|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Feb 13, 2011 15:33:49 GMT -6
1) So even if we are looking with hindsight are we not able to discern decision making by what occurred. It is quite common in my business to debrief and use that to do it better next time. 2) My question is do we think the state of the art for warfighting at that time only had a single plan approaches? AZ Ranger Steve 1) Of course we are and debriefing is a very useful exercise, but surely, by doing it better next time, we are admitting that we learn from past experience, but only because we are able to see in hindsight what caused that past experience. The blame game should only apply in my opinion, if the fault in that past experience was caused by someone who himself had not learned from a prior example and whatever else may be argued about in our subject, the LBH was a unique event in Plains Indian warfare. 2) Jay D. Smith, a well known Custer scholar and author wrote a dissertation in 1985, "An Examination of the Battle Tactics of the U.S. Army Fighting the Plains Indians, 1868-1877" and used that as a basis for an article in the June 1989 LBHA Research Review, "The Indian Fighting Army." I have extracted some relevant comments from that article. Under the heading 'Tactics' he states, "The tactics of the army were primarily offensive....Cavalry troops on the offense had two options for tactics. The first was called a penetration: the 'classic' European charge. The object was to ride over the enemy line by sheer weight of men and horses...This tactic was generally used in combination with infantry...The tactic of penetration did not work against Indians. They would not meet a charge, but instead would retreat, always keeping just beyond effective range...The more conventional tactic employed in Indian fighting was the envelopment. This was executed by the use of a holding force which engaged the enemy while the other parts of the command swung to the right or left and hit him in the rear. This tactic was most effective in capturing villages.
Whenever possible, the Indians were engaged in a fire-fight. The soldiers were deployed as skirmishers, taking advantage of any natural cover available. They then tried to establish control of a field-of-fire. With open ground and directed volley fire, they were invincible. For example, if 100 soldiers were facing 1,000 Indians, and a commander ordered, 'To the front, range 100 yards, volley fire, ready, aim, fire! Reload.' he could expect with the first volley to hit fifty warriors. Within one minute, he could expect to fire several voleys. Indians in the West would not sustain such losses and remain to fight."Jay Smith also makes an interesting point about the communication of orders in a combat situation when he says, "A few words or gestures were all that were needed to provide all the information required for a complete battle. Objectives and unit tactics were understood by all. Often a complete battle plan consisted only of stating which units would go where."I think that the foregoing addresses your question and shows that cavalry commanders had limited options when attacking an Indian village. What they didn't have was any respect for Indian warriors as fighters and that impacted heavily on their decision making, imbuing them with confidence, usually well merited, but at the LBH, proving fatally flawed. My regards. Hunk
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Feb 14, 2011 14:26:03 GMT -6
<Indian warriors, whatever their numbers, were not considered any match for well armed soldiers and the possibility of defeat simply did not enter into the thinking of the officers>
Kinda hard to believe that military men didn't learn anything from the Fetterman "Massacre" or other battles when Indians were the agressor (Wagon Box & Hayfield Fights) in addition to a number of others when warriors attacked soldiers.
Granted that was different than finding villages and attacking warriors & non-coms . . . but apparently any scenario regarding fighting Indians always was going to be "Don't Let Indians Escape" with no thought of "what if Indians didn't run" in place.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 15, 2011 7:51:06 GMT -6
The examples in the above tactics, tax my limited knowledge of Indian fighting. Where were there 1,000 Indians in a group at 100 yards and an officer tells his troops to set the sights and volley fire.
Seems to me envelopment works best if the Indians are asleep but then it not a true fixing and hitting from different directions. The troops most likely are in the village before the Indians got ready and could have done the same from one direction alone.
If LBH is an example of an enveloping tactic on Indians alert enough to react then it didn't work to well.
If the goal was to destroy the ability to survive on the plains then destroying the village even without the Indian inhabitants would be considered successful. That tactic only required getting close enough to surprise the village before it packed up.
Even at Washita they did not fix the warriors. They ran off. When a large force appeared the penetration or envelopment tactic was not deployed. Again in that case it would be alert Indians ready to fight. Tactic was retrograde.
