|
Post by wild on Aug 31, 2012 10:22:22 GMT -6
Colonel the AFV can support it's dismounted infantry.It does not require force protection,It is a weapon the horse except in charging is not . The skirmish line is not a stand alone formation.It is the most insipid of formations with very limited capibility.It's a thin line with no defence in depth and exposed flanks.It is not expected to achieve more than the seeing off of light forces. I'v read much Colonel but have yet to come upon a skirmish line which played a pivotal role in a battle.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 31, 2012 10:26:19 GMT -6
Richard: You are attempting to preach to a choir who has left the church. Pick up the damned hymnal and learn the song yourself. Then come back when you can do more than barely humm the tune, and we will then see if you can sing all the proper notes.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 31, 2012 10:26:45 GMT -6
Jag Difficult to recce a defensive position while charging. The placement of the Indian villages was on the best terrain and totally open to a cavalry charge.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Aug 31, 2012 10:43:42 GMT -6
Jag Difficult to recce a defensive position while charging. The placement of the Indian villages was on the best terrain and totally open to a cavalry charge. But the approaches to that village in almost every instance was the favored terrain of the Indian, and equally terrain definitely not somewhere the Cavalry would stand for very long. What would the Cavalry have to accomplish getting into their ideal terrain, and once there how would they have fought and against what numbers? In short they had to acquire that terrain by first going through terrain that was already set up for the ambush.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 31, 2012 10:53:35 GMT -6
To Jag and Wild: The purpose of this exercise is a learning tool.
I think both of you have lost sight of that, and are still firmly stuck in the historical battle. The historical battle only provides the historical situation to a point. It could just as easily be Waterloo or the defense of Bastogne, or Pork Chop or Gloster Hills.
Talking about where Reno actually dismounted and for what purpose, whether it was a deliberate act or forced upon him has no bearing on the subject at hand. In this exercise use of the general situation is a tool for discovery. You are placed in a moment in time, and given the same basic tools of the actual combattants. From that moment in time you may do anything you wish. The only thing that does not change is what happened up until that moment in time. Still you have the option to change what did occur, but it must be done by positive action on your part. If you wish you might say think better of the whole thing at the start point and retrace your steps to Busby and have a picnic. Nothing stops you from that and the place and circumstances of Reno's dismount have no bearing upon it.
This is a game, using a procedure designed to solve tactical problems in the field. It is as ancient as taking your finger and outlining what you plan to do by presenting your scheme of maneuver in the sand. It is not as sophisticated as a TEWT, map exercise, or a command post exercise. It is simple and direct, and most of all a learning tool designed to point out errors in thought process and planning.
Everyone here who has posted on this subject , including myself, has made this much more complicated than it needs to be. I put that down to unfamiliarity. Even I who have done these things in the long past, had to refamiliarize myself with the procedure, so I do understand. If we do this again, hopefully there will be more players, and those players more informed as to rules and purpose.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Aug 31, 2012 11:22:05 GMT -6
Both Reno's position in the valley and Custer's on the bluffs were by design not where they wanted to fight but where the Indians had selected for them to attack from.
This statement leads me to believe that you under the spell of a crow medicine man. It is the story the Crow tell that try and make them sound like they were helping the Sioux trick the white soldiers.
Put yourself in the shoes of Gall.......If your theory is true, Gall knowingly and willingly let his family get killed. Would you let your family be the ones to be hit if you know Custer is coming?
I would have at least made sure my family was at the other end of the village. A little bit of common sense goes a long way.
Would you have your family out picking wild turnips if you know the army is coming? This is nothing more than big talk from the Indians. Some of them HATE to admit Custer was able to get that close without their knowledge. It makes them look bad, and we can't have that can we?
Rosebud
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Aug 31, 2012 11:30:26 GMT -6
To Jag and Wild: The purpose of this exercise is a learning tool. I think both of you have lost sight of that, and are still firmly stuck in the historical battle. The historical battle only provides the historical situation to a point. It could just as easily be Waterloo or the defense of Bastogne, or Pork Chop or Gloster Hills. Talking about where Reno actually dismounted and for what purpose, whether it was a deliberate act or forced upon him has no bearing on the subject at hand. In this exercise use of the general situation is a tool for discovery. You are placed in a moment in time, and given the same basic tools of the actual combattants. From that moment in time you may do anything you wish. The only thing that does not change is what happened up until that moment in time. Still you have the option to change what did occur, but it must be done by positive action on your part. If you wish you might say think better of the whole thing at the start point and retrace your steps to Busby and have a picnic. Nothing stops you from that and the place and circumstances of Reno's dismount have no bearing upon it. This is a game, using a procedure designed to solve tactical problems in the field. It is as ancient as taking your finger and outlining what you plan to do by presenting your scheme of maneuver in the sand. It is not as sophisticated as a TEWT, map exercise, or a command post exercise. It is simple and direct, and most of all a learning tool designed to point out errors in thought process and planning. Everyone here who has posted on this subject , including myself, has made this much more complicated than it needs to be. I put that down to unfamiliarity. Even I who have done these things in the long past, had to refamiliarize myself with the procedure, so I do understand. If we do this again, hopefully there will be more players, and those players more informed as to rules and purpose. I understand what you're trying to accomplish Q. But you cannot have an intelligent conversation about what someone would do without a proper understanding of the history of that conflict. If you're trying to achieve pure speculation based upon what someone would do presented with that terrain, likewise a proper understanding of how that terrain was historically used by the Indians and the whites, then it becomes an exercise in futility. Even instructors who have used these models in the past knew full well the historical parameters surrounding that battle played a very important part in its recreation by those less well informed or skilled. For these reasons I do refuse to participate in your exercise, because it has nothing to do with history or even its equivalent, or for that matter, draw a consensus of opinion, that in the end would be agreeable to all because that history is incomplete, much of it unknown, and quite a lot of it unexplored. And the reasons for that have been well stated by myself in past posts on the subject. How can you discover anything, if you only assume that what lies at the end be a consensus of opinion and not discover along the way to that glorious end other discoveries that have not been solved for well over 135 years. How can you properly apply the Indian tactics when you can't even acknowledge they used a form of command and control, and only assume from past propaganda that their efforts was only defensive in nature and they didn't fight like human beings would? Like I said Q, the basis for knowledge here lies in that battle and its terrain history, remove it or any part of it in favor of an opinion that had no bearing on that history or that terrain and you have nothing to discover.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Aug 31, 2012 11:37:50 GMT -6
The Indians placed their camp in the most favorable position possible with an eye geared towards what terrain would most not be beneficial to their enemies and at the same time more favorable to their style of fighting
What If Terry strikes first because Custer kept going up the Rosebud? As you should be able to see......This is a bunch of bull. These camping sights were chosen for FOOD...Good hunting and harvesting plant life. Good grass for the horses.
