|
Post by conz on Aug 27, 2008 11:59:33 GMT -6
Conz - Lets try a different approach What do you consider the minimum viable numbers of troops that could attack the village and have a chance of success? My thought is 12 companies at the same time. I think one troop could do it, given the right circumstances and situation. But I probably wouldn't attack with less than 6 Troops in this case, and if I couldn't quickly get them to break and run, I'd hole up somewhere and wait for rescue. <g> The worse your numbers, the better have to be your stratagems and tactics. The more numbers, the sloppier your tactics can be, and the more mistakes you can make and still bounce back. That is how numbers play into it. One wolf can cause an entire herd of buffalo to run off a cliff, killing hundreds of them, eh? In a good position one Troop...some forty or fifty men, could EASILY hold off that many Natives indefinitely, as long as their ammo and water held out. Had been done many times before, and with even worse odds. Custer alone could have brought in the Sioux nation, if he could play his best cards. He'd just walk in there and negotiate their surrender. I wouldn't play those odds, but when you are given a mission, you do the best you can with the hand you are dealt. Custer had done this before too, eh? With Santanta, and others? My advice is to forget the numbers. Analyze what leaders on both sides did with whatever numbers they had. Their job is to win with what they've got, and God gives us infinite ways to accomplish this. Numbers only make it easier or harder, but never impossible. Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 27, 2008 12:08:27 GMT -6
When I was in the military there were very few "fights" with my fellow grunts. There were differences, arguments, shouting, but very little physical confrontation . . . I think someone has seen to many John Ford movies. LOL...my first week as a young 3LT in the Army had a Soldier coming to me with a busted nose, complaining that my Platoon Sergeant had punched him out behind the barracks for "sassing him." I confronted the PSG about it, and he said, "that's Regular Army discipline...I ain't running no girl's school." And that was that...no IG, no Congressman's letter... Not your unit, I guess? <g> And I don't think they were following any John Ford script... Are you kidding? Crook ran the Natives off the field! Had it stayed light, he could have chased them all the way back to their village. Crook was never in any real danger, or real pressure, except for a couple companies that got themselves isolated. His skirmish lines held up well and confidently. Crook and Custer probably made about the same number of tactical mistakes that day...would make a great study to compare this. But this shows what numbers do...if they are greatly against you, you won't survive your mistakes. Crook, with less of a numbers problem, could make mistakes all day and still win the battle. Kinda, but this is deceiving...a better way to say it is as above...Crook's superior numbers allowed him to win even making mistakes...Custer's fewer numbers got him killed due to HIS mistakes. It's not about the numbers, per se, but about the mistakes. If the mistakes aren't there, the numbers are absolutely irrelevant. It is the tactical decision-making mistakes that are the key. Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 27, 2008 12:12:15 GMT -6
Not sure how many desertions there were during the summer campaign, but there seems to have been a lot of soldiers from Custer's command who ended up with Reno and the pack train. Yes, you would expect a few "shirkers" in most units. Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 27, 2008 12:15:17 GMT -6
crzhrs- "...When I was in the military there were very few "fights" with my fellow grunts..."Pretty much my experience, as well. Arguments but no fisticuffs that I recall. Even mixed in with other brances (Army, Navy, Air Force) while off duty, say in a bar, more comaradie than conflict. The rock-em sock-em caricatured brawls of such events in films are baloney. Unless rivalry over a girl was involved - of course. But, even that was very limited in numbers of participants involved. Usually two. Taken 'out back' so as not to spill the beer of the rest of us. BS You guys were in a different army from me! Hell, at the OClub bar at Grafenwehr when I was a 2LT and 1LT twice we had MPs come and break up bar fights between the officers! One time with the officers of a neighboring tank battalion, and the other time with some Aviation fly-boys. You guys were in combat units, right? And no Soldier fights? No bar fights? Why bother to be in the Army at all?! Now as I've learned, people exaggerate my comments, and I didn't spend a lot of time fighting or breaking up fights. I can probably count on two hands the number of fist fights I've been part of in ten years of service. But they do happen, and I think they happened a LOT more often in the "Old Army." If West Point is any benchmark, fights among Cadets was very common in the "Old Days," and not as common today (but it still happens in the Corps of Cadets today, once in a while...probably not more often than any High School). All that being said, I've probably seen more fights in my local football stadium (I'm a season ticket holder) than in all my years in the Army. <g> Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 27, 2008 12:24:41 GMT -6
<Are you kidding? Crook ran the Natives off the field>
The Indians left on their on.
At the time I don't think many soldiers thought they were "never in any danger"
Crook's command was never separated or divided a la LBH. The pack animals/ammo were close at hand AND he had Crow & Shoshoni Indians which bore the brunt of the Sioux attack and gave the soldiers a chance to recover from their shock.
If Crook was never in any real danger why didn't he chase after the Indians? Instead, he left the field and was completely out of the rest of the campaign until September. Something spooked him!