What eventually worked in my opinion was relentlessness and an unlimited supply of troopers. If the 7th was an Indian village it was destroyed but unlike a village it just went back to FAL and brought on new soldiers to continue the pursuit. I think the Indians got tired of not getting a good nights sleep.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 15, 2011 9:40:51 GMT -6
First, let's examine the term "well known Custer scholar." The way praise and elevation of status - sometimes absurdly elevated - is bandied about should deter easy acceptance of credentials and their work. Some of the most well known Custer 'scholars' are the most widely acknowledged idiots. Some of the best, say like Jerome Greene, are relatively unread because they're comparatively difficult and are actually works of scholarship and research. Yet the Philbrooks and Donovans are accorded 'scholar' status, mistakes and absurdities and all.
People in the LBHA announce publications of minor monographs on recondite subjects as if it were the long lost last work of Thomas McCaulay. Log rolling reviews have become a self-parody, a meaningless art form in Custerland.
Fetishists have been accorded the term 'scholar' in my experience here, when they are nothing of the sort and incapable of improving. Getting published is not proof either, given the number of self published works under imprints designed to conceal that fact and those put out because Universities apparently feel they have to. The result is there is probably more juvenile and incompetent trash written and published about Custer and this battle than any other event in history because there is a known audience for it, easily targeted and marketed.
It's depressing, but I wouldn't be surprised if the likes of herosrest and/or strange get a book out to join the ranks of the Swiss Miss and Nightengale and other 'scholars.'
I apologize, because I suspect it greatly embarrasses him, but AZ and zekesgirl did more for scholarship riding Benteen's route, bringing vast experience and knowledge to the actual land in question and timing and charting it out, than just about anyone here. Actual, first hand research that accomplished a great deal: it verified Benteen's, Godfrey's, and Edgerly's accounts of the scout and sucked the oxygen out of the room for 130 years of Benteen ankle biters.
He did actual historic re-enactment. He did actual research. He did a great service to historical scholarship by scientifically documenting it. Does he get more than grudging acknowledgement? In the limited landscape of Custerland, he did more than most "well known Custer scholar"s nobody has heard of, much less read.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 15, 2011 13:22:25 GMT -6
I have to say, I got the biggest charge out of Darkcloud's post, above, probably because I agree with every word of it. Or almost. "Scholar"-- the noun-- when it comes to the Little Big Horn-- and in other fields as well-- is as overblown as the adjectives, "fantastic," "phenomenal," "incredible," "unbelievable," "awesome," and so many more. I guess we have this penchant for cheap awards, even if they are vicarious by association. How about the Top-100 movies, for instance?
I might add a couple of other names to DC's short list. In addition to Jerome Greene, I would add Richard Hardorff, certainly, and because of their combination of writing history and archaeology, I would add Douglas Scott and Richard Fox. That may be it for the living. In our immediate circle Jose, aka, "blaque," comes as close as anyone.
I might also consider Bruce Liddic, but Bruce may not have written enough or introduced enough new that I am aware of to fall into the same category as those guys. By "new" I mean a serious analysis of what participants left behind. Hardorff gives us that whether you agree with him or not.
I think Walter Camp, W. A. Graham, John Gray, James Willert, and possibly Charles Kuhlman would fall into the same group were they alive. Guys like Utley and Hutton may be considered scholars, but hardly scholars of the LBH. Or Custer for that matter.
And while I like Donovan I hardly consider him a scholar. Philbrick is a LBH hack, regardless of how successful his writing career has been. In other areas... well, I just don't know. Powers is the same nonsense. Jump on the old bandwagon, boys, just like Ambrose and Keegan. Leave that mark! $10,000 extra on the lecture tour just to pontificate about a mystery only they really have the answer to.
