|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 20, 2007 16:23:54 GMT -6
www.johntreed.com/ranger.htmlI found this while looking up stuff about what a friend's son, 21 and a Ranger, is up to and doing. Reed is a West Point graduate and a Ranger, and Viet Vet. Assuming he's not a huge fraud and somehow has managed his business without being caught at it for a half century, worth reading, I thought. It's only a stunning coincidence that his views correspond mostly to my own, of course, based on previous readings from diverse sources and no first hand experience. In any case, he knows what elite means, and what it does not. I ask you to compare and contrast to what has been offered hereabouts. He's quite funny and to the point. Like all West Pointers, he knows how to write.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Apr 20, 2007 16:49:21 GMT -6
In any case, he knows what elite means, and what it does not. I ask you to compare and contrast to what has been offered hereabouts. He's quite funny and to the point. Like all West Pointers, he knows how to write. LOL...thank you...I am also a West Pointer, and a Ranger. <g> And a paratrooper. Everything he says about Ranger school is true, although I have a different conclusion than he does. I support Ranger school, and the Ranger battalions. I agree that they are not supermen. And that they are above average. Just like the 7th Cavalry? You see, "elite" units are not so perfect, as AZ seems to apply the definition. If you read Reed, and that is the Army's definition of "elite," it is easier to see why I call the 7th Cavalry, with all its flaws, as "elite," in the Army lexicon. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 20, 2007 18:23:45 GMT -6
You see, "elite" units are not so perfect, as AZ seems to apply the definition. If you read Reed, and that is the Army's definition of "elite," it is easier to see why I call the 7th Cavalry, with all its flaws, as "elite," in the Army lexicon.
Read it again. He found some units to be elite.
My definition of “elite” would be that when you have those units compete with similarly trained civilians, the military would win.
There are few truly elite units in the military by objective civilian standards. I would list the following as truly elite military units by any standards:
• The faculty at the U.S. Military Academy (West Point—may be true of Annapolis and the Air Force Academy as well. I wouldn’t know. A guy I roomed with for two years when we were cadets was the commander of this unit in the early 2000s, that is, he was the Dean of the Academic Board at West Point.)
• The Navy’s Blue Angels (fighter jet acrobatic demonstration team)
• The Air Force’s Thunderbirds (fighter jet acrobatic demonstration team)
• Navy nuclear submariners
You have never demonstrated better than average for the LBH 7th cavalry. Have you?
Show me the definiton that you refer too. Is it next to the arrow drill.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 20, 2007 18:49:09 GMT -6
A brief objective reading bonks Conz, to clear up any possible confusion. Along with everything else, his 'elite' contention goes out the window. He presents himself as a cavalry authority, historian, and I'm unaware if any of his original contentions are strong enough to be described as shredded at this point.
I doubt anyone in the Army would win in a Most Dangerous Game scenario with the Norths and/or any number of civilian scouts and hunters in 1876.
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 20, 2007 19:50:21 GMT -6
Talking about elite units.
They knew the terrain, could live off the land, and were some of the finest light cavalry in the world.
This is from a military site.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Apr 20, 2007 20:28:37 GMT -6
You see, "elite" units are not so perfect, as AZ seems to apply the definition. If you read Reed, and that is the Army's definition of "elite," it is easier to see why I call the 7th Cavalry, with all its flaws, as "elite," in the Army lexicon. -- Clair Read it again. He found some units to be elite. Looked to me like Reed's point was that the Army considers the Ranger units to be "elite," [indeed we do] but he was saying that HE didn't consider them so. He thinks the faculty of West Point is elite...very odd attitude, to my way of thinking, but that's beside the point. So he agrees that the Army considers the Rangers to be elite, even though they are really only "above average." Just like I describe the 7th Cavalry...so you see, he is proof that the Army judges the 7th Cavalry as I do. Elite = above average Yes, many times, and many ways. I have given you the witness of other officers of that day, who believed it was "above average." I have given you witness of men, officer and enlisted, within the 7th Cavalry that believed that they were above average (that belief itself is an indicator of an elite unit...it has to be self-recognized). I have given indicators of the administration's view of the 7th as being extraordinary. I have pointed out that it was kept together more than any other unit because of its elite status. I have given historian's professional opinions that they were above average. I have indicated that the 7th's record against Indians have above average results compared to most other units. I have initiated several discussions about what indicators we could pursue to determine, by this groups standards, what makes a superior unit. Against all this overwhelming evidence, what do you have that might indicate that the 7th was just another "ordinary" unit, or even that another unit in the Army at that time was superior to it? Clair |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 20, 2007 20:53:25 GMT -6
From Fort Laramie
Cavalry soldiers were typically selected from the shorter or lighter recruits. Most cavalrymen had little to no experience with horses before their enlistment
Marksmanship was considered important by the army, but in reality, very little target practice was ever conducted, with a typical soldier only using a hand-full of ammunition annually for such practice.
