|
Post by conz on Aug 23, 2008 17:53:05 GMT -6
Through the years I have talked with many combat veterans, American and German. I only met one who felt the way Clair does. Clair,I would suggest that you read Ernie Pyle to find out how the common enlisted man feels about war and combat. Perhaps your views are shaped by reading too many accounts written by West Pointers. I knew two Army veterans of the Vietnam War (1st Air Cav, and 101st Airborne) at work. I often asked them about their views concerning their officers in combat or in the field. The man from the 1st Air Cav said he never saw a West Pointer in the field during 2 tours of duty in Vietnam. Said they were all in staff or rear echelon duties, yet when the war ended the officers who had been at the front (OCS,battlefield commission,ROTC) were RIF ed out to be replaced by the West Pointers. The guy in the 101st said he never saw anyone higher than a Captain in the field--all non West Pointers! I would have been afraid to have asked them if they couldn't wait to enter combat to earn the Combat Infantry Badge! That's a pretty common story coming out of the Vietnam-era Army. I don't think that condemnation of West Pointers will hold, though, if you look through the history of American conflict. A short perusal of the Civil War will do. You might as well say Miles Keogh did not do honorable service because he was mostly a "staff officer" throughout the war. Often many of the very best officers get staff jobs because they are so critical...they take more skill than leading platoons and companies into combat does. So you find a disproportionate amount of West Pointers there, even when the USMA grads clamor for field commands...they are often denied such duty because they are too valuable to be let go from the staff. I've seen such happen often. My father, a West Point grad, saw combat in Korea and Vietnam. One of my grandfathers, a USMA grad, was captured on Corregidor after fighting the Japanese during the invasion, and my other grandfather, a ROTC grad, was a combat commander all through the European war. My first tank battalion commander, who mentored me when I was a young cavalry officer, did three tours in Vietnam, the first one as an NCO, and one more as a combat tank company commander, and then one as a staff officer. The sentiments you heard are more typical of the conscript army of that day than the volunteer Regular Army of other days...the 1870s or the 1980s. Career-oriented combat arms officers NEED combat time if they want to do what they intend to do with their service. That is what they train and sign up for...they didn't join the armor, infantry, or artillery to sit behind a desk, eh? The scrambling for combat leadership jobs for officers and career NCOs is a key element of career management in the military today. If you don't have some, your career could be hurt. Luckily for us today, we have young Lieutenants, Captains, and Lt Col.s that are eager to engage the enemy and win our battles in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are doing what they joined the Army to do, and they'll do their best to get themselves and their men back to their families in one piece. But they WANT to do their jobs, and do them well...they expect to cover themselves with glory...that is, they expect to do their jobs as best they possibly can. That is all glory is in the Army...just doing your job the best you can. You just pray that you'll get a good opportunity to do that. What you DON'T do, is pray that you will never get the chance to do that...this is anathema to most Soldiers. So back to our point...those Soldiers in the 7th Cavalry, or the 5th, or the 4th...their greatest fear is that they would never get the chance to kill Indians. That is what they were there for, and they would consider their time wasted if they didn't get the chance to do this. So anytime they hear that they are going to finally get the chance to catch the enemy and give him a good drubbing, they would, indeed, cheer at the news. Clair
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 24, 2008 2:42:30 GMT -6
Clair, you may not have meant it this way, but someone reading your post above could come away with the impression that Keogh (a) was a West Pointer, and (b) got comparatively little combat during the Civil War. Just want to point out that neither is the case.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 24, 2008 8:31:02 GMT -6
Clair, you may not have meant it this way, but someone reading your post above could come away with the impression that Keogh (a) was a West Pointer, and (b) got comparatively little combat during the Civil War. Just want to point out that neither is the case. Right...the point made that good officers are often kept as staff officers, and are actually prevented from taking commands of companies and regiments, against their will. Keogh is a good case, I think. I'll bet he would have much preferred to be a Troop or Regiment commander, but his bosses wouldn't give him the chance...he was too valuable as a staff officer. The other point is that aggressive staff officers often get into combat, sometimes more than combat unit commanders do! Keogh is an excellent example of this, as is George Custer before he took command. My entire effort here is to get students of the U.S.Army to come to an understanding of professional Soldiers...they WANT to see combat. And when in a combat theater, they WANT to fight their enemy as often as possible. Get the job done, and then get home and relax with your families. That is what it is all about. The men and officers of the 7th Cavalry, on the morning of 25 June 1876, were elated to be going into the attack against the Sioux and Cheyenne that day...they wanted nothing more. Clair
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 24, 2008 9:04:51 GMT -6
Keogh was lucky, I guess. He had bosses that did give him the chance. Here's one nice story. It's the Battle of Resaca, I believe. The situation is that the Confederates are firmly ensconced on some heights, and no-one's yet been able to dislodge them:
"While they were forming again to make another charge, Keogh rode down to them and said to the captain who was in command that Gen. Stoneman had been kind enough to direct him to take command during the next charge. He was welcome to do it, and the officers were now anxious to see what he would do with it after he had got it. He formed his four troops in column of fours, each troop parallel with the next one; that made a solid column with a platoon front. The Confederates, who were hid by the timber, stopped firing after the last repulse. They might as well stop, they could not hit anyone from where they were on top of the hill and the timber prevented them from seeing much, anyhow. But as soon as Keogh had started his column up at a trot, he riding at its head, the firing began again. Keogh stood up in his stirrups, & facing his men, swung his cap above his head, and yelled 'Give them a cheer, boys, and go for them now.' The cheer was given, and they went for them, sending the Confederates clear across the hill and down the other side of it and here the rest of the regiment that had followed him to support him took up the chase and kept the enemy going. Whenever a charge was made after this, and Keogh was present, he took part in it, whether he had any command or not, and always came out without a scratch even."
