|
Post by quincannon on Jun 30, 2012 11:55:20 GMT -6
Rangersmith: Now I will engage you on the subject in question. The Hayfield Fight has some striking similarities to the situation LTC Hal Moore's 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry found itself in the fight for LZ X-Ray in November 1965. One of Moore's platoons was cut off and surrounded due to the bone headed actions of one of his platoon leaders. Moore realized that any effort to relieve them was not only futile, but would endanger the stability of his battalion's position, and as such may in itself cause defeat for the entire battalion. He had to weigh the loss of one platoon against the potential loss of a battalion. Moore adopted the correct course of action and did nothing to relieve the surrounded platoon. The fact that some in the platoon survived was in large measure due to the heroic actions of SGT Ernie Savage who took command of the platoon and held what was left together, an action, in my view, deserving the award of the MOH to SGT Savage.
Now if there is any man alive that would look at these actions and conclude that LTG Harold G. Moore is or was a coward, they are, again in my view, a despicable piece of crap.
|
|
|
Post by justvisiting on Jun 30, 2012 12:57:25 GMT -6
Billy: You picture looks much to scholarly for a fan of the Seldom Scene. That''s one thing I miss about the DC area. There is no Bluegrass in drive time here in West Kansas. Yeah, sure. I'm going outside of the bar I'm now hiding at and listen to the Blake Shelton concert going on across the street at the mall-no kidding, the Microsoft store opened up and they sponsored the concert-you can hear perfectly from where I'm at and it's in shade with cold beverages; unlike standing on the asphalt in front of the stage in 100 degree temps! A correction: the August return showed 375 officers, men and attachments aggregate; that includes present and absent. Present for duty were 293 officers, men and attachments. Billy
|
|
|
Post by rangersmith1867 on Jun 30, 2012 13:11:35 GMT -6
The one advantage that Lt. Col. Moore had was radios, and even knowing the situation and not being able to help must have been dreadful. I agree that there are some similar aspects to the fight, and I further agree that L.P. Bradley was not a coward, he made the right call. The unit was not wiped out and his losses were very low in the fight, so it would be hard to say he made the wrong call. I do think he underestimated his intel. but even if he had the full story, what was he going to do...send out another Fetterman massacre?
Kit was just something I said and is not something I normally say when doing Interp. I normally just refer to things item-by-item, and refer to it all as "Infantry Accouterments" or "Equipment" and so forth. It would not have been an uncommon term at the time considering the large number of Brits that served who had previous enlistment in the British Army, and "Kit" I have seen referenced in a few memoirs, but I do not recall which ones off the top of my head, but you are right it should be avoided when portraying an American infantry soldier. Honestly I am sure they referred to their gear much like the modern army and gave it a term of endearment like "trash" (Popular in Vietnam).
I think overall the person trying to brand Bradley a Coward, is failing to see the bigger picture. Douglas MacArthur's plan for the Inchon landing was a terrible plan, doomed to fail. It did not fail. Therefore it is remembered as a bold and daring plan, that saved the Pusan perimeter. If the 26 men at the Hayfield were killed...that is pretty small numbers for a loss...better than 80+...or worse...his whole command.
I was under the impression they used the forts to conduct offensive operations, and from some of the Morning reports it seems the contrary. So I obviously have much more to study. I have only been doing serious research on the subject since I got here, from North Carolina, in late May.
The National Archives will be sending me about 11 items, including a bunch of information similar to AARs from the 27th, as well as morning reports, and letters, and the such.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 30, 2012 13:43:33 GMT -6
Korea is a little more in my territory. I disagree when you say that Inchon "saved" the Pusan Perimeter. When Bluehearts was launched the Pusan Perimeter was in quite good shape. Forces inside that perimeter actually outnumbered the Immun Gun by quite a bit, and the Immun Gun was largely spent and in very bad shape logisticly. What Inchon did was threaten to saw off the limb that the NKPA was hanging on to, thus making a breakout from Pusan and the pursuit of the NKPA much easier.