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 27, 2008 12:32:23 GMT -6
<Are you kidding? Crook ran the Natives off the field> The Indians left on their on. I think you'll find that a flanking move by a battalion of cavalry ran the Natives off. If they hadn't run, they would have been hit from two sides at once, and massacred. If you attack Natives from two directions at once, they usually run. Custer was right. <g> No panic on that field that I recall. A couple hasty retreats is all, but they quickly rallied. Lots of light cavalry certainly helped. Crook did divide his command, though, as you recall...about the same as Custer did. Difference was that the "anvil" held, unlike Reno, so when the cavalry flanking column came around in support, it broke the Native resistance. Very much like Custer's intended tactic. He was a wimp. Not a cavalryman...he was an infantryman that rode a mule. Need I say more? <g> Actually, I think it had more to do with logistics. But it was definitely Crooks worst decision of his career, and the whole Army knew it...talked about it forever after ("Crook's sterling career EXCEPT for that one decision to return to Goose Creek). "Goose Creek" would forever be a shameful blot on Crook's otherwise great career. I believe he knew it, too. Clair
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 27, 2008 22:41:23 GMT -6
I will have say there were plenty of fights in the clubs. Beer in Viet Nam was 10 cents a can. The NCO club also served mixed drinks but the absolute worse place was the officer's club. One time, way past the the statute of limitations, my LT and Captain took me to the club with them. I was a 1LT for a night and it was quite a night to remember. Officer's hanging from the rafters by their knees. Fights breaking out over who was better.
We once went into Mexico from Camp Pendleton because our Sgt's wife was insulted in a bar. It was ugly. Now I wonder why would you take your wife into such a bar in Mexico.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 28, 2008 8:05:19 GMT -6
I will have say there were plenty of fights in the clubs. Beer in Viet Nam was 10 cents a can. The NCO club also served mixed drinks but the absolute worse place was the officer's club. One time, way past the the statute of limitations, my LT and Captain took me to the club with them. I was a 1LT for a night and it was quite a night to remember. Officer's hanging from the rafters by their knees. Fights breaking out over who was better. We once went into Mexico from Camp Pendleton because our Sgt's wife was insulted in a bar. It was ugly. Now I wonder why would you take your wife into such a bar in Mexico. AZ Ranger Aw...Army wives can take it. <g> And yeah...its usually about the beer. Or sometimes about a girl, or sometimes the color of your skin, etc. etc...it really doesn't take much for bored or "R&R" Soldiers to get into a friendly fight. ConZ
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 28, 2008 8:27:12 GMT -6
<Or sometimes about a girl, or sometimes the color of your skin, etc. etc...it really doesn't take much for bored or "R&R" Soldiers to get into a friendly fight>
Friendly fight? The kind you see in movies when someone gets punched so hard they fly through the air and get up like nothing happened.
Then everyone shakes hands at the end and kiss and make up?
Nothing friendly about violence!
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 28, 2008 11:06:01 GMT -6
Soldier fights aren't allowed to get "too" violent. Broken noses, cracked ribs, black eyes, broke fingers, etc...all in a day's work.
Most Soldiers know that if they do too much harm they'll get into too much trouble. Break your fellow Soldier's nose or ribs will get you extra duty. Knife him and put him in the hospital for a week or more and you'll get at least an Article 15, if not a courts-martial.
But fighting can be friendly. For example, all West Pointers are required to box at school. Many go on to be "Golden Glove" boxers in open amateur competition. You can tell whom these are at school...they usually have black eyes and nose bridges at Monday morning classes. <g>
To put this more in our interest, the frontier cavalry loved boxing competition as much as baseball. Most Troops had their own favorite boxers, and betting, and unit prestige, was heavily involved.
Do we know who the unit champion boxers were, by name, at Little Big Horn for the 7th Cavalry?
Clair
|
|
tatanka
Full Member
Live for today like there was no tomorrow
Posts: 125
|
Post by tatanka on Aug 28, 2008 12:28:04 GMT -6
They were probably all dead by the 26th.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 28, 2008 12:33:11 GMT -6
They were probably all dead by the 26th. Yeah...those Sioux never did like the Marcus of Queensbury's rules. <g>
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 28, 2008 13:41:14 GMT -6
Let's see:
I'll pull my punch so I won't hit my opponent quite as hard, just give him a shiner instead of a broken cheekbone?
I'll just stick my opponent with a knife an inch, instead of all the way to the hilt?
This is sounding a lot like training horses to avoid fire arrows!
PS: There is a difference between legal boxing with rules, refs, and gloves, rather than barrack brawls.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 28, 2008 13:58:28 GMT -6
Barfighters/barracks fighters really do know how to fight without doing excessive harm...just like fighting your friends in middle school and high school.
There are "rules" to bar fighting, and fighting friends. You can punch in the nose or gut, but you don't break arms, and you don't slam heads into concrete, etc.
If you don't know how to fight without seriously hurting someone, don't do it. Usually if fights get to this stage, more sober friends will step in and stop it.
We're not talking about gang fights over territory, now...
There is fighting, and then there is Fighting, and then there is FIGHTING. People who fight understand the difference, or should.
Of course, "professionals" often would prefer to fight other professionals, or guys who know the rules...amateurs are more dangerous...
Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 29, 2008 12:08:32 GMT -6
Oh, I get it. Let's have fun, we'll punch each other, but we won't put all our effort into it. I'll just give you a "love tap" so you'll know I don't really mean to hurt you.
Is there something I'm missing here?
If I'm in a fight with a "friend" or an enemy . . . I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure I don't get hit and make sure I put an extra effort in making my opponent feel the pain . . . if you think fighting is just a game then I'd rather not be in the military.
|
|