|
Post by wild on May 20, 2007 7:59:57 GMT -6
Conz As long as time is not a factor, and indeed, here a slower withdrawal would actually perform the mission better than a faster one, and still get you wherever you might be going, this is the best technique, I judge It would resemble something like the trail of death Custer left in his wake.A slow moving massed target yeh yeh yeh.Surely there is a board dedicated to this comic strip stuff which would suit yourself and Keogh better ;D
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 20, 2007 8:01:42 GMT -6
This question of giving "benefit of doubt" has been bothering me, and I finally figured it out...
If you can't be 100% of your judgment, and you need to give some benefit of doubt to your particular conclusion, as far as I'm concerned the benefit of doubt goes to the mission, not to any individual's reputation.
That is why officer's who fail their missions get pilloried regardless of their "best intentions," unless their failure was 100% surely not their fault and unavoidable.
Of course, in Reno's case, you first have to determine what his mission was. Again, assigning "benefit of the doubt" to what the mission should have been, not what Reno prefers it to be.
Here a case can easily be made that Reno was conducting an advance guard mission, particularly since he said he was in court under oath. Now you have to assign "benefit of the doubt" as to what that responsibility entails. Even if you maintain the strictest definition of this mission to be simply providing security to the main body and prevent them from being surprised, that entails keeping the enemy to you and preventing them from "surprising" the main body. So at the very least, the benefit of doubt should be that Reno has to maintain contact with the enemy, and not let them go off against Custer, wherever he may be.
So can Reno perform this by leaving the timber? Theoretically he can...fixing and maintaining contact with the enemy has been done many times in history by the advance guard conducting a fighting withdrawal...it is rather the norm when you run into an aggressive enemy larger than you.
So our history must tell future combat leaders if Reno made the correct decision to a) leave the timber, or b) withdraw using the best techniques possible, in light of what his mission was.
On the first question, we should assign "benefit of the doubt" as to what best accomplished his mission to fix the enemy: stay or go. Since it is easier to defend in place than to withdraw in the face of an enemy, that would be the best decision barring unusual factors. It actually depends mostly upon the defensibility of the position. If it can be defended, its proximity to the village makes it a wonderful position to threaten the enemy village whilst still maintaining a strong defensive position...that is an unusual quality all tacticians long to find...make the enemy attack you...as the defense is the stronger and safer form of tactic.
Is the timber defensible? Since many competent officers said that it was, and a few said that it wasn't, we must assign "benefit of the doubt" to the mission, and declare that it WAS defensible, and that the proper decision therefore was to defend it. What Reno thought in his head, by way of excusing his personal conduct, is irrelevant to the military lesson of what is proper and best. Reno's reputation isn't the most important consideration for history, here...the mission is.
Considering the best method of withdrawal, the mission would be to maintain your command in condition to maintain a threat to the enemy that they could not ignore...i.e., "fixing" them, even if you pull out. This was obviously not accomplished, so Reno is certainly to be blamed for failing his mission here. Some here would rate the saving of a portion of his command as the greater imperative in order to preserve combat capability, throwing out any other mission imperative at this point. But he did not even accomplish that...was his command still "mission capable" at the end of his rout? If not, for what reason then did he save his command?
So while Reno fails to make the correct decision to stay in the timber by reason of "benefit of the doubt," he fails utterly and directly to save his command's combat capability for future efforts in this battle.
That summarizes my judgment on this episode.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 20, 2007 9:06:30 GMT -6
Here a case can easily be made that Reno was conducting an advance guard mission, particularly since he said he was in court under oath. Now you have to assign "benefit of the doubt" as to what that responsibility entails. Even if you maintain the strictest definition of this mission to be simply providing security to the main body and prevent them from being surprised, that entails keeping the enemy to you and preventing them from "surprising" the main body. So at the very least, the benefit of doubt should be that Reno has to maintain contact with the enemy, and not let them go off against Custer, wherever he may be
Conz - Even if we accept you advance guard mission for the sake of discussion here is the options:
If you want the military cookbook as practiced and trained for then you have to accept all the ingredients in the recipe. Withdraw is one of those ingredients. You completely leave out the withdraw option which is one of the choices.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 20, 2007 9:10:37 GMT -6
So while Reno fails to make the correct decision to stay in the timber by reason of "benefit of the doubt," he fails utterly and directly to save his command's combat capability for future efforts in this battle.
As compared to Custer?
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 20, 2007 9:32:38 GMT -6
Is the timber defensible? Since many competent officers said that it was, and a few said that it wasn't, we must assign "benefit of the doubt" to the mission, and declare that it WAS defensible, and that the proper decision therefore was to defend it. What Reno thought in his head, by way of excusing his personal conduct, is irrelevant to the military lesson of what is proper and best. Reno's reputation isn't the most important consideration for history, here...the mission is.