Maybe a candidate for better than average in the cavalry:
The Seminole-Negro Indian scouts, who were runaway slaves employed — but rarely compensated as promised — by the U.S. cavalry for 44 years for their tracking skills and marksmanship during the Indian wars on the Western frontier;
An interesting comment as to the marksmanship of the 7th
Native American warriors favored raids and running battles for which military troops were poorly prepared. After defeats like the Custer Massacre, the army introduced marksmanship training and small-unit tactics. Commanders also adopted a strategy of relentless pursuit, employing converging columns and conducting winter campaigns to catch and defeat the enemy.
Candidate for better than cavalry:
In battle against the army, the Nez Perce demonstrated their marksmanship by deliberately picking off army leaders and officers who were usually conspicuous. At the Battle of Bear Paw Mountain, the army suffered unusually high officer casualties due to Nez Perce sharpshooting.
Again, as at the Big Hole and at Camas Meadow, the skill and discipline of the Nez Perce warriors proved too much for the U.S. Army. Their marksmanship and horsemanship proved superior to the 7th Cavalry, as the outmaneuvered Sturgis repeatedly.
The Battle of Canyon Creek on September 13, 1877, was not nearly the kind of defeat that the 7th Cavalry had suffered just eighty miles to the east on June 25 the previous year, but it was hardly the sort of showing that Sturgis might have liked.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 20, 2007 20:55:59 GMT -6
Yes, many times, and many ways. I have given you the witness of other officers of that day, who believed it was "above average." I have given you witness of men, officer and enlisted, within the 7th Cavalry that believed that they were above average (that belief itself is an indicator of an elite unit...it has to be self-recognized). I have given indicators of the administration's view of the 7th as being extraordinary. I have pointed out that it was kept together more than any other unit because of its elite status. I have given historian's professional opinions that they were above average. I have indicated that the 7th's record against Indians have above average results compared to most other units.
I have initiated several discussions about what indicators we could pursue to determine, by this groups standards, what makes a superior unit.
Against all this overwhelming evidence, what do you have that might indicate that the 7th was just another "ordinary" unit, or even that another unit in the Army at that time was superior to it?
Clair
I can't believe you truly believe what you wrote. You presented no evidence that the 7th was above average. You keep trying to confuse the issue of primary interest to this board which is the state of the 7th cavalry at LBH, not before and not after. It was not an elite unit when it went into battle on June 25, 1876.
Elite or crack unit is not a designation it is what that unit is comprised of at any given time. Intentions and saying so is not the same as being one.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 20, 2007 21:34:45 GMT -6
conz
So if we can not accept one's opinion of elite or crack how do you make the statement "I have given you the witness of other officers of that day, who believed it was "above average." I have given you witness of men, officer and enlisted, within the 7th Cavalry that believed that they were above average"
I chose to believe him and his findings on elite units. He says
"There are few truly elite units in the military by objective civilian standards. I would list the following as truly elite military units by any standards:
• The faculty at the U.S. Military Academy (West Point—may be true of Annapolis and the Air Force Academy as well. I wouldn't’t know. A guy I roomed with for two years when we were cadets was the commander of this unit in the early 2000s, that is, he was the Dean of the Academic Board at West Point.)
• The Navy’s Blue Angels (fighter jet acrobatic demonstration team)
• The Air Force’s Thunderbirds (fighter jet acrobatic demonstration team)
• Navy nuclear submariners"
Of course you read my posts of your author of the quote from Custer's Luck by Capt King whom you use as source of evidence.
