|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 28, 2014 6:57:18 GMT -6
<Guerrilla warfare IS western fighting>
I think you knew what I meant . . . the Indians didn't fight like the Whites. They used hit and run tactics, ambush, or just run when they didn't feel confidant enough to win unless protecting family.
I believe Sheridan or was it Sherman thought of the idea of officers leading experienced frontiersmen to combat Indians which resulted in Beecher's Island which turned out not quite as successful as thought when the Indians pinned them down. The command did hold out due to a resolute officer and know-how-to-fight frontiersmen and by using rapid fire rifles but the idea was never used again.
Basically what the US military did was plan large operations with huge support and try to find a village. When they did and surprised the Indians it worked (exception Custer) . . . In the end it was attrition that brought the Indians down which in most cases is what happens with guerrilla and/or insurgent combat, unless of course the Western Army tires or goes broke doing it.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 28, 2014 9:08:14 GMT -6
What is the difference in what the Plains Indians did from that of Washington in the fall of 76 and early winter of 77 after Long Island. Avoid battle, fight on your own terms, hit and run (Trenton and Princeton)? Not a whole lot different at all.
At Beecher's Island the frontiersmen were Fixed, and this was a true fix. They were unable to maneuver, and unlike Reno who was not yet fixed but pretty close, they had no choice but to stand and fight.
As I mentioned above Horse, fighting a guerilla or in the manner of the Plains Indians is well outside the comfort zone of military organizations. They don't like it, try to avoid it, pretend it does not exist, wish it would go away. Why? Because it goes against everything they "want" to do. They want to flex their muscles, they want to move symbols around on the maps, they want to employ all their new and expensive toys to prove the the worth of their judgment in procuring them in the first place.
Well they better get used to it. They better learn to love it, because 21st Century Warfare will look a hell of a lot more like fighting the Apache in Arizona than the Fulda Gap, and operations like Desert Storm, and Operation Crusader will be the exceptions in this century not the norm. If you ask our friend Montrose this "new" style of war has always been the "norm" and the big battles of between big armies is the exception. A look at history proves Montrose correct, and all the Generals from Caesar on wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 28, 2014 10:32:59 GMT -6
Again, respectfully, I think it's the terms that are fouled up here. Not being condescending: we all do it.
Whites not in formal armies fought near exactly like the Indians. It's such a cliche format that it can blend into myth and 'fact.' Robin Hood, for example. The Scots. The Irish. And - horrors! - the French in the two world wars, as the Russians, as the Germans, as.......well, Europe everywhere.
Here in the colonies and then the US, militias near all fought like that. It's not natural to stand in dense formations and exchange fire with another dense formation, it's natural to hit the dirt or fire from behind trees. The baselessly famed Minutemen fought exactly like the Indians (with firearms) but, being farmers, weren't all that hot. Sorry NRA. Competence and skill matter, even with rapid fire 'rifles.'
Firing into massed formation of bright red British, they hit fewer than the Brits got of them hiding and running and so they bolted. On the way back to Boston, the slaughter was (cowardly....to the British) <and> brutal. Swamp Fox, and the Rogers Rangers of previous years, all were like Indians, some dressing like them. It's natural for everyone, not remotely unique to Indians. The 'West' is not exceptional in history. The Indians did not study warfare. NOBODY did at that level.
If you throw people into the water, near all approximate the dog paddle. It's natural. The trudgen crawl is not. But if your future depends upon swimming fast and efficiently, you need to improve. In the same way, throw anybody with their guns into a forest full of hostiles also with firearms. They do not instinctively form firing lines.
Winning wars requires many things the Indians did not have. If they had them, they would have ceased being Indians and become more like the residents of Boston. You need set and fixed installations to make stuff, to farm, to protect your families. If you're running from battle to battle, even winning them all, you've lost if the enemy has that infrastructure and you do not.
1. They could not unite. Warrior cultures do not surrender war chief authority easy. Neither could the Confederates in many areas, the Scots or Irish in ANY areas, or most colonial subjects around the world.
2. They could not communicate well. They didn't write, they had no records, they could not keep track of what a gabillion dialects were saying in accuracy.
3. Like all Asians (and everyone at one time) they thought cyclically, that each year was zero sum and started things again rather than continued. They faced their lodges East, so they could live a life of repeated Mulligans. Europe faced west.......what the hell was out there? Where does the sun go? Over simplification, of course, but reflects very different mind sets hard wired by geography and attendant weathers and features.
4. They were Glory Hounds and fought, really, as much for mating potential as to accomplish things beneficial to their tribes years down the road. All of that had remnants in the white armies. But the Indians had no drudges like Grant or Sherman. Neither did the South. Sense a trend?