You need to change your we to those that support, you not the collective we. The deference of the actual combat experience that was going on that day also influences a commander's decision. Knowledge of the battle readiness of the troops is much different than textbook tactics. That different troops or civilians feel it could be defended is based solely on tactics which should not be the only part of a officers decision.
Did you not study breaking points and demoralized troops as it relates to the success of the combat mission? At what ratio offense:defense regarding Indians:troopers would the number have to reach to make a commander reevaluate his situation? After all isn't the majority of training related to enlisted men designed to teach the maintenance of high morale under stressful situations?
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 20, 2007 9:39:55 GMT -6
This is where word inflation hurts. If you're going to grant the word 'mission' to lesser and lesser tasks, jokes begin to be taken seriously. A 'mission' is not taking a leak, getting the last piece of dessert, or any subsidiary action to the known mission, like Reno's actions or Custer's. Mission was accorded to the regiment, and that was to get the hostiles back to the rez. All assignments and orders issued were to benefit that mission. If in discussing the battle, you grant the term "mission" to the regiment, it's silly and confusing to grant it to lesser jobs unless you're trying to manipulate confusion that the mission had altered.
It's part of what I mean when I inquire (and zero to date have answered) when the "mission" of the 7th became Saving General Custer and why it would be so rather than the given mission.
If you note, in these various threads, the Custerphiles by implication at some point judge Reno's actions as if suddenly the mission was Custer's maintenance rather than getting the Sioux back, and say "Reno's mission...." Reno's mission at all times on the 25th was the same as on the 23rd as was everyone else's. It, in fact, continued throughout the summer in another form, and did not end at Custer's death, although at that point the 7th was under a superior's command.
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 20, 2007 11:05:42 GMT -6
This question of giving "benefit of doubt" has been bothering me, and I finally figured it out...
If you can't be 100% of your judgment, and you need to give some benefit of doubt to your particular conclusion, as far as I'm concerned the benefit of doubt goes to the mission, not to any individual's reputation. As this poster has suggested that the cavalry form square and walk out of the valley it is difficult to take anything he posts seriously. However--- He has for most of this discussion allotted a spurious mission to Reno and then condemned him for not fulfilling it. When both Reno's and Custers forces advanced on both sides of the LBH and Reno got his attack order Custer had no way of knowing which force would come into action first.Because Custer did not know on which side of the river the villge lay he had to attack along both banks. For all practical purposes it was a simultaneous attack.Reno's attack failed and Custer achieved even less than failure. Missions fail and when they do it becomes a damage limitation effort.The military culture suggested by Conz is a characteristic of totalitarian states such as the unlamented Third Reich and the USSR with their battle police.Free nations do not expect their soldiers to become kamikaze. It is well for Conz to remember when he elevates mission to that of suicide that an American army led by McArthur a West Point graduate surrendered to Jap army they outnumbeed 3 to 1 in the Philippines
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 20, 2007 13:40:05 GMT -6
Conz As long as time is not a factor, and indeed, here a slower withdrawal would actually perform the mission better than a faster one, and still get you wherever you might be going, this is the best technique, I judgeIt would resemble something like the trail of death Custer left in his wake.A slow moving massed target yeh yeh yeh.Surely there is a board dedicated to this comic strip stuff which would suit yourself and Keogh better ;D Massed target for what?! The Natives couldn't hit the side of a barn door while mounted. You think they are going to dismount to fight a moving dismounted formation? Very unlikely...so this movement is going to have few casualties, just as Godfrey's. Why would you think any differently? As for "like Custer's," you presume to know a lot about how Custer's men were killed, eh? Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 20, 2007 13:49:18 GMT -6
If you want the military cookbook as practiced and trained for then you have to accept all the ingredients in the recipe. Withdraw is one of those ingredients. You completely leave out the withdraw option which is one of the choices. AZ Ranger Why do you say that, AZ? If he can't defend, I advocate doing a fighting withdrawal, and explain that it should be dismounted by technique. That is a good list, which we use today, and they used back then as well...would be good to see if Mahan had exactly the same list, but the intent will be the same irregardless. So Reno could: attack - into the village, mounted or dismounted; at the start, or later if the Natives tried to turn around to Custer defend - near the village forcing the Natives to stay on him and not allowing them to abandon him to move to Custer bypass - a variant on attack, only used against a fortified position so it won't slow down the advance...allowing a main body force to reduce it...doesn't apply at LBH delay - by conducting a slow fighting withdrawal, normally by jumping from defensible position to position towards the rear withdraw - faster fighting withdrawal, without halting at static defensive positions Good list, and Reno knew it and how to follow it. Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 20, 2007 13:51:50 GMT -6
So while Reno fails to make the correct decision to stay in the timber by reason of "benefit of the doubt," he fails utterly and directly to save his command's combat capability for future efforts in this battle.As compared to Custer? No...I see no evidence that Custer attempted to ever abandon his mission to disperse the Warriors and capture the village...do you? Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 20, 2007 13:54:21 GMT -6
Did you not study breaking points and demoralized troops as it relates to the success of the combat mission? At what ratio offense:defense regarding Indians:troopers would the number have to reach to make a commander reevaluate his situation? After all isn't the majority of training related to enlisted men designed to teach the maintenance of high morale under stressful situations? AZ Ranger Exactly...which is why we can safely say that these professional NCOs knew how to keep their men together as an effective fighting force...as long as the officers didn't run off and leave them!! That tends to undermine the influence of the NCO... Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 20, 2007 14:02:25 GMT -6
This is where word inflation hurts. If you're going to grant the word 'mission' to lesser and lesser tasks, jokes begin to be taken seriously. A 'mission' is not taking a leak, getting the last piece of dessert, or any subsidiary action to the known mission, like Reno's actions or Custer's. Mission was accorded to the regiment, and that was to get the hostiles back to the rez. All assignments and orders issued were to benefit that mission. If in discussing the battle, you grant the term "mission" to the regiment, it's silly and confusing to grant it to lesser jobs unless you're trying to manipulate confusion that the mission had altered. Sorry, d.o., but that is exactly wrong here. Each commander has a mission...down to the lowest level tactical commander. In this case, each company commander has a mission, supporting the battalion commander's mission. Reno and Benteen each have independent missions, granting them greater leeway in decision making, as well as greater responsibility for that mission. Custer has the greatest responsibility for the overall mission. Terry has responsibility for HIS mission, as well. They are ALL missions, and all covered under the "Duty" concept of the West Point creed (even for Benteen, who is not a grad <g>). Several people, including myself, have answered you. Either you ignore them, or you don't care for what you read, so pretend it is not answered. Same with my explanation of arrow drills, or tactics for withdrawing from timber, etc. Its a poor debating tactic, and doesn't become you. First of all, Custerphobes shouldn't use the term Custerphiles, because it only calls attention to your prejudice concerning the history of this battle. Secondly, officers don't think as you do above, which is okay except that you are commenting on officer responsibilities, so it ONLY matters what they think...what you think on this is irrelevant. Custer had a mission to accomplish THAT DAY. He had until sundown to accomplish it, or it would be considered a failure. Reno's job was to support the mission of the 7th Cavalry THAT DAY...not "later that summer." Just a professional officer's opinion, of course. Clair
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on May 20, 2007 14:11:09 GMT -6
conz:
The refutation to your statement that the Indians "couldn't hit the side of a barn while mounted" was left in a trail of dead and wounded from the timber to the river crossing, which is one of the principal reasons Reno has been castigated, deserved or not, over the years.
Maybe that was his order: "Follow me, boys!! They can't hit the side of a barn!!!!"
Gordie, once a "possible" shooter, and a professional................................................................
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 20, 2007 14:39:58 GMT -6
He has for most of this discussion allotted a spurious mission to Reno and then condemned him for not fulfilling it. I don't recall you ever discussing why you think that Reno was not performing an advance guard mission, when you know that he said in court that he was. I'd like to hear your explanation for that... When he gave Reno his attack order, they were not moving abreast...Reno went ahead, and Custer waited developments, right? That is exactly how an advance guard operates. When Custer gets the information required to commit his main body, then he moves. Here, he moved right after getting the word that the Natives were coming out to meet Reno, right? So what part is difficult to understand? Reno went in FIRST, the Natives bit on him FIRST, and THEN Custer committed the main body to a flanking maneuver. Just like the textbook says...and always has. The Civil War officers followed this, and we follow it yet today in Iraq. I'm afraid that is not a professional judgment on what is going on here...at least not a military professional's. <g> That is a very good statement...and you only do this after admitting that you have failed in your mission. Then you do, indeed, go into "risk avoidance and minimization mode." Excellent! So knowing this, you can look for this decision being made on the battlefield, by: 1) Reno 2) Custer 3) Sitting Bull Anyone want to take a crack at any indications when, or if, each of these men decided to abandon their mission as a failure? Tell that to the veterans of D-Day, or the Marines on Iwo Jima. Perhaps to the survivors of the Philippine invasion in '41, when America abandon its army in the biggest military disaster in American history. Exactly...proving my point, so what is yours? That Reno should have surrendered to Sitting Bull that evening, instead of fighting on? Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 20, 2007 14:44:45 GMT -6
conz: The refutation to your statement that the Indians "couldn't hit the side of a barn while mounted" was left in a trail of dead and wounded from the timber to the river crossing, which is one of the principal reasons Reno has been castigated, deserved or not, over the years. Maybe that was his order: "Follow me, boys!! They can't hit the side of a barn!!!!" Gordie, once a "possible" shooter, and a professional................................................................ And how many Native witness accounts say that they shot the Soldiers as they were running, as opposed to spearing them or clubbing them, eh? I submit that few of Reno's running Soldiers were actually killed by bullets or arrows. The few mentioned were probably wounded or unhorsed by random shots. The vast majority of Reno's men were killed in hand-to-hand combat...anybody want to bet? <g> Clair
|
|