Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 14:37:57 GMT -6
Since history and situations have a habit of repeating each other--is there another situation in any other war that resembles that moment on Reno Hill that we can compare how other real life people might have handled it. I know I can sort of relate to how people react under shock and stress when something absolutely terrible has just happened but my experiences not exactly the same as what was going on, on that hill The problem I have with anyone who says what should and shouldn't have happened when they weren't there is they are basically playing a mental war game and they seem to always forget the human factor. There are things that happen in our bodies during stress that will effect even the best trained. When and how we recover from them depends on many factors, including genetics. Just the fact that everyone who had traveled from the timber to the hill probably had had a massive adrenaline dump that would effect how they both act and perceive evens. There would have been overwhelming emotions, noise, confusion added to the exhaustion both from days of pushing through exhaustion, the battle and flight escape danger. I know people think that people trained to be in stress situations should be able to handle it but that isn't always true. When you are in a flight or fight situation, it is more than just a mental thing, your body chemistry changes to handle the mental and physical needs you have. Some parts of the body are able to function better (like in the stories you hear about people able to lift great weights to save someone) other though shut down--like the ablitity to write memories to the brain. It is a chemical reaction and has nothing to do with how brave or trained someone is. Beth Beth, We are talking about soldiers here, not Boy Scouts who were out collecting badges. The majority of the soldiers would have been battled hardened from their CW service. Seven companies remained, whether right or wrong, on a hill while five companies were massacred a couple miles north of them. Of course they and their actions are going to be questioned, as they should be.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 9, 2015 14:41:30 GMT -6
Scarface: I wish to put to bed all of this business about evaluations, good or bad. I will use Keogh as an example, but first I would like to restate, that there is no A-B-C-F grading system. There is only pass or fail. With the three people I cited above, Patton, Rommel, Washington they failed at the places indicated. You can evaluate each by the written record.
I and a few others here think Keogh failed by not conducting a mobile defense, rather than one of position. That is speculation on all of our parts so thinking in that we do not have a clue, nor does anyone else, as to the orders Custer gave Keogh. He may have said hold here until relieved. He may have said die in place to defend this ridge, he may have given him great latitude. He may have given him no latitude. He may have just said stay here, or said nothing at all. Therefore it is totally unfair to judge Keogh on doing one, the positional defense, when it is fairly obvious a mobile defense was called for. That is the same type of thing Miles was doing. Now
What we can judge Keogh on is the disposition of forces he made. Freddie der Grosse tell us that he who tries to defend everything defend nothing. Just looking at Keogh's dispositions, and the distances involved tell us that Keogh was trying to do what Freddie said was a no-no. It also shows that he either did not assess the ground for its defensive potential, or he did a very poor job of it. Freddie der Wagner reveals in his new book the GAP, which any idiot would try to cover. It seems Keogh did cover it, but at the expense of spreading his force too thin, therefore as part of the evaluation, he gets a pass for realizing the criticality of the gap but fails in not constricting his forces and providing all round defense. He failed in any event to provide for all round defense, and that was a no brainer seeing that his flanks and rear were as open as MacDonald's is open for business at 12 Noon.
Never think for one moment that I would castigate the performance of an individual based on my speculation as Miles did. I don't mind castigating anyone though for provable failure, and kick the dirty bastard to the curb for getting soldiers killed because of the incompetence of that performance.
There is only pass or fail. No A+'s and no D-'s. You do or you don't. When the door closes you are either inside our out in the cold, and it does not matter one damned bit if you got inside by the hair on your chinny chin chin. Inside or outside is how you will be evaluated.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 9, 2015 14:46:00 GMT -6
You bet your sweet ass I do. Unless he was there on 25 June he would have no idea of what he was talking about speculatively.
It is all about performance based upon fact as opposed to speculation based upon not there supposed knowledge.
Any comment he would make does not take into consideration the stress of battle. The worst of all was his comment on the timber. I would love to see him make good on that, with just what Reno had. It was bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Feb 9, 2015 14:55:52 GMT -6
SF,
You must treat the comments of Miles with the same caution/health warning as you would treat the comments of all other serving US Army officers at the time and place them in context......cui bono?
WO
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 9, 2015 15:02:26 GMT -6
Since history and situations have a habit of repeating each other--is there another situation in any other war that resembles that moment on Reno Hill that we can compare how other real life people might have handled it. I know I can sort of relate to how people react under shock and stress when something absolutely terrible has just happened but my experiences not exactly the same as what was going on, on that hill The problem I have with anyone who says what should and shouldn't have happened when they weren't there is they are basically playing a mental war game and they seem to always forget the human factor. There are things that happen in our bodies during stress that will effect even the best trained. When and how we recover from them depends on many factors, including genetics. Just the fact that everyone who had traveled from the timber to the hill probably had had a massive adrenaline dump that would effect how they both act and perceive evens. There would have been overwhelming emotions, noise, confusion added to the exhaustion both from days of pushing through exhaustion, the battle and flight escape danger. I know people think that people trained to be in stress situations should be able to handle it but that isn't always true. When you are in a flight or fight situation, it is more than just a mental thing, your body chemistry changes to handle the mental and physical needs you have. Some parts of the body are able to function better (like in the stories you hear about people able to lift great weights to save someone) other though shut down--like the ablitity to write memories to the brain. It is a chemical reaction and has nothing to do with how brave or trained someone is. Beth Beth, We are talking about soldiers here, not Boy Scouts who were out collecting badges. The majority of the soldiers would have been battled hardened from their CW service. Seven companies remained, whether right or wrong, on a hill while five companies were massacred a couple miles north of them. Of course they and their actions are going to be questioned, as they should be. Okay so SF is declaring that all combat vets who suffer from PTSD are faking it because as battle hardened, they should be able to suck it up. Maybe they just need Pattonesue commander to slap them around. The same would then go for every police officer who comes across and accident, murder or incident that still gives them nightmares. We won't go others like firemen or medical people who should be battle hardened but might just come across something that still haunts their dreams. Do you realize exactly how demeaning that statement is? This particular thread is about when Benteen arrives, you are thinking what happened further down the road. What did Benteen encounter when he arrived at Reno Hill?
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 9, 2015 15:09:36 GMT -6
WO,
I would say good. By the way, I have for some time been impressed by your posts, your straight forward answers and comments do honor to what appears at the bottom of all of your posts. The small print, if you will.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 9, 2015 15:15:36 GMT -6
Scarface: I wish to put to bed all of this business about evaluations, good or bad. I will use Keogh as an example, but first I would like to restate, that there is no A-B-C-F grading system. There is only pass or fail. With the three people I cited above, Patton, Rommel, Washington they failed at the places indicated. You can evaluate each by the written record. I and a few others here think Keogh failed by not conducting a mobile defense, rather than one of position. That is speculation on all of our parts so thinking in that we do not have a clue, nor does anyone else, as to the orders Custer gave Keogh. He may have said hold here until relieved. He may have said die in place to defend this ridge, he may have given him great latitude. He may have given him no latitude. He may have just said stay here, or said nothing at all. Therefore it is totally unfair to judge Keogh on doing one, the positional defense, when it is fairly obvious a mobile defense was called for. That is the same type of thing Miles was doing. Now What we can judge Keogh on is the disposition of forces he made. Freddie der Grosse tell us that he who tries to defend everything defend nothing. Just looking at Keogh's dispositions, and the distances involved tell us that Keogh was trying to do what Freddie said was a no-no. It also shows that he either did not assess the ground for its defensive potential, or he did a very poor job of it. Freddie der Wagner reveals in his new book the GAP, which any idiot would try to cover. It seems Keogh did cover it, but at the expense of spreading his force too thin, therefore as part of the evaluation, he gets a pass for realizing the criticality of the gap but fails in not constricting his forces and providing all round defense. He failed in any event to provide for all round defense, and that was a no brainer seeing that his flanks and rear were as open as MacDonald's is open for business at 12 Noon. Never think for one moment that I would castigate the performance of an individual based on my speculation as Miles did. I don't mind castigating anyone though for provable failure, and kick the dirty bastard to the curb for getting soldiers killed because of the incompetence of that performance. There is only pass or fail. No A+'s and no D-'s. You do or you don't. When the door closes you are either inside our out in the cold, and it does not matter one damned bit if you got inside by the hair on your chinny chin chin. Inside or outside is how you will be evaluated. A rather outstanding post. One of the best you have put up, Chuck. Great job! Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Feb 9, 2015 15:16:12 GMT -6
Beth, We are talking about soldiers here, not Boy Scouts who were out collecting badges. The majority of the soldiers would have been battled hardened from their CW service. Seven companies remained, whether right or wrong, on a hill while five companies were massacred a couple miles north of them. Of course they and their actions are going to be questioned, as they should be. SF,
Step back and break it down:
(1) 1 battalion (Reno) of 3 platoon sized companies had been mauled and routed. It had wounded, not just MIA/KIA.
(2) Another battalion (Benteen) had not been in combat, but the 3 platoon size companies were even more depleted in numbers. Benteen had no equivalent of the higher numbers that Reno had in French's M company.
(3) The 3rd battalion (McDougall) was in reality a single platoon sized company guarding a mule train. It had no offensive combat ability at all.
