AES as based on the Rijndael Cipher was adopted as a US federal government standard in 2002, and has since proven to be resistant to most forms of attack targeting it. The exceptions have been “side-channel” attacks focusing on weaknesses found in the implementation or key management of specific encryption products based on AES.
Share this Post
|
<urn:uuid:86884654-cdff-4e3e-8f68-d17ba80f9913>
|
{
"dataset": "HuggingFaceFW/fineweb-edu",
"dump": "CC-MAIN-2018-09",
"file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-09/segments/1518891815812.83/warc/CC-MAIN-20180224132508-20180224152508-00408.warc.gz",
"int_score": 4,
"language": "en",
"language_score": 0.9225618243217468,
"score": 4.09375,
"token_count": 1915,
"url": "https://blog.finjan.com/shift-row-transformation-and-other-examples-of-advanced-encryption/"
}
|
The Australian Senate is the upper house of the bicameral Parliament of Australia, the lower house being the House of Representatives. The composition and powers of the Senate are established in Chapter I, Part II of the Australian Constitution. There are a total of 76 senators: 12 senators are elected from each of the six states (regardless of population) and two from each of the two autonomous internal territories (the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory). Senators are popularly elected under the single transferable vote system of proportional representation.
|Single transferable vote|
|2 July 2016|
|On or before 18 May 2019|
Canberra, ACT, Australia
Unlike upper houses in Westminster parliamentary systems, the Senate is vested with significant power, including the capacity to reject all bills, including budget and appropriation Bills, initiated by the government in the House of Representatives, making it a distinctive hybrid of British Westminster bicameralism and US-style bicameralism. As a result of proportional representation, the chamber features a multitude of parties vying for power. The governing party or coalition, which has to maintain the confidence of the lower house, has not held a majority in the Senate since 2005-2008 (and before that since 1981) and usually needs to negotiate with other parties and Independents to get legislation passed.
Senators normally serve fixed six-year terms (from 1 July to 30 June). At most federal elections, the seats of 40 of the 76 senators (half of the 72 senators from the six States and all four of the senators from the Territories) are contested, along with the entire House of Representatives; such an election is sometimes known as a half-Senate election. The seats of senators elected at a half-Senate election are not contested at the next election, provided it is a half-Senate election. However, under some circumstances, the entire Senate is dissolved early, in what is known as a double dissolution. Following a double dissolution, half the senators representing States serve terms ending on the third 30 June following the election (i.e. slightly less than three years) and the rest serve a six year term. The term of senators representing a Territory expires at the same time as there is an election for the House of Representatives. While there is no constitutional requirement for the election of senators to take place at the same time as those for members of the House of Representatives, the government usually synchronises the dates of elections for the Senate and House of Representatives.
Origins and roleEdit
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Imp.) of 1900 established the Senate as part of the new system of dominion government in newly federated Australia. From a comparative governmental perspective, the Australian Senate exhibits distinctive characteristics. Unlike upper Houses in other Westminster system governments, the Senate is not a vestigial body with limited legislative power. Rather it was intended to play – and does play – an active role in legislation. Rather than being modelled solely after the House of Lords, as the Canadian Senate was, the Australian Senate was in part modelled after the United States Senate, by giving equal representation to each state and equal powers. The Constitution intended to give less populous states added voice in a Federal legislature, while also providing for the revising role of an upper house in the Westminster system.
Although the Prime Minister and Treasurer, by convention, are members of the House of Representatives (after John Gorton was appointed prime minister in 1968, he resigned from the Senate and was elected to the House), other members of the Cabinet may come from either house, and the two Houses have almost equal legislative power. As with most upper chambers in bicameral parliaments, the Senate cannot introduce or amend appropriation bills (bills that authorise government expenditure of public revenue) or bills that impose taxation, that role being reserved for the lower house; it can only approve, reject or defer them. That degree of equality between the Senate and House of Representatives reflects the desire of the Constitution's authors to address smaller states' desire for strong powers for the Senate as a way of ensuring that the interests of more populous states as represented in the House of Representatives did not totally dominate the government. This situation was also partly due to the age of the Australian constitution – it was enacted before the confrontation in 1909 in Britain between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, which ultimately resulted in the restrictions placed on the powers of the House of Lords by the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949.
In practice, however, most legislation (except for private member's bills) in the Australian Parliament is initiated by the Government, which has control over the lower house. It is then passed to the Senate, which has the opportunity to amend the bill, pass or reject it. In the majority of cases, voting takes place along party lines, although there are occasional conscience votes.
The system for electing senators has changed several times since Federation. The original arrangement involved a first-past-the-post block voting or "winner takes all" system, on a state-by-state basis. This was replaced in 1919 by preferential block voting. Block voting tended to produce landslide majorities and even "wipe-outs". For instance, from 1920 to 1923 the Nationalist Party held all but one of the 36 seats, and from 1947 to 1950, the Labor Party held all but three.
In 1948, single transferable vote proportional representation on a state-by-state basis became the method for electing Senators. This had the effect of limiting the government's ability to control the chamber, and has helped the rise of Australian minor parties. From the 1984 election, group ticket voting was introduced, in order to reduce a high rate of informal voting that arose from the requirement that each candidate be given a preference, and to allow small parties and independent candidates a reasonable chance of winning a seat. This allowed voters to select a single party "Above the Line" to distribute their preferences on their behalf, but voters were still able to vote directly for individual candidates and distribute their own preferences if they wished "Below the Line" by numbering every box.
In 2016 group tickets were abolished to avoid undue influence of preference deals amongst parties that were seen as distorting election results and a form of optional preferential voting was introduced. As a result of the changes, voters may assign their preferences for parties above the line (numbering as many boxes as they wish), or individual candidates below the line, and are not required to fill all of the boxes. Both above and below the line voting now use optional preferential voting. For above the line, voters are instructed to number at least their first six preferences; however, a "savings provision" is in place to ensure that ballots will still be counted if less than six are given. For below the line, voters are required to number at least their first 12 preferences. Voters are free to continue numbering as many preferences as they like beyond the minimum number specified. Another savings provision allows ballot papers with at least 6 below the line preferences to be formal. The voting changes make it more difficult for new small parties and independent candidates to be elected to the Senate.
The changes were subject to a High Court Challenge by sitting South Australian Senator Bob Day of the Family First Party. The senator argued that the changes meant the senators would not be "directly chosen by the people" as required by the constitution. The High Court decided that both above the line and below the line voting were valid methods for the people to choose their Senators.
The Australian Senate voting paper under the single transferable vote proportional representation system resembles the following example (shown in two parts), which shows the candidates for Victorian senate representation in the 2016 federal election.
To vote correctly, electors must either:
- Vote for at least six parties above the thick black line, by writing the numbers 1-6 in party boxes. Votes with less than six boxes numbered are still admitted to the count through savings provisions.
- Vote for at least twelve candidates below the thick black line, by writing the numbers 1-12 in the individual candidates' boxes. Votes with between six and twelve boxes numbered are still admitted to the count through savings provisions.
Because each state elects six senators at each half-Senate election, the quota for election is only one-seventh or 14.3% (one third or 33.3% for territories, where only two senators are elected). Once a candidate has been elected with votes reaching the quota amount, any votes they receive in addition to this may be distributed to other candidates as preferences.
With an odd number of seats in a half-Senate election (3 or 5), 50.1% of the vote wins a majority (2/3) or (3/5).
With an even number of seats in a half-Senate election (6), 57.1% of the vote is needed to win a majority of seats (4/6).
The ungrouped candidates in the far right column do not have a box above the line. Therefore, they can only get a primary (number 1) vote from electors who vote below the line. For this reason, some independents register as a group, either with other independents or by themselves, such as group B in the above example.
Names of parties can be shown only if the parties are registered, which requires, among other things, a minimum of 500 members.
Order of partiesEdit
The order of parties on the ballot papers and the order of ungrouped candidates are determined by a ballot conducted by the Electoral Commission.
Candidates, parties and groups pay a deposit of $2000 per candidate, which is forfeited if they fail to achieve 4% of the primary vote.
Candidates, parties and groups earn a public subsidy if they gain at least 4% of the primary vote. At the 2013 federal election, funding was $2.488 per formal first preference vote.
Under sections 7 and 8 of the Australian Constitution:
- The Senate must comprise an equal number of senators from each original state,
- each original state shall have at least six senators, and
- the Senate must be elected in a way that is not discriminatory among the states.
These conditions have periodically been the source of debate, and within these conditions, the composition and rules of the Senate have varied significantly since federation.
Size and nexusEdit
Under Section 24 of the Constitution, the number of members of the House of Representatives has to be "as nearly as practicable" double the number of Senators. The reasons for the nexus are twofold. These are a desire to maintain a constant influence for the smaller states and maintain a constant balance of the two Houses in case of a joint sitting after a double dissolution. A referendum held in 1967 to eliminate the nexus failed to pass.
The size of the Senate has changed over the years. The Constitution originally provided for 6 senators for each state, resulting in a total of 36 senators. The Constitution permits the Parliament to increase the number of senators, provided that equal numbers of senators from each original state are maintained. Accordingly, in 1948, Senate representation was increased to 10 senators for each state, increasing the total to 60.
In 1975, the two territories, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, were given an entitlement to elect two senators each for the first time, bringing the number to 64. The senators from the Northern Territory also represent constituents from Australia's Indian Ocean Territories (Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands), while the senators from the Australian Capital Territory also represent voters from the Jervis Bay Territory and since 1 July 2016, Norfolk Island.
The latest expansion in Senate numbers took place in 1984, when the number of senators from each state was increased to 12, resulting in a total of 76 senators.
Normally, elections for senators take place at the same time as those for members of the House of Representatives. However, because their terms do not coincide, the incoming Parliament will for some time comprise a new House of Representatives and an old Senate.
Section 13 of the Constitution requires that in half-Senate elections the election of State senators shall take place within one year before the places become vacant. The actual election date is determined by the Governor of each State, who acts on the advice of the State Premier. The Governors almost always act on the recommendation of the Governor-General, with the last independent Senate election writ being issued by the Governor of Queensland during the Gair Affair in 1974.
Slightly more than half of the Senate is contested at each general election (half of the 72 state senators, and all four of the territory senators), along with the entire House of Representatives. Except in the case of a double dissolution, senators are normally elected for fixed terms of six years, commencing on 1 July following the election, and ceasing on 30 June six years later.
The term of the four senators from the territories is not fixed, but is defined by the dates of the general elections for the House of Representatives, the period between which can vary greatly, to a maximum of three years and three months. Territory senators commence their terms on the day that they are elected. Their terms expire the day prior to the following general election day.
Following a double dissolution, all 76 senators face re-election. If there is an early House election outside the 12-month period in which Senate elections can occur, the synchronisation of the election will be disrupted, and there can be half-Senate elections without a concurrent House election. The last time this occurred was on 21 November 1970.
Issues with equal representationEdit
Each state elects the same number of senators, meaning there is equal representation for each of the Australian states, regardless of population, so the Senate, like many upper Houses, does not adhere to the principle of "one vote one value". Tasmania, with a population of around 500,000, elects the same number of senators as New South Wales, which has a population of over 7 million. Because of this imbalance, governments favoured by the more populous states are occasionally frustrated by the extra power the smaller states have in the Senate, to the degree that former Prime Minister Paul Keating famously referred to the Senate's members as "unrepresentative swill". The proportional election system within each state ensures that the Senate incorporates more political diversity than the lower house, which is basically a two party body. The elected membership of the Senate more closely reflects the first voting preference of the electorate as a whole than does the composition of the House of Representatives, despite the large discrepancies from state to state in the ratio of voters to senators. This often means that the composition of the Senate is different from that of the House of Representatives, contributing to the Senate's function as a house of review.
With proportional representation, and the small majorities in the Senate compared to the generally larger majorities in the House of Representatives, and the requirement that the number of members of the House be "nearly as practicable" twice that of the Senate, a joint sitting after a double dissolution is more likely than not to lead to a victory for the House over the Senate. When the Senate had an odd number of Senators retiring at an election (3 or 5), 51% of the vote would lead to a clear majority of 3 out of 5 per state. With an even number of Senators retiring at an election, it takes 57% of the vote to win 4 out of 6 seats, which may be insurmountable. This gives the House an unintended extra advantage in joint sittings but not in ordinary elections, where the Senate may be too evenly balanced to get House legislation through.
The Government does not need the support of the Senate to stay in office; however, the Senate can block or defer supply, an action that precipitated a constitutional crisis in 1975. However, if the governing party does not have a majority in the Senate, it can often find its agenda frustrated in the upper house. This can be the case even when the government has a large majority in the House.
The overwhelming majority of senators have always been elected as representatives of political parties. Parties which currently have representation in the Senate are:
- The Coalition – Liberal Party of Australia, Liberal National Party of Queensland, National Party of Australia and Country Liberal Party
- Australian Labor Party
- Australian Greens
- Pauline Hanson's One Nation
- Nick Xenophon Team
- Derryn Hinch's Justice Party
- Liberal Democratic Party
- Australian Conservatives
Other parties that have achieved Senate representation in the past include the Jacqui Lambie Network, Family First Party, Australian Democrats, Palmer United Party, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party, Nuclear Disarmament Party, Liberal Movement, the Democratic Labour Party and the related but separate Democratic Labor Party.
Due to the need to obtain votes statewide, independent candidates have difficulty getting elected. The exceptions in recent times have been elected in less populous States—the former Tasmanian Senator Brian Harradine and the former South Australian Senator Nick Xenophon. It is less uncommon for a senator initially elected representing a party to become an independent, most recently in the cases of Senator Lucy Gichuhi resigning from Family First, Senators Rod Culleton and Fraser Anning resigning from One Nation, and Senator Steve Martin being expelled from the Jacqui Lambie Network.
The Australian Senate serves as a model for some politicians in Canada, particularly in the Western provinces, who wish to reform the Canadian Senate so that it takes a more active legislative role.
There are also small factions in the United Kingdom (both from the right and left) who wish to the see the House of Lords take on a structure similar to that of the Australian Senate.[who?]