Here is more of Capt Charles King's quotes:
"Make for the heights!" must have been the order, for the first rush was eastward; then more to the left, as they found their progress barred. Then, as they reached higher ground, all they could see, far as they could see, circling, swooping, yelling like demons, and all the time keeping up their furious fire, were thousands of the mounted Sioux. Hemmed in, cut off, dropping fast from their saddles, Custer's men saw that retreat was impossible. They sprang to the ground, "turned their horses loose," said the Indians, and by that time half their number had fallen. A skirmish line was thrown out down the slope, and there they dropped at five yards' interval; there their comrades found them two days after. Every instant the foe rode closer and gained in numbers; every instant some poor fellow bit the dust. At last, on a mound that stands at the northern end of a little ridge, Custer, with Cook, Yates, and gallant "Brother Tom," and some dozen soldiers, all that were left by this time, gathered in the last rally. They sold their lives dearly, brave fellows that they were; but they were as a dozen to the leaves of the forest at the end of twenty minutes, and in less than twenty-five -- all was over.
Here are some of about the 5th
"But Ray's troop horses moved like so many machines, so constant and systematic had been their drill; and Ray's men rode in the perfection of uniform,
They saw the trooper come speeding in across the flats from the northeast; saw as he reached the "bench" that he was spurring hard; heard, even at the distance, the swift batter of hoofs upon the resounding sod; could almost hear the fierce panting of the racing steed; saw horse and rider come plunging down the bank and into the stream, and shoving breast deep through the foaming waters; then issue, dripping, on the hither shore, where, turning loose his horse, the soldier leaped from saddle and saluted his commander."
He is a writer and takes certain liberties to entertain the reader. It was not a official report. It was his style. It is definitely not evidence.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
|
Post by clw on Apr 21, 2007 7:05:18 GMT -6
From the article dc posted...... Those reasons seem pretty obvious to me. I just had to get that gibe in here.  edited to show dc's accurate correction of the word 'jibe'..... |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 21, 2007 7:19:23 GMT -6
conz
Ranger - Regular Army
Paratrooper- Regular Army
Green Beret- Regular Army
Cavalry-Cavalry
One of these is not like the others. I accept "that military units like the rangers and paratroopers rarely actually do what they are trained to do, they do tend to fight better in regular infantry roles than soldiers who have no extra training, so that makes them worth keeping around."
In the first three above what is the difference?
Training different from the regulars giving a designation that remains with you.
A system to reject enlisted men who do not meet the minimum standards other than the size of the individual.
Uniforms different than others and not just the unit designation.
Training above and beyond the regulars.
Equipment better than the rest.
Preformance in combat better than the rest.
That is few of the criteria that I see that would help to make a crack unit. It is not just saying it, fancy drill, or having a band.
Just curious, do you consider the whole Marine Corps an elite unite?
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 21, 2007 8:01:08 GMT -6
Jibe is different from gibe, although it's allowed (but, not by those of any nautical inclination).
Reed went on to be a Harvard MBA. I was impressed with his honesty and his no BS mindset. You have the feeling he went into the Army a different person and mindset than he came out of it. I most like that he wants to shed the BS not to be Captain Bringdown, but to save lives and improve performance. I'm not going to be shocked if he has far more conservative views on some issues than myself. Competence should be the uniting aspiration of left and right.
Years ago, Andrew Cockburn's The Threat was a revealing book about the Soviet military machine and how we were meeting it. It need be said up front that this Cockburn family is descended from the British officer who oversaw the burning of the White House in the War of 1812, and whose reigning three brothers vary from left wing to vitriolic anti-establishment saved solely by their high level of research. They're well regarded. Virtually all of Andrew Cockburn's theories and predictions were proved correct as the Soviets collapsed, for example. Almost all of them.
In any case, The Threat took on the American military's in your face training and masochistic inclinations and noted that German and Dutch units in NATO regularly outperformed their American counterparts on maneuver without any of that punk stuff. It was also discussed how many of the DI's in the Marines and instructors in the Army were from the South, and how traditions that make no real world sense take hold and are difficult to remove, despite all evidence continuing it is counterproductive, which I think Reed discusses.
