|
Post by quincannon on May 4, 2014 13:11:48 GMT -6
Ian: Where you see that white line heading from LSH toward the river that forms a V at the bottom is the pathway down Cemetery Ravine. That little snake like ravine under discussion leads from the river to the pathway.
Newton said for every action there is reaction. Custer obviously never heard of Newton. It was obvious for those that care to look that Custer was completely above his head in the tactical solution department from the time he turned onto the bluffs, and the stupid sonofabitch did not have the brains to realize it.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on May 4, 2014 13:12:25 GMT -6
Were Benteen active on the left and Custer on the right with Reno where he was it would or could be a double envelopment. Those are preferable, in that they take away yet another enemy option. My, admittedly rather narrow definition of a flank attack is one that cuts into meat, not air, and peals away the flesh. QC,
Apologies for being a limey!
We don't usually colloquially refer to an envelopment for a flanking movement or a pincer movement, unless it also constitutes a rear attack.
You'll find no argument from me about cutting into the meat....
WO
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on May 4, 2014 13:23:22 GMT -6
Chuck/Justin, could the ravine in question maybe be cemetery ravine? That would place the Ford C crossing point between the two ravines (Deep & Cemetery). I would think that this ravine would be a candidate for Indian infiltration, as it lies at the northern end of the village, it would be a quick and easy crossing point to use as it also gives you cover of movement. Reading the last couple of posts, you can get the feeling that once Custer arrived at the mouth of MTC, he was faced by a village so large that he probably couldn’t make out the end, would this have appealed to his curiosity and he had to find the northern end so he could formulate his next move. Ian. Ian,
I am interested in that defile, both in relation to GAC's possible movements and NA infiltration.
QC answered a question meant for you:
So I have marked that triangle, where QC things Kellogg's corpse was found, with a yellow "x":
Do you agree that is where Kellogg's corpse was found?
WO
Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 4, 2014 13:56:49 GMT -6
WO: An envelopment to us is a movement around the flank or flanks normally deep into the rear. It can be more shallow as well, but that is usually determined by the size of the enveloping force. Normally this is to seize a predetermined objective, be it thing or place, the seizure of which will cause such disruption that it will force the enemy originally confronted to displace. The best example of this I know is Second Manassas
Lee placed Longstreet on Pope's front, while sending Jackson around Pope's right flank, wide, then deep, with the objective of cutting the railroad at Bristoe and seizure and destruction of the supply depot at Manassas Junction. Pope was forced to displace from the river line to counter Jackson, Had he not, he would have been mighty hungry.
That same campaign gives us a flank attack as well. Jackson ultimately took up positions above the Warrenton Turnpike in an unfinished railroad cut (that can be seen and walked along today). His mission was to draw Pope to his front. Longstreet meanwhile leaves the river position to the far southwest and generally follows Jackson's route through Thoroughfare Gap to Haymarket, where he forms line of battle on Pope's exposed left flank. He waits until Pope is so transfixed in assaulting Jackson, then strikes, driving, pushing, ripping, very much like a door closing upon its frame.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on May 4, 2014 14:35:48 GMT -6
QC,
Interesting stuff. Lee and Jackson were a lethal combination. Lee usually knew what needed doing, and Jackson could do it.
Our armies just seem to use slightly different terminology, at least colloquially.
GAC attacking at Ford B would be considered a right flank attack (even if he has "missed the meat"). Benteen attacking opposite him on the left would be called a pincer or double-flank. We only really use enveloped if there is really an element of encirclement, either both flanks of the pincer meeting behind or being joined there by a wider encircling force.
We don't really use "enveloped" unless it conveys encirclement, although we would tend to use "encirclement" for a deep to the rear link-up.
WO
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 4, 2014 15:01:58 GMT -6
We don't have Bank Holidays either. We call them long weekends.