(4) How many of the soldiers were actually ACW veterans?
(5) We know that the 5 platoon size companies with GAC were massacred to the last man, but that is hindsight. To Reno/Benteen (1) GAC might have been winning as a result of Reno's advance guard diversion; (2) GAC knew roughly where he had deployed them if he needed to fall back upon them with the entire right wing and Reno Hill was a defendable position; (3) As a result of GAC unexpectedly ascending the eastern bluffs, GAC was placing his right wing closer to the approaching Gibbon column from the north.
WO
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 9, 2015 15:16:20 GMT -6
Those actions are only questioned by those who do not have a clue what combat power is, or some numbskull that can't count. Most of them, thankfully, are on the other board, where insanity rules the day.
Boy scouts and soldiers are made from the very same material. The only differential is age. I won all my battles with soldiers made of lead. That's what little boys with lead soldiers do. Commanders are handicapped by the fact that they must win theirs with soldiers made of flesh and blood. My lead soldiers did not deflower their britches with defecation, or dampen their pants by an uncontrollable bladder. My lead soldiers did not have to deal with a hand shaking from fear, or the loss of their best friend standing next to them. I do wish all wars were waged with lead soldiers, but they are not, and until then human ones will just have to do, despite their many failings.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 9, 2015 15:23:30 GMT -6
The problem I have with anyone who says what should and shouldn't have happened when they weren't there is they are basically playing a mental war game and they seem to always forget the human factor. There are things that happen in our bodies during stress that will effect even the best trained. When and how we recover from them depends on many factors, including genetics. Extremely well put. This may be the biggest problem in our comprehension of the battle and what went on. Even men like Godfrey did not understand the full impact of certain events. Only when Godfrey was ordered by Benteen to cover the pullback from Weir Point did he get close to Indians... and look how he reacted, look what he said. Yet Godfrey told his "second"-- Luke Hare-- the timber could have been held. Hare-- who was there-- said no, it couldn't. To me that is the perfect example relating to Beth's quote, above. And for my two cents, Nelson Miles was an ass. Benteen thought so: “Too much circus, too little brain.” Nicely done, Beth. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Feb 9, 2015 15:25:34 GMT -6
SF,
Like everybody else in the US Army of 1876, Miles had his own agenda.
Once you appreciate that, the only thing that most really take issue with was his description of the timber as a defensive position.
The rest is pure Mandy Rice Davies - he would say that, wouldn't he...?
WO
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 9, 2015 15:50:40 GMT -6
I am going to go way out on another limb here in Scarface's eyes, maybe some others too.
Reno did not defend on the skirmish line or in the timer either. That is just so much bushwa. There are only two places on that field where any defending was done, those two being in the Keogh sector and on Reno Hill post 1800 hours on 25 June until relieved.
What Reno did in the valley and what Custer did in the LSH area, was dispute an issue in doubt. Both of them got outdisputed. Defense requires a deliberate act of commitment to one place and neither Reno in the valley or Custer in and around that godforsaken hill made that deliberate commitment.
Keogh did make such a commitment and did it bad enough to lose. Reno did it deliberately on Reno Hill and did it just good enough to survive. One fails. One passes.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 9, 2015 15:55:36 GMT -6
Fred, the Nelson Miles comment was brilliant.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 9, 2015 16:07:44 GMT -6
The difference is that Miles was a competent commander with a big mouth with no basis for opening it on this occasion, and an ambitious agenda. He was a poor administrator, as the Span-Am war verifies.
They did name a fort after him though with a damned good beach, but only after better and less loud mouthed officers got theirs named for them. The Army has a way of sticking it to those they do not care for. Christ even McDowell got his before Miles.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Feb 9, 2015 16:15:32 GMT -6
I am going to go way out on another limb here in Scarface's eyes, maybe some others too. Reno did not defend on the skirmish line or in the timer either. That is just so much bushwa. There are only two places on that field where any defending was done, those two being in the Keogh sector and on Reno Hill post 1800 hours on 25 June until relieved. What Reno did in the valley and what Custer did in the LSH area, was dispute an issue in doubt. Both of them got outdisputed. Defense requires a deliberate act of commitment to one place and neither Reno in the valley or Custer in and around that godforsaken hill made that deliberate commitment. Keogh did make such a commitment and did it bad enough to lose. Reno did it deliberately on Reno Hill and did it just good enough to survive. One fails. One passes. QC,
Controversial post.....
I tend to lean towards Keogh was not committed to defending the southern end of Battle Ridge, although GAC could have easily ordered him to do so at all costs.
As you already know, I lean towards the Keogh sector being a fending operation that went horribly wrong via Harrington.
WO
|
|