(From Capt. Theodore Allen, I think.)
And again: while Custer was happily swanning around with the signing table from Appomattox as a souvenir, thinking the war was over, Keogh was still fighting -- the assault on Salisbury. He led the 12th Kentucky against the town, capturing guns, prisoners, the POW camp, etc.
So he really was lucky, with a succession of bosses who understood that he was best used for both: his staff role and combat.
Not sure that superior officers actually blocked a move from one to the other, however. Buford had promised Keogh great things (most likely, a command) before he died, and Stoneman in 1864 tried hard to get him a regiment of his own. I think they just tried to put the talent where it would be of most use, regardless. Valuable as a good staff officer might have been, it seems that sensible commanders didn't stand in the way of potential combat whizzes.
|
|
walkingstar
New Member
Life is but a dream...
Posts: 39
|
Post by walkingstar on Aug 24, 2008 9:19:58 GMT -6
How is it possible to speak authoritatively for a group of people without performing personal interviews of the entire group? Admittedly, that would be a difficult job for such a large number of people. How about a percentage survey of the "group".
For example, if you had the statical data that shows that a substantial portion of the tested "group" is an agreement with your position then you have credibility. While that is not proof it does substantiate your position. If you do neither of the above or, at least some similar action, you leave your position vulnerable to disbelief.
Remember, when one individual takes the awesome responsibility of speaking for "all" without their approval or permission it gets a little hairy. What happens is that you pass opinion (which we all have) and become authoritative which calls for evidence. I think you are very sincere in your belief which explains your commitment towards it. The problem is that regardless of what you say, you don't have the expertise, knowledge, nor authority to issue a credible "statement" rather than an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 24, 2008 9:26:00 GMT -6
I fully agree...all my statements are opinion only.
Please be advised accordingly.
My opinions are also subject to evolve as more information comes in. So because I said it last month doesn't mean I believe the same thing today.
These forums are for sharing opinions, and why we hold those beliefs. I certainly enjoy hearing them all!
Clair
|
|
walkingstar
New Member
Life is but a dream...
Posts: 39
|
Post by walkingstar on Aug 24, 2008 15:07:27 GMT -6
As we enjoy hearing from you, always!
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 24, 2008 18:20:12 GMT -6
Mmmmm...don't encourage me. Many people here have entirely too much of my views as it is. <g>
Clair
|
|
walkingstar
New Member
Life is but a dream...
Posts: 39
|
Post by walkingstar on Aug 24, 2008 18:29:47 GMT -6
Oh No!!!...Every post of yours has always been informative and interesting. Obviously your background is extensive and thorough. You represent the best of what forums, of this nature, are all about. I'm glad to be associated with you and others who offer so much information on a subject I hold dear. Thank You!
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 24, 2008 18:42:24 GMT -6
Well, thanks...I'm all about the glory, just as dc suspects. <g>
Diane and dc think I'm a nut, which is probably why more professional Soldiers don't hang out on boards like this. But I've taken it on as my professional duty to rub elbows with everybody from many perspectives, so that's okay by me.
I'm no smarter than any here, but as you imply, I do have a unique perspective which gives a variety to views that we need. So I'm happy to contribute.
Enjoy...as I am!
Clair
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 24, 2008 19:26:02 GMT -6
Apparently someone has not read all posts. Including arrow dodging horses? I think you will find more than one Claire here. One of his objectives is to test us with outlandish ideas. On a good day I can agree with him.
I agree with the previous statement about the majority of enlisted men and having a different anticipation in the job at least from my era(Viet Nam). I do not agree that you have to sample everyone or even close to half of everyone to have a statistically valid sample size.
I wonder what were the ambitions of all the immigrants that joined the cavalry. I need a job and I don't want to walk. I doubt they moved to the US to fight Indians, in my opinion.
Do doctors join the Army to fight in battle?
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Aug 25, 2008 10:39:13 GMT -6
Apologies for careening so recklessly back into the original subject of the thread, but--- has anyone considered the faulty intelligence on numbers of Indians that had left the reservations - which were provided to Terry and Custer - to be perhaps the most important ‘sign‘ that was utilized by Custer to formulate his plan?