The only thing that made Inchon a risk were the tides. That's what United States Marines are for, dealing with these things from a sea base. Had you been a vet of these boards you would realize I have no love whatsoever for MacArthur. Bluehearts was an exception. He took an off the shelf plan written as I recall in 1947-48 and made it work. The Joint Chiefs were the ones with apprehension in this instance Bradley and Collins. I have come to believe their objections were nothing more than a cover their backside exercise, just in case.
|
|
|
Post by justvisiting on Jun 30, 2012 15:26:19 GMT -6
OK, I'm shocked that no one else has picked up on this. Let's suppose that the Army was embarrassed about Bradley's caution and didn't broadcast the news of the battle. Does it remind anyone else of something that happened as the result of the activities of June 25-26, 1876?
Billy
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 30, 2012 20:21:40 GMT -6
Billy: Why should the army be embarrassed. That is the first question. What was there the be embarrassed about. Bradley was calling the shots. He made the decisions. The fact that other disagreed with those decisions is making a mountain out of a mole hill, in this instance. He was not there to win a popularity contest. He was sent there to command. If his commander as a result of the report rendered lost confidence in his ability to command he would have been relieved.
|
|
|
Post by rangersmith1867 on Jul 1, 2012 8:26:16 GMT -6
I do know that some Generals were quoted as saying that they did not wish to discuss the Hayfield fight, and that the reason cited was that they did not want to tarnish Bradely's reputation. Perhaps they felt he made the wrong calls, even though clearly he did not. Bradley does not appear to be a lead from the front sort of officer, given his infrequent leaving of his Fort. I know a lot of his Junior officers did not care for him, but then again who knows what sort of personal issues they had with or about him...that and the only time you should ever worry about a soldier is when he is NOT complaining about his command.
I mean look at it from Lt. Palmer's perspective, he saw the fight, wanted to go and help...and was told he could not go. He saw a friend and fellow officer surrounded and in trouble and he wanted to go and give him help, and was told to return to Fort. C.F. Smith...OF COURSE he is going to write in his Diary how much he thought Bradley made the wrong call, and how if he could have been there maybe Sternberg would still be alive...not knowing that Sternberg was probably dead over an hour before he was re-called.
So I can easily see why people might think he was a coward, but they are not looking at the bigger picture. Lets say there was 800-1000 Sioux, and his command was under 400 with attachments. If his mission was to hold Fort C.F. Smith then clearly his head was in the right place. He did not think with emotions, and made the right call...which is what a good leader does. Do any of us really think he was okay with knowing that the entire detail was going to be wiped out? The fact that it was not wiped out should even more give credit to the right call. He did say that Sternberg could handle it...and before he bought it he was taking care of business.
There where three losses that day, its really hard when looking at those numbers to say he was a coward...what if he made a hasty decision and just rushed out there? He sent out 20 Cavalry troopers out there to recon the area and they were hit about 1 Mile from the fort, surrounded...and narrowly made it back. What if he instead sent the relief column up without that recon...how many more would have died other than three?
He made the right call. Perhaps some of the people at the time, including General officers felt that he should have just charged in there and tried to save the day...I think any day where you can estimate killing 13-45 and wounding double that of your enemy, losing only there, when they have such outrageous odds against them...that is a GOOD day.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 1, 2012 8:45:54 GMT -6
rangersmith: I think you are, with this last post, once again using the tactic that started this whole mess in the first place to whit:
Rangersmith I do not wish to discuss the fact that someone said you beat your wife, as it would tarnish your reputation.
In that sentence just what do you think the listener would key in on, the allegation that you beat your wife, or my tag on the end that I won't discuss it because it would tarnish your reputation? I think you would agree that it would be the former, not the latter. That is what Dark Cloud objected to in the first place, not what you said, but the manner of the saying. I happen to agree with him on this.
Now he is a hard man, who I have had run ins with many a time, and more than a few times was lucky to get away with my ass intact. He is also fair. Not always right, but fair. He is especially attuned to critical comments of a personal nature are made against people no longer alive to defend themselves.
The bottom line here I think is that Bradley was in command. He made the decisions. He had to live with those decisions right or wrong. The re-litigation of who thought what about those decisions have no bearing. It is the decision itself that must be examined and each must judge for himself the right or wrong of the matter without placing labels on the mans character. directly or indirectly.
|
|
|
Post by rangersmith1867 on Jul 1, 2012 14:19:07 GMT -6
Agree with him all you want, I am not going to leave out what others have said about the man when we are discussing him. People are smart enough to draw their own conclusions, and if I left out things like that and just taught people based one how I view a situation...then I am not doing my job as an interpreter.