Rosebud
I do however, agree with Jag that Indians used command and control. They were in the early stages of developing this style of fighting. The Fetterman is an example of their capabilities.
Their command and control was far inferior to that of a trained army. But I think all would admit that at one point in time, Reno and his men had command and control that resembled that of the Indian.
Rosebud
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 31, 2012 11:46:49 GMT -6
Jag: You are entitled to your opinion. Given what it is, and your expressed desire not to play may I suggest that you take your comments to a thread started by you to discuss the matters you wish to or to even discuss the fact that you don't like, don't approve of what we are trying to do here and stop cluttering up the discussion with you now by your own admission unwarrented and unwelcome comments on this particular thread. That simple. If you don't like it take your bat and ball and go over to an adjacent field and play with yourself or others who are like minded. I am not trying by this comment to run you off this board, not at all. I am sure some fruitful discussion can be had here on a sepearate thread for those wishing to join in with you in what is really another subject.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 31, 2012 11:56:52 GMT -6
Rosebud: I would somewhat agree that the indians were in the early stages of development. The one thing that distinguishes command and control, the true use of the words is to have a means of complelling obedience, and conform to direction. Unless that is present, and it was not, you cannot say that any true level of command and control was present, at least not as the words were understood then and now. The key factor is discipline, and while the the indian was a skilled disciplined individual warrior, there was no large scale presence of the group discipline required for true command and control. Given time and exposure these things would occur, and a few early signs are present, although they might just be isolated exceptions to the norm. For instance some members of the southern tribes mainly from the Indian Territory fought for the confederacy. They would have developed these systems if for no other reason than interoperability.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Aug 31, 2012 12:22:15 GMT -6
The one thing that distinguishes command and control, the true use of the words is to have a means of complelling obedience, and conform to direction
Is that like Reno deciding to go on his own and scout up the Rosebud when he was told not to? Is it like Custer deciding to go to the LBH when he had been told to go to the headwaters of the Tongue River?
Command and control is still command and control. It is never perfect. The Indians had command and control.. There were darn sure many flaws by your standards. That, we agree on.
But there were also flaws in the Army's command and control. By using your arguments, one could also say the Soldiers had no command and control.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 31, 2012 12:27:01 GMT -6
And there still are and it will ever remain so, because armies like all other human institutions have to sadly reley on humans, and in particular the human frailty.
I have no earthly hope of perfection, and anyone who does is sadly misinformed.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 31, 2012 13:18:04 GMT -6
Command and control is a modern concept.Prior to modern means of communication there was no practical way of controlling committed units. At Balaclava 1854 Lord Raglan watched as the Light Brigade charged to it's doom.He had no way to recall the brigade. In 1876 control was exercisd probably no further up the chain of command than regiment level.
Colonel, One of the most difficult and dangerious manuevers to execute while in close contact with the enemy is a change of formation. If you dismount your troops and take them into close contact with the enemy you will not get them mounted again without paying a heavy price,Ask Reno. David Niven wrote a wonderful book called Bring On The Empty horses,Well no one has come forward to explain what becomes of the 600 empty horses when you dismount your troops.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Aug 31, 2012 13:19:40 GMT -6
Thanks guys, when I said parley, I meant the Indians not the Army, I was just giving you a few options regarding what the Indians would or could do, and as far as I see the Army was not there to talk. Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 31, 2012 13:35:42 GMT -6
Richard: Why don't you try to peddle that command and control is a modern concept malarky to someone, anyone, who has never read one damned word of military history. Better yet go to the maternity ward of your local hospital and sell it to the new born child, but make damned sure he/she is more than a half hour old or they will open their eyes and give you the twin fingers, and those twin fingers don''t mean the same as Hook U'm Horns down Texas way. You are about to get shot full of holes my friend - duck.
At Balaclava Lord Raglan was a g d fool.
In 1876 not above the regimental level. So Wellington did not control in Spain or at Waterloo? Lee and Meade exercised no command and control at Gettyburg? Washington exercise no command and control at Monmouth Court House? Neither side exercised control at the Boyne? No wonder the Irish are so pissed off about that particular fracus, no one on their side was minding the store.
Get frigging real Richard. Do you read what you have to say before you post or wait until the most outlandish of your material is called to your attention the hard way?
|
|