|
Post by quincannon on Mar 27, 2014 10:41:17 GMT -6
Horse: Any well trained, well led, well armed force has every right to believe it can defeat a larger force, given the correct (for the situation) scheme of fire and maneuver. There are limits though and how much smaller is smaller. There is a name for a commander who goes into battle with preconceived notions - loser.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 27, 2014 10:46:08 GMT -6
Chuck, glad you picked up on Nathan Bedford Forest. Crazy, Custer had the same problem, drivers in DC and LA have too much traffic and too little asphalt. Custer being the asphalt!
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 27, 2014 10:51:15 GMT -6
Yes, it was Forrest and not Jackson. I knew a Forrest descendent here in Boulder, good drummer and great singer.
QC, I don't think I've successfully connected to you what I think the problem is. It's this.
Someone did something at the LBH, doesn't matter what for my purpose. He survived. In the letters to wife, commander, RCOI, and the Lake Ringworm Auto Shopper before his death in 1933, he essentially described what he did as 'goin' over to this point because we thought the Indians were there, but they weren't, so we returned to this other point and fought from there." He didn't view it as more than that implies, it's over, got grandkids, he moved on.
BUT, on discovery by Euclid "Miniver" Cheevy, an enthused haberdasher in Lamar, Colorado and Custerphile, the outlines of betrayal are clear. For what this officer did - goin' here, then goin' there - is very much if not quite like a manuever in a manual traditionally two centuries previous or sometimes first emerged on a computer, but clearly either by memory or foresight, this officer was doing that maneuver. And that maneuver is NEVER DONE except under air attack or on Tuesdays neither of which applied at the LBH, so why did he do, let's call it, the Malamute-Christie Sequential Adjustment of Position if not to allow more Indians to attack Custer in a clear case of treason/murder or whatever.
Others, equally fixated, debate whether the goin' there was fast enough (there are mph qualifications for the Malamute-Christie) and not more indicative of a PreGPS White Male Lost on a Map Syndrome that would explain the puzzled look on the officer's face noted by two drunk packers and Commanche.
The pros and cons are debated, and eventually they have to decide which he was ordered to do. And who ordered it. All heads turn to Reno. Because,you know, Reno.
And it settles in the canon that this officer was doing either the PreGPS or the Malamute-Christie (learned debate to demonstrate how rich with learning and open minded Custerland is - and which side are YOU on?)when he really had just gone to one place and then the other because he initially thought the enemy was where he proved not to be and had never heard of either maneuver.
I think that comes uncomfortably close to a few of the discussions through the years.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 27, 2014 11:03:41 GMT -6
Yes, it was Forrest and not Jackson. I knew a Forrest descendent here in Boulder, good drummer and great singer. QC, I don't think I've successfully connected to you what I think the problem is. It's this. Someone did something at the LBH, doesn't matter what for my purpose. He survived. In the letters to wife, commander, RCOI, and the Lake Ringworm Auto Shopper before his death in 1933, he essentially described what he did as 'goin' over to this point because we thought the Indians were there, but they weren't, so we returned to this other point and fought from there." He didn't view it as more than that implies, it's over, got grandkids, he moved on. BUT, on discovery by Euclid "Miniver" Cheevy, an enthused haberdasher in Lamar, Colorado and Custerphile, the outlines of betrayal are clear. For what this officer did - goin' here, then goin' there - is very much if not quite like a manuever in a manual traditionally two centuries previous or sometimes first emerged on a computer, but clearly either by memory or foresight, this officer was doing that maneuver. And that maneuver is NEVER DONE except under air attack or on Tuesdays neither of which applied at the LBH, so why did he do, let's call it, the Malamute-Christie Sequential Adjustment of Position if not to allow more Indians to attack Custer in a clear case of treason/murder or whatever. Others, equally fixated, debate whether the goin' there was fast enough (there are mph qualifications for the Malamute-Christie) and not more indicative of a PreGPS White Male Lost on a Map Syndrome that would explain the puzzled look on the officer's face noted by two drunk packers and Commanche. The pros and cons and debated, and eventually they have to decide which he was ordered to do. And who ordered it. All heads turn to Reno. Because,you know, Reno. And it settles in the canon that this officer was doing either the PreGPS or the Malamute-Christie (learned debate to demonstrate how rich with learning and open minded Custerland is - and which side are YOU on?)when he really had just gone to one place and then the other because he initially thought the enemy was where he proved not to be and had never heard of either maneuver. I think that comes uncomfortably close to a few of the discussions through the years. Now I know who wrote the Healthcare Bill!
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 27, 2014 11:13:56 GMT -6
DC: I completely understand what you have said and have been saying for years. You get pissed when testimony such as it is, is cluttered, confused, embellished, and most of all when something is made of something that it is not.
Definitive case in point illustrating why I believe the use of standard terminology is important to the point of being vital.
We hashed out all this letter to the wife, look, turn back, after the fact bullshit yesterday regarding Benteen. The Benteen Scout. It was not a scout for a scout seeks only information. Is that all Benteen sought? No, it was not. Had it been the allocation of resources would not be as great. What then was he supposed to do assuming gathering information was part of that mission? Benteen tells us later he was to engage what he found. Was Benteen in the best position to know what his orders were? Yes he was. Therefore looking at this thing and trying to understand we conclude it was more than a scout, that it must be for some larger purpose. We then look in our modern day trick bag of terms and say, based upon what we know, it fits more the parameters of an armed reconnaissance - meaning find and when found fight.
Now I believe if we analyze things in that manner, we clear up all this horse crap stuff about getting rid of Benteen, putting in the corner with his face to the wall as punishment. In fact it both clears up any question about what Benteen was doing, his purpose, and an insight into what Custer was thinking, where he had concerns. On the other hand if we insist on calling it something it was not, a scout, the Damocles Sword of WTF will continue to hang over our heads
By the way Fred while we are speaking of something that it is not. Reno DID NOT RETREAT from the timber. Reno BROKE OUT of the timber. Two completely different things, done two completely different ways. Looking at it as a retreat is COMPLETELY WRONG. Looking at it as a BREAK OUT is completely correct.. Going back in the direction from whence he came has no bearing whatsoever on the type of operation being conducted or the manner in which it is conducted. I do know why you used the term though, because it has been so misused for so long it becomes habit. Look at it this way - We have been so wrong for so long , but we will be so right tonight.
|
|
|
Post by Colt45 on Mar 27, 2014 12:42:05 GMT -6
QC: You are correct - Bedford Forrest. My mistake.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 27, 2014 13:14:42 GMT -6
That's alright Colt. Everyone knows that George Dewey said "I have not begun to fight." Don't they. I keep getting Olympia and Bonhomme Richard mixed up. Then when you throw in Bon Homme Richard I really get confused, and I start going around the house yelling Damn the Torpedoes Full Speed Ahead, until the men in white coats come to take me away for a nice long rest.
Anyway Jackson sucked lemons and would not fight on Sunday. I think he was into bleeding and purging as well. On the first of the Seven Days he showed up lastest with the leastest. He was taking a nap, which is exactly what I intend to do now. Tinker Belle decided she wanted to be fed at 4 AM. She is very demanding, and I am such a pushover.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 14:08:28 GMT -6
Chuck, That was Thomas Dewey's remark immediately after seeing Truman hold up the newspaper. Sheesh, you know better. Best, c.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 27, 2014 14:24:52 GMT -6
Shucks Chris you are correct it was Tom Dewey. Sorry I was so flummoxed by us Infantry minds not understanding what an envelopment is in the Army of Dakota.
I know what it is in the U S Army though and all the other armies in the world save the shim sham shuffle presented, by an overage in grade pretend captain in the Army of Dakota.
It is an attack AROUND the flank (not into it) focused on a PREDETERMINED fixed point in the enemies rear ( usually deep), that once taken will unhinge the main enemy force facing your front. It CAN BE but it is not necessary TO BE accompanied by a simultaneous attack by a fixing force. Indeed a fixing force is rare, in that the objective of an envelopment is to unhinge the force facing you, not lock it to a given piece of ground THEM unable to maneuver. An envelopment normally wants the enemy to maneuver to attempt to address the emerging threat to their rear, thus the enemy both becomes unhinged and is caught between two forces.
Second Manassas campaign shows us two envelopments by Lee. It the first Lee sent Jackson wide around Popes right with the deep objective of Manassas Junction and the Union supply depot. Longstreet set quiet on Pope's front. Pope was forced to maneuver to counter the threat to his supplies and lines of communications. Longstreet then followed and caught Pope in a vice. The next day Lee once again sent Jackson wide around Pope's right with the objective of the road junction of the Little River and Warrenton Turnpikes. Once again Longstreet set dormant across Cub Run from Pope. This envelopment though was detected earlier and Pope placed a blocking force on Ox Hill keeping Jackson from his objective. Once again Lee's plan was to catch Pope in a vice between Jackson and Longstreet. Never during either of these envelopment maneuvers was Longstreet, the force that faced Pope used to fix Pope
NOTE TO DC: This is why I insist on proper terms. The very reason is to counter the misinformation put out by the uniformed and idiotic statements of Captain Dress Up.
On another note, I see that the Secretary of the Air Force gave 20th Air Force a lesson today in both blame and responsibility. Good for Her
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 27, 2014 15:46:31 GMT -6
No you know how I got a 100% on my 9 level course, caught the O's cheating and blackmailed them.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 27, 2014 16:29:45 GMT -6
QC,
If anything, I'm far more of an ass than you about proper terms. I get it and applaud it. Rather proud of it, really. It's still not quite what my beef is. I think the desire is to talk these terms rather than what happened.
For years Reno's Return to The East,called by Reno from the start a charge, was laughed at because it was a bloody disaster. But as AZ and QC have pointed out, busting/breaking out as he did is a legal and arguable charge. But a century of debate about whether it was a retreat or a plain panic rush for high ground exclusive of other descriptions defined the debate and public opinion of Reno. Nobody has demonstrated a better alternative or even one as good. The terms used were accurate for what they described but wrong in application. He charged out in his break out.
Terry gave Custer instructions in writing saying they were not Orders. Yet, everyone - including QC - says they were orders because of this and that, usually involving tales that include ORAL variants of this tale, not signed and notated evidence saying these are not Orders. Everyone then discusses the obligation and alternatives Custer had to orders, because orders are a big deal. But they were not orders, he had it in writing, and in any case there was that wide open exemption also in writing. There is no way a court could call them orders.
He didn't disobey orders - they weren't orders - but he didn't disobey his instructions either. Rather, he followed them to the letter. He saw - and had - reason to depart from them. In writing with Terry's signature this is. THERE IS NO MYSTERY OR PUZZLE. Let's stop pretending there was. I realize that everyone from Benteen on down and since calls them 'orders' but suspect it was for the brass. It doesn't look good that Terry didn't actually give him orders, does it? I've inquired, and nobody has convinced me or themselves that a signed document from your commander which you obeyed means you get punished for obeying it. Custer had proof.
Take the advance does not mean 'be the advance guard.' It means go in front, would you? All the variants of the oral instructions heard to Reno differ in some areas but none of them contain 'advance guard.' So, why is THAT debated?
Custer probably did say something like "....and we'll (all) support you" to Reno, but really: had he said nothing, wouldn't we all be safe thinking he intended to do so? You charge, I'm taking a nap? You charge, I'll wait for Benteen? You charge, let me know how it goes? I'd like to think such an assumption could be made by all concerned, blistered only by lack of info from where the help might come.
The Tullucks debate isn't valid, either. He didn't scout it because there was no smoke, no dust, nothing to suggest activity there, but there was straight west. This would be apparent to Terry heading south down the Bighorn to the LBH as well. Herendeen wanted to get paid, is all.
Some guys went there and then came back here......
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 27, 2014 17:08:10 GMT -6
DC: Point by point, and they are good ones you make.
A break out is an attack, an assault, a charge if you will. That is how it is done. The fact that it has been debated these last 130 or so years indicates nothing but ignorance on the part of at least half of the debaters.
Orders vice instructions. Both have the legal weight of orders. When Terry said they were not orders, meaning a formal and stylized you will go here, you will not go there, you will do this, you will not do that, he was absolutely correct in the saying. Those instructions were more broad based, giving the receiver more leeway, more flexibility in the way he conducted the mission. If Custer had said general shove those instructions up your ass, watch how fast he would have been in Leavenworth for the long tour. But no they were not orders, but they did, still do, and always will have the same weight of an order. That is our way.
Referencing what I said above, having the flexibility provided by a letter of instruction Custer disobeyed nothing, NOTHING, He was given a very broad scope, and it was up to him how he did it. There should never be a question of disobedience under those conditions.
Take the advance means exactly that take the advance - You are the first into the meat grinder bozo enjoy yourself. Why is it debated? Same answer as before, nothing but an indication that at least half the debaters, don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
We will support: Reno should have had every expectation of full and complete support, regardless if Custer said it, it was said in his name, or not said at all. In situations like that you expect that support unless you are SPECIFICALLY TOLD no support is available or will be forthcoming. Stupid argument made by people who don't know their business, or others trying to prove a point.
Tullock's is a side show. Completely meaningless. A time waster. When you see where the other guy is going you get after him like the Devil in a blue dress wanting to give him a big wet kiss.
You know DC for a banjo picker, you'd make a fair tactician.
Now you will excuse me I am listening to the Light Cavalry Overture trying to learn to think like a cavalryman, a Dakota cavalryman. No its a waste of time. I will never master the inner workings of the stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 28, 2014 4:16:01 GMT -6
Hi Chuck; at first it was a breakout, Reno acted on what he saw before him and was right in my view to issue the order. You could break the whole episode down into two parts, the initial breakout was done by charging through whatever lay in their path, apparently the Indians moved back a little, allowing them an avenue. Once through then this charge became a chase, with mounted Indians trying to catch up with the soldiers and shoot or knock them off their horses, the men would have been desperate at this stage so you could call it a flight for life. The Reno casualty list was; A Company; 9 M Company; 12 G Company; 13 But I am not sure if all of these were caused by the charge out of the timber.
Darkcloud, try looking at military terms in a similar way as we do with music, like saying let’s start it again and take it to the bridge or leave out the middle eight, we use these terms so that other musicians know what we want and can hit it straight away, so it’s the same with the military, they have to issue orders and if one or two words can describe the order, then in a battle situation it is fine.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 28, 2014 6:06:36 GMT -6
Ian
I believe the mission of the break out was to no longer be surrounded in the timber and to end up somewhere else. It worked. The tactic used to punch a hole through the surrounding Indians was a charge. It worked. I am reasonably sure they had to know the cost of running horses a long distance in close proximity to Indians. Formations would fall apart due to the horses not being equal, 6 or 7 rounds per troop, any stopping would result in close quarter battle.
I think a discussion on expected casualty rates would show that this tactic was within expectations.
I think it remained a break out from beginning to end and that what occurred was predictable.
Another way to look at the charge as a tactic. Reno charges the village = formations would fall apart due to the horses not being equal or obstacles, 6 or 7 rounds per troop, any stopping would result in close quarter battle.
A charge ends at a rallying point and in the break out it was Reno Hill.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 28, 2014 8:49:03 GMT -6
Break outs are military operations where it is assumed that you will suffer a high rate of casualties. It is expected. It is also not over, like all other military operations, until it reaches a culminating point, which in the break out is where contact is either broken or becomes manageable. For Reno that point was reached at the top of the bluffs.
I also agree with Steve on a mounted attack being launched in the village as being completely ill advised and for the reasons he states. The build up of obstructions was much to great, and would cause a shattering of cohesiveness leading to defeat in detail. It is for that same reason, that today no one in his right mind would consider attacking a city, town, or even village with tanks unsupported by infantry. It is bloody suicide.
|
|