Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 16:28:58 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. For me, this is your best post to date and I have no arguments with it. You have stated and explained the position very well. Now to follow on from your post, why does Keogh get his butt slapped for failing to realize his flank was open but when it comes to Reno in the valley, everyone seems to suggest it was for GAC to see this gap? Are we holding Keogh to a higher standard or I am missing something?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 16:32:17 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 In fairness to him and his stated position, he was not a lone voice in suggesting this.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 9, 2015 16:36:41 GMT -6
Custer left them both hung out to dry, one did what he could to extricate himself and his command. One lived and saved some of his men, The other died with all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 16:39:46 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 I agree 100%. This is not to say they shouldn't be allowed express their opinion. Miles, a general of the time with vast experience, was entitled to give his opinion. They all had agendas, Miles, Reno, Benteen, Gibbon, Terry, Sheridan. Each one had an agenda when they spoke about the LBH.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 16:44:42 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. Not sure why you think this is going out on a limb. Agree up to the point where you say "Reno did it deliberately". Substitute Benteen for Reno and then I'm in 100%.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 9, 2015 17:13:19 GMT -6
Scarface: In a way my second post on this matter you quoted above, answers the question you asked in the first one.
When you are disputing an issue, having an open flank is more to be expected. Having both open is not out of the question either. You are fighting a push-pull for positional advantage. It is then up to your higher commander, the one that sent you in to insure that you have some means of cover. That is one of the many meaning of support, doing those things you cannot do for yourself,
This is altogether different from selecting the ground upon which you intend to fight and defend. The defender must make provisions for his own security. He does this by positioning, and not only in his selection of initial defensive positions, but alternate and supplementary positions as well where he is providing for both two ways to skin the same cat, and against the cat approaching from another direction. There is the factor of organization of ground in the defense, and disputing unorganized (by either side)ground.
A commander is responsible for everything a unit does or fails to do ---ALWAYS AND FOREVER. If Little Jack Horner, Spike Jones and the City Slickers, or Frederick Benteen did it, it was still Reno who did it, for he was the one responsible.
I admire fighting for what one thinks is right even though I think him wrong.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Feb 9, 2015 17:22:10 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 I agree 100%. This is not to say they shouldn't be allowed express their opinion. Miles, a general of the time with vast experience, was entitled to give his opinion. They all had agendas, Miles, Reno, Benteen, Gibbon, Terry, Sheridan. Each one had an agenda when they spoke about the LBH. SF,
What were the odds on Miles saying it was all a terrible fiasco by GAC and an abject lesson in failing to properly recon, concentrate forces and command his regiment........? You see the point.....?
WO
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 17:31:46 GMT -6
I agree 100%. This is not to say they shouldn't be allowed express their opinion. Miles, a general of the time with vast experience, was entitled to give his opinion. They all had agendas, Miles, Reno, Benteen, Gibbon, Terry, Sheridan. Each one had an agenda when they spoke about the LBH. SF,
What were the odds on Miles saying it was all a terrible fiasco by GAC and an abject lesson in failing to properly recon, concentrate forces and command his regiment........? You see the point.....?
WO
The point is the man was entitled to express his opinion. What I took exception to was QC (follow up post further clarified his position) saying he should have kept his trap shut. Regardless of agendas, allegiances etc, based on his authority and knowledge he had ever right to give his opinion. It may well be gibberish, but he had the right. Same as Terry and Sheridan. Should they have kept their traps shut too since they weren't there?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 9, 2015 17:33:35 GMT -6
Had he done that WO, the post named for Miles would not have had a nice beach. It would have been located in an alligator filled swamp in Waterproof, Louisiana.
There is Army protocol for all this, giving the dead an undeserved attaboy rates a beach, two a golf course, and three tennis courts and a skeet range. It is a real slap in the face when the fort named after you was established in 1941 to defend Cape Henlopen from the DKM Bismarck, after the RN got through with her. Great beach though and Thrasher's French Fries can be had nearby.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Feb 9, 2015 17:38:32 GMT -6
SF,
What were the odds on Miles saying it was all a terrible fiasco by GAC and an abject lesson in failing to properly recon, concentrate forces and command his regiment........? You see the point.....?
