|
Post by welshofficer on Jan 13, 2015 8:54:08 GMT -6
This whole thread illustrates my problem with giving military jargon priority over thought structure. This is an extremely valid point. I only wish everyone would accept it. Like DC, I have been harping on this point for years. The jargon is utterly meaningless and irrelevant. Best wishes, Fred. Fred,
I tend to agree on this one in relation to the hostiles, but strictly as opposed to the 7th cavalry and the hostile actions as viewed by the 7th cavalry.
There was a basic localised tribal C+C structure within that village, but I don't think the usage of C+C is helpful because it carries 21st century baggage and concepts in relation to regular armies and strict hierarchical organisation. The hostiles reacted to Reno's assault, and stopped it before turning his left flank. The hostiles also took advantage of GAC's vulnerability on the eastern bluffs post-Ford B. Neither was centrally co-ordinated, but also neither was a mob driven by momentum.
The complication is that certain terms are easily understandable to all, even to many without any military experience. A good example is the ridicule heaped on anybody who believes there was a "fix and flank". So convenience and clarity will always sometimes prevail over perhaps more appropriate language.
WO
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jan 13, 2015 9:06:06 GMT -6
WO, Reno initially attacked in front of his command, two companies abreast one in the rear. After some of the timber was checked, Company M was rotated to the far left. They were then 3 companies abreast facing the NA's. Horses, horse holders, and Reno at some point retied to the timber. I think the skirmish line held for no more than 20 mins. M company was the last to retire to the timber, while covering the other two companies. I am sure I will be corrected if wrong.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jan 13, 2015 9:10:51 GMT -6
Tom,
Fred has reminded me that it was a GAM line abreast charge, pivoted to MAG in the skirmish line. Scouts to the left, with Reno's left flank dangling in the valley air until turned and the fall back to the timber.
WO
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 13, 2015 9:18:04 GMT -6
What is a flank? It is the SIDE of the line or array (DC's Blob) of the enemy that you are presently engaged with. The SIDE. It may be a left side or a right side.
DC is absolutely correct that the Indians do not fight in orderly formations, but even they had a side.
Now I have heard DC's nonsense about flanks and military jargon for a long time. It is then incumbent upon DC to come up with a descriptive word that expresses moving around a side or array, or attacking into a side or array, better and more universally understood than flank. Put up or shut up.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jan 13, 2015 9:31:48 GMT -6
QC,
Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the right flank of Reno was facing the far left of the body of NA warriors and the left flank of Reno was facing the far right of the body of NA warriors! This thread has been disrupted enough without any further tangents...!
WO
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jan 13, 2015 9:49:37 GMT -6
Well after making a fool of myself earlier, I may do it again now, the term flank in this case would be down to which direction Reno was heading, and going on the maps Custer was advancing on Reno's right, so if we say that Reno's left flank was his Achilles heel then Custer advance on his right flank.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 13, 2015 9:55:25 GMT -6
Yes I suppose so, WO. It would not do any good anyway. Every horse is entitled to having a horses ass.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jan 13, 2015 9:55:52 GMT -6
Ian,
Reno's right flank was anchored by the river/bluffs. GAC went around that, across the river and high up the eastern bluffs.
It was Reno's left flank in the middle of the valley that was left dangling dangerously in the air and which got turned in short order.
WO
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 13, 2015 10:06:15 GMT -6
The title of this thread is Flank Nonsense. It was established, not to discuss what a flank is, but rather did Custer conduct 1) a flank attack or 2) something else, and if something else, what was it.
Custer did not attack into the enemy array that confronted Reno, therefore he did not conduct a flank attack, that leaves us with the something else. Will describes it as an attempt at deep penetration. I happen to agree with that, but a penetration without the prerequisite of clearly defined objective. I am quite sure that agreement is not universal with all here. So for those not in agreement just what is it you think he was attempting, and where did it go astray?
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jan 13, 2015 10:25:12 GMT -6
QC,
One final digression, if the thread would indulge me.
I must admit that I have always viewed GAC's ambiguous orders to Benteen to mean to cut out some ammo mules and bring up his battalion with them.
Montrose has given me pause for thought, by suggesting that it was an order to bring the entire pack train up the eastern bluffs and away from the danger of Reno's southern valley fight and where GAC could deploy a 3 battalion/9 company assault on the village. With GAC's limited knowledge of the terrain, and with 4 companies in close escort plus GAC's 5 companies and limited river crossings, I can see some logic behind such GAC "thinking".
Obviously it would betray a poor situational awareness by GAC in relation to time and space, and would have been built upon the fatal assumption that the hostiles were dispersing or scattering.
But incorrect assumptions happen. Remember the German general staff's incorrect assumption in 1914 that Germany could not simultaneously fight and defeat France and Russia, so general mobilisation for them meant immediate war and an attack on France via Belgium and the race to knock out France before the Russians had fully mobilised....?
WO
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jan 13, 2015 10:26:43 GMT -6
Chuck, I will stick with my original theory, and that is he wanted to attack the northern end of the village, he thought that the route down the coulees would bring him out at the village north end, he was wrong, so he moved north again, probably to find the north end, so is this a flank or the rear he was after, well to me he wanted the opposite end to Reno, so the flank was no good to him.
So it was an attack up the rear end or jacksee (please excuse my French).
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jan 13, 2015 10:31:25 GMT -6
Chuck, maybe the hostage thing, maybe an attack of some sort, there is just no telling went through his mind before the bullet. Whatever it was, it was not effective or well considered. It almost seems the only confirmed teetotaler, went off on a drunken joy ride.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 13, 2015 10:40:31 GMT -6
Montrose has given me pause for thought, by suggesting that it was an order to bring the entire pack train up the eastern bluffs and away from the danger of Reno's southern valley fight and where GAC could deploy a 3 battalion/9 company assault on the village. With GAC's limited knowledge of the terrain, and with 4 companies in close escort plus GAC's 5 companies and limited river crossings, I can see some logic behind such GAC "thinking". I agree with montrose here, 100%. No question about it. Otherwise he would have said something else or something more. Remember, when the note was written, Reno was doing well and Custer was under no pressure and in fact, probably hadn't even seen an Indian other than a mile away in the valley; he hadn't fired a shot. As for A. J. P. Taylor... to my way of thinking, one of the greatest historians of all time. I used to have a bunch of his books. Brilliant. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 13, 2015 10:57:22 GMT -6
And it could mean that he wished to purchase a death burger at the trading post.
The fact that we have some intelligent people saying -attack of some sort-hostages-north end this late nearly 139 years after the event suggests that what he was doing was not clearly defined. Were it to be there would only be one opinion on the subject.
I tend to think, without the ability to read the man's mind, he may have had any number of things in mind, one initially, and changing a couple of times along the way.
Anything he did in the way of attacking after Ford B, would have had to be by definition a frontal attack. We have no positive evidence that he had even found a place for such an attack, although our suspicions focus upon the Ford D area.
Unless, I forgot my lessons of long ago launching that attack with two hundred ten, or even with the 400 plus that a junction with Benteen would bring into play, by first conducting an opposed river crossing against a force three times as large, that are alert and ready, is not a particularly good idea.
He had by his journey taken himself far out of position to be able to conclude the issue offensively, but in so doing, afforded the opportunity for the Indians to transition from village screen and defense to offensive operations against him that had a decisive outcome.
Proper Prior Planning (and reconnaissance) Prevents Piss Poor Performance
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 13, 2015 10:59:34 GMT -6
Fred please look at what I wrote about Wolf Tooth earlier in this thread a few pages back, with an eye on commenting/correcting/refreshing
|
|