|
Post by conz on Nov 6, 2007 10:11:32 GMT -6
For the record, I don't think this is a bad analogy...at the operational level I think it is accurate enough for Terry's plans.
Terry's maneuver wings weren't equal...one was slow, solid, and plodding, and acted as an "anvil." The other was fast and striking, and acted as the "hammer." That's how Terry envisioned it I'm sure...not tactically as if the field of battle would see both forces there together, but rather operationally, where the village would not be able to run from the hammer easily with that anvil in the way, so the hammer could strike it.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 6, 2007 12:19:21 GMT -6
For the record, I don't think this is a bad analogy...at the operational level I think it is accurate enough for Terry's plans. Clair, that isn't the issue. The operation can clearly be termed a hammer-and-anvil style operation. He used the term like it was de rigueur, and my point was simply that it was not a term in common usage-- if at all-- in 1876, and if it had come off, it would have been fortuitous anyway. Remember, Custer was sent out with 2 weeks of rations and forage (?) and many expected him to deal with the Indians all by his lonesome. Besides, Darkcloud has been howling for ages about proper term utilization. This was early indoctrination, that's all. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Nov 6, 2007 14:39:59 GMT -6
Besides, Darkcloud has been howling for ages about proper term utilization. lol...I guess when the Army ever agrees on terminology, we'll let DC know. <g> Even us professionals use terms somewhat differently, and more due to custom than by edict or doctrine. The term "advance guard" is a wonderful example of that. Give it to a dozen officers and ask them what tactical responsibilities entail to the commander of an advance guard and you'll get slightly different answers from each, I think. It would be interesting to find the origin of the term "hammer and anvil," if it was possible. Sounds like an old reference, but I can't recall if men like Xerxes, Alexander, Frederick, Clausewitz, Napoleon, Jomini, Sherman, or Upton used it. Sounds like a concept popularized to fight the Hun, though. <g> Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Nov 6, 2007 14:43:52 GMT -6
Apparently the hammer got hammered before it could do the hammerin'
"If I had a hammer, I'da hammer in the mornin'"
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 6, 2007 14:44:20 GMT -6
Actually, Clair, I think Bill DePuy coined that term. I will look it up, but unless I have it confused with something else, it's new and it came out of Vietnam.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 6, 2007 14:53:39 GMT -6
Conz, I'm wrong. He coined the term, "search and destroy," for that type of operation.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Nov 6, 2007 14:55:59 GMT -6
During the Civil War, General Grant would often say-if he can't skin,he can hold a leg while someone else does!
|
|
Gumby
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by Gumby on Nov 6, 2007 15:16:59 GMT -6
I just can't resist thowing my 2 cents into this thread.
Benteen always seems to get blamed for Custer getting himself killed. He was far from perfect but it is unlikely that anything he did could have saved Custer that day. Custer's fate was sealed as soon as he separated from Keogh's battalion. Maybe even earlier.
Saving Custer's bacon was not the goal of the regiment. The defeat of the village was the goal. That goal was probably impossible to begin with. It became a certainty when Custer split his command into so many pieces and failed to attack the village in a coordinated effort. It doesn't matter whether there were 1500 or 4000 warriors in the village. The largest group of soldiers to face the Indains at any one time (excepting the fight on the bluffs) was Reno's and Keogh's battalions at two different times. The odds were always 90 or so against 800 or more. This was at best. Out of 125 men we have 25% as horse holders who were not fighting. In Keogh's fight it is unlikely that more than two companies were heavily engaged at any one time. The warriors were free to attack his companies almost in tandem. This allowed for at least 200 to 400 warriors to attack about 25 men at a time. The soldiers were flanked and overrun. Keogh's battalion was almost certainly dead by the time Weir reached the Point named for him. Weir, who was a Custer man til the end, made no effort to go any farther as it just was not possible. He waited at Reno's position no more than twenty minutes.
The remnants of Reno's battalion could have mustered about 50 or 60 men with horses, at best, when Benteen arrived. The rest would have been left to the merciless Indians had Benteen not stopped to help. This would have given Benteen about 180 men in which to cut his way though to Custer, who started out woth more than 200. By the time Benteen gets there Custer would have had about 100 or less men alive. Benteen would have lost men in cutting his way through as well, if he could have. Now you have 250 men tops in the same predicament as Custer was in to begin with. There is no significant loss of warriors so why should we believe that there would be a better outcome. The pack train would not have caught up and would have ended up under Reno's command (if McDougall didn't frag him). There is little doubt that the whole regiment is wiped out piecemeal so that Libbie Custer can then blame General Terry or President Grant. Let us grow up and be realistic for a change.
Did Benteen tell some lies? Of course he did. Did he despise Custer? Of course he did. Was he to blame for Custer's death? Not a chance.
Why did Benteen lie? He was trying to save the career of an officer he didn't even like or respect, Reno. The man was by all accounts drunk on the bluffs and unfit to command a latrine detail. Captain Moylan was blubbering like a whipped urchin and Captain French was an alcoholic himself. Who is to command if Benteen doesn't? Benteen could easily have ended almost all criticism of himself by putting the blame squarely on Reno's shoulders. He just had to say that once he met Reno the Major assumed command of both battalions. My written orders were not specific enough to justify ignoring Reno's orders. He would have easily been exonerated of any charges. He never did that. His tail was covered. The lies were for Reno's benefit. Every officer at the Reno court covered Reno's tail as well. If you criticize Benteen for lying you must criticize them all!
Wow! That was a snoot full. Now I need a beer.
Benteen wasn't about to put in writing the real truth of Reno's behavior. He never did! He never admitted that Reno was drunk. Mathey and others did, to Walter Camp. But they made him promise not to quote them. He did leave it in his notes though.