WO
The point is the man was entitled to express his opinion. What I took exception to was QC (follow up post further clarified his position) saying he should have kept his trap shut. Regardless of agendas, allegiances etc, based on his authority and knowledge he had ever right to give his opinion. It may well be gibberish, but he had the right. Same as Terry and Sheridan. Should they have kept their traps shut too since they weren't there? SF,
I am not sure I like the word "right" at all. Whatever they may have wanted, Terry and Sheridan were obligated to comment.
The point is that Miles was never going to be unduly critical of GAC, and I am not sure the court of public opinion would have wanted to hear that in any event.
WO
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 17:53:33 GMT -6
The point is the man was entitled to express his opinion. What I took exception to was QC (follow up post further clarified his position) saying he should have kept his trap shut. Regardless of agendas, allegiances etc, based on his authority and knowledge he had ever right to give his opinion. It may well be gibberish, but he had the right. Same as Terry and Sheridan. Should they have kept their traps shut too since they weren't there? SF,
I am not sure I like the word "right" at all. Whatever they may have wanted, Terry and Sheridan were obligated to comment.
The point is that Miles was never going to be unduly critical of GAC, and I am not sure the court of public opinion would have wanted to hear that in any event.
WO
You have very "right" not to like the word "right" ;-) So if he wasn't going to be critical of Custer, the next best was to critical of Reno and Benteen? That doesn't make much sense.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 9, 2015 17:54:07 GMT -6
Scarface: I believe it was you among many who either said or eluded to the notion that some officers during the RCOI kept their traps shut when they should in your view have told the complete truth, such as it was. You evidently condone though someone, not there and not in possession of the facts from speculating upon what happened. If one is bad, so is the other.
The duty of any army when faced with an event like this, is to immediately investigate, to find out what went wrong, and who was responsible. The Army never did that at the time, however it has been done in great detail in the last century, and it is the subject matter for both tactical discussions and those on leadership. The Command and General Staff College runs a staff ride every other year, on the battlefield itself, and each decision point is based upon the critical events that shaped the course of this battle. Most of my commentary is based upon that staff ride and the documents and research behind it. Most of my comments are completely in line with what the U S Army sees as tactical and leadership failures.
So any responsible officer should have ordered this as soon after the campaign concluded as possible. Instead all we got was silence from some, indignation at being wronged by yellow journalism from others, and a bunch of cheap shot artists who would pee their pants if they found themselves in the same situation.
LBH is one of the greatest learning tools in U S Army history. A tale told of what not to do.
What LBH does not need is to pay any attention to the contemporaries who were not there, have no idea what happened, and who only cloud the issue with their commentary, that is not based upon thorough post battle analysis.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 18:03:06 GMT -6
Scarface: I believe it was you among many who either said or eluded to the notion that some officers during the RCOI kept their traps shut when they should in your view have told the complete truth, such as it was. You evidently condone though someone, not there and not in possession of the facts from speculating upon what happened. If one is bad, so is the other. The duty of any army when faced with an event like this, is to immediately investigate, to find out what went wrong, and who was responsible. The Army never did that at the time, however it has been done in great detail in the last century, and it is the subject matter for both tactical discussions and those on leadership. The Command and General Staff College runs a staff ride every other year, on the battlefield itself, and each decision point is based upon the critical events that shaped the course of this battle. Most of my commentary is based upon that staff ride and the documents and research behind it. Most of my comments are completely in line with what the U S Army sees as tactical and leadership failures. So any responsible officer should have ordered this as soon after the campaign concluded as possible. Instead all we got was silence from some, indignation at being wronged by yellow journalism from others, and a bunch of cheap shot artists who would pee their pants if they found themselves in the same situation. LBH is one of the greatest learning tools in U S Army history. A tale told of what not to do. The joys of sitting in a cell phone lot at the airport waiting for a delayed flight to arrive..... Yes I did say that the officers at the RCOI held back and lied. I stand by that. I don't think you can equate that with Miles offering his educated opinion on what should or shouldn't have happened. Isn't he doing what you say the military does every year. He rode the battlefield, talked with officers, read accounts and provided his opinion. I don't see a differenece other than he came to a different conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 9, 2015 18:12:31 GMT -6
SF,
What were the odds on Miles saying it was all a terrible fiasco by GAC and an abject lesson in failