|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 28, 2014 9:11:28 GMT -6
Yes, like at Villers-Bocage, if the 22nd AB had sent its Infantry (The Rifle Brigade) to clear the area ahead, Wittman wouldn’t of had the field day he enjoyed later, needless to say both the British commanders (Erskine and Bucknall) were relieved of their command.
(Sorry Fred)
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 28, 2014 9:24:43 GMT -6
Normandy was a place where all the Allies had to "learn" to fight. The fact that they were facing a very determined enemy made it a very expensive tutorial. Oddly enough though, Normandy, and the Normandy like fights were very much in line with the way the Allies had organized themselves in anticipation of battle. Everywhere, and I mean everywhere else was the exception to that organizational construct.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 31, 2014 16:02:56 GMT -6
A NOTE TO KEOGH.
Terry as the operational commander was responsible for the failure of that phase of the campaign. Terry was nowhere near the Little Big Horn on 25 June. Custer was the tactical commander and as such was alone responsible for the failure in losing the battle.
Lee ordered Ewell to take Culp's Hill on the evening of 1 July, not the Second Day of Gettysburg. Ewell thought better of it, he was to blame. Lee was responsible for Ewell's failure. He was the commander. Read your history dimwit.
Who did Grouchy work for halfwit?. He worked for Napoleon. Napoleon is responsible for Grouchy's failures. Grouchy was to blame.
You do know the difference between responsibility and blame don't you ninny? When your kid hits a baseball through your neighbors window, he is to BLAME. You as his parent are RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS CONDUCT, and it is you that must apologize for the conduct of your child, and pay to get the window replaced
If you ever served one day in the military instead of that half assed Army of Dakota you would both know and understand the difference. The commander is responsible for ALL of the actions or inactions of his subordinates, every goddamned one of them. Sing me another song phony.
I never though I would see the day I would ever be in full agreement with the Irishman. It is somewhat akin to the Miracle at Fatima.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 31, 2014 16:39:23 GMT -6
Good points, QC. Well said, strongly stated, and unanswerable. If only you'd put them on the correct message board.
Come on, guy...................
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 31, 2014 16:53:16 GMT -6
I can't. The idiot banned me, thought better of it and tried to reinstate me, not for my sake, but for his own fair and balanced fantasy. Anyway he did not know my password so he could not accomplish it. If you go over there and see Brittles with zero posts, and then count the number of posts Brittles has written and are still there. Typical of his half wit conduct.
Anyway he reads this board more often then he does his own or hadn't you noticed. He is still an active member here, but in disguise, a stalwart, in his own mind, Alan Quartermain dressed in Little Orphan Annie's pinafore. or as Baby Snooks?
Don't think for one minute if I could I wouldn't.
Now of all the errors pointed out above the one that is both well known and indisputable, because it has been fodder for historians and military types since 1863 is Ewell. Lee sent a message to Ewell in all that flowery 19th century language in the late afternoon of 1 July when Culp's Hill was very thinly occupied - If you find it practicable - it read. A turning point of the battle. Ewell evidently did not find it practicable that evening. When he did mount several assaults on the second day the hill was both heavily fortified and defended. An opportunity lost. An opportunity that even the most casual student of the ACW in general and that battle in particular knows about. The High Water Mark of the Confederacy was not at the grove of trees on Cemetery Ridge, it was on that non decision by Ewell.. So if Keogh is unable to be complete and accurate about this well known and written about event, how can anything he says be trusted when we delve into something more unknown than known. A poor mans Stephen Ambrose.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 31, 2014 17:46:33 GMT -6
Sorry, missed all that. I only visit rarely, usually to enjoy AZ and his flamethrower and to call attention to various vivisections of Bevo Boy and Costume Lad, or when a horror is referenced here about there. There's nothing new in Custerland.
Unless it's obvious, I don't know who people are here or there and in general do not care. I liked it much better when we were member 4567 with no name as on the early AAO's board. I've been pretty sure, though, there's only about 8 of us, and 7 of you have 34 UserId's. I have noticed that conz has gone away unless he's reappeared or just gotten a new UserID. I noted that because keogh and conz always were 75% of the total posts anyway. Don't think I ever noticed a Brittles, though.
Whoever 'Larson' was at AAO is someone I miss. Over a decade gone, now.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 31, 2014 17:53:30 GMT -6
You very well know how seriously I take all this when I have to eat crow and compliment the Irishman. He in these last days has stuck at hot poker up Captain Dress Ups hind parts. I still don't like him worth a damn, can't stand the bugger, but in this he is correct, and for a few days at least is the equal of Steve and Carl, both of whom show no quarter.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 31, 2014 18:10:50 GMT -6
And, yet again, what wild says is solely to ingratiate himself, then you're buddies, you support him, he supports you, and then he'll betray you sure enough and giggle about it. It's what he does, lives for.
You are, after all, of the genocidal military that wanted to kill everyone starting with the Indians, yet were too cowardly to nuke the Soviets, and as the first person plural ('we' for England when wild wished to share in something pretty great they did) degrades to 'they' (for everything else they did and do), you'll discover that the English wanted to kill all the Irish, just as Germany wanted to kill all the Jews. In fact, Ireland suffered as bad/worse than the Jews......so, that makes England and America - Oh NO!, I have nothing but the highest respect for England and America....and its fighting men, those genocidal cowards....
I've lived through several variants and you're kidding yourself if you think he agrees with you. Devote no energy or emotion to it.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 31, 2014 18:19:05 GMT -6
When you are speaking about the Irishman and his tactics DC you are preaching to the choir.
I don't kid myself ever.
In this he and I happen to agree, but I am fully aware of what his motives are. Were I a merciful man I would feel sorry for Keogh having to put up with him. His choice. That does nothing to change the fact that in this particular instance the Irishman is correct and Keogh wrong. So don't think I am or ever will hold that bugger in anything but contempt.
Alas I spoke to soon. Both of them now are in a making up history contest.
|
|
|
Post by lew on Mar 31, 2014 21:39:37 GMT -6
Lee lost so many men on the first day at Gettysburg. Two divisions (Heth and Rhodes') all but wrecked. Then at the end of the first day when Lee rides over to Ewell"s headquarters to discuss strategy. Lee wants to straighten the line by bringing Ewell's Corps back to the center, and Jubal Early takes over the meeting.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 31, 2014 22:43:37 GMT -6
Lew: Good to see you. It's been a long time.
Always thought that giving that corps to Ewell was a mistake. Losing that leg took something out of the man, in much the same way losing arm and leg did to Hood. Both were fine officers, but I suspect the fire was gone and understandably so. Would have loved to see a whole Hood get a corps, which would have probably meant that he would have stayed with Lee for the duration, and not been wounded gravely twice.
Powell Hill is another that I don't think should have been given a corps either. Neck in neck with Hood though in my opinion as to who was the better division commander.
You are much more up on the ACW then I . Love to hear your views.
PS: Stuart handled Jacksons Corps well in May at Chancellorsville, but I think him a little to immature for a steady job as a corps commander
|
|
|
Post by lew on Mar 31, 2014 23:26:18 GMT -6
Thanks Quincannon. I always enjoy reading your posts. I just got through reading Sheridan in the Shenandoah: by Edward J. Stackpole. Jubal Early underestimated Sheridan and the result was 3rd Winchester and Fishers Hill! Can't understand why Early chose to make the fight at Fishers Hill, only 2 days after the defeat at Winchester. I guess just overconfidence. I have always felt that many Confederate officers were burn out by the end of the war. Take Richard Anderson,George Pickett, and Richard Ewell on the retreat to Appomattox--just an empty shell of themselves.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 1, 2014 0:13:38 GMT -6
You know I think you are quite correct, and to that list of three there are many others that could be added.
Today we sometimes forget I think that the corps, division, and brigade commanders were fighters. We look upon them more, particularly at corps and division level as more of battle managers or orchestrators. That's not a slam but merely recognition of the fact that the battle space has expanded a hundred fold or more for commanders at these same echelons. Gettysburg or LBH today would be company sized actions. Maybe a battalion if your talking dismounted infantry, but certainly no more.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Apr 1, 2014 9:51:27 GMT -6
Chuck, I think what you are getting at here (and I apologise if I am mistaken) are Staff Officers, in the British army they are the ones who are usually wearing red facings and are following the brass around, now I am not having a pop at these men, but Captain Darling was one in Black Adder and I suppose you will get a little resentment between the Field Officers, who are in the firing line and Staff Officers, who are situated behind the lines. But tell that to the staff officers who were with General McNair’s when his position was hit by US Bombers in a friendly fire incident in 1944.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 1, 2014 11:05:58 GMT -6
That is not exactly what I meant Ian. Commanders are required to do two things in battle, lead by personal example, and exercise command and control over their entire unit, and not just part of it. In the ACW, all times before, and for shortly thereafter, this was done as Armistead did it, hat perched on sword personally leading an assault over the stone wall on Cemetery Ridge. He was leading his brigade, personally and in front, therefore fulfilling both criteria. His brigade though was, I don't believe more than 1500 men, if that, and the space in which it operated fairly small. Today a similar brigade is two to three times the size and its area of employment would be something the size of Adams County Pennsylvania (where Gettysburg is located),A division such as Pickett commanded today would be three to five times the size and capable of operating in an area over the size of several counties.
Now if the requirement to lead by example, and exercise command and control, the modern division and brigade commander must rely more on his electronic means to exercise control. That does not mean he does not get out of that command post and make his presence known and felt. He must see and be seen. He must make personal observations. He must access the state of morale and welfare in his command. He must be seen by both maintenance platoon and rifle platoon. He must expose himself to danger. Nothing new there. What is new is that the expanse of battle space, requires him to wield headphone and keyboard much more often than the hat perched on the saber.
There are a hell of a lot of people who don't like staff officers, because of images in their mind of the Captain Darlings. Most of those folks don't know what they are talking about. Staff officers were all in the line before they ever got on the staff. Infantry operations officers (S-3) are often further forward then their commanders. The same goes for intelligence officers. Next time someone makes a crack about a staff officer, ask them how the hell do they think they ever got to the staff in the first place, if it was not learning their trade in the line. That crack would be the kind of remark Captain Dress Up of the Queens Royal Know Nothing Regiment would and has made.
|
|