Custer had spent the months preceding the Summer 1876 Campaign cooling his heels in the Washington, DC doghouse as well as a few other places in the East, where he hob-knobbed with the ‘in-the-know’ crowd. The cocktail chatter there kicked around the likely numbers of Indian Warriors that were and would actually be on the loose from the reservations. All based on reports from government agents on the reservations that had, for one reason or another, been deliberately under reporting them. Maybe by as much as 30-40%.
That I believe put the 1000-1500 warriors max idea into his head. The numbers that joined Sitting Bull’s encampment continued to grow after the campaign began as well. Some reservation Indians were still arriving, even on the afternoon/evening after the fight was over.
Aboard the Far West, only days before the 25 June engagement, he and Terry were still working with that ‘official’ number of warriors ‘out there’ somewhere. Corrected, updated and more realistic figures reached Terry only after the disaster.
When asked by Custer, Herendeen replied that they would be facing no less than 1,500-2,000 warriors. That’s an entirely different matter than 1,500-2,000 tops. Some of the other scouts’ reports of unusually large numbers were deemed by him to be the opinions of the overly nervous. Tamped down, in his mind perhaps, by those original and official numbers.
All that to ask this - was one of the ‘signs’ that Custer factored in (the official numbers of Indians not on the reservations), what he considered to be the more solid and the most reliable? Given his need for an achievable, doghouse emancipating victory, did he cling too tightly to them, and mentally diminish the scouts’ reports of numbers, as well as think it logically sound to not fully accept their opinions of what lay ahead? Screwing up his entire equation? If so, then how do we condemn him for doing the best he could with what he had in hand?
M
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 25, 2008 11:30:40 GMT -6
Here you go...expand your experience with this witness from the day... I wonder what were the ambitions of all the immigrants that joined the cavalry. I need a job and I don't want to walk. I doubt they moved to the US to fight Indians, in my opinion. "And so we got our orders for the Sioux campaign of 1876...In ten minutes the news was all over the post. A wild Celtic 'Hurray, fellows, we're going for to join Crook,' was heard in the barracks, answered by shouts of approval and delight from every Paddy in the command... "The company of the Fifth Cavalry most strongly flavored with Irish element in the ranks was commanded by Captain Emil Adam, an old German soldier, whose borken English on drill was the delight of his men...But wherever you meet them, the first to hurray at the chance of a fight is the Pat, and no matter how gloomy or dismal the campaign, if there be any fun to be extracted from its incidents, he is the man to find it... "There is hardly a trace of nervousness even among the newest comers, but this is the first chase of the campaign for us, and all are eager and excited." I believe that CPT King, a lieutenant in troop at the time, accurately reflects the sentiments of his Soldiers here. Also, I think most Irishmen are ready to fight regardless of location or circumstances. <g> Clair
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 26, 2008 8:35:12 GMT -6
So the high desertion rate was based upon not enough Indian fighting? Using a false name indicates apprehension of staying on the job to long.
Leaving camp chores behind was a joyous occasion which soon turned into the misery as described by Private Ewert in "The United States Cavalry Expedition of 1874." I am not sure the loud cheer always indicates of good fighters.
And to point raised by Brokensword. Custer had to believe a smaller number then say 2,500 warriors. I believe his tactic were more in line to 800- 1200 warriors at tops.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Aug 26, 2008 11:37:34 GMT -6
AZ - "...Using a false name indicates apprehension of staying on the job to long. ..."
Spoken like a true cop, and a good point.
Musing on your earlier thoughts about immigrants’ motives for relocating, I suspect the lure of opportunity to improve personal living conditions was near universal. Then as now.
The Industrial Revolution had, by the second half of the 19th Century, concentrated millions of people within the manufacturing centers of large cities; but, in 100-plus years, its technology had failed to provide any improvement in the economic situation or living conditions of the lower classes. A small middle-class maintained itself, but for the great majority, life was not only no better, but even worse than before. There was no available land for them to exit the cities for, and life held a nearly non-existent hope of change for the better.
Certainly, there were a few who came to the United States to become soldiers (Keogh, Cooke, Nowlan et al.), but they came because this was where the action was, and their previous experience might earn them a quick commission along with a step up in position within the army’s social structure. A handful were escaping disgrace at home and a few were staying one step ahead of the law. There were a few that had previous military experience in the European armies of their homelands, and they turned to that as a means of livelihood. Examples of all of the above were found in the Seventh Cavalry of that day, and in every other Army regiment as well, I‘d venture.
What many others found in America was all too often much the same as it had been in the places they left behind. The Army offered safe haven in life’s storm - so to speak - but opportunity for advancement and improved living conditions were nowhere to be sceen on the horizons of the majority.
Desertion was easy. The American West was a vast place. Large enough for you to become lost in, change identities, remake yourself in obscurity and to provide yet one more opportunity to - ‘be all that you can be.’
BS
|
|