As for the delicateness of the times, Moylan had no trouble describing quite bluntly to Custer's sister how mutilated Tom Custer and James Calhoun were (her brother and husband). Everyone lied about George Custer not being mutilated somewhat, the arrow in his penis (according to Godfrey). Even Benteen held that back! Benteen's later letters showed feelings for Mrs. Yates and Mrs. Custer (whom he wasn't fond of). Modern authors have tried to use that against him by saying he was just being two-faced. Benteen can't win with his detractors no matter what he said or did.
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Nov 6, 2007 15:25:30 GMT -6
Gumby-
VERY good summation. Throw your two cents in more often.
M
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 6, 2007 15:40:10 GMT -6
Y-e-a! Roberto! Absolutely, positively right on the money!
Nice to see you again and if we ever manage to get together, I'll buy the beer!
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
Gumby
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by Gumby on Nov 6, 2007 16:00:35 GMT -6
It tends to bother me when people have to try to find scapegoats in their efforts to make a martyr of Custer.
Custer took risks and was well aware of them in advance. He led from the front. He was an excellent small unit leader but a poor regimental commander. A regimental commander should find a location where he can observe and direct his battalions and/or companies. Custer failed to do so. He was so busy trying to be a battalion commander that he failed to properly perform the duties of the regimental commander. Had he placed himself and one company in the vicinty of Weir Point or some other high ground he could have directed both Reno's and Keogh's battalions and moved Benteen where he needed him when he arrived. The mission failed because he failed at his job.
That does not mean he wasn't courageous or heroic. He certainly was.
|
|
Gumby
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by Gumby on Nov 6, 2007 16:04:54 GMT -6
Hey Fred! I am looking forward to that drink. I tried to get up to the battlefield to see you this year but had some business to conclude at home.
I should have an article in the next Research Review. I am about to start another one. Don't know where it will go yet.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 6, 2007 16:05:05 GMT -6
Again, total agreement!
Oh, Bob, it's a shame you missed it. We had a great time. Sunday we went up Reno Creek from the LBH valley and got beyond the morass. Monday, we wandered around the battlefield, picked up the last stray, and met Richard Fox and his brother. Had dinner with them. Tuesday and Wednesday-- with the Fox boys-- we spent up and down Reno Creek, at the the Crow's Nest, all up and down Davis Creek, all around the battlefield and even into the foothills across the valley. Thursday we were back on our own, went to the battlefield again, then onto Sheridan, WY, and Buffalo, WY. (Had a great buffolo steak dinner at the Occidental Hotel and listened to the best-- and only-- live Bluegrass music I've ever heard. Then Friday we spent at Fort Phil Kearny, the Fetterman site, and the Wagon Box Fight site; more of that on Saturday, then back to the LBH.
It was a great time and these guys I was with were marvelous. "Bubbabod" and "Treasuredude" were two of them. You have to make the next one with us: 2009.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Nov 6, 2007 16:18:09 GMT -6
For the record, fred, I don't think the initial post could be described as "bombastic." You may not agree with the premise, but it certainly wasn't couched in inflammatory language.
I also see no reason to think that "lc" is anybody other than "lc." There are lots of people in the world with a wide variety of opinions, and I am afraid this board is getting paranoid about multiple identities. And he certainly has a right to list what he believes are his credentials for stating his opinion. And you are certainly not required to accept them or to agree with him.
Based on what I read at the other end of the link, Benteen did not describe any mutilation--he said the bodies were "as recognizable as in life"--which I actually find rather hard to believe, after three days in the sun. It also doesn't really gybe with the accounts by the burial parties. All he said about Sturgis and Porter was that their bodies "weren't recognized." I'm sure his wife had been around long enough to have a pretty good idea why they weren't recognized.
That the Victorian Ideal of the delicate woman who had to be protected was pretty much a load of crap was probably recognized by anybody who had had occasion to live with a woman who had married a cavalryman and set up housekeeping in an extreme climate, far from any sort of amenities, sometimes with only minimal necessities. Jennie Barnitz spent most of Albert's time in the Seventh back East; as far as I can tell, this was probably a good idea. She certainly loved Albert, but not the lifestyle. Benteen's wife had spent years out there with him.
From the tone of the letter, it seems to me that Benteen was totally ticked off and disgusted by the turn of events. There certainly doesn't seem to be much emotion evident in his account, but that may have more to do with his personal writing style than anything else. A lot of people wrote home that day and gave fairly detailed descriptions of what had happened. Frank Gibson's letter is far more emotional in tone, but Benteen did mention a number of his men by name, probably because his wife was acquainted with them.
Gibson also said, " Say nothing about what I am about to tell, you, but if it hadn't been for Benteen every one of us would have been massacred. Reno did not know which end he was standing on, and Benteen just took the management of affairs into his own hands, and it was very fortunate for us that he did."
Clearly there was some dissembling about what was seen from Weir Point. I have often wondered about that. But I agree that if they had advanced, there just would have been a bigger slaughter. The mistake was Custer's in attacking in the first place, but of course he assumed the Indians would try to run as usual.
I don't know if there would have been a better outcome if Reno had done his job in the valley better--held out longer. Some of the guys who were there thought he could have done, though I know dc does not agree with this. I think he could have managed the retreat a lot better. Maybe at best, if Benteen had tried to join Custer there would have been two groups of survivors forted up, but I think probably not--I think Reno owed his survival to Custer attracting all the attention.
There certainly was a lot of CYA going on afterwards--like him or not, Reno was a brother officer, and they all pulled their punches at the RCOI.
And, he may have been a competant officer, but Benteen just wasn't a nice guy, and frankly, I don't like him much.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Nov 6, 2007 17:11:11 GMT -6
continued this in Custeriana.
|
|