I said what others opinon of him was, and I said what my opinion was. So its not like I made it up, others said that...not me. My opinion was he did the right thing, which I have stated many times. I fail to see where I am doing anyone an injustice by saying the whole story, and allowing others to draw their conclusions.
If someone said that they did not want to talk about me beating my wife, because it would tarnish my reputation and then followed it up with "I know enough about the situation and the man enough to say that I personally do not think he beats his wife" is a little different than just saying you don't want to talk about it. Also this was not like it was unsolisited information, these men were asked about the battle and said they did not wish to discuss it, and maybe two of them suggested the reason why...because he MAY be seen as a coward.
I don't see why you and Dark Cloud find fault in me presenting opinions of other officers about the man. Should I just in the future leave out officers opinons of other officers?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 1, 2012 14:36:55 GMT -6
Well I tried. You do what you damned well please in the future, but then don't be surprised or felt victimized when others return the favor. It is a two way street you know, and the getting is much worse than the giving.
This is not about Dark Cloud or anyone else except you. I am saying that I think your approach to this subject matter is wrong. Further I am saying that you are doing a disservice to those who might listen to you during your interpretations, and to Bradley himself. I have already illustrated how loose words can destroy a person, and if you leave your audience with the impression by your words or actions that this man was or was thought to be a coward, you have not only wronged the man, but done a disservice to your audience as well. Present the facts. You are diluting those facts with opinions of people, many of whom were not present. Your audience is smart enough to digest those facts and draw their own conclusions. Now if you don't understand what I am saying perhaps it is you that require an interpreter.
In the interpretation of events your view of the situation is not worth a bucket of spit. Your job is to present THE SITUATION from a neutral perspective, nothing more, nothing less.
Consider what you would say if Bradley's great great grandson or daughter was in your audience. Would you say these same things? Do you know they are not?
PS: I am going to refer you to the case of Colonel Paul Freeman, 23rd Infantry, as an example of what this type of loose talk can do to an honorable and good man. Rumor, unfounded accusations, charges of cowardness, and the like nearly ruined his good name and him, and all he did was do the right thing and save his regiment, when others did very foolish things and had theirs destroyed. Thankfully there were people who investigated these charges and found them to be just what they were gossip of the worst sort and Freeman was completely cleared, and those who were so contemptable as to spread rumors and such paid a great price for their folly and lack of judgment, including a Major General. Freeman was to be their scapegoat and it turned around and bit them in the ass. Google Chongchon River or Chinaman's Hat for the background, and read Appleman or Blair for the details.
|
|
|
Post by justvisiting on Jul 1, 2012 15:27:31 GMT -6
Well I tried. You do what you damned well please in the future, but then don't be surprised or felt victimized when others return the favor. It is a two way street you know, and the getting is much worse than the giving. This is not about Dark Cloud or anyone else except you. I am saying that I think your approach to this subject matter is wrong. Further I am saying that you are doing a disservice to those who might listen to you during your interpretations, and to Bradley himself. I have already illustrated how loose words can destroy a person, and if you leave your audience with the impression by your words or actions that this man was or was thought to be a coward, you have not only wronged the man, but done a disservice to your audience as well. Present the facts. You are diluting those facts with opinions of people, many of whom were not present. Your audience is smart enough to digest those facts and draw their own conclusions. Now if you don't understand what I am saying perhaps it is you that require an interpreter. In the interpretation of events your view of the situation is not worth a bucket of spit. Your job is to present THE SITUATION from a neutral perspective, nothing more, nothing less. Consider what you would say if Bradley's great great grandson or daughter was in your audience. Would you say these same things? Do you know they are not? Hey guys, please remember that the original thread was started by Ephraim based upon an article by Hilyer? who did the insinuations. Ranger has given us documentary sources and states that he agrees (while doesn't like) the choices Bradley made. Ephraim nailed it by explaining that Bradley was on the investigative committee to determine what happened to Fetteman. Be good folks, Billy-who may have to quit justvisiting to beat sense into some folk's heads.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 1, 2012 15:46:23 GMT -6
Billy: We have all been down this road before, both here and other places. Do we need any more talk of cowards, drunks, thieves, shirkers, and such?