Section 15 of the Constitution provides that a casual vacancy of a State senator shall be filled by the State Parliament. If the previous senator was a member of a particular political party the replacement must come from the same party, but the State Parliament may choose not to fill the vacancy, in which case Section 11 requires the Senate to proceed regardless. If the State Parliament happens to be in recess when the vacancy occurs, the Constitution provides that the State Governor can appoint someone to fill the place until fourteen days after the State Parliament resumes sitting.
The Australian Senate typically sits for 50 to 60 days a year.[h] Most of those days are grouped into 'sitting fortnights' of two four-day weeks. These are in turn arranged in three periods: the autumn sittings, from February to April; the winter sittings, which commence with the delivery of the budget in the House of Representatives on the first sitting day of May and run through to June or July; and the spring sittings, which commence around August and continue until December, and which typically contain the largest number of the year's sitting days.
The senate has a regular schedule that structures its typical working week.
Dealing with legislationEdit
All bills must be passed by a majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate before they become law. Most bills originate in the House of Representatives, and the great majority are introduced by the government.
The usual procedure is for notice to be given by a government minister the day before the bill is introduced into the Senate. Once introduced the bill goes through several stages of consideration. It is given a first reading, which represents the bill's formal introduction into the chamber.
The first reading is followed by debate on the principle or policy of the bill (the second reading debate). Agreement to the bill in principle is indicated by a second reading, after which the detailed provisions of the bill are considered by one of a number of methods (see below). Bills may also be referred by either House to their specialised standing or select committees. Agreement to the policy and the details is confirmed by a third and final reading. These processes ensure that a bill is systematically considered before being agreed to.
The Senate has detailed rules in its standing orders that govern how a bill is considered at each stage. This process of consideration can vary greatly in the amount of time taken. Consideration of some bills is completed in a single day, while complex or controversial legislation may take months to pass through all stages of Senate scrutiny. The Constitution provides that if the Senate vote is equal, the question shall pass in the negative.
In addition to the work of the main chamber, the Senate also has a large number of committees which deal with matters referred to them by the Senate. These committees also conduct hearings three times a year in which the government's budget and operations are examined. These are known as estimates hearings. Traditionally dominated by scrutiny of government activities by non-government senators, they provide the opportunity for all senators to ask questions of ministers and public officials. This may occasionally include government senators examining activities of independent publicly funded bodies, or pursuing issues arising from previous governments' terms of office. There is however a convention that senators do not have access to the files and records of previous governments when there has been an election resulting in a change in the party in government. Once a particular inquiry is completed the members of the committee can then produce a report, to be tabled in Parliament, outlining what they have discovered as well as any recommendations that they have produced for the Government to consider.
The ability of the Houses of Parliament to establish committees is referenced in Section 49 of the Constitution, which states that, "The powers, privileges, and immunities of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as are declared by the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its members and committees, at the establishment of the Commonwealth."
Parliamentary committees can be given a wide range of powers. One of the most significant powers is the ability to summon people to attend hearings in order to give evidence and submit documents. Anyone who attempts to hinder the work of a Parliamentary committee may be found to be in contempt of Parliament. There are a number of ways that witnesses can be found in contempt, these include; refusing to appear before a committee when summoned, refusing to answer a question during a hearing or to produce a document, or later being found to have lied to or misled a committee. Anyone who attempts to influence a witness may also be found in contempt. Other powers include the ability to meet throughout Australia, to establish subcommittees and to take evidence in both public and private hearings.
Proceedings of committees are considered to have the same legal standing as proceedings of Parliament. They are recorded by Hansard, except for private hearings, and also operate under Parliamentary privilege. Every participant, including committee members and witnesses giving evidence, is protected from being prosecuted under any civil or criminal action for anything they may say during a hearing. Written evidence and documents received by a committee are also protected.
Holding governments to accountEdit
One of the functions of the Senate, both directly and through its committees, is to scrutinise government activity. The vigour of this scrutiny has been fuelled for many years by the fact that the party in government has seldom had a majority in the Senate. Whereas in the House of Representatives the government's majority has sometimes limited that chamber's capacity to implement executive scrutiny, the opposition and minor parties have been able to use their Senate numbers as a basis for conducting inquiries into government operations. When the Howard government won control of the Senate in 2005, it sparked a debate about the effectiveness of the Senate in holding the government of the day accountable for its actions. Government members argued that the Senate continued to be a forum of vigorous debate, and its committees continued to be active. The Opposition leader in the Senate suggested that the government had attenuated the scrutinising activities of the Senate. The Australian Democrats, a minor party which frequently played mediating and negotiating roles in the Senate, expressed concern about a diminished role for the Senate's committees.
Senators are called upon to vote on matters before the Senate. These votes are called divisions in the case of Senate business, or ballots where the vote is to choose a senator to fill an office of the Senate (such as President of the Australian Senate).
Party discipline in Australian politics is extremely tight, so divisions almost always are decided on party lines. Nevertheless, the existence of minor parties holding the balance of power in the Senate has made divisions in that chamber more important and occasionally more dramatic than in the House of Representatives.
When a division is to be held, bells ring throughout the parliament building for four minutes, during which time senators must go to the chamber. At the end of that period the doors are locked and a vote is taken, by identifying and counting senators according to the side of the chamber on which they sit (ayes to the right of the chair, noes to the left). The whole procedure takes around eight minutes. Senators with commitments that keep them from the chamber may make arrangements in advance to be 'paired' with a senator of the opposite political party, so that their absence does not affect the outcome of the vote.
The Senate contains an even number of senators, so a tied vote is a real prospect (which regularly occurs when the party numbers in the chamber are finely balanced). Section 23 of the Constitution requires that in the event of a tied division, the question is resolved in the negative. The system is however different for ballots for offices such as the President. If such a ballot is tied, the Clerk of the Senate decides the outcome by the drawing of lots. In reality, conventions govern most ballots, so this situation does not arise.
Political parties and voting outcomesEdit
The extent to which party discipline determines the outcome of parliamentary votes is highlighted by the rarity with which members of the same political party will find themselves on opposing sides of a vote. The exceptions are where a conscience vote is allowed by one or more of the political parties; and occasions where a member of a political party crosses the floor of the chamber to vote against the instructions of their party whip. Crossing the floor very rarely occurs, but is more likely in the Senate than in the House of Representatives.
One feature of the government having a majority in both chambers between 1 July 2005 and the 2007 elections was the potential for an increased emphasis on internal differences between members of the government coalition parties. This period saw the first instances of crossing the floor by senators since the conservative government took office in 1996: Gary Humphries on civil unions in the Australian Capital Territory, and Barnaby Joyce on voluntary student unionism. A more significant potential instance of floor crossing was averted when the government withdrew its Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill, of which several government senators had been critical, and which would have been defeated had it proceeded to the vote. The controversy that surrounded these examples demonstrated both the importance of backbenchers in party policy deliberations and the limitations to their power to influence outcomes in the Senate chamber.
Where the Houses disagreeEdit
If the Senate rejects or fails to pass a proposed law, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the Senate refuses to pass the same piece of legislation, the government may either abandon the bill or continue to revise it, or, in certain circumstances outlined in section 57 of the Constitution, the Prime Minister can advise the Governor-General to dissolve the entire parliament in a double dissolution. In such an event, the entirety of the Senate faces re-election, as does the House of Representatives, rather than only about half the chamber as is normally the case. After a double dissolution election, if the bills in question are reintroduced, and if they again fail to pass the Senate, the Governor-General may agree to a joint sitting of the two Houses in an attempt to pass the bills. Such a sitting has only occurred once, in 1974.
The double dissolution mechanism is not available for bills that originate in the Senate and are blocked in the lower house.
After a double dissolution election, section 13 of the Constitution requires the Senate to divide the senators into two classes, with the first class having a three-year "short term", and the second class a six-year "long term". The Senate may adopt any approach it wants to determine how to allocate the long and short terms, however two methods are currently 'on the table':
- "elected-order" method, where the Senators elected first attain a six-year term. This approach tends to favour minor party candidates as it gives greater weight to their first preference votes; or
- re-count method, where the long terms are allocated to those Senators who would have been elected first if the election had been a standard half-Senate election. This method is likely to be preferred by the major parties in the Senate where it would deliver more six-year terms to their members.
The Senate applied the "elected-order" method following the 1987 double dissolution election. Since that time the Senate has passed resolutions on several occasions indicating its intention to use the re-count method to allocate seats at any future double dissolution, which Green describes as a fairer approach but notes could be ignored if a majority of Senators opted for the "elected-order" method instead. In both double dissolution elections since 1987, the "elected order" method was used.
On 8 October 2003, the then Prime Minister John Howard initiated public discussion of whether the mechanism for the resolution of deadlocks between the Houses should be reformed. High levels of support for the existing mechanism, and a very low level of public interest in that discussion, resulted in the abandonment of these proposals.
Because of the federal nature of our Constitution and because of its provisions the Senate undoubtedly has constitutional power to refuse or defer supply to the Government. Because of the principles of responsible government a Prime Minister who cannot obtain supply, including money for carrying on the ordinary services of government, must either advise a general election or resign. If he refuses to do this I have the authority and indeed the duty under the Constitution to withdraw his Commission as Prime Minister. The position in Australia is quite different from a position in the United Kingdom. Here the confidence of both Houses on supply is necessary to ensure its provision. In United Kingdom the confidence of the House of Commons alone is necessary. But both here and in the United Kingdom the duty of the Prime Minister is the same in a most important aspect – if he cannot get supply he must resign or advise an election.
The constitutional text denies the Senate the power to originate or amend appropriation bills, in deference to the conventions of the classical Westminster system. Under a traditional Westminster system, the executive government is responsible for its use of public funds to the lower house, which has the power to bring down a government by blocking its access to supply – i.e. revenue appropriated through taxation. The arrangement as expressed in the Australian Constitution, however, still leaves the Senate with the power to reject supply bills or defer their passage – undoubtedly one of the Senate's most powerful abilities.
The ability to block supply was exercised in the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. The Opposition used its numbers in the Senate to defer supply bills, refusing to deal with them until an election was called for both Houses of Parliament, an election which it hoped to win. The Prime Minister of the day, Gough Whitlam, contested the legitimacy of the blocking and refused to resign. The crisis brought to a head two Westminster conventions that, under the Australian constitutional system, were in conflict – firstly, that a government may continue to govern for as long as it has the support of the lower house, and secondly, that a government that no longer has access to supply must either resign or be dismissed. The crisis was resolved in November 1975 when Governor-General Sir John Kerr dismissed Whitlam's government and appointed a caretaker government on condition that elections for both Houses of parliament be held. This action in itself was a source of controversy and debate at that time on the proper usage of the Senate's ability to block supply.
The blocking of supply alone cannot force a double dissolution. There must be legislation repeatedly blocked by the Senate which the government can then choose to use as a trigger for a double dissolution.
The 2 July 2016 double dissolution election Senate result was announced on 4 August: Liberal/National Coalition 30 seats (−3), Labor 26 seats (+1), Greens 9 seats (−1), One Nation 4 seats (+4) and Nick Xenophon Team 3 seats (+2). Derryn Hinch won a seat, while Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm, Family First's Bob Day, and Jacqui Lambie retained their seats. The number of crossbenchers increased by two to a record 20. The Liberal/National Coalition required at least nine additional votes to reach a Senate majority, an increase of three. The Liberal/National Coalition and Labor parties agreed that the first elected six of twelve Senators in each state would serve a six-year term, while the last six elected in each state would serve a three-year term, despite two previous bipartisan senate resolutions to use an alternative method to allocate long and short term seats. By doing this, Labor and the Coalition each gained one Senate seat from 2019.
Bob Day, of the Family First Party, resigned from the Senate on 1 November 2016 following the collapse of his business. His eligibility to have stood in the 2016 election was referred by the Senate to the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns. In April 2017 the court found that Day was not validly elected at the 2016 election and ordered that a special recount of South Australian ballot papers be held in order to determine his replacement. The court announced that Lucy Gichuhi was elected in his place on 19 April 2017. On 26 April 2017, Family First merged with the Australian Conservatives; however, Gichuhi declined to join the new party, announcing she would sit as an independent.
Rodney Culleton, who had left Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party on 19 December 2016 to become an independent, had his eligibility to stand in the 2016 election challenged on two constitutional grounds. Among the grounds of ineligibility provided in Constitution section 44, a person cannot sit in either house of the Parliament if they are bankrupt or have been convicted of a criminal offence carrying a potential prison sentence of one year or more.
Culleton was declared bankrupt by the Federal Court on 23 December 2016. On 11 January 2017, after receiving an official copy of the judgment, the President of the Senate declared Culleton's seat vacant. Culleton's appeal against that judgment was dismissed by a full court of the Federal Court on 3 February 2017.
This judgment was followed later on the same day by the High Court's decision that Culleton was ineligible owing to conviction for a criminal offence carrying a potential prison sentence of one year or more. This was a decision of the Court of Disputed Returns following a reference by the Senate at the same time as with Day. It was decided that, since Culleton's liability to a two-year sentence for larceny had been in place at the time of the 2016 election, he had been ineligible for election and that this was not affected by the subsequent annulment of that conviction; the Court also held that the resulting vacancy should be filled by a recount of the ballot, in a manner to be determined by a single Justice of the Court. Following that recount, on 10 March 2017 the High Court named Peter Georgiou as his replacement, returning One Nation to 4 seats.
In July 2017 a co-deputy leader of the Greens, Senator Scott Ludlam, resigned from the Senate on discovering that he was a dual citizen (born in New Zealand) and therefore, under Section 44 of the Constitution, had been ineligible to sit in the Parliament. The revelation prompted Ludlam's fellow co-deputy leader of the Greens, Senator Larissa Waters, to examine her citizenship status and, on discovering that she too was a dual citizen (born in Canada), she also resigned. It is expected that both seats will be filled by a recount of the 2016 election, respectively in Western Australia and in Queensland, resulting in the seats being filled by the candidates who came next in each State.
On 2 February 2018, South Australian Senator Lucy Gichuhi joined the Liberal Party, ceasing to be an independent and strengthening the position of the government.