I also agree with the paeans for Ranger and "zekesgirl." They lived it and what contributes more to the study than that? They have confirmed the timing work I have done... and that work is no more than a simple iteration of what participants already told us, lumped together. What makes me happiest is that their work confirms the methodology I employed, lending further confidence to my own opinions of how I developed things. My only comment is that I wish they had dressed the part and taken videos. Maybe I could have found the same guy I sold the Brooklyn Bridge to. <g>
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Feb 16, 2011 15:13:59 GMT -6
I have to say, I got the biggest charge out of Darkcloud's post, above, probably because I agree with every word of it. Or almost. "Scholar"-- the noun-- when it comes to the Little Big Horn-- and in other fields as well-- is as overblown as the adjectives, "fantastic," "phenomenal," "incredible," "unbelievable," "awesome," and so many more. I guess we have this penchant for cheap awards, even if they are vicarious by association. How about the Top-100 movies, for instance? I might add a couple of other names to DC's short list. In addition to Jerome Greene, I would add Richard Hardorff, certainly, and because of their combination of writing history and archaeology, I would add Douglas Scott and Richard Fox. That may be it for the living. In our immediate circle Jose, aka, "blaque," comes as close as anyone. I might also consider Bruce Liddic, but Bruce may not have written enough or introduced enough new that I am aware of to fall into the same category as those guys. By "new" I mean a serious analysis of what participants left behind. Hardorff gives us that whether you agree with him or not. I think Walter Camp, W. A. Graham, John Gray, James Willert, and possibly Charles Kuhlman would fall into the same group were they alive. Guys like Utley and Hutton may be considered scholars, but hardly scholars of the LBH. Or Custer for that matter. And while I like Donovan I hardly consider him a scholar. Philbrick is a LBH hack, regardless of how successful his writing career has been. In other areas... well, I just don't know. Powers is the same nonsense. Jump on the old bandwagon, boys, just like Ambrose and Keegan. Leave that mark! $10,000 extra on the lecture tour just to pontificate about a mystery only they really have the answer to. I also agree with the paeans for Ranger and "zekesgirl." They lived it and what contributes more to the study than that? They have confirmed the timing work I have done... and that work is no more than a simple iteration of what participants already told us, lumped together. What makes me happiest is that their work confirms the methodology I employed, lending further confidence to my own opinions of how I developed things. My only comment is that I wish they had dressed the part and taken videos. Maybe I could have found the same guy I sold the Brooklyn Bridge to. <g> Best wishes, Fred. As the post to which you give such a ringing endorsement was having a pop at me for my description of Jay Smith, then you must be doing just that as well. In view of our agreement, which is not one sided, I find that disappointing. Still, as Daicee is your new dance partner, it is probably not surprising. Fred and Daicee, the new Astaire and Rogers? The problem is going to be, who leads? For your guidance, the noun scholar means no more or less than a learned or erudite person, especially one who has studied a particular subject in depth. The word does not imply that the person in question is better or worse than any other in that field, merely that he or she has made some contribution to that subject. It is of course implicit that some contributions have more or less merit, but in the case of Jay D. Smith, he most definitely qualifies as a scholar. He was a Major in the U.S. Air Force when he retired, had a BS in Education and a MA in History from the University of Texas at El Paso. He was a member of the LBHA, having sent his original membership from De Nang, South Vietnam in 1967, served on the Board a number of times and was Chairman in 1983. He was Editor of the Newsletter for nine years and Chairman of the Editorial and Editor of the Research Review for 6 years until his untimely death in May 1995. This man authored a number of articles on Custeriana and in 1991 received the Dr. Lawrence A. Frost Award for his article, "The Indian Fighting Army." As you are someone who sits on the current Editorial Board, presumably if he does not merit the term scholar then neither do you? As you also received the Dr. Lawrence A. Frost Award, then presumably if Jay Smith's article does not represent scholarship then neither does yours? At the same time you received your award, Wayne Sarf received the Jay D. Smith Selection Committee Award for his book, "The Little Big Horn Campaign", yet if perchance your upcoming book were to be chosen for that same award, you would turn it down as a 'cheap award' sponsored by someone who has no right to be considered a Custer scholar? To quote the elegant phrase you have used on similar occasions, "Gimme a break." I am sure that the authors you cite as deserving of your accolades as 'genuine' Custer scholars will be breathing a lot easier now that they have received your seal of approval, but I am astonished at the one name missing from your list. I refer of course, to W. Donald Horn, another of your relatively new friends who I have seen you praise to the skies. Perhaps he falls into Daicee's "People in the LBHA announce publications of minor monographs on recondite subjects as if it were the long lost work of Thomas McCaulay [actually 1st Baron Thomas Babington Macaulay]? Certainly Horn has no greater claim to Custer scholarship than Jay Smith or Thomas Heski, but none of them deserve to be omitted from any list of worthy contributions to Custeriana.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 16, 2011 15:40:24 GMT -6