Encirclements are an extra benefit of an envelopment, and we will take them if we can get them, but they are not considered necessary. We look for disruption and destabilization.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 15:11:52 GMT -6
I'm confused as usual. Here's an aerial. The red X's orient with the previous images. Is there a designation for what I named "undesignated?"
Thanks for corrections/comments, Best, c.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on May 4, 2014 15:39:05 GMT -6
Were Benteen active on the left and Custer on the right with Reno where he was it would or could be a double envelopment. Those are preferable, in that they take away yet another enemy option. My, admittedly rather narrow definition of a flank attack is one that cuts into meat, not air, and peals away the flesh. QC,
Apologies for being a limey!
We don't usually colloquially refer to an envelopment for a flanking movement or a pincer movement, unless it also constitutes a rear attack.
You'll find no argument from me about cutting into the meat....
WO
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on May 4, 2014 15:44:20 GMT -6
Most limeys are good people, at least the ones I know, I hunt and fish with one from Palm Bay FL, he's been here since the late 80's, married well, and is involved in a business headquartered on your great island. Wish I could buy in.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 4, 2014 15:58:12 GMT -6
No Chris, I am the one that is confused. I was wrong about that pathway. The one I took for the pathway was actually the access road. You have the trail marked correctly on your post above. Undesignated ----Don't know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 17:03:30 GMT -6
Chuck, The view from an angle had me bugged and after I made the aerial image - even more so. So you straightened it out. I suppose the undesignated drainage doesn't have historical significance.
Speaking of things that bug me - I think it was WO who mentioned the location of Kellogg's body - just read the entry from Fred's "Participants..." and to make an image of the locations he lists would result in a fairly wide area. Gibbon's account seems reasonable. What I don't get is how Kellogg came to be the only one found so far away, near the river. I'm wondering if his mule couldn't keep up with the horses, he lagged and presented an easy target. Neither here nor there! Best, c.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 4, 2014 17:14:26 GMT -6
Seen from the oblique threw me a bit off. Seeing it from above got me back on track. As far as I know there are two Kellogg markers one just off the back side of Battle Ridge and the other down by the river. Gibbon or one of his minions tells us it was down by the river and somewhat isolated. I think the words were similar to - finding the body shortly after we crossed. So where that X is in WO post is the general area. I think the Bonafides has it specifically marked. Mule maybe. Legend has it that way. Suspect not though. If he died clean and early he was fortunate.
One thing about your overhead. You can sure see those bluff cuts at Ford C. Fred told me that had filled in considerably since 1876.. Probably a little deeper and a lot longer then.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on May 4, 2014 17:21:45 GMT -6
Laref
I can't take credit for where Kellogg's body was, I simply added the yellow "cross" to QC's answer to my question intended for Yan i.e.:
I am:
(1) Interested in where Kellogg's body was found, because I want pointers to where we think the cavalry were if they ventured beyond the cemetery area and I see no reason why they would not do so. Now it is possible that his mule may have gone off on a frolic of its own and taken Kellogg to an isolated doom, but I start with the proposition that Kellogg was not alone where he was killed. Particularly as he was a corpse that GAC would not have been overly keen to leave behind for mutilation. GAC would have wanted the press to report upon his "great victory", not the abandoned mutilated corpse of their sole reporter in the process.
(2) Always interested in any drainage leading to a defile, for the potential infiltration aspect. Just because GAC can't sensibly use that defile to attack westwards...
WO
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on May 4, 2014 17:34:12 GMT -6
Just a reminder, if we assume that GAC/HQ/Yates proceeded northwards along the east side of battle ridge on their recon and under cover of battle ridge, visual contact is lost by GAC (beyond seeing any Keogh sector activity on top of the or west of the ridge line, i.e. Harrington, and then only subject to terrain not obscuring). A reminder of the view northwards towards LSH from south of the Keogh corpses.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on May 4, 2014 17:56:23 GMT -6
How many markers, WO, 33, 37 what?
|
|