Composition changes since the last electionEdit
In the time elapsed between the 2016 election and the following federal election, many parliamentarians resigned from their seats, while some were disqualified by the High Court of Australia. The parliamentary eligibility crisis involving dual citizenship was responsible for a significant portion of these departures. Some individual parliamentarians also made an impact by changing their party membership or independent status.
Historical party composition of the SenateEdit
The Senate has included representatives from a range of political parties, including several parties that have seldom or never had representation in the House of Representatives, but which have consistently secured a small but significant level of electoral support, as the table shows.
Results represent the composition of the Senate after the elections. The full Senate has been contested on eight occasions; the inaugural election and seven double dissolutions. These are underlined and highlighted in puce.
|2nd||1903||8||12[k]||14||1||1||Revenue Tariff||36||Plurality-at-large voting|
|8th||1919||1||35||36||Preferential block voting|
|9th||1922||12||24||36||Preferential block voting|
|10th||1925||8||25||3||36||Preferential block voting|
|11th||1928||7||24||5||36||Preferential block voting|
|12th||1931||10||21||5||36||Preferential block voting|
|13th||1934||3||26||7||36||Preferential block voting|
|14th||1937||16||16||4||36||Preferential block voting|
|15th||1940||17||15||4||36||Preferential block voting|
|16th||1943||22||12||2||36||Preferential block voting|
|17th||1946||33||2||1||36||Preferential block voting|
|18th||1949||34||21||5||60||Single transferable vote|
|19th||1951||28||26||6||60||Single transferable vote|
|20th||1953||29||26||5||60||Single transferable vote|
|21st||1955||28||24||6||2||60||Single transferable vote|
|22nd||1958||26||25||7||2||60||Single transferable vote|
|23rd||1961||28||24||6||1||1||60||Single transferable vote|
|24th||1964||27||23||7||2||1||60||Single transferable vote|
|25th||1967||27||21||7||4||1||60||Single transferable vote|
|26th||1970||26||21||5||5||3||60||Single transferable vote|
|27th||1974||29||23||6||1||1||Liberal Movement||60||Single transferable vote|
|28th||1975||27||26||6||1||1||1||Liberal Movement||64||Single transferable vote|
|29th||1977||27||27||6||2||1||1||64||Single transferable vote|
|30th||1980||27||28||3||5||1||1||64||Single transferable vote|
|31st||1983||30||23||4||5||1||1||64||Single transferable vote|
|32nd||1984||34||27||5||7||1||1||1||Nuclear Disarmament||76||Single transferable vote (Group voting ticket)|
|33rd||1987||32||26||7||7||1||2||1||Nuclear Disarmament||76||Single transferable vote (Group voting ticket)|
|34th||1990||32||28||5||8||1||1||1||Greens (WA)||76||Single transferable vote (Group voting ticket)|
|35th||1993||30||29||6||7||1||1||2||Greens (WA) (2)||76||Single transferable vote (Group voting ticket)|
|36th||1996||29||31||5||7||1||1||2||Greens (WA), Greens (Tas)||76||Single transferable vote (Group voting ticket)|
|37th||1998||29||31||3||9||1||1||1||1||One Nation||76||Single transferable vote (Group voting ticket)|
|38th||2001||28||31||3||8||2||1||2||1||One Nation||76||Single transferable vote (Group voting ticket)|
|39th||2004||28||33||5||4||4||1||1||Family First||76||Single transferable vote (Group voting ticket)|
|40th||2007||32||32||4||5||1||1||1||Family First||76||Single transferable vote (Group voting ticket)|
|41st||2010||31||28 + (3 LNP)||2||1||9||1||1||76||Single transferable vote (Group voting ticket)|
|42nd||2013||25||23 + (5 LNP)||3 + (1 LNP)||1||10||1||1||6||Family First,
Palmer United (3)
|76||Single transferable vote (Group voting ticket)|
|43rd||2016||26||21 + (3 LNP)||3 + (2 LNP)||9||1||11||Family First,
Nick Xenophon Team (3),
One Nation (4)
|76||Single transferable vote (Optional preferential voting)|
- Next Australian federal election
- Members of the Australian Senate, 2016–2019
- President of the Australian Senate
- Double dissolution
- Women in the Australian Senate
- Clerk of the Australian Senate
- Members of the Australian Parliament who have served for at least 30 years
- Father of the Australian Senate
- List of Australian Senate appointments
- Canberra Press Gallery
- 2 LNP Senators sit in the Liberal party room and 2 in the National party room
- Sits in National party room
- Cory Bernardi resigned from the Liberal Party on 7 February 2017 and founded the Australian Conservatives.
- Fraser Anning (Queensland) was declared elected at a recount to replace Malcolm Roberts as a Senator for One Nation, but left the party within an hour of being sworn in on 13 November 2017.
- Steve Martin (Tasmania) was declared elected at a recount to replace Jacqui Lambie as a Senator for the Jacqui Lambie Network, but was expelled from the party two days before his election was declared on 7 February 2018.
- Tim Storer (South Australia) was declared elected at a recount to replace Skye Kakoschke-Moore as a Senator for the Nick Xenophon Team, but resigned from the party in November 2017, after an unsuccessful attempt to fill the casual vacancy left by party leader Nick Xenophon's Senate resignation.
- LNP Senator George Brandis resigned on 8 February 2018.
- Figures are available for each year on the Senate StatsNet.
- Includes results for the Free Trade Party for 1901 and 1903, the Anti-Socialist Party for 1906, the Commonwealth Liberal Party for 1910—1914, the Nationalist Party for 1917—1929, and the United Australia Party for 1931—1943.
- Includes results for the Country Party for 1919—1974 and the National Country Party for 1975—1980.
- Protectionist Party
- Williams, George; Brennan, Sean; Lynch, Andrew (2014). Blackshield and Williams Australian constitutional law and theory : commentary and materials (6th ed.). Annandale, NSW: Federation Press. p. 415. ISBN 9781862879188.
- "Part V - Powers of the Parliament". Retrieved 13 May 2017.
- "No. 14 - Ministers in the Senate". Senate Briefs. Parliament of Australia. December 2016.
- Day v Australian Electoral Officer for the State of South Australia HCA 20
- "Chapter 4, Odgers' Australian Senate Practice". Aph.gov.au. 2 February 2010. Archived from the original on 21 March 2011. Retrieved 17 July 2010.
- "Senate (Representation of Territories) Act 1973. No. 39, 1974". Austlii.edu.au. Retrieved 22 March 2017.
- "Norfolk Island Electors". Australian Electoral Commission. 2016. Retrieved 6 August 2016.
- Department of the Senate, Senate Brief No. 1, 'Electing Australia's Senators' Archived 29 August 2007 at the Wayback Machine.. Retrieved August 2007.
- Section 6 of the Senate (Representation of Territories) Act 1973. Retrieved August 2010.
- Question without Notice: Loan Council Arrangements House Hansard,
- Lijphart, Arend (1 November 1999). "Australian Democracy: Modifying Majoritarianism?". Australian Journal of Political Science. 34 (3): 313–326. doi:10.1080/10361149950254. ISSN 1036-1146.
- Sawer, Marian (1999). Marian Sawer and Sarah Miskin, eds. Overview: Institutional Design and the Role of the Senate (PDF). Representation and Institutional Change: 50 Years of Proportional Representation in the Senate. 34. pp. 1–12. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 January 2011.
- Ted Morton, 'Senate Envy: Why Western Canada Wants What Australia Has' Archived 14 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine., Senate Envy and Other Lectures in the Senate Occasional Lecture Series, 2001–2002, Department of the Senate, Canberra.
- "Senate weekly routine of business". Australian Senate. 7 November 2011. Archived from the original on 26 January 2012.
- Australian Senate, 'The Senate and Legislation' Archived 24 September 2008 at the Wayback Machine., Senate Brief, No. 8, 2008, Department of the Senate, Canberra.
- Australian Senate, 'Consideration of legislation' Archived 26 September 2008 at the Wayback Machine., Brief Guides to Senate Procedure, No. 9, Department of the Senate, Canberra.
- "Odgers' Australian Senate Practice Fourteenth Edition Chapter 16 - Committees". 2017. Retrieved 19 March 2017.
- Constitution of Australia, section 49.
- "Infosheet 4 - Committees". aph.gov.au. Retrieved 22 February 2017.
- "Media Release 43/2006 – Senate remains robust under Government majority". 30 June 2006. Archived from the original on 27 September 2007.
- "Senator Chris Evans, The tyranny of the majority (speech)". 10 November 2005. Archived from the original on 12 November 2009.
Labor has accused the Government of 'ramming' bills through the Senate – but Labor "guillotined" Parliamentary debate more than twice the number of times in their 13 years in Government than the Coalition has over the last decade. In the last six months, the Government has not sought to guillotine any bill through the Senate.
- "Senator Andrew Murray: Australian Democrats Accountability Spokesperson Senate Statistics 1 July 2005 – 30 June 2006" (PDF). 4 July 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 August 2006.
- Senate Standing Orders, numbers 7, 10, 98–105, 163
- Deirdre McKeown, Rob Lundie and Greg Baker, 'Crossing the floor in the Federal Parliament 1950 – August 2004' Archived 3 October 2008 at the Wayback Machine., Research Note, No. 11, 2005–06, Department of Parliamentary Services, Canberra.
- Uhr, John (June 2005). "How Democratic is Parliament? A case study in auditing the performance of Parliaments" (PDF). Democratic Audit of Australia, Discussion Paper. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 May 2013.
- Peter Veness, 'Crossing floor 'courageous, futile', news.com.au, 15 June 2006. Retrieved January 2008.
- Neither of these instances resulted in the defeat of a government proposal, as in both cases Senator Steve Fielding voted with the government.
- Prime Minister's press conference, 14 August 2006 "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 21 August 2006. Retrieved 21 August 2006.
- "Nationals won't toe Libs' line: Joyce – SMH 18/9/2008". News.smh.com.au. 18 September 2008. Retrieved 17 July 2010.
- Uma Patel (6 July 2016). "Election 2016: How do we decide which senators are in for three years and which are in for six?". Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
- Antony Green (25 April 2016). "How Long and Short Senate Terms are Allocated After a Double Dissolution". Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
- Consultative Group on Constitutional Change (March 2004). "Resolving Deadlocks: The Public Response" (PDF). p. 8.
- Kerr, John. "Statement from John Kerr (dated 11 November 1975) explaining his decisions". WhitlamDismissal.com. Retrieved 11 January 2017.
- Kerr, John. "Statement from John Kerr (dated 11 November 1975) explaining his decisions". WhitlamDismissal.com. Retrieved 11 January 2017.
- Green, Antony. "An Early Double Dissolution? Don't Hold Your Breath!". Antony Green's Election Blog. ABC. Retrieved 1 August 2016.
- AEC (21 February 1984). "AEC". Twitter. Retrieved 22 March 2017.
- "Federal Election 2016: Senate Results". Australia Votes. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 3 July 2016. Retrieved 4 July 2016.
- "Senate photo finishes". Blogs.crikey.com.au. 12 July 2016. Retrieved 30 July 2016.
- "Cormann raises 'first elected' plan to halve Senate terms for crossbenchers". The Australian. 12 August 2016. Retrieved 18 March 2017.
- Hutchens, Gareth (12 August 2016). "Senate terms: Derryn Hinch and Greens' Lee Rhiannon given three years". Retrieved 3 February 2017 – via The Guardian.
- "LP-LNP deal to force senators back to poll in three years". The Australian. 13 August 2016. Retrieved 18 March 2017.
- Hunter, Fergus (12 August 2016). "Coalition and Labor team up to clear out crossbench senators in 2019". smh.com.au. Retrieved 3 February 2017.
- "Court finds witnesses not enough to prove Bob Day breached constitution". abc.net.au. 27 January 2017. Retrieved 3 February 2017.
- "Family First ex-senator Bob Day's election ruled invalid by High Court". ABC News. 5 April 2017.
- Doran, Matthew; Belot, Henry; Crothers, Joanna (19 April 2017). "Family First senator Lucy Gichuhi survives ALP challenge over citizenship concerns". ABC News. Retrieved 19 April 2017.
- Karp, Paul (20 April 2017). "Court rebuffs Labor challenge to Family First senator Lucy Gichuhi". The Guardian. Retrieved 20 April 2017.
- Belot, Henry (26 April 2017). "Cory Bernardi unwilling to wait for Lucy Gichuhi to 'get her head around' things". ABC News. Retrieved 26 April 2017.
- "Rod Culleton: Former One Nation senator loses appeal against court bankruptcy verdict". abc.net.au. 4 February 2017. Retrieved 10 February 2017.
- Re Culleton [No 2] HCA 4 (3 February 2017).
- "One Nation: Rod Culleton's brother-in-law Peter Georgiou confirmed as replacement". abc.net.au. Retrieved 10 March 2017.
- Uhlmann, Chris; Norman, Jane (7 February 2017). "Cory Bernardi to split with Coalition to form Australian Conservatives party". ABC News Australia. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on 7 February 2017. Retrieved 7 February 2017.
- Strutt, J; Kagi, J (14 July 2017). "Greens senator Scott Ludlam resigns over failure to renounce dual citizenship". ABC News. Australia.
- Belot, Henry (18 July 2017). "Larissa Waters, deputy Greens leader, quits in latest citizenship bungle". abc.net.au.
- "A database of elections, governments, parties and representation for Australian state and federal parliaments since 1890". University of Western Australia. Retrieved 15 February 2009.
- Bach, Stanley (2003). Platypus and Parliament: The Australian Senate in Theory and Practice. Department of the Senate. ISBN 0-642-71291-3.
- Harry Evans, Australian Senate Practice, A detailed reference work on all aspects of the Senate's powers, procedures and practices.
- John Halligan, Robin Miller and John Power, Parliament in the Twenty-first Century: Institutional Reform and Emerging Roles, Melbourne University Publishing, 2007.
- Wilfried Swenden, Federalism and Second Chambers: Regional Representation in Parliamentary Federations: the Australian Senate and German Bundesrat Compared, P.I.E. Peter Lang, 2004.