As the post to which you give such a ringing endorsement was having a pop at me for my description of Jay Smith, then you must be doing just that as well. Actually, "Hunk," I have no idea what you are talking about. I did not read your post and have no clue who Jay D. Smith is. I had no idea DC was referring to something you wrote... my reading up here is cursory at best and I do not read everything everyone writes. As for guidance on nouns or any other figure of speech, I need none nor am I interested. At my age my writing habits are pretty much solidified, so I prefer guidance in other areas. I also do not believe educational qualifications are necessary to claim the title of "scholar." As for Mr. Smith-- of whom I know nothing-- I am completely unimpressed with retired air force majors. If you knew anything about the American military, retired majors are generally fairly unsuccessful military officers, especially in the air force which used to be known as a pretty fast way of attaining rank. At least in my day. As for a BS in disciplines such as education, I am less impressed than the military attainment you alluded to and I have never been very impressed by the public education system of the Great State of Texas, masters degrees or otherwise. Texas - El Paso doesn't exactly share the same aisles with Penn, Cambridge, Harvard, Tulane, Vanderbilt, Rice, Michigan, the Sorbonne, Stanford, Graz, Berkeley, Colgate, Villanova, Oxford, Duke, Virginia, Heidelberg, Regis/Denver, or a multitude of others I can name. I would also be very pleased not to engage in bickering... I am bickered out. As for my relationship with DC... it has nothing to do with my relationship with you. Unless, of course, you chose to make it so. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Feb 16, 2011 16:05:36 GMT -6
1) Actually, "Hunk," I have no idea what you are talking about. I did not read your post and have no clue who Jay D. Smith is. I had no idea DC was referring to something you wrote... my reading up here is cursory at best and I do not read everything everyone writes. As for guidance on nouns or any other figure of speech, I need none nor am I interested. At my age my writing habits are pretty much solidified, so I prefer guidance in other areas. 2) I also do not believe educational qualifications are necessary to claim the title of "scholar." As for Mr. Smith-- of whom I know nothing-- I am completely unimpressed with retired air force majors. If you knew anything about the American military, retired majors are generally fairly unsuccessful military officers, especially in the air force which used to be known as a pretty fast way of attaining rank. At least in my day. As for a BS in disciplines such as education, I am less impressed than the military attainment you alluded to and I have never been very impressed by the public education system of the Great State of Texas, masters degrees or otherwise. Texas - El Paso doesn't exactly share the same aisles with Penn, Cambridge, Harvard, Tulane, Vanderbilt, Rice, Michigan, the Sorbonne, Stanford, Graz, Berkeley, Colgate, Villanova, Oxford, Duke, Virginia, Heidelberg, Regis/Denver, or a multitude of others I can name. 3) I would also be very pleased not to engage in bickering... I am bickered out. 4) As for my relationship with DC... it has nothing to do with my relationship with you. Unless, of course, you chose to make it so. Best wishes, Fred. 1) Then don't dive in with criticism as it tends to insult those who have taken the trouble to post with care. 2) You are entitled to your opinion of Texas educational standards compared to other places in the U.S.A. Nonetheless, they have and do produce scholars. 3) Bickering is not the point. Unmerited criticism is. 4) Don't threaten, it cuts no ice. My very best, cordial and deeply felt regards. Hunk
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 16, 2011 16:14:03 GMT -6
1) Then don't dive in with criticism as it tend to insult those who have posted. There was no criticism, merely an observation. Words like "scholar," "awesome," "expert," "best," are over-wrought, over-used, and abused. As a word-scholar, you should be the first to recognize that. Just like white rhinos. [See above.] I do not threaten. I act. With or without fire. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Feb 16, 2011 16:17:53 GMT -6
I do not threaten. I act. With or without fire. Best wishes, Fred. Then act, with fire. It would be most welcome.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 16, 2011 21:54:54 GMT -6
Tsk, tsk!
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Feb 17, 2011 16:22:54 GMT -6
Popeye? Now that is scary!