As long as people discuss these things there will be the distraction of someones, largely after the fact, opinion of character and personal conduct. We have seen friends made and lost over these things. I am sure that Bradley's experience investigating Fetterman did enter into his decision process. He would be less than human and less than smart if it had not. Perhaps other previous experiences did as well. Those are the things of interest here I think, fruit ripe for the picking in healthy discussion. I cannot for the life of me find where repetition of LT Snuffy's opinion of character has any bearing on this issue. If LT Snuffy felt strong enough about a possible case of cowardness or deriliction against Bradley, it would be his duty to prefer those charges. As it is, we have water cooler gossip tarnishing a man's reputation, and to what purpose.
|
|
|
Post by justvisiting on Jul 1, 2012 15:58:36 GMT -6
Billy: We have all been down this road before, both here and other places. Do we need any more talk of cowards, drunks, thieves, shirkers, and such? As long as people discuss these things there will be the distraction of someones, largely after the fact, opinion of character and personal conduct. We have seen friends made and lost over these things. I am sure that Bradley's experience investigating Fetterman did enter into his decision process. He would be less than human and less than smart if it had not. Perhaps other previous experiences did as well. Those are the things of interest here I think, fruit ripe for the picking in healthy discussion. I cannot for the life of me find where repetition of LT Snuffy's opinion of character has any bearing on this issue. If LT Snuffy felt strong enough about a possible case of cowardness or deriliction against Bradley, it would be his duty to prefer those charges. As it is, we have water cooler gossip tarnishing a man's reputation, and to what purpose. Lt. Shurley. I'm simply stating that folks are taking the thread's name, started by someone else, and overlaying it upon Ranger. Ranger is obviously not a great Bradley fan but understands, at least based upon what I read, that he did not act in cowardice but simply exercised command restraint. A corollary of this may be found in Eisenhower's refusal to allow Dever's army to cross the Rhine at Strasbourg. Eisenhower is genuflected upon while few know that the war could actually have been over months sooner without an Ardennes offensive by the Germans. Billy
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 1, 2012 16:21:41 GMT -6
Not at all Billy. The thread was litigated, well I think, and put to bed years ago. For me this is a case of method not message. I don't care what he privately thinks pro or con. He is entitled to any view he wishes to have, and agreement with me or anyone else is immaterial. That is not, nor was it ever the issue. I feel that trashing the dead, directly or indirectly serves no purpose. That's all, nothing more.
Southern France has always been a mystery to me. Devers and Bradley never got along well. Eisenhower was in the middle, and to tell you the truth on the surface of it it looks like he blew the call. What makes me hesitate a bit is the logistical situation. As you know it was always touch and go troughout 44-45. There was a lot of distance involved, and there were critical shortages of replacements in combat divisions, especially of basic riflemen. Divisions in the States were being stripped and still there were not enough. Before I jump completely off that cliff I would like to have a look at logistics that might not be able to support such a move.
LT Shurley is on leave and Private Snuffy got a battlefield commission
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jul 1, 2012 19:33:52 GMT -6
I don't know much about this fort, the fight, or Bradley, well actually nothing, but I think you have to put the post commander's role in perspective. I would assume he had a unified command of both infantry and cavalry. The cavalry and infantry units would have their own senior command structure more than likely. But for sure, each company had it owns commanding officer. It would not be the post commander's duty to go out leading small detachments, company size units, and even multiple company maneuvers unless they were on a particular campaign or other large unit movement. The post commander doesn't lead patrols either. That is for Lieutenants and Captains to do and any larger group then a major. So I don't think the fact that Bradley only left the post three times or so doesn't carry any weight and credit with me regarding his bravery or cowardice. Sounds to me like coffee coolers really grasping for straws. By the way, welcome Rangersmith. Say hello to Yogi and Booboo for me while you are at the Jellystone. Keep a watch on the picnic baskets. bc
|
|