- Sawer, Marian & Miskin, Sarah (1999). Papers on Parliament No. 34 Representation and Institutional Change: 50 Years of Proportional Representation in the Senate. Department of the Senate. ISBN 0 642 71061 9.
|
<urn:uuid:61d840f5-7db8-4857-b0c9-876a99aabcef>
|
{
"dataset": "HuggingFaceFW/fineweb-edu",
"dump": "CC-MAIN-2018-09",
"file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-09/segments/1518891812758.43/warc/CC-MAIN-20180219171550-20180219191550-00608.warc.gz",
"int_score": 4,
"language": "en",
"language_score": 0.944070041179657,
"score": 3.9375,
"token_count": 11124,
"url": "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate"
}
|
What really caused France’s humiliating loss to the Viet Minh in the French Indochina war? To understand we must focus on logistics. Charles Shrader’s A War of Logistics: Parachutes and Porters in Indochina, 1945–1954 reveals the true staggering failures of the French were simply the result of poor logistics.
On the surface, it may not make sense. A western power falling to an agrarian band of guerrilla fighters? No author has precisely examined Viet Minh and French military logistics in great detail. This is an impressive view.
Shrader has taught at West Point, the Command & General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, and at the Army War College. He is a former executive director of the Society for Military History. His metrics and well-written history document those French military pillars that collapsed triggering their retreat not only from Indochina but from the world stage.
Many respected books point to Dien Bien Phu as the surprising French loss and later defeat in the war. Shrader documents how this battle was the culmination of a series of shocking logistical failures that plagued their efforts against the Viet Minh.
The shift benefitting the Viet Minh developed after the Korean War. China began delivering overwhelming logistical resources to the Viet Minh. While French and CIA intelligence captured communications confirming numerous deliveries of infrastructure, France did not adjust to this threat.
In retrospect, the logistical failure to support the French effort should have sent strong signals to American military advisors that success against this communist enemy would be a long and difficult task.
Shrader has addressed today in the age of analytics a unique view of a war fought seventy years ago by revealing the military infrastructure throughout Indochina created at the onset of the conflict was, in fact, an uneven stage favoring the Viet Minh.
On the surface, following World War II the obvious advantage in this war was with France. The Viet Minh were literally a band of guerrilla fighters confronting a colonial empire that fought and suffered through the greatest conflict on the world’s stage from 1917-1945.
The seemingly largest advantage for France was air power. The Viet Minh had no air force. The French had access to planes with napalm that horrified the Viet Minh. Again on the surface how could France be defeated with an enemy lacking any air force?
Yet France could not overcome the country’s physical environment as their logistical efforts remained in a European battlefield mentality.
For having modern armaments the French never swayed the outcome of most battles, most notably Dien Bien Phu which was Navarre’s plan to draw their Viet Minh enemy into a final confrontation.
Paris was forever trapped with colonial-era demands upon their French Union forces. It was a war that post-World War II France was not willing to fight:
In August 1949, the French National Assembly made continued support for the Indochina war contingent on a pledge that no draftees would be sent to Indochina, thus further limiting the already small pool of manpower available for assignment to the theater.
As I have noted in earlier blog posts about Dien Bien Phu book, Paris would not send French boys to bleed across Indochina. Their colonial armies would take that role. And they sadly filled it well. During the war, French-backed communist parties did their best to slow all legislation to slow their military effort.
This loss of a true military commitment and logistical support doomed their war plans and ultimately their seat on the global stage as a world power.
Even the most mobile French Union forces were heavily laden with weapons, ammunition, and a plethora of other equipment, and the French discovered, much to their sorrow, that their mechanized mobility was no match for the foot mobility of the Viet Minh. In their after-action reports, French commanders freely acknowledged that their units, organized for warfare in Europe, proved to be “ill-suited to the task of carrying on a struggle against rebel forces in an Asiatic theater of operations.
As late as the end of 1953, the commandant en chef still found it necessary to issue a bulletin that admonished: “Commanders at all echelons still suffer from a ‘motor complex.’ They are used to moving with vehicles which restrict them to roads and certain trails. They forget that our enemy is completely independent of motor transport and can rapidly assemble and move large forces in difficult areas where it is impossible for us to follow and give battle unless we give up our motorized transport
Not only were the motorized GMs tied to the limited road networks of Indochina, they were also notorious consumers of logistical support, particularly petroleum products, ammunition, and maintenance. The artillery and the headquarters elements of the typical GM were 100 percent motorized, and the infantry battalions were usually about one-third motorized. In part, the high consumption of fuel and repair parts associated with the GMs stemmed from the fact that the older trucks, scout cars, half-tracks, and light tanks utilized by them, although adequate for route security and escort duties, were not specially adapted to the climate and terrain of Indochina.
The role of the emerging 4th Republic was forever tied to the failed 3rd republic and the divided Vichy government that came stumbling out of World War II. While not directly addressed by Schrader, France was simply unable to fight this war for colonial restoration. Paris understood this yet ordered their French Union troops into war and sacrificed a generation of officers from St. Cyr:
Throughout the First Indochina War, the leaders of the French Union forces struggled to maintain the necessary troop levels and to organize effective forces to deal with the Viet Minh threat. The debilitation of French resources in World War II, commitments elsewhere, and political resistance at home meant that sufficient resources of men, money, and materiel were not forthcoming, even after 1950, when military and economic aid from the United States became more available.
The lack of well-trained staff officers created many weaknesses in the functioning of the Viet Minh General Staff, the weakest functional area being that of logistics. However, by 1953 many Viet Minh officers had been trained in Chinese Communist military schools, and the influence of Chinese advisors became evident with the reorganization of the General Staff to bring it more into line with Chinese organizational concepts.7 In January 1951, the head of the Chinese Military Advisory Group (CMAG)
By 1953, the battlefield in Indochina looked much more like the European battlefield for which much of the French Army was organized and equipped, but, nevertheless, Indochina remained a unique theater of war. The harsh climate, difficult terrain, and poor transportation networks were coupled with a distant overseas supply base controlled by a constantly changing, unenthusiastic, and generally parsimonious government.
A major contributing factor to the problems that afflicted the French supply services in Indochina was the unfavorable political and economic situation in France. Even by 1954, France’s political morale as well as its physical capital had not yet recovered from the shock of the Second World War. The instability occasioned by some fourteen governments in the ten years from 1945 to 1954 did little to ensure adequate systematic planning and execution of the war in Indochina. Ideological divisions within the French government as well as doubts over whether France’s colonial empire ought to be retained at all hampered the adequate support of its forces in Indochina.
The impact of China upon the Viet Minh effort was not directly confronted between France and the United States.
As the war progressed, so too did the organization of the Viet Minh combat units, which grew larger, better equipped, and capable of sustained combat operations against the French Union forces. Although the Viet Minh developed division-size units, including a heavy division, they did not permit the addition of artillery and engineer forces to hamper their operations by restricting their mobility. In the end, the Viet Minh were far more successful than the French in adapting their combat organizations to the physical and operational environment. They thus secured a significant advantage over their opponent, one that led ultimately to victory.
What price did France pay in logistics to maintain their colonial armies fighting for Paris? Plenty:
At the beginning of the war French Union forces ate fresh meat from local livestock, but the situation in Indochina soon required a shift to the use of imported boneless frozen meat. This in turn required the establishment of a system of cold storage facilities and the use of refrigerated trucks and containers for distribution of frozen meat to the field. The resulting system of cold storage depots, completed in 1951, consisted of large-capacity cold storage facilities for long-term storage at the major ports and depots and a number of smaller, short-term cold storage facilities located at the less important depots or near the troops. The cold storage facilities available in 1952 amounted to 92,660 cubic feet, the bulk of which was located in Saigon and Haiphong. Another 6,178 cubic feet of space was under construction, and plans for 1953 called for the construction of an additional 102,370 cubic feet of cold storage.
American Thomas J. H. Trapnell, a former chief of MAAG-Indochina, noted in May 1954:
The French Expeditionary Corps is composed of Foreign Legion, Moroccans, Algerians, Tunisians, Senegalese and a small percentage of metropolitan French volunteers. These units are diluted nearly 59 percent by native Indochinese. The Associated States Forces are composed of varieties of native Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians. The whole effect is that of a heterogeneous force among whom even basic communication is difficult. Troops require a variety of clothes sizes and diets. They have different religious customs, folk-ways and mores. They vary in their capacity for different tasks and terrain. Logistically, a great problem exists in the support of such troops.
And the logistical demands to arm the French Union troops were just as demanding upon France’s strained infrastructure:
Until 1950, the French Union forces in Indochina suffered chronic shortages of equipment and were plagued by the age and diverse types of most of the weapons, vehicles, and other equipment available. In 1947, for example, only 210 vehicles were received from France out of 3,682 requested; of 9,148 motors requested only 250 were received; and out of 76,639 tires requested only 10,843 arrived, of which only 6,517 were from France and half of them were used. The weapons and vehicles used by the French Union forces in Indochina were drawn from the stocks of at least five countries (France, the United States, Britain, Germany, and Japan) and represented a large number of makes and models, many of which were obsolete and for which spare parts were no longer available.
The First Indochina War was fought with arms and equipment designed for a war in Europe rather than in the tropical climate and terrain of southeast Asia. The effect of high temperatures and high humidity on packaging, textiles, and radios and other electronic equipment significantly reduced the performance and life span of some equipment and increased the demand for those items.
Overall, the French authorities, both at home and in Indochina, demonstrated an inability (or perhaps an unwillingness) to come to grips with the logistical problems of supporting a modern army engaged in heavy fighting against a determined and increasingly sophisticated enemy halfway around the world. For a while, peacetime regulations and a blasé contempt for the ability of the Viet Minh inhibited the search for viable solutions to the logistical problems inherent in the Indochina situation. However, French military leaders at lower levels in Indochina could not blame their misfortunes entirely on the parsimonious government at home and the lack of wisdom of the higher commanders. Almost every observer of the First Indochina War reported the lack of commitment, lackadaisical attitude, and sloppy performance of many of the officers and soldiers at the lowest levels. Of course, dedication and even heroism were to be found frequently, but on the whole the technical skill and massive amounts of modern war equipment available to the French Union forces could not compensate for the lack of enthusiasm and discipline, qualities that were so prominently displayed by their Viet Minh opponents. “Once it was recognized that the Viet Minh were indeed capable of achieving their objective of driving out the French colonial regime, it was almost too late to devise effective means of countering them.
Schrader at times shows the French effort as almost a comedy of errors:
French air capabilities were further limited by inadequate maintenance stemming from poor procedures, the lack of qualified personnel, and a general lack of interest in improving the situation.
As might be expected, the weather limited the air transport of men and supplies as well as the tactical employment of airborne forces in Indochina, but the principal constraints were the limited number of suitable transport aircraft and crews and the perpetual shortage of parachutes and related equipment.
Between November 20, 1953, and May 7, 1954, 20,860 tons of cargo were delivered to Dien Bien Phu, some 6,584 tons of which were airlanded before the loss of the airfields. The other 14,276 tons were airdropped or parachuted over the course of the entire 169 days of the operation, and amounted to about 100 kilograms per minute, or about 124 tons per day, and required almost 80,000 parachutes, plus airdrop rigging.
The number and quality of the transport aircraft available grew steadily throughout the First Indochina War but were never sufficient to meet the ever-increasing air transport and airdrop needs of the French Union ground forces. In November 1947, for example, the three available transport groups could muster only seventeen C-47s and thirty-five ancient Amiot AAC 1 Toucans (a French-built version of the German Junkers Ju 52), of which twenty-seven were inoperative.
Losses, particularly over Dien Bien Phu in the first months of 1954, were heavy, and the Viet Minh conducted several daring raids on French air transport bases in Tonkin that resulted in heavy losses.
The perpetual shortage of transport aircraft required the French authorities to rely heavily on the temporary augmentation provided by the civil air transport firms operating in Indochina. By the end of the war, civilian aircraft and pilots were used even for the most dangerous missions, such as the resupply of commando units and the support of Dien Bien Phu. The civilian pilots, already thoroughly familiar with flying conditions in Indochina, became very experienced at military formation flying and air delivery techniques and were a valuable supplement to the limited military air transport. However, as late as November 1953, the French authorities still had not instituted effective procedures for the control of the available airlift, military or civilian, and there were no definitive procedures to regulate the flow of cargo and establish priorities.
A few British Bristol 170 Freighters belonging to commercial airlines in Indochina were also employed and proved particularly useful for the air transport of heavy equipment. The most notable achievement of the Bristol Freighters was the delivery of ten M24 Chaffee light tanks to Dien Bien Phu in what was called Operation RONDELLE II. The French command in Indochina established the requirement for a cargo plane capable of landing or taking off with a two-ton load of personnel or equipment on short (less than 150 yards) unimproved landing strips, and the French aeronautical designer Louis Breguet actually designed such an airplane, but the French Air Force was not interested.
Influence of Korean war logistics that failed included helicopters. On the surface, it appears the American deployment of helicopters in Korea for mobile surgical hospitals was a success. Across Indochina the results were less than stellar:
The helicopter, which proved so characteristic an element of the Second Indochina War, was still something of a novelty during the First Indochina War. Although helicopters held the promise of overcoming many of the obstacles to the movement of men and supplies in Indochina, they were employed by the French in very small numbers and almost entirely for medical evacuation purposes. The first two Hiller H-23 ambulance helicopters were delivered to Saigon in April 1950. The delivery of additional medical evacuation helicopters was delayed due to the priority given to forces in Korea, but by 1952 ten were available. On December 31, 1953, the French forces in Indochina had eighteen helicopters on hand (six Hiller H-23As; five Hiller H-23Bs; three Westland-Sikorsky WS-51s; and four Sikorsky S-55s), which had already accumulated a total of 4,821 flying hours, evacuated 4,728 casualties, and rescued nineteen pilots and three observers who had been shot down.