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 19, 2011 21:11:25 GMT -6
I am completely unimpressed with retired air force majors. If you knew anything about the American military, retired majors are generally fairly unsuccessful military officers, especially in the air force which used to be known as a pretty fast way of attaining rank. At least in my day. This comment of mine has been haunting me since I put it up... so I want to explain it. When I went in the army our goal was to make full colonel or higher. As ROTC cadets-- and young, rather immature men-- we looked at some of our instructors with less than the necessary awe and we smugly wondered why any self-respecting "warrior" would want that kind of job. Once in the army, it becomes the typical rat-race many of you know about in the corporate world. That has always been one of my bug-a-boos about the U. S. Army: too corporate; too many masters degrees in silly subjects unrelated to tank engines, desert warfare, and dive-bombing. Then of course, you have a war and guys screw up. You read about it in the newspapers a lot nowadays: some mess-up in Iraq... a letter of reprimand... the end of a career. My best friend from college was destined for four stars or a court-martial. He got neither, but he also got damned by faint praise and wound up retiring as a major. Not all majors are so "destroyed." You get guys who come up through the ranks and that time counts for retirement. They might choose to retire after 20 years or so and they have only achieved the rank of major, and that through no fault of their own but because they have not been an officer that long. Another thing... don't get all fuzzed about rank. In my opinion, Ira Hunt was a bum; so was Tommy Franks, that guy Sanchez, and that lousy one-star female who was responsible for Abu Ghraib. The four-star Obama relieved in Afghanistan was another light-weight who came in with big-time credentials, but who couldn't keep his mouth shut. You just wonder sometimes about our promotion system, especially when you know some of these guys and you know the ones who didn't make it. That fellow Nagl is another example... why isn't he wearing stars today? Too big a mouth? So... for all you insulted majors out there, I apologize. For those other majors who know what I am talking about... well, there is always the mirror. That is why I have chosen to explain rather than change my original post. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by lew on Feb 20, 2011 0:09:51 GMT -6
Fred, Major Dick Winters from "The Band of Brothers" and Col. David Hackworth are my favorites. Both should have held higher rank.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 20, 2011 8:10:18 GMT -6
Larry,
You are 100% correct. You have two types... actually, maybe three. You have those guys who are just incompetent and are recognized as such, so their careers founder and they retire at 20, knowing they will never make it to lieutenant colonel.
Then you have those guys who are highly competent-- like I believe my friend was-- but then get screwed by some damn fool of a boss. They put in their 22 1/2 years and retire. "Stigma" attached, though known only to them and those who have also served.
The third group is generally those guys who start off as privates, go to OCS or something similar... back to college, ROTC, etc.... make it up through the officer ranks... and depending on the situation, war-time or not; fast promotion schedule or not... get to 20 years, have made major, and decide they probably aren't going to go much further and so they retire.
That's why rank doesn't impress me. Then, when I see guys like Hunt or Franks or Sanchez pomp around with all their stars....
I knew a gal one time who claimed to have a Ph. D. from the University of Pittsburgh. It was in some sort of discipline she termed "administration." I am not sure how you can study long enough for that degree to stick, but whatever.... She became a real estate agent in Florida (!!!!!!) and when I went to sell my condo/coach home down there, I filled out her application form. When I came to a spot on the form that applied to single-family houses, I wrote in, "n/a."
She had no idea what that meant.
Needless to say she never sold the place. So much for being impressed by Ph. D.'s.
I don't know much about Winters other than what I saw on TV, but he seemed to be a superb officer, certainly combat-wise. Hackworth was a fearless soldier and my friend knew him. In fact, when Hunt-- I think it was-- brought Hackworth in to run one of the 9th Division's battalions, my friend was the S-3. (The unit was an absolute disaster! and the existing battalion CO was relieved if I am not mistaken.) He wanted to stay and he talked it over with Hackworth, but Hackworth told him he was bringing in his own men. The irony was that the guy who replaced my friend as the "3," fell apart. Hackworth did the job and had his pulse on the entire situation over there... I just don't know how brilliant he was as a tactician or strategist. I would have worked for him, however, had I been there then. He was my kind of fruit-loop. Some of us do a lot better as combat officers than we do in garrison.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|