|
Post by rosebud on Aug 23, 2012 9:49:02 GMT -6
This board isn't even composed mostly of ex-servicemen, much less officers. Of those few who served, fewer yet are combat vets.
OK....I should say......Active participants. Most of the common folk have been beat down and no longer post. Only a few strong minded survive....Like you have....That is a compliment in case anyone wonders.
Rosebud
|
|
|
Post by Gatewood on Aug 23, 2012 10:40:00 GMT -6
I think you both look at this fight in the correct light that cavalry is weak on the defense by design, both then and now, for defending is not their job. Anyone who gives up mobility when the other guy has equal or superior mobility is just asking for it. If you fail to use that mobility you have to extract yourself from an untenable positiion, and you had the opportunity to do so in an orderly (at least semi-orderly) manner, as Custer did have, and you don't take advantage of it, then I think you just may deserve what you get.
That's why it seems to me that Reno did exactly the correct thing in pulling out of the timber and don't understand those so called cavalry minded individuals who contend that he was supposed to have hunkerd down and stayed where he was.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 23, 2012 10:47:13 GMT -6
Gatewood: The answer is very simple. Those so called cavalry minded people don't know B from a bulls ass about cavalry, and the only minded thing they are is out of their minds.They live in the land of delusion, and it is poetic justice that the only people they delude are themselves. But, if it makes them feel more manly, more virile, then I suppose it serves some perverted purpose, but adding to the sum total of military knowledge is not one of them.
Just to set the record straight. Clair on the other board thinks of himself a cavalryman. He equates the heavy, and heavily armored force of the 1950-1990's as cavalry. It is not. It's just another configuration of an armored brigade with a cavalry name (I am talking 2-3-6-11-14 ARC's here along with heavy division recon squadrons). Real cavalry is light, highly mobile, and very fast. It's primary job is find and fix, then turn what they find over to the big boys. We have in the last ten years come to realize, once again, this role, and what type units it takes to fullfill the mission. If Reno was commanding an ACR squadron, I would be the first to be critical of him for pulling out. He was not. He was commanding less than 150 out gunned and out numbered soldiers, and he did the proper thing. The mission went to hell in a handbasket not because Reno pulled out, but because Custer sent him into a hornets nest with to few and to little.
We had such light cavalry forces in the Cavalry Groups of World War II. They were well organized for the task at hand. Some of their weapons systems were quite deficient, primarily the next to useless 37mm, but their structure was well thought out. The problem was they were in the main improperly used, and spent very little time, as a percentage of the overall, doing cavalry missions. The wrong lessons were learned by the Army, and that combined with the need to provide a forward buffer against a Soviet invasion on Western Europe led to the ACR. Their role was a border presence, a shield behind which the 7th Army divisions could maneuver. Gavin pointed this out in his "Cavalry and I Don't Mean Horses". He takes the lot of them to task for being so short sighted. Hoffman's "Through Mobility We Conquer" tells the complete story, although he likes to endlessly repeat himself. Maybe I will get a couple of copies and send them to Clair, and the beyond his sell by date Cavalier buddy as Christmas gifts so that they to might understand their wicked wicked ways. On second thought I probably wouldn't help and they would say that an Armor historian is infantry minded. Don't tell him that. Such garbage.
If you are at all intested in how cavalry can and should operate, there is an excellent history of the 106th Cavalry Group (106th and 121st Squadrons) Illinois Army National Guard in World War II. I read it long ago when my Mom still worked at the Library of Congress. She obtained it for me on loan. I tried to find a copy to purchase several years ago and the cheapest one I could find was $350.00. It's still available through inter-library loan, and in my view a must read to understand what a valuable organization the cavalry group was. Best cav group history of WWII for my money.
|
|
|
Post by justvisiting on Aug 23, 2012 16:52:22 GMT -6
As for the rock drill, wouldn't the best place to start be after crossing the divide? That way we incorporate the intel from the Crow's Nest, the hardtack Indians and the detachment of Benteen to the south.
Best of wishes,Due to the fact that this board is made up of mostly ex-officers, I think you need to go back to the Busby bend. This is when Custer made the decision NOT to keep to the Rosebud and go to the headwaters of the Tongue River. Many feel Custer disobeyed orders when he left the Rosebud for the Crows nest. Fred has made this abundantly clear in many of his posts. So, Custer's first real decision comes at the Busby Bend on the Rosebud. Rosebud, while I somewhat agree with you; the decisions the Seventh made when in the position it was in on the eve of battle, i.e., the crossing of the divide, seems to be the pivot point of the entire battle and thus this exercise. Now a "rock drill" to re-fight the entire campaign may be interesting to us geeks; however, the point were rubber meets the road is, in my opinion, at the divide. Be good, Billy
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 23, 2012 20:53:29 GMT -6
Most of the common folk have been beat down and no longer post. I would be really disappointed if this were the case. I could accept "intimidated" because of the knowledge of so many posting here-- including your own knowledge-- but I would hope "beat down" would not be accurate. I am not sure what this thread is all about-- I have been so damn busy, this is the first time I have dropped by in what seems like ages-- but if Bender started it, it has to be good. By the way, Will, I don't like the word, chemo, and I pray you are going to be alright. Please... I have few enough friends. You have a prayer from me every day. Billy, if I am seeing this correctly, I tend to agree with Rosebud as to a starting point. In fact, you may even want to back it up to the four hour halt-- 1 PM to 5 PM-- before they reached the Busby camp. To me, that's the decision-making period regardless of what happened a little later. But... I do not know what you all are doing here, so I defer to saner minds. Best wishes, Fred. PS-- BC, "Book II" is a go. Got the word several days ago. Editing it again-- for the umpteenth time-- and have already eliminated some 16,000 extraneous words. FCW
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 23, 2012 22:09:59 GMT -6
I think it best that Will set this up. A rock drill is strictly a tactical exercise. I tend to agree with Billy. Everything before the events surrounding the Crows Nest are operational in nature I think and outside the scope of a rock drill. There are other ways to play the operations up until the roack drills start point, such as a map exercise or a staff ride. Not trying to put words in Will's mouth here but I believe a rock drill is a little more basic than you all might think.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Aug 23, 2012 22:52:36 GMT -6
Britt, Thanks for letting me know that Custer was on the Military channel, I went and watched it. of course I have seen it before, but of all the Custer documentaries this is my favorite. I know people will argue with Dr Fox and his findings but for me this is the most accurate. The battle was a complete rout. it only lasted for about 1/2 hour, the soldiers fled in panic (Who could blame them). There was no last stand. Be well Dan Dan, I think they are probably close on the flow of battle. My main beef is that LSH has been so picked over for so many years I don't think they shoud find any shells around there. Have to remember they have had some big crowds and for many years there was no fence or it was just put around the monument itself. I guess we first need to start with what is the definition of a Last Stand. Is it the typical painting with a group of live soldiers standing/laying on the hilltop and hillside shooting at NAs who have them surrounded and then begin charging into the soldiers? Is it like Henry Fonda in Fort Apache where they were just overrun? Is it a long two day fight similar to Beecher's Island? In my mind, I think those on Calhoun Hill, the Keogh sector, and the Deep Ravine boys could all be considered last stands as they were killed and overrun by charging NAs although Deep Ravine may have been more of a turkey shoot for the NAs. In my visions, I have the NAs creeping up close to LSH and laying down such a fire that everyone was either killed, wounded, or just laying there. Then when there was no return fire, the NAs mass charged and took care of what was there with guns and hatchets, mostly with warriors on foot but also some riding