However, the French were already in the process of shipping the Westland-Sikorsky WS-51 helicopters back to France due to insurmountable maintenance support problems. The army organized a helicopter training command in early 1954, built a heliport in Saigon, and made plans to acquire one hundred helicopters by the end of the year. The plan was to activate GT 65 with a twenty-five-machine light helicopter squadron, a twenty-five-machine medium helicopter squadron, and a maintenance squadron. However, only twenty-eight helicopters had arrived by the end of 1954, and American military aid personnel, who were supplying the helicopters, advocated “a more modest approach to the helicopter force build up for the French Land Forces. The small number of available machines and pilots as well as the lack of a well-developed understanding of helicopter operations limited the use of the helicopter in Indochina to medical evacuation and rescue work. As a result, they played an insignificant role in the logistics of the First Indochina War.
A basic lack of infrastructure stretching across the French Union would paralyze their battle plans:
Throughout much of the First Indochina War, parachutes and airdrop equipment were in short supply. Basically, every man and every one hundred kilograms of cargo dropped required one parachute. Given the heavy use of paradrops to support isolated garrisons and combat forces in the field, the perpetual shortage of parachutes demanded a maximum effort on the part of airborne forces to recover parachutes after an operation. After every jump, one-fourth to one-third of the paratroopers spent up to half a day just recovering the parachutes. This imposed a significant burden on the parachute units and supporting logistical personnel. The shortage of parachutes also increased the importance of free-drop techniques. As early as 1950, about 40 percent of the air-delivered tonnage was free-dropped, and the use of free-drop techniques made possible a gain of up to 12 percent in the useful tonnage delivered by air. Increased French production and American aid deliveries of parachutes and airdrop equipment provided some relief by the end of the war.
Not only were the parachutes and other airdrop equipment used in Indochina expensive and generally in short supply, but the great variety of such materiel greatly complicated the work of the French aerial resupply units. French industry was unable to supply parachute releases suitable for the 118-mile-per-hour speed of the C-47, so about 80 percent of the parachutes used in Indochina were supplied by the United States under the MDAP. Although many of the technical “problems associated with the design and manufacture of parachutes, particularly the heavy-drop parachutes required for equipment and supplies, were resolved during the First Indochina War, some problems were never satisfactorily overcome. For example, the increasing strength of Viet Minh antiaircraft defenses later in the war made delayed-opening drops from higher altitudes a necessity, but a truly effective delayed-opening device capable of ensuring reasonable accuracy of the drop and reliable opening of the parachute was not perfected before the cease-fire. The lack of reliable delay fuzes resulted in as much as 50 percent of some drops failing to hit the designated drop zone. Parachute loads with malfunctioning delay fuzes often were destroyed on impact, and occasionally the results were even more tragic, as when the defective parachutes and their loads fell indiscriminately, destroying friendly bunkers and killing friendly personnel. The ground lighting of drop zones and temporary landing fields was yet another problem not resolved satisfactorily before the end of the war.
The French were highly successful in overcoming many of the obstacles to effective and efficient aerial support of their forces in Indochina. Effective staff and operating organizations were developed to plan and execute air transport, and techniques were developed to minimize the impact of climate, terrain, and an aggressive enemy. However, persistent shortages of trained personnel and specialized equipment, particularly aircraft and parachutes, limited what could be accomplished. Excited by the advantages inherent in air transport unopposed by enemy counterair operations, the French came to rely too heavily on what was in reality a very thin and fragile rope, and in the final analysis air transport and aerial resupply, which many French military leaders saw as the key to victory in Indochina, turned out to be a major factor in their ultimate defeat.
The Viet Minh spent the first half of the war destroying roads, bridges, railways, and other transportation facilities, but with the advent of Chinese Communist aid in 1950 they found it necessary to initiate a program for the repair and improvement of existing routes and the construction of new routes in the areas under their control as well as those leading to the areas in which they intended to conduct operations.
The Viet Minh skillfully utilized all of the modes of transport at their disposal, including porters, animal transport, trucks, coastal and inland water transport, and railroads. Although there is no firm evidence to suggest that the Viet Minh had access to air transport, some French officials claimed that small amounts of cargo were flown in to the Viet Minh from Communist China. In the early days of the war the Viet Minh armed forces requisitioned civilian laborers locally as required to meet their needs. But beginning in November 1949, the Viet Minh leadership implemented a program of obligatory military service and tried to mobilize the entire civilian population to support what was rapidly becoming a conventional modern war.
The porter system was placed on a more regular basis in 1951 when the Viet Minh government decreed that all able-bodied peasants, male and female, must contribute three months of labor per year to the Viet Minh logistical effort.
Operationally, the supporting Viet Minh porters were organized in “convoys” protected by armed escorts.86 The escorts provided security for the porters and sometimes created diversions to distract French Union forces while the porters slipped by an observation post. The porters marched mainly at night over routes offering good cover and concealment. The established routes were cleared, smoothed out, and maintained. They usually were divided by relay posts called trams.
The night’s march usually ended at a tram, which often was equipped with crude facilities for cooking and shelter and at which the porter convoy hid and rested during daylight hours.
That in the eight major battles between the battle for RC-4 in 1950 and Dien Bien Phu in 1954, the Viet Minh employed some 1,541,381 “transport porters” who worked a total of 47.8 million man days in all.
As one French authority noted: “The arrival of Chinese automotive equipment revolutionized the enemy’s military transportation system. It resulted in the country’s roads being put into good condition and removed the terrible strain off the country insofar as the levying of coolies was concerned for forming up the troop combat trains.
The Viet Minh truck fleet began with fifty–sixty trucks abandoned by the French during their evacuation of Cao Bang and Lang Son in 1950.103 In 1951, the Viet Minh still had less than one hundred trucks, mostly taken from the French, but by 1953 the number had risen to nearly one thousand. Most of the motor vehicles used by the Viet Minh after 1951 were supplied by Communist China, and they included large numbers of American trucks captured in Korea and subsequently refurbished by the Chinese.
The heavy reliance of Viet Minh logisticians on porters for the movement of supplies was considered by many Western observers to be a weakness, but in reality the use of porters was perfectly adapted to the terrain of Indochina and capitalized on the large but untrained manpower pool available to the Viet Minh. Porters could go where trucks could not, and they proved generally invulnerable to French air and ground interdiction. More significantly, although difficult to manage, after a few initial failures the porter system proved more than adequate to meet Viet Minh needs. The adaptability of the Viet Minh logistical system was further demonstrated by the effective use of motor transport once it became available in sufficient quantities.
While the Viet Minh porters slipped through the jungles and mountains with relative ease to support their combat forces in the areas of operations, the French Union forces struggled to support their wide-spread garrisons and operational units by land, water, and air. The terrain, climate, and poor transportation infrastructure restricted movements and often meant that isolated units went days without resupply. The wear and tear on both equipment and personnel were heavy, and in the end the results proved unsatisfactory for the French, who, unlike the Viet Minh, failed to adapt adequately to the existing physical and operational environment.
In 1945, the French Union forces seemed to have an enormous advantage over the Viet Minh with respect to the acquisition of war materiel. France was an industrial nation with direct access to the production of the other major Western industrial powers. Moreover, France controlled the principal resources of Indochina itself as well as the facilities necessary to process them for use. But to some degree the French advantage was illusory because neither the French nor the Viet Minh would have been able to pursue the war in Indochina without outside assistance. Although possessed of enormous potential resources, including those of its colonies in Africa and Asia, France had suffered heavily in World War II and the French economy was in shambles. Hard pressed to restore the economy of metropolitan France, the French were clearly unable to sustain a major war effort in Indochina without help. That aid became available after 1950 in the form of massive American financial and material support, including aircraft, watercraft, arms, ammunition, and a vast array of other war supplies.
In the immediate post–World War II period, the French authorities in Indochina attempted to purchase some of the enormous amounts of military equipment declared surplus or simply abandoned by the U.S. and British forces in Asia. Purchasing missions were established in Manila, Singapore, New Delhi, and Calcutta, and a significant amount of war surplus was purchased before anticolonialist opposition cut off such sources of supply.4 The Americans were generally reluctant to approve such purchases, but the British were more accommodating.
The delays in deliveries from metropolitan France and North Africa to Indochina were due not only to the long distances involved and the delays in budgeting and procurement. Active opposition to the war in Indochina was promoted by the French Communist Party and by other left-wing groups that were able to slow down movements of cargo to the ports and the loading of that cargo aboard ships bound for Indochina.
From mid-1950 to the end of the war in July 1954, the United States was the principal source of military equipment and supplies for the French Union forces. In May 1954, one former chief of MAAG-Indochina estimated that “indigenous production is practically negligible,” and that only about 30 percent of the hard items needed by the French Union forces was provided by French procurement agencies, the remainder being provided through U.S. military aid….Although entirely dependent on American support to continue the war, the French were rude and ungrateful recipients of American largesse….U.S. leaders were uncomfortable with the idea of supporting a failed colonial regime and with providing millions of dollars’ worth of equipment and supplies to a client who refused to consider seriously any American suggestion. In fact, the goals of the two countries in Indochina were very different. France sought to retain control over her colonies, while the United States was instead focused on containing the spread of Communism.
The Pentagon Papers show the relationship with Indochina began with President Roosevelt and continued through Presidents Truman and Eisenhower. Ike was the single most influential President about Indochina and the Chinese threat. Eisenhower was in office for over a year before Dien Bien Phu and saw the need for a strong defense of the French. Yet the US and French government efforts were strained due to the support for a free Indochina following World War II:
In his several works on Indochina, Bernard B. Fall, reflecting a French perspective, portrayed the American opposition to the French as strong and premeditated. More recently, Ronald H. Spector has taken a contrary view, noting that “the view that the United States deliberately limited and delayed its help to the French during the Japanese takeover is incorrect,” and that, although opposed to the restoration of French colonial rule in Indochina, President Franklin D. Roosevelt did permit limited support to the French. In any event, the French perception that the United States deliberately abandoned them to the Japanese and then worked with the Viet Minh to prevent the restoration of French control in Indochina did much to sour relationships between France and the United States in the postwar period.
From the beginning of the Second World War until 1950, American policy toward the French in Indochina might indeed be described as thoroughly antipathetic. President Roosevelt himself led the anti-Vichy, even anti-French, opposition and limited assistance to the French regime in Indochina before and during World War II. Roosevelt’s distaste for French colonial rule in Indochina seems to have been largely personal, but it was translated into policies that inhibited French resistance to the Japanese. In a memorandum to Secretary of State Cordell Hull on October 13, 1944, President Roosevelt stated, “We should do nothing in regard to resistance groups or in any other way in relation to Indochina,” and less than a month later, on November 3, he instructed American field commanders in Asia to refuse “American approval . . . to any French military mission being accredited to the South-East Asia Command.
French efforts to obtain aircraft, weapons, and other equipment from the United States or elsewhere before the Japanese moved into French Indochina on September 22, 1940, were also stymied. For example, the efforts of the French commander in Indochina, General Georges Catroux, to strengthen his position against Japanese demands by obtaining the 120 modern fighter aircraft and the antiaircraft artillery already bought and paid for by the French government were brought to naught when the U.S. government prohibited shipment of the equipment to Indochina.
Once the French had taken up arms against the Japanese, President Roosevelt refused to sanction low-level French participation in U.S. intelligence and commando operations in Indochina, and the few joint Franco-American operations that did take place were mostly unsuccessful since the Indochinese were wary of the French members of the teams and refused to help. According to Bernard Fall, President Roosevelt directed his military commanders in China to deny support to the scattered and starving French forces even when they were overrun by the Japanese in March 1945 and were fighting for their very existence against the common enemy.
The British were somewhat more sympathetic and provided the French forces recently returned to Indochina with some eight hundred U.S. Lend-Lease jeeps and trucks as well as other materiel.32 President Truman approved the transfer only because repatriation of the vehicles to the United States would have been impractical, but in general the U.S. government continued to oppose such aid. For example, until 1950 American-built propellers installed on British aircraft had to be removed when such aircraft were sent to the French in Indochina.
The brief flirtation of the United States with the Viet Minh in 1945 and 1946 also created a very negative impression on the French that has even yet to be dispelled. The desire to defeat the Japanese and American anticolonialist sentiment combined to produce a degree of American cooperation with Ho Chi Minh and his nationalist movement. Although the degree of cooperation and the amount of arms and equipment provided to the Viet Minh by the American Office of Strategic Services (OSS) were small, the public approbation of the Viet Minh greatly offended the French, who had hoped for more from their old ally….The French complained bitterly that the Viet Minh had been able to seize control of large parts of Indochina in 1945 only because they had been supplied by the OSS with arms and ammunition, but Ronald Spector notes that the effect was mainly psychological and that “arms received during World War II accounted for only about 12 percent of the estimated 36,000 small arms in Viet Minh hands in March 1946 and only about 5 percent of the weapons available to them at the start of the war against the French in December 1946. On the other hand, the humiliating treatment of French prisoners of war and the public encouragement of the Viet Minh by American officers in the immediate postwar period provided more than sufficient grounds for French suspicion and distrust of American motives….At best, American attitudes toward the French in Indochina were ambivalent until the late 1940s. Even after the United States abandoned Uncle Ho, little effort was made to aid the French in retaining their colonial empire in Asia. However, as the Cold War with the Soviet Union began to take shape, the U.S. State Department and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) recognized that Indochina was an area of vital strategic interest to the United States, and France came to be viewed as a lynchpin of the NATO alliance facing the Soviets in Europe. The situation began to change dramatically in 1949 with the successful Soviet testing of an atomic bomb and, more importantly, the victory of Mao Tse-tung’s People’s Liberation Army over the Chinese Nationalist troops of Chiang Kai-shek at the end of the year. The outbreak of the war in Korea in June 1950 and the subsequent intervention of the Chinese Communists in that conflict in October 1950 completed the transformation. Thereafter, the United States acted forcefully to assist the French Union forces against the Viet Minh as part of an overall effort to stop the Communist tide in Asia. As Lieutenant General Henri Navarre, one of the last French commandants en chef in Indochina, later wrote: “The Americans finally realized the danger of Communism in Southeast Asia, which led them to modify their point of view on the war in Indochina. In place of an impious ‘colonial war,’ they promised a holy war against Communism.
On February 4, 1950, the French government announced formal ratification of the Elysée Agreements granting independence within the French Union to the so-called Associated States, and on the following day the United States recognized the governments of Viet Nam, Cambodia, and Laos. Although reluctant to call upon the United States for assistance, following an interarmy conference at Paris in February 1950, the French drew up initial lists of equipment needed in Indochina, and on March 16, 1950, those lists, which included arms and equipment worth some $94 million, were presented by the French government to the U.S. embassy in Paris as a formal request for American aid.