It makes a dif when someone who excelled at his job evaluates it and offers his opinion for the good reasons he states. His takedown of the Army and the Tillman scandal - which I've referenced here for the last few years as an example of bureaucratic CYA - I think important for the public to read and understand, along with Tillman's brother's inquiry of what the hell we were thinking when it was decided that traumatized soldiers in the field really wanted to view the drawings of children they didn't know. The answer is Potlatch. We misuse the soldiers again to make civvies feel better and allow them to pretend they're contributing meaningfully to the war effort. You know, when shopping isn't enough.
I contrast Reed with others who have used Custer to fluff up their own past or present by instilling more of the detrimental crap that gets people killed to no point. Worse, it's often people other than the ones making the screaming calls for pointless bravado and chest thumping who get killed. Somehow the advocates, like all Chickenhawks, avoid service or danger themselves.
I have no reason to think I'm not a coward, and imagining the responsibility of human lives and split decisions makes me ill, but my advocacy - till the world breaks and is remade - is that competence trump fanboy BS every time, and each generation of our military should be better educated, able, and equipped than the previous. Reading CSS's reductions of the current War Against Anti-Occident Islamic Patriarchs was, besides nonsense, dangerous to anyone unread enough to believe it. Conz's breezy, uninformed adoration is worse if he actually is or was a soldier. Officers, at least West Point officers, so rarely use exclamation points in their prose (they're good writers because they have to be) that their appearance commands suspicion and derision to arise.
|
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Apr 21, 2007 8:32:16 GMT -6
Thoughtful stuff, DC, and that Reed article is worth its weight in gold.
Do we have any clue as to exactly when all this macho posturing entered US military life? With Theodore Roosevelt, maybe? Or even later? It seems unlikely to have prevailed in the army of the 1860s and '70s. For one thing, soldiers would have voted with their feet; for another, terror of a sergeant or instructor would be unnecessary with the greater terror of getting your hair lifted to make you concentrate on what you were being taught. ----- This is not relevant to your point, perhaps, but I'm just trying to visualise how "elite" status (if it existed for the 7th or any other regiment) would have translated into training, capabilities etc. The suspicion is that it would have more to do with drill and smartness on parade than any proven combat ability. That, and the proportion of officers with good war records. (Libbie Custer said in 1866 that "It is said to be the finest officered regiment in the service"; maybe that was enough to confer the illusion of eliteness?)
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 21, 2007 8:40:09 GMT -6
I think it more likely that "elite" had meaning in England in reference to the number of aristocracy in the officer corps. It wasn't until WWI that the navy and army in England got serious about liberal, insane concepts like "actual competence" should trump social standing. The Guards were elite, without much basis by today's standards. The South, descended from the Cavaliers, bought into this. The mercantile north was Cromwell country in attitude, more or less, by descent. After the Civil War, the southern men, impoverished, took an overlarge percentage of the military and inflicted their views and ways on the nation's army. As good as bad. True enough to bear mention, but not entirely true. Tillman is in the news again today. apnews.excite.com/article/20070421/D8OKT9OO0.html |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Apr 21, 2007 8:44:44 GMT -6
Maybe a candidate for better than average in the cavalry: The Seminole-Negro Indian scouts, who were runaway slaves employed — but rarely compensated as promised — by the U.S. cavalry for 44 years for their tracking skills and marksmanship during the Indian wars on the Western frontier; Yes, I think you could consider them as an elite unit...along with other such specialized units created during campaigns, such as the "mounted infantry" with Gibbon's column on our campaign, etc. Does anyone believe this? It is silly... 1) Native Americans favored raids and battles they were better at. Duh. 2) The Army =introduced= marksmanship training and small-unit tactics =after= defeats like the Custer Massacre? Please...that is idiotic. Using the word "massacre" is just as idiotic. 3) Commanders =adopted= a strategy of relentless pursuit and winter campaigns =after= the Custer Massacre? You all know better than this...right? Please use better sources than this author. Yes...I too admire the Nez Perce. But they, too, were defeated by the Cavalry eventually. A great discussion sometime would be the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various Plains, Southwest, and Northwest tribes. That will be fun! Thanks, Clair |
|
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they