around shooting into the ground as was seen from Weir Point. All that said, I would still classify the part of the fight until there was no more return fire from the soldiers as a last stand. So to me there were about 4 last stands. I agree that they didn't last very long but does the definition of a last stand have a time element to it such as long and drawn out for beaucoup hours? Was the Kidder party massacre a last stand? Probably was according to me. Fetterman probably made a last stand as well. Good luck Will, I wish you the best during your medical treatment. It is tough and gets people down but you have been tough enough in the past and should be well practiced to come up with the courage to persevere. It's that good Army training that will keep you going. Fred, put me down for the first copy. Let me know when McFarland is taking cash orders. bc
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 24, 2012 1:10:39 GMT -6
BC I guess we first need to start with what is the definition of a Last Stand. Well the term is half right in that it was a" last" something or other. A "last massacre" maybe?Though last in that case could be seen as superfluous. Stand indicates an organised voluntry action freely taken by a commander in full control of his faculties. If that is the criteria, then Custer does not even have a say in the "last"part of the description.That and everything else is provided by the Indians. The first description given of the battlefield was by Benteen when after viewing it he issued the imortal word "rout". Personally, to be charitable,I would use the description "Custer's final strategic force adjustment". Regards
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Aug 24, 2012 8:04:55 GMT -6
Rosebud, while I somewhat agree with you; the decisions the Seventh made when in the position it was in on the eve of battle, i.e., the crossing of the divide, seems to be the pivot point of the entire battle and thus this exercise. Now a "rock drill" to re-fight the entire campaign may be interesting to us geeks; however, the point were rubber meets the road is, in my opinion, at the divide.
Be good,
Billy I understand what you are saying. But without the decision of the night march to get to the Crows nest, many different scenarios have a chance to play out. For one, the Indians near the divide would have spotted the seventh on the Rosebud if they would have continued with the day marches. This in itself would have Custer going up the Rosebud into prime ambush country. Far more dangerous than where Crook was attacked. And I would expect the Indians to "visit" Custer like they did Crook. Rosebud Intimidated? That word works for me Fred. Truthfully, I don't see a heck of a lot of difference Now back to the rock drill. Is there going to be an objective? It looks like the same mess all over again. Is Custer going to kill Indians? Have a smoke on the peace pipe? I think it best that I set this one out. I will watch with great curiosity though
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 24, 2012 8:45:50 GMT -6
Nobody was 'intimidated,' much less beaten up and left in the desert. Sorry, but that's not correct.
Each and every one of the supposed worthy but departed was caught in nonsense, fallacy, or idiocy and with one or two exceptions, tried to blather their way out of it rather than admit error and were not allowed to do so. Being reminded their idiocy is still up and forever so intimidates them, not those that confronted them. They try other UserID's, but they usually aren't smart enough to disguise their delivery and fall apart again.
That they were confronted is not cruel bullying but constructive, because the whole theater piece is a waste of time for others and themselves, as they are trying to construct an imago for the internet where they can be something they are not. If not confronted and bitch slapped, it continues and expands and just gets worse.
I am reminded of one who thought business in Britain was of the same trauma and stress as the cavalry in 1876, so despite not having served at any time, he had insight into this whole war thing. There are those who ride a horse with other morbidly obese tourists a few times a year on battlefields - and in costume - who feel that they fully understand cavalry, combat, and all of it. One wrote a paper for ROTC. One went to West Point and is an idiot if he actually believes 10% of his offerings.