Meanwhile, on March 1, 1950, the JCS recommended the allocation of $15 million in Section 303 funds to Indochina, and President Harry Truman “approved that recommendation on March 10.40 The same day, President Truman asked the JCS to study the situation in Indochina and forward its recommendations. The JCS responded in a memorandum for the Secretary of Defense dated April 10, 1950, and recommended “early implementation of military aid programs for Indochina, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Burma.
Given the recent debacle in China, where enormous amounts of U.S. military aid had fallen into Communist hands, the JCS urged that the following conditions be applied to aid to Indochina:
a. That United States military aid not be granted unconditionally; rather, that it be carefully controlled and that the aid program be integrated with political and economic programs; and
b. That requests for military equipment be screened first by an officer designated by the Department of Defense and on duty in the recipient state. These requests should be subject to his determination as to the feasibility and satisfactory coordination of specific military operations. It should be understood that military aid will only be considered in connection with such coordinated operational plans as are approved by the representative of the Department of Defense on duty in the recipient country. Further, in conformity with current procedures, the final approval of all programs for military materiel will be subject to the concurrence of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The JCS also recommended the immediate formation of “a small United States military aid group in Indochina” to fulfill the requirements set forth in paragraph 9b of the memorandum.43 The bottom line was that the JCS recommended “the provision of military aid to Indochina at the earliest practicable date under a program to implement the President’s action approving the allocation of 15 million dollars [of MDAP aid] for Indochina and that corresponding increments of political and economic aid be programmed on an interim basis without prejudice to the pattern of the policy for additional military, political and economic aid that may be developed later.
Following the Communist Chinese capture of Hainan Island at the beginning of May 1950, President Truman approved the allocation of $10 million to pay for the shipment of urgently needed military supplies to Indochina.
President Truman acknowledged his decision publicly two days after North Korean forces attacked the Republic of Korea, when he issued a press release on June 27, 1950, condemning the Communist action and outlining the measures that the United States would take to aid South Korea and prevent further Communist aggression in Asia. As part of those actions, President Truman “directed acceleration in the furnishing of military assistance to the forces of France and the Associated States in Indo China and the dispatch of a military mission to provide close working relations with those forces.
Three days later, on June 30, the same day U.S. ground forces were committed to combat in Korea, the first shipments of American aid arrived in Saigon aboard eight old C-47 transports loaded with spare parts, and by July 30, equipment sufficient for twelve infantry battalions was en route by ship to Indochina.
Schrader also reveals the role of the US military’s aid to France. The American material began to increase to Indochina in 1950 when China joined the war in Korea. For a year infrastructure shipments slowed as America could not generate enough production facilities and tools. At the end of 1951 just 444 of the 968 promised jeeps were in service by the French. Yet the French at the same time used the slow-arriving American aid as a reason for their continued failures in Indochina.
Yet, despite the slowness of American deliveries, the French were unable to keep up with the distribution of the material within Indochina, although many observers credited the influx of American equipment with contributing to the French victories in the first half of 1951.
Following the successful visit of General de Lattre to the United States in September–October 1951, U.S. military aid deliveries were speeded up—as U.S. Army Chief of Staff General J. Lawton Collins had personally assured de Lattre they would be. From November 1951, deliveries were quite steady, delivery time was reduced, and the number of items in critical short supply in Indochina declined.58 Between October 1951 and February 1952, a total of 130,000 tons of equipment, including 53 million rounds of ammunition, 8,000 vehicles, 650 combat vehicles, 200 aircraft, 3,500 radios, and 14,000 automatic weapons were received by the French from American sources.59 Overall, deliveries in 1951 from the United States and from U.S. stocks in Japan totaled some 95,000 tons and then rose to 110,000 tons in 1952, and by February 1953 some 137,200 long tons—the equivalent of 224 shiploads—of American equipment had reached Indochina.60 That materiel included 900 tracked combat vehicles, 15,000 wheeled vehicles, nearly 2,500 artillery pieces, 24,000 automatic weapons, 75,000 small arms, and almost 9,000 radios, as well as 160 F6F and F8F fighters, 41 B-26 light bombers, 28 much-needed C-47 transports, “155 aircraft engines, and 93,000 bombs for the French air forces in Indochina.
In his May 3, 1953, debriefing, the former commander of MAAG-Indochina, Major General Thomas J. H. Trapnell, noted:
The U.S. has greatly contributed to the success of the French in holding Indochina from the beginning. In January 1951, material was rushed from the docks of Haiphong to the battlefield of Vinh Yen, then being fought under the personal direction of Marshall De Lattre himself. Since then, delivery of aid has kept pace with changing French needs, often on a crash basis, down to the present heroic defense of Dien Bien Phu. U.S. aid has consisted of budgetary support, furnishing of end items, military hardware, and of technical training teams. The magnitude and range of this contribution is shown by the following very few examples. All of these figures are as of 31 March this year
a. 785 million dollars has been allocated for the budgetary support of the French Expeditionary Force and the Vietnamese Army. This will assist in meeting budgetary requirements for pay, food, and allowances for these troops
b. Under MDA Programs, a total of more than 784 millions of dollars has been programmed for the years 1950–54. Of this, more than 440 million dollars’ worth of military end items have been received.
c. To date, 31 March 1954, 441 ships have delivered a total of 478 thousands of long tons of MDA equipment to Indochina.
With the inactivation of the CEFEO on April 28, 1956, the U.S. military assistance program was terminated, and all the remaining MAP-provided equipment was supposed to revert to the U.S. government, but the French kept the best of it and left the rest for the armed forces of the Republic of Viet Nam.
Between 1950 and 1954, the United States provided the French Union forces in Indochina with an astounding amount of arms and equipment, in all more than 1.5 million measurement tons, not including aircraft and naval vessels that arrived under their own power. As the authors of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff history of the period stated: “When the United States entered the picture in 1950 French Union forces were indifferently armed with largely obsolescent World War II equipment.
Included in the total of equipment and supplies provided by the United States to the French in Indochina between 1950 and 1954 were 1,880 tanks and combat vehicles, 30,887 motor vehicles, 361,522 small arms and machine guns, 5,045 artillery pieces, over 500 million rounds of small arms ammunition, and over 10 million artillery shell.
Article 1719 of the Geneva Accords, which ended the First Indochina War on July 20, 1954, severely restricted the supply of arms and equipment to the former belligerents by outside parties. The shipment to Indochina of new types of arms, ammunition, and equipment was forbidden, and worn-out or defective materiel could be replaced only on a one-for-one basis and then only through designated control points.
The US Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) Indochina as the point team for the flow of US financial aid to France was never well received by Paris:
The French gave the American plan a chilly reception; they wanted American arms with no strings attached. Their views indicated a desire that the United States simply fill French orders for equipment without attempting to influence types or quantities of material or how it was employed. General Marcel Carpentier, French Commander-in-Chief in Indochina, said that he “would welcome” a United States military mission but wished it to be as small as possible and part of the attaché group at the American legation in Saigon. Although he “would welcome” representatives of the Associated States in the receiving and distributing apparatus, only the French High Command “would be equipped [to] receive and stock American materiel for Indochina.
Despite French misgivings, the first elements of the U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group–Indochina (MAAG-Indochina) arrived in Saigon on August 3, 1950. The MAAG was formally organized on September 17, and assembled in the Saigon-Cholon area on November 20. Thus, the main function of MAAG-Indochina was “to make sure that equipment supplied by the United States reached its prescribed destination and that it was properly maintained by French Union forces.” The allocation of aid to the Associated States had to be made through the French, and the French prohibited the MAAG from controlling the dispensing of supplies once they were in Indochina. At least one French commander in chief in Indochina, General Henri Navarre, considered “any function of MAAG in Saigon beyond bookkeeping to be an intrusion upon internal French affairs,”
Although the French had the final say on the use of the materiel provided, MAAG-Indochina was charged with providing advice and with conducting inspections in the field to observe how the American-supplied weapons and other equipment were being maintained and utilized. However, MAAG-Indochina proved unable to perform even the minimum functions assigned to it inasmuch as the French, never eager for U.S. advice, limited the MAAG to “order-taking in the commercial sense. Accordingly, Brigadier General Brink was directed to not assume any training or advisory responsibilities toward the armies of the Associated States, and “from the outset, the French rigorously limited end-use inspections of MAAG to a small number of carefully prescribed visits.
Despite the restrictions imposed by the French on American observation, examination, and advice-giving, the members of the MAAG did their best to aid the ungrateful and obstinate French.
Unfortunately, few of the officers and men assigned to MAAG-Indochina spoke French, and the French military authorities in Indochina actively obstructed their efforts.78 French pique at their dependence on American aid was manifested in a number of petty ways. For example, MAAG-Indochina personnel received very little assistance in either their living arrangements or in the conduct of their duties, which after all did involve the coordination of U.S. aid to the French in Indochina.79 Of greater consequence, however, was that: “MAAG officers were not given the necessary freedom to develop intelligence information on the course of the war; information supplied by the French was limited, and often unreliable or deliberately misleading.
What MAAG-Indochina personnel did see of French logistical operations was not pleasing, and the officers of the MAAG frequently complained of the waste and sloppy supply accounting of the French. U.S. Air Force and Navy MAAG officers, who had somewhat freer access to French air and naval bases, also complained of the lack of safety precautions and the poor quality of French maintenance efforts.
Shrader reveals the true arrogance of French military leadership in approaching their enemy with a European battlefield mentality. This error revealed incredible oversight to their execution of the war efforts beginning in 1946 and culminating in the defeat at Dien Bien Phu. With the Geneva Accords awaiting in the wings with a new role for China that also altered how the US approached South Vietnam, Bao Dai and ultimately Ngo Dinh Diem.
It cannot be overstated that France was never fully committed to winning against the Vietnam Minh, The French, with American financial and military support, could not turn the tide of the war after the Korean armistice which led to China flooding the Viet Minh with material, training, and armaments.
It would be Schadenfreude to exclaim the French got what they deserved. But the US efforts to stop the spread of communism in Asia only delayed our own national nightmare. The US repeated some of the same logistically errors fighting the Viet Cong and the NVA throughout the 60s and 70s.
Shrader offers us a larger picture of the Indochina war by examining the infrastructure of both opponents purely from a numbers view. While western history was initially surprised by the French defeat, as become accepting of the ‘surprise” defeat of the French by digesting his book we understand the uneven battlefields, armies and supply lines that tipped the scale in the favor to the Viet Minh.
To make sure that students can easily come to grips with the lessons of this war I would easily recommend starting with their book. This will give an eye-opening account of how both opponents pursued a logistical advantage from 1946 to 1954. This book will also show early reporting by the CIA of the failed French efforts, their hubris and the will of the national movement across Indochina.
Published in 2015 Shrader benefits from time as resources have been recently declassified, providing a deeper insight into the effort by France.
Due to the nature of the closed approach to their history Vietnam has not released counts of their men, material, and losses. In order to truly measure the impact of their tremendous sacrifice this book can serve as a base to which future authors may explore war logistics from multiple angles.
Shrader does echo notable authors who addressed Paris, which gave no support to their Far East Expeditionary Corps campaign. Wavering from the devastating tolls of two world wars France experienced the rise and fall of multiple governments. With less than total support from their government, French Union troops were destined to fail.
|
<urn:uuid:edf7cd7e-a631-427c-8040-63c1fe8e72dc>
|
{
"dataset": "HuggingFaceFW/fineweb-edu",
"dump": "CC-MAIN-2018-09",
"file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-09/segments/1518891811243.29/warc/CC-MAIN-20180218003946-20180218023946-00008.warc.gz",
"int_score": 3,
"language": "en",
"language_score": 0.9716464877128601,
"score": 3.4375,
"token_count": 10438,
"url": "http://donkasprzak.com/war-of-logistics/"
}
|
THE EARLY YEARS
At the end of the Mexican War in 1848, the U.S. Army had only three mounted regiments, the 1st Dragoons, the 2nd Dragoons, and the Regiment of Mounted Rifleman to protect settlers moving westward. By 1855, Congress realizing the number of mounted soldiers was not enough authorized the raising of two more regiments, the 1st Cavalry and the 2nd Cavalry.
The 1st Cavalry Regiment was constituted on 3 March 1855 and organized at Jefferson Barracks, Missouri on 26 March 1855 under the command of Colonel Edwin Voss Sumner. The military aptitude of the twenty-eight officers selected for the 1st Cavalry was conclusively proven in the Civil War when twenty-two of them became general officers in either the Union or Confederate armies. Among them were Captain George B. McClellan, (Major General, Commander, Army of the Potomac and the inventor of the famed McClellan saddle), and 2nd Lieutenant James E.B. (Jeb) Stuart, (Major General, CSA, Commander of the Confederate Cavalry Corps).
Upon completion of the organization of the regiment in August 1855, the 1st Cavalry was assigned to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Its mission was two-fold; to maintain law and order in the Kansas Territory between pro and anti-slavery factions and to protect the settlers from attacks by the Cheyenne Indians. In 1857 the regiment was split with half taking up new quarters at Fort Riley, Kansas and the rest maintaining small garrisons scattered throughout the state. On 3 March 1861, Colonel Robert E. Lee assumed command of the 1st Cavalry only to resign his commission a month later to lead the Confederate States Army in the Civil War.
THE CIVIL WAR
With so many units being sent east for the war the 1st Cavalry was initially kept on the frontier until militia type units were raised to protect against Indian raids. On June 22, 1861 George McClellan now a Major General, requested Company A and Company E to serve as his personal escort. The two companies saw action in the Bull Run, Peninsula, Antietam and Fredericksburg campaigns, not rejoining the Regiment until 1864. The rest of the 1st Cavalry was committed to action in Mississippi and Missouri
Since 1854 it had been advocated to redesignate all mounted regiments as cavalry and to renumber them in order of seniority. This was done on 3 August 1861. As the 1st Cavalry was the fourth oldest mounted regiment it was redesignated as the 4th Cavalry Regiment.
During the early years of the Civil War Union commanders scattered their cavalry regiments throughout the army conducting company, squadron (two company) and battalion (four company) operations. The 4th Cavalry was no exception with its companies scattered from the Mississippi River to the Atlantic coast carrying out traditional cavalry missions of reconnaissance, screening and raiding.
In the first phases of the war in the west companies of the Regiment saw action in Missouri, Mississippi and Kentucky campaigns, the seizure of Forts Henry and Donelson and the Battle of Shiloh. On 31 December 1862 a two-company squadron of the 4th Cavalry attacked and routed a Confederate cavalry brigade near Murfreesboro, Tennessee. In 1863-64 companies of the 4th saw further action in Tennessee, Georgia and Mississippi. On 30 June 1863 another squadron of the Regiment charged a six-gun battery of Confederate artillery near Shelbyville Tennessee capturing the entire battery and three hundred prisoners.
By the spring of 1864, the success of the large Confederate cavalry corps of Jeb Stuart had convinced the Union leadership to form their own cavalry corps under General Phillip Sheridan. The 4th Cavalry was ordered to unite as a regiment and on 14 December 1864 joined in the attack on Nashville, Tennessee as part of the cavalry corps commanded by General James Wilson. In the battle the 4th help turn the Confederate flank, sending them in retreat. As the Confederate forces attempted a delaying action at West Harpeth, Tennessee an element of the 4th Cavalry led by Lt. Joseph Hedges charged and captured a Confederate artillery battery. For his bravery, Lt Hedges received the Medal of Honor, the first to be bestowed on a member of the 4th Cavalry.
In March 1865, General Wilson was ordered to take his cavalry on a drive through Alabama to capture the Confederate supply depot at Selma. General Wilson had devoted much effort in preparing his cavalry for the mission. It was a superbly trained and disciplined force that left Tennessee led by the 4th Cavalry. It was more than a traditional cavalry raid rather it was an invasion by a cavalry army, a preview of the blitzkrieg of World War II. As the column moved south into Alabama it encountered the famed Confederate cavalry leader Nathan Bedford Forrest. The Union force was too strong and defeated the Confederate cavalry allowing the Union forces to arrive at Selma the next day.
On 2 April 1865, the attack on Selma commenced led by the 4th Cavalry in a mounted charge. A railroad cut and fence line halted the mounted attack. Dismounting the Regiment pressed the attack and stormed the town. Selma's rich store of munitions and supplies were destroyed along with the foundries and arsenals.
General Wilson next turned east to link up with General Sherman. His force took Montgomery, Alabama, Columbus, Georgia and had arrived in Macon, Georgia when word came of the end of the war. The Regiment remained in Macon as occupation troops.
THE INDIAN WARS
The end of the Civil War brought a new surge of westward migration. Indian nations were determined to hold on to the lands they had taken back during the Civil War. In Texas the situation was acute with the Cheyenne and Arapahoe roaming at will in the north and the Comanche, Kiowa and Mescalero Apache controlling western Texas and eastern New Mexico. The 4th Cavalry was ordered into Texas to confront these formidable foes. The Regiment was filled with skilled Civil War veterans from both armies and outfitted with the latest and best equipment. On War Department records of that day the 4th Cavalry was rated the best cavalry regiment in the U.S. Army.
By November 1865 the Regiment had transferred to Fort Sam Houston, Texas. From here the 4th pacified the San Antonio area and conducted campaigns against Indians along the Mexican border. On 15 December 1870 twenty-nine year old Colonel Ranald Slidell Mackenzie, U.S. Cavalry assumed command of the Regiment. A brilliant leader, he commanded a Union cavalry corps at the age of twenty-four. He would command the 4th Cavalry for twelve years, leading it on some of its most famous campaigns.
On 1 April 1873 the Regiment moved to Fort Clark, Texas close to the Mexican border. To stop the cross-border raiding by the Apaches coming out of Mexico Mackenzie was ordered by President Grant to ignore Mexican sovereignty and strike at the Apache/Kickapoo village at Remolino, Mexico some fifty-five miles south of the border. With utmost secrecy Mackenzie began training and preparations for the operation. On 17 May 1873 six companies of the 4th (A,B,C,E,I,M) crossed the Rio Grande under cover of darkness and headed to Remolino. It was a difficult night march over unfamiliar terrain but by dawn they were in position and on Mackenzie's signal the 4th charged the camp. There was some scattered resistance but most of the warriors fled leaving their horses and families behind. The families and horse herd were rounded up and the 4th began a grueling march back to the Rio Grande reaching Texas at dawn on 19 May. During this operation the 4th Cavalry covered 160 miles in thirty-two hours fought an engagement and destroyed a hostile camp. With out their horses and their families in captivity the Indian warrior returned to their reservations in Texas.
The Texas legislature voted "the grateful thanks of the people of Texas for the gallant conduct of Colonel Mackenzie and the 4th U.S. Cavalry". President Grant also sent his congratulations. In the early 1950s John Ford made a film called "Rio Grande" starring John Wayne based on the raid. In 1958, ZIV television produced a 52-week series based on the raid and other 4th Cavalry exploits entitled "Mackenzie's Raiders". (The 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry used "Mackenzie's Raiders" as their unofficial nickname before and during the Vietnam War.)
In August 1874, with the border pacified the 4th began a major campaign against the Comanche nation in northern Texas. On 27 September 1874 the Regiment located the Comanche in the Paladuro Canyon of the Red River. Two companies drove off the large pony herd of 1200 while other companies attacked the camp driving off the warriors and then burning it. The Comanche's made their way on foot to Fort Sill to surrender.
Successfully accomplishing their pacification mission in Texas, the Regiment was stationed in what is now the state of Oklahoma when it received orders to march with General Crook north to avenge the massacre of General George Custer and five companies of the 7th Cavalry. On 24 November 1876, the 4th Cavalry located Chief Dull Knife and his northern Cheyenne band. The Regiment rode all night to reach the Indian camp. At dawn the 4th Cavalry charged the village killing many of the Indian warriors, destroying their lodges and capturing 500 horses. The survivors soon surrendered. In 1880 and 1881 the Regiment was busy relocating Indian tribes in Utah and Colorado.
In 1883 the War Department redesignated all cavalry companies as troops. The designation squadron was given to a group of four troops and the cavalry no longer used the designation battalion. Since 1862 the U.S. Cavalry had used guidons similar in appearance to the United States flag to better distinguish Union from Confederate cavalry. On 4 February 1885 the War Department ordered a return to the traditional red and white cavalry guidon used before the Civil War with one specific change. On the upper red half instead of displaying U.S. in white the regimental numeral would be displayed and as before the troop letter would be displayed in red on the white lower half.
In 1884 the 4th Cavalry was ordered to Arizona to combat the Apache. By May 1884 the Regimental headquarters was located at Fort Huachuca along with Troops B, D and I. The rest of the Regiment was stationed at army posts throughout the eastern half of Arizona. In May 1885 150 Apaches led by Geronimo left the reservation and cut a wide swath of murder and robbery throughout southern Arizona as they headed for Mexico.
After unsuccessful efforts to bring Geronimo back to the reservation. General Nelson A. Miles commander of the Department of Arizona ordered Captain Henry W. Lawton with B Troop, 4th Cavalry in pursuit. Several engagements with 4th and 10th Cavalry elements took a toll on Geronimo's band but he managed to escape back to Mexico. In July Lawton resumed the pursuit. Geronimo sent word he was willing to surrender. Moving into Mexico Lawton accompanied by Lieutenant Charles Gatewood, 6th Cavalry, whom Geronimo respected and trusted, met with Geronimo on 24 August. Geronimo agreed to cross back into Arizona and surrender to General Miles. Captain Lawton and Lieutenant Gatewood brought Geronimo to Skeleton Canyon some twenty miles north of the Mexican border where he formally surrendered to General Miles on 3 September 1886.
General Miles and Captain Lawton escorted Geronimo and his band to Fort Bowie. They were immediately put on a train and sent to Florida accompanied by B Troop, 4th Cavalry. After delivering Geronimo to the authorities in Florida, B Troop was ordered to Fort Myer Virginia to serve as an honor guard. With the end of the Geronimo Campaign the 4th Cavalry was transferred to Fort Walla Walla Washington in May 1890. For the next eight years it performed routine garrison duties.
THE PHILIPPINE INSURRECTION
After the seizure of Manila during the War with Spain by Admiral Dewey the call was made for American ground forces to defend the Philippines. The first regiment to be sent was the 4th Cavalry. Six troops were initially sent in August 1898 to Manila were they were immediately deployed to defend Manila from dissident elements of the Philippine army that resented the American takeover of their islands. Fighting broke out when Filipino forces fired on U.S. Forces. The Americans drove the Filipinos from the city and began a campaign to capture the insurgent capitol of Malolos. Because of a mix-up the 4th Cavalry's horses had been unloaded in Hawaii. Troops E, I and K were mounted on Filipino ponies and participated in the Malolos campaign. The dismounted squadron consisting of Troops C and L participated in the capture of Santa Cruz led by Major General Lawton. (He had served in the 4th Cavalry as a 1st Lieutenant and Captain from 1871 to 1888 and had commanded B Troop during the Geronimo Campaign.)
By August 1899 the rest of the Regiment had arrived in the Philippines. In the fall of 1899 the 4th Cavalry moved north under General Lawton to capture the insurgent President Aguinaldo. Severe fighting took place and in the small town of San Mateo and General Lawton was killed in action.
In January 1901 the Regiment was assigned pacification duties in the southern part of Luzon. On 31 September 1901 the tour of duty in the Philippines ended for the Regiment. The 4th Cavalry had participated in 119 skirmishes and battles. The Regiment's three squadrons were reassigned to Fort Leavenworth and Fort Riley Kansas and Jefferson Barracks Missouri, the birthplace of the regiment. In 1905 the 4th returned once again to the Philippines and participated in the Jolo campaign on the island of Mindanao.
THE QUIET YEARS
In 1907 the 4th was reassigned back to the United States to be stationed at Fort Meade, South Dakota less the 3rd Squadron stationed at Fort Snelling, Minnesota. In 1911 the 4th was sent to the Mexican border and two years later departed for Schofield Barracks Hawaii where it served throughout World War I. In 1919 the Regiment returned to the Mexican border and then to Fort Meade, South Dakota in 1925. Regular duties were performed with practiced marches and annual maneuvers held in Wyoming. In 1926 the March King John Phillip Sousa, impressed with the reputation of the 4th Cavalry, wrote an official march for the regiment entitled "Riders For the Flag." The 4th Cavalry Band and the Black Horse Drill Team of Troop F participated in many civic functions throughout the Midwest.
WORLD WAR II
As war swept Europe in 1940 the 4th Cavalry Regiment was reorganized as a Horse-Mechanized Corps Reconnaissance Regiment. The 1st Squadron retained their horses and the 2nd Squadron was mechanized. By 1942 the Army decided that the corps reconnaissance regiments should be completely mechanized. The 1st Squadron turned in its horses at Fort Robinson, Nebraska in the spring of 1942 and was issued M-5 light tanks. In January 1943 the Regiment left Fort Meade for the last time for the Mohave Desert to prepare for the North African campaign. But the Regiment's orders were changed and the 4th arrived in England in December 1943 to serve as the reconnaissance regiment of the VII Corps. Immediately upon arrival the 4th Cavalry Regiment was redesignated and reorganized as the 4th Cavalry Group Mechanized. The 1st Squadron was redesignated the 4th Cavalry Squadron, Mechanized and the 2nd Squadron redesignated as the 24th Cavalry Squadron, Mechanized.
In preparation for the Normandy invasion the 4th Cavalry was assigned a critical role in the amphibious assault of the VII Corps onto Utah Beach. Aerial reconnaissance showed German fortifications on the St. Marcouf Islands 6000 yards off of Utah Beach. These fortifications could pose a serious threat to the Utah Beach landings. The 4th Cavalry was assigned the mission of neutralizing them prior to the landing. The 4th also had the mission of getting two troops ashore on D-Day to link up with the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions to give them armor support.
At 0430 Hours 6 June 1944, elements of Troop A, 4th Squadron and B Troop, 24th Squadron landed on the St. Marcoufs. Corporal Harvey S. Olsen and Private Thomas C. Killeran of Troop A, with Sergeant John S. Zanders and Corporal Melvin F. Kinzie of B Troop, each armed only with a knife, swam ashore to mark the beaches for the landing crafts. They became the first seaborne American soldiers to land on French soil on D-Day. As the troops dashed from their landing craft they were met with silence. The Germans had evacuated the islands but they did leave them heavily mined. Meanwhile one platoon of B Troop, 4th Squadron got ashore at Utah Beach and liked up with the 82nd Airborne. On 7 June the platoon surprised a German column and in a mechanized cavalry charge hit the column routing it with a loss of some 200 casualties. Heavy seas prevented Troop C from linking up with the 101st until 8 June.
As the American forces swung into the Cherbourg peninsula the 4th Cavalry performed screening missions. To prevent the Germans from escaping from the Cap de la Hague area the 4th Squadron dismounted and sized all of their objectives in five days of bloody fighting capturing over 600 prisoners. For its gallant conduct a Cape de la Hague the 4th Squadron less B Troop received the French Croix de Guerre with Silver Star.
In the dash across France the 4th Cavalry assumed traditional cavalry missions of flank screening and protection of line of communication for the VII Corps. By 3 September the 4th crossed into Belgium and by 15 September the 4th had reached Germany and the Siegfried Line.
On the 19th, 20th and 21st of December 1944 while the attention of the world was on the Battle of the Bulge some of the fiercest fighting of the war continued on the edge of the Hurtgen Forest along the approaches to the Roer River. The 4th Cavalry was given the mission to seize the heavily defended town of Bogheim and the high ground to its southeast. On the 19th under a ground fog two troops of the 4th got into the town undetected and engaged the Germans. Two other troops coming up in support were caught in the open as the fog lifted and took heavy casualties. The two troops already in the town successfully drove out the Germans by the afternoon. All four troop commanders had either been killed or wounded and over one fourth of the enlisted personnel had also become casualties.
