How should a historian be utilized by our military?

To me, an effective historian understands the strategic, operational, and tactical components of war to include doctrine, and Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA). Let's discuss actions leading up to, during, and after the Battle of the Bulge. Germany was low on supplies, fuel, low on experienced pilots, planes, and the quality of the soldiers were not to their standard, but they still had a large armored force. The US had plenty of supplies, soldiers, vehicles, tanks, and planes as they maneuvered toward Germany.

From Normandy is was slow going for the US due to the terrain and the area was heavily defended. Our Sherman tanks were inferior to German tanks due to the doctrine of Sherman tanks tasked as infantry support vehicles and very little improvement were made to fight the German tanks effectively. When the Battle of the Bulge commenced, the US had air superiority due to the superiority of the P-51 which was also an RMA. It is alleged the P-51s shot down 4,500 German planes and destroyed another 4,500 on the ground. Our lines were thin in many places because Eisenhower wanted a broad front.

At the Battle of the Bulge the Germans threw heavy armor divisions at us with a very limited fuel and supplies. Tactically speaking our fighter planes attrited the German units and attacked supply trains. The 101st and soldiers in the Ardennes Forest fought against the German armor divisions. The soldiers in the Ardennes Forest fell back but never retreated. The Germans eventually ran out of fuel and supplies and they retreated or surrendered en masse. Patton used the tactic of using fighter planes to attrit the enemy and decisively engage the enemy forward of his army. It gave him great intelligence and the freedom of maneuver to attack at his time and place of his choosing. His ability to move the army was unmatched in human history.

This is what I want from a historian. I want the historian to go from the big picture or strategic level to the tactical level. I also expect to learn about doctrine and RMAs that impacted wars. I also want to get a straight answer to why did we have air superiority at the time of the Battle of the Bulge if I asked that question. What were the conditions, plans, doctrine, tactics, RMAs, and other variables that impacted the battlefield, the campaign, and the war. That's my 2 cents.

A historian should be able to discuss the strategic, operational, and tactic aspects and how they are interconnected to paint an accurate picture. Military history can be a deep reservoir of lessons learned for future applications like:

- Tanks fight Tanks.
- Use air power to attrit and fix the enemy before we commit ground forces.
- Use air power to attrit the enemy air force.
- Light infantry need better weapons to fight armor units.
- Ensure supply trains are robust.
- Sometimes we need better intelligence.
-

I recently assisted in a union organizing drive for civilian employees of the U.S. Army Center of Military History, including all of the civilian employees in the various Army Museums throughout the world. Although I played a small roll, I spoke with several Military Historians about the work they do. I learned they are understaffed, underutilized, lack cooperation, but are all highly dedicated to preserving history.
I urge all who have combat experience or have served in significant operations to contact the appropriate military history office and offer to share any knowledge you may have, as appropriate.
They are especially interested in hearing from Vietnam Veterans.

Unit histories are lost in the Army. Units don't stand for anything.