Further, there are those whose sole contributions were 'hi', 'feel better', 'good point,' 'I'm leaving.' Their loss is.....well, nonexistent. They contributed nothing whatever but vague presence. They try to gain friends by claiming they, too, were driven off by.......what? Nobody addressed them at all, except me often enough.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Aug 24, 2012 8:58:53 GMT -6
I guess we first need to start with what is the definition of a Last Stand. bc Britt, As to the battle,I have always agreed with Richard that this was a vicious, violent and bloody affair that was over in far less time than most people believe. As to a "Last Stand" I feel there has to be a stand of some kind to begin with before it can be a "Last Stand". Again I agree with Richard. A stand is purposeful, concious, and intentional action, an example would be Reno/Benteen defense site. Where it was "men, dig in we are not going anywhere, we are going to fight it out right here,we win or die, come home with your shield or on it. I dont believe that is what happened either in the Keogh sector where there was a skirmish line by L Company and perhaps attempts made by others, but where quickly broken and over-run. On the Custer side the men were herded by the warriors to the vacinity of LSH where some attempted to flee the killing field by heading North, South, East, and some E Company troopers heading West towards the village where they got trapped in a ravine and slaughtered. Yes there were a few that stayed together on LSH but were quickly dispatched once the fire slackened. Britt I am in no way, shape, or form saying that your opinion of a "Last Stand" is wrong. I think more people would agree with you, I simply think differently. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One thing I would like to amend in my post was that the soldiers panicked. I believe that is what many did but it seems disrespectful to brave soldiers that made the ultimate sacrifice. So I would like to amend it to read . The soldiers were hit so fast and so hard by so many that all they could do is run for their lives in the hope they could find a place to fight. Unfortunatly the warriors cut them down before they had a chance to do so. They never had a chance. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Aug 24, 2012 9:27:33 GMT -6
When you read stories like; soldiers fired their weapons while still holding onto their horses and men turning their horses loose and others saying that the Soldiers never made it to the river you do get the idea that this was a short sharp panicked affaire, if the warriors were in strength and attacking Custer, why would he move north and leave men behind in skirmish lines. The accounts do mention about Soldiers dismounting and some making sorties (E Coy & C Coy), but you can link those with the dash for deep ravine, again the suicide boys, did they attack a group of soldiers trying to form some kind of defence?
Some of the Indian accounts also say that the firing was heavy at first and one assault went to ground, so the warriors tried to creep around and find another way of getting at the Soldiers, things like this make you think that the warriors simply did not just run over the river and chased the Soldiers from point A (Calhoun Hill) to point B (LSH) In one quick movement.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 24, 2012 10:20:03 GMT -6
I believe that one of the things that makes the Custer portion of the battle so difficult to reconcile between the long verson that many subscribe to and the short, bitter, panic ridden views of others is the start time.
If you view this as something that started with great intensity, I believe you would also have to assume that the vast majority of the hostiles were on the field early on. If you believe that the hostiles were streaming to the battlefield as individuals and small groups, eventually building to an overwhelming force, then you must assume that the battle started rather slowly and there came a tipping point where overwhelming power was used and used very quickly.
So them I believe that the quick finish - hungry man eating lunch version, may very well be correct, however that view depends on when the teller of the tale arrived.
If you discount the idea that Custer was driven from the south to the north and went there on his own hook, the long version of some preliminary maneuver appears valid. I don't think it really matters about how you view the sashaying around the battlefield, the battle proper was short and less than sweet.
So if your clock starts running with the first shot, it was an hour or more. If on the other hand the clock starts somewhere around the tipping point being reached, it will be over faster then I can make and eat a ham sandwich which is exactly what I am going to do now while awaiting response.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Aug 24, 2012 11:24:04 GMT -6
Colonel....It looks as though you covered all the bases. I see no reason to disagree with your evaluation and opinion on how things could have gone down.
Be well Dan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 24, 2012 11:52:30 GMT -6
Dan: I think this is the only way to reconcile the two main versions. I suspect they (meaning Custer and Keogh) did not think they were fully engaged. Can't imagine why not though. Were I to look upon the size of that series of villages, and do some basic math, I certainly would make the assumption that big trouble was very likely heading my way. So the only way to make any sense of the detris of the field is for Custer to think he still had some time, and that the hostiles would not group together as fast as they did. Trying to remember the terrain from my one and only visit, I think they (Custer) were fooled by the masking effect in some of that area nearer the river. At least the Keogh squadron was. Custer was probably taken on by a very few at first, and then the bulk of the late arrivals.
|
|