The next morning the 4th Squadron charged dismounted across two hundred yards of open fields to seize the high ground overlooking the town. In the battle for Bogheim the 4th Squadron destroyed two battle groups of the 947th German Infantry and a company of the 6th Parachute Regiment. For its magnificent bravery at Bogheim the 4th Squadron was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation.
On 25 March 1945 the 4th crossed the Rhine River and swept further into Germany brushing aside light resistance and capturing hundreds of prisoners. The war ended with the 4th Cavalry in the Harz Mountains.
For occupation duties in Germany and Austria the Army organized the U.S. Constabulary. The 4th Cavalry Group was redesignated the 4th Constabulary Regiment with the 4th and 24th Constabulary Squadrons. The Regiment was stationed in Salzburg, Austria. On 1 May 1949 the 4th Constabulary Regiment was inactivated. The 4th Squadron underwent several designation changes to become the 4th Armored Cavalry Reconnaissance Battalion. It was inactivated on 1 July 1955. The 24th Squadron was transferred to Germany in 1949 and inactivated on 15 December 1952. To perpetuate some small remnant of the 4th Cavalry on the active rolls of the Army, Headquarters Company of the 4th Reconnaissance Battalion was redesignated as Headquarters Company, 4th Armor Group and activated in Germany on 1 July 1955.
THE REBIRTH OF THE 4TH CAVALRY
In the short span of twelve years the 4th Cavalry Regiment had been redesignated five times and all that was left of one of the U.S. Army's finest regiments was its regimental numeral on an armor group headquarters company. With the decision to also do away with most tactical regiments the Army realized it must preserve the valuable honors, traditions and history of famous regiments. In 1957 the Army set up the Combat Arms Regimental System (CARS). Under CARS the regiment would be a group of tactical units bearing the regimental name. Over one hundred and fifty historic regiments of cavalry, armor, infantry and artillery were preserved. The original line companies/batteries/troops of a regiment would be activated as the headquarters company/battery/troop of newly constituted battle group/battalion /squadron to preserve the lineal ties with the old regiment. Should a separate company-sized element be required the original company/battery/troop would be activated.
On 15 February 1957 five elements of the 4th Cavalry were activated. The 1st Squadron descending from Troop A was activated in the 1st Infantry Division at Fort Riley Kansas. The 2nd Battle Group (infantry) descending from B Troop was activated in the 1st Cavalry Division in Korea. The 3rd Squadron descending from Troop C joined the 25th Infantry Division at Schofield Barracks Hawaii. The 4th Squadron descending from Troop D was activated in the Army Reserve 102nd Infantry Division at Kansas City Missouri and the 5th Squadron descending from Troop E was activated with the Army Reserve103rd Infantry Division at Ottumwa, Iowa.
During the 1960s Army requirements led to changes in the active elements of the 4th Cavalry. On 1 August 1963 the 2nd Battle Group was reorganized and redesignated as the 2nd Squadron and assigned to the 4th Armored Division. On 15 March 1963 the 5th Squadron was inactivated. Its predecessor Troop E was activated on 3 December 1963 and assigned to the Army Reserve 205th Infantry Brigade at Madison, Wisconsin. On 31 December 1965 the 4th Squadron was inactivated.
Elements of the 4th Cavalry Regiment saw extensive combat during the Vietnam War. The 1st Squadron 4th Cavalry was assigned to the 1st Infantry Division as the division reconnaissance squadron based at Di An. The 1st Squadron participated in eleven campaigns of the Vietnam War from 20 October 1965 to 5 February 1970. The 1st Squadron was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation for its heroism in Binh Long Province as well as a Valorous Unit Award for Binh Doung Province. Troop A, 1st Squadron received a Valorous Unit Award for its actions at the battle of Ap Bau Bang.
The 3rd Squadron 4th Cavalry served as the reconnaissance squadron for the 25th Infantry Division and was based at Cu Chi near Saigon. Troop C, was the first 3rd Squadron element to arrive in Vietnam in December 1965 with the 3rd Brigade, 25th Division. Initially operating in the Vietnamese Central Highlands against North Vietnamese forces, Troop C later saw action against Viet Cong main force units in Quang Tri Province receiving a Valorous Unit Award. On 1 August 1967 Troop C rejoined the 3rd Squadron in Cu Chi.
The 3rd Squadron participated in twelve campaigns from 24 March 1966 to 8 December 1970. The 3rd Squadron received the Presidential Unit Citation for its magnificent defense of Ton Son Nhut air base outside of Saigon during the 1968 Tet counteroffensive and two Valorous Unit Awards for battles along the Cambodian border and in Binh Doung Province. In addition, Troop D, 3rd Squadron received a Presidential Unit Citation for gallantry in Tay Ninh Province and Troop A, 3rd Squadron received a Valorous Unit Award for the Cu Chi District.
Troop F, 4th Cavalry was activated on 10 February 1971 in Vietnam and assigned to the 25th Division as a separate air cavalry troop. After the 25th Division left Vietnam, Troop F remained assigned to the 25th while serving with the 11th and 12 Aviation Groups. It was one of the last Army units to leave Vietnam on 26 February 1973.
In the mid-1980s the Army decided to move to a unit replacement system whereby soldiers would spend the majority of their army careers rotating between the elements of a regiment located in the United States and overseas. In order to set up the proper alignment of like units old historic long-term assignments of regiments in certain divisions were terminated. The 3rd Squadron 4th Cavalry which had served with the 25th Division since 1957 was inactivated on 16 March 1987 because under the unit replacement system 4th Cavalry elements would only be assigned to heavy divisions and the 25th had been reorganized as a light division. The 4th Squadron was reactivated in 1986 and was assigned to the 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized) in Germany. Loud complaints over the inactivation of the 3rd Squadron from senior Army leaders who had served with the squadron led to the army inactivating the 4th Squadron and replacing it with the 3rd Squadron in 1989. One of the missions of both squadrons was the patrolling of the inner-German border until the collapse of East Germany in 1990.
Meanwhile the 2nd Squadron which had been inactivated in Germany in 1972 after serving both in the 4th Armored Division and then in the 1st Armored Division, was reactivated with the 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized) at Fort Stewart, Georgia in January 1987.
THE GULF WAR
Three 4th Cavalry elements participated in the Gulf War. The 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry continued to serve as the reconnaissance squadron for the 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized) assigned to the VII Corps. The 2nd Squadron, 4th Cavalry was the reconnaissance squadron for the 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized) assigned to the XVIII Airborne Corps. Troop D, 4th Cavalry, the reconnaissance troop of the 197th Infantry Brigade (which was attached to the 24th Division) was placed under operational control of the 2nd Squadron.
The ground attack of Desert Storm was launched shortly after midnight on 24 February 1991. The attack began in the XVIII Airborne Corps sector on the extreme left flank of the Coalition Forces. The 24th Division had the critical mission of blocking the Euphrates River valley to cut the escape of Iraqi forces in Kuwait and then to attack east with VII Corps to destroy the Republican Guard divisions. The 2nd Squadron, 4th Cavalry had crossed the border six hours ahead of the main attack and scouted north along the two axis of advance. The 2nd Squadron found little evidence of the enemy and the division made rapid progress. With the 4th Cavalry screening 5 to 10 miles in front of the attacking brigades the 24th continued north until around midnight when the division was halted 75 miles inside Iraq. By 27 February, the fourth day of combat, the 24th Division had destroyed all Iraqi units it had encountered securing the Euphrates River Valley and had trapping most of the Republican Guards divisions for the two Corps to destroy.
On the first day of the ground attack the VII Corps ordered the 1st Infantry Division to breach the main enemy lines. The Big Red One soon had destroyed some ten miles of enemy defenses and had created a breach in the Iraqi lines for the VII Corps to pour through. Swinging east the Corps with the 1st Division on the south passed through the cavalry screen and attacked the Iraqi forces. By 27 February the 1st Division had destroyed two armored divisions. The 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry then set up blocking positions on the Al Basrah -Kuwait City highway preventing Iraqi forces from escaping from Kuwait. The Squadron received a Valorous Unit Award for its actions during Desert Storm.
A cease-fire was declared at 0800 28 February 1991. Thus ended the quickest and most overpowering victory in U.S. Army history. The 4th Cavalry elements that participated in Desert Storm the 1st Squadron, the 2nd Squadron and Troop D all performed their missions with courage, and outstanding professionalism adding to the reputation of the 4th Cavalry as being one of the Army's finest regiments.
THE 4TH CAVALRY TODAY
The deep draw down of the Army beginning in the middle 1980s and continuing after Desert Storm combined with the burgeoning peace keeping commitments led to the decision to halt the implementation of the unit replacement system. Unfortunately by the time the decision was made the Army had completed a massive reassignment of regiments, which had often terminated long standing historical associations between regiments and divisions. The inactivation of the 3rd Squadron 4th Cavalry after serving with the 25th Division for thirty years is a case in point. By 1996 the Army, recognizing the damage such moves had made on esprit-de-corps reassigned many units back to their traditional parent organizations. Thus the 3rd Squadron, which had served with the 3rd Infantry Division since 1989 to include a tour in Bosnia, was reassigned back to the 25th Division.
The post Desert Storm drawdown did not leave the 4th Cavalry unscathed. The Army inactivated the 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized) in February 1996 with the concurrent inactivation of the 2nd Squadron 4th Cavalry. And with the inactivation of the 197th Infantry Brigade earlier, Troop D, 4th Cavalry was also inactivated. Troop E, 4th Cavalry was inactivated on 5 June 1994 when the decision was made to remove combat units from the Army Reserve.
Currently the 4th Cavalry has five elements on active duty. The 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry is the reconnaissance squadron assigned to the 1st Infantry Division at Conn Barracks in Schweinfurt, Germany. The 1st Squadron's combat elements consist of three armored cavalry troops and two air cavalry troops. Conn Barracks is considered to be the 4th Cavalry regimental home base as it is where the 4th Cavalry regimental colors are located with the 1st Squadron. The 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry is the reconnaissance squadron of the 25th Infantry Division (Light) and is stationed at Wheeler Army Air Field, Hawaii. The 3rd Squadron's combat elements consist of two air cavalry troops and a heavily armed ground cavalry troop mounted on high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV).
On 16 January 1999, Troop E, 4th Cavalry was reactivated as the reconnaissance troop for the 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division stationed in Schweinfurt, Germany. Troop F, 4th Cavalry was also reactivated on 16 January 1999 as the reconnaissance troop for the 3rd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division in Vilseck, Germany. Troop D, 4th Cavalry was reactivated 25 February 2000 as the reconnaissance troop for the 1st Brigade, 1st Infantry Division stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas.
Additionally the U.S Army sponsors and maintains B Troop, 4th U.S. Cavalry (Memorial) at Fort Huachuca Arizona. Organized in1973 B Troop appears at military and civilian ceremonies and functions throughout the southwest to promote the heritage and traditions of the U.S. Army during the Indian Wars. The memorial troop is equipped and mounted identically to B Troop, 4th Cavalry in 1886 when it participated in the Geronimo Campaign under the command of Captain Henry W. Lawton. Active duty soldiers and Department of the Army civilians wear authentic 1886 cavalry uniforms and are armed with the cavalry weapons of that era and the horses are saddled and bridled with equally authentic equipment.
Soldiers who have served in the 4th Cavalry can take great pride in having contributed to the record of one of the finest regiments in the U. S Army. Today's active duty 4th Cavalrymen and the volunteers of B Troop (Memorial) continue to add to and perpetuate the magnificent history of the 4th Cavalry Regiment.
|
<urn:uuid:f96ea12f-f118-4336-a0d4-83ae46371692>
|
{
"dataset": "HuggingFaceFW/fineweb-edu",
"dump": "CC-MAIN-2018-09",
"file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-09/segments/1518891811243.29/warc/CC-MAIN-20180218003946-20180218023946-00008.warc.gz",
"int_score": 4,
"language": "en",
"language_score": 0.9795928001403809,
"score": 3.90625,
"token_count": 6686,
"url": "http://mileditors.com/training/index.php/units-tenants/b-troop/history-4th-us-cavalry-regiment"
}
|
"Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution\n|This article is part of a series on the|\n|(...TRUNCATED)
|
<urn:uuid:ce7113b7-2dc7-49db-a9cb-c0a5aa04fe11>
| {"dataset":"HuggingFaceFW/fineweb-edu","dump":"CC-MAIN-2018-09","file_path":"s3://commoncrawl/crawl-(...TRUNCATED)
|
"History of terrorism\nThe history of terrorism is a history of well-known and historically signific(...TRUNCATED)
|
<urn:uuid:d35bb3ee-62f7-4b48-9890-d804b011ed9d>
| {"dataset":"HuggingFaceFW/fineweb-edu","dump":"CC-MAIN-2018-09","file_path":"s3://commoncrawl/crawl-(...TRUNCATED)
|
"1922 Encyclopædia Britannica/Savings Movement\nSAVINGS MOVEMENT. The origin and development of wha(...TRUNCATED)
|
<urn:uuid:9c0dfdfc-402f-4c79-9a2e-8f6ccc5ebbca>
| {"dataset":"HuggingFaceFW/fineweb-edu","dump":"CC-MAIN-2018-09","file_path":"s3://commoncrawl/crawl-(...TRUNCATED)
|
"Tartan Day - Customs - Legends - Rings - E-Cards\nScottish History Timeline: 1st to 9th Centuries\n(...TRUNCATED)
|
<urn:uuid:2c3f7961-42ae-4cb2-beed-ba99fe172a30>
| {"dataset":"HuggingFaceFW/fineweb-edu","dump":"CC-MAIN-2018-09","file_path":"s3://commoncrawl/crawl-(...TRUNCATED)
|
"World War II persecution of Serbs\n|World War II persecution of Serbs|\n|Part of World War II|\nSer(...TRUNCATED)
|
<urn:uuid:ecefa0a9-9abe-49e4-ba97-cb9ac01247b1>
| {"dataset":"HuggingFaceFW/fineweb-edu","dump":"CC-MAIN-2018-09","file_path":"s3://commoncrawl/crawl-(...TRUNCATED)
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 46