5. Atop else, they could not supply a fighting force for long periods or many short ones either. Logistics, organizing supply lines, all beyond them at that point.
6. No necessity, no invention. Till the whites upended their world and how to look at it, they didn't need any of this stuff to have, in many ways, a superior life to Europe's. But they did not adapt when they obviously would have to, and so failed their people. THAT is a criteria for inferior civilization: inability to adapt or protect.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Mar 28, 2014 10:37:15 GMT -6
I agree that the norm of conflict over time looks more like counter-insurgency than "the big one" but then again the disproportion of consequences between one versus the other certainly argues that preparation for the latter is the wiser choice.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 28, 2014 10:51:56 GMT -6
It need not be either or. You prepare for both. You MUST prepare for both if you expect your force to be capable of the world arena of contingencies. I would he happy to the point of back flips if one third of our force was dedicated to the irregular style, both mentally and organizationally. There are new thinkers emerging, but the always did it that way crowd are strong and so far unyielding.
Seeing as though DC is trying to come to grips, reluctantly as if going to the dentist for a root canal, with military terminology, I feel particularly generous this bright morn, and will provide for him the proper military terms for the action(s) he cites.
Lexington Green -------- The proper military term is STUPID
Concord Bridge --------- The proper military term is STUPID
The Road from Concord to Boston -------- The proper military term is hasty ambush conducted by irregular, or indigenous forces.
Now that is all cleared up, I will turn my attention to "take it to/from the break or whatever Ian was trying to say on the other thread when he was indicating musicians have their own language and meaning just like soldiers.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Mar 28, 2014 11:03:25 GMT -6
Unfortunately, if you look at it as I do, we don't always prepare for both. The song of history being dead, the era of law and treaties and economic interdependence having arrived is compelling, especially since if you dance to it you need much less military.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 28, 2014 11:13:40 GMT -6
Argh.
Came to terms with terminology decades back. That isn't what I'm arguing. You're trying to misframe the argument so yantaylor can pretend that IS the issue and continue to chat up terminology.
I agree that the military has to have plans and prethinks of a lot of stuff. Their job. But big war should recede in budget absent everything needed for continued air superiority and naval supremacy. Special Forces. Agreed.
But I fear the increasing reliance on drones and control of the airwaves which, I don't think, is possible in wars against a strong enemy, something only in memory today.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 28, 2014 12:37:32 GMT -6
No I guess I am just trying to figure out why you are arguing. I agree with 99% of what you say about all of the WHOO HAA that rages about the military in general and LBH in particular. In the world of the WHOO HAAers, legend, side taking, lost in translation vice discernment of true meaning, chest puffing, costume wearing, making themselves into a military genius after one "full and complete " year of ROTC, reading some frigging book, therefore in possession of all the answers, the niave of Porter there will be great killing.
"REAL" military folks will tell you they rarely have all the answers. Most just try to apply what they have learned. Keep to the simple. Keep to the principles. Throw the dice and hope everything works OK. Avoid those who say they know all, like you avoid a dose of the clap, or believing someone from the Chicken Ranch is truthful when they tell you they love you..
All this stems from the Minuteman idea you eluded to earlier that from our earliest days every American was considered to be able to ride a horse and shoot a rifle. We were all the raw material of soldiers, so how hard could this soldier stuff be. Every word of it true as the driven snow until Lexington, Bladensburg, Bull Run, and Kasserine Pass. That's where the clowns like Captain Dress Up get their notions. What is necessary is clear thinkers like you, who see through the bullshit, and dirty old bastards like me, to continually point out that fantasy is for Disneyland and real is for the world we live in.
Now to your other.
Big war cannot recede in budget in terms of real dollars. Greater technology = greater expense. Can and should it be limited. You are damned right but there are limitations
Total battlefield dominance, what you elude to in your drones and airwaves comment, is the centerpiece of Shock and Awe, as I commented on a day or so ago. IT IS A TOTAL PIPE DREAM, in both large and small conflicts. It is about as realistic as a concept as the Army of Dakota is an army.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 28, 2014 12:58:52 GMT -6
Darkcloud;
I don’t really have to pretend anything “me auld flower” all I was trying to say is that in certain fields you need a certain terminology, and in the field of music they are the ones I can relate too, simple really.
Now as James said, “Take em to the Bridge”.
Now after saying that you have to imagine me walking out of my computer room backwards.
Ian,
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 28, 2014 13:04:50 GMT -6
Here in the colonies and then the US, militias near all fought like that. It's not natural to stand in dense formations and exchange fire with another dense formation, it's natural to hit the dirt or fire from behind trees. The baselessly famed Minutemen fought exactly like the Indians (with firearms) but, being farmers, weren't all that hot. Sorry NRA. Competence and skill matter, even with rapid fire 'rifles.' I don't know about, Sorry NRA. What I do know is that those "baselessly famed Minutemen" and their ilk when joined together, and given proper tactics to go with the basic skills many already had with firearms , brought the Kings finest to a rather bad end at Yorktown 6 years later. I also know that every tyrant, and dictator the world has ever known, is much better off when the citizenry is unarmed. It is often the first thing on their agenda. You might say the 1st amendment might not hold up without the second.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 28, 2014 13:19:27 GMT -6
Yes Tom they did, with French help of course, tactics in those days was similar to a few gentlemen send their men all neatly packaged in nice straight lines in bright red coats and just walking nice and slowly into the waiting hands of men behind barricades bristling with muskets, brave or stupid, well to be fair they didn’t know any better you see, we were used to fighting other Europeans, who played it fair.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 28, 2014 13:27:54 GMT -6
Tom: Your National Guard is showing. Read deeper in what DC said. He said is was both foolish and unnatural for the Minutemen or Militia writ large to stand up to strength, and fight the way the enemy is used to fighting. Instead you make them fight your way. Force it on them, and moreover use your admitted weakness as a form of deceit, the way Morgan deceived Tarlton at Cowpens. Yorktown was inevitable, French or no French in that the way we learned to counter the British regular, would have led to victory in any instance. We just tired them out to the point they went home. It was in 1781, but had they not gone home until 1800 or even later they would have still gone home. The fight for retention in their eyes not worth the price of retaining.
And DC they were famed, and rightly so, for they were the first to stand, no matter how incompetent the stand. If one clouds the truth in this particular form of legend what is the harm.
Ian: Any idiot that fights fair, end up dead.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 28, 2014 13:38:05 GMT -6
No, you don't know that because that's not correct. What beat the Brits at Yorktown was the formal army in uniform trained by Van Steuben and Washington's other guys and majorly bolstered by the French Army, who knew how to lay siege while Washington really did not, and their huge fleet. There were no Minutemen anywhere after the first round in the Revolution. It's a myth.
The Brit Army in America were not their top guys, but often mercenaries and impressed soldiers. Some were. Several of their better officers refused to fight Americans who were so recently their allies and friends. They were fighting the Dutch and then the French again as well, near broke, and not enjoying things during our Revolution.
Nobody is contesting the Second Amendment either, certainly not me. That's just something you want to announce to bolster affinity with others here. I don't know, or care, about the political percentages here but nobody is going to be beloved for their political views regardless. My point about the NRA is that they usurped the false myth of the Minutemen. It ain't true, but it flatters the masses that Boone, Crockett, and Bumpo were just three at random Americans (one fiction, I know)no better than so many others. Well, not true. Sorry NRA.
In any case, England has had strict gun control for a long time and still seems decent enough. So does Norway and so do many other nations. France crawls with guns, always has, and even Russia had armed rural folk right through the Soviet Era. That's how they lived in Siberia. The supposed tyrants who take away guns generally occur in nations where the vast majority of poor NEVER had weapons they could not actually afford anyway and the brutes wanted to keep it that way.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 28, 2014 13:54:39 GMT -6
What beat the Brits at Yorktown was Nathaniel Greene in the Carolina's Campaign of 1780-81, with an army in the main composed of militia, seasoned with relatively very few Continental regulars. Greene maneuvered so fast that Cornwallis had to shed his baggage (proving once again that logistics mean more than normally given credit for) to try and keep up with him. Cornwallis failed and took shelter in Yorktown to supply himself. Frenchmen or French fleet notwithstanding Georgie had his mojo working and Charlie ran shitoutaluck.
DC will disagree with content and analysis. Does not really matter. Who made that decision to concentrate on Yorktown - Georgie exercising his command RESPONSABILITY did, and to him goes the victory. Notice how sneaky I was getting that responsibility point in. Like making a three point shot in March Madness.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Mar 28, 2014 14:04:45 GMT -6
DC,
Two things; (a) To boil down your point on military terminology, is it that fitting such a template may shift the focus to the template itself, leading to banal arguments about best fit, nuances of the template, etc., thereby obscuring critical evaluation of facts on the ground? My grip on your thought is obviously tenuous.
(b) Your comment on "drones and the airwaves" interested me and I believe QC's "Pipe Dream of Total Battlefield Dominance" may not have gotten right back to your point. Your sentence structure somewhat threw me. What were you saying about these developing technologies? I've been waiting for another inflection point (I was born 7/16/45) and directed energy weapons and nanotechnology seem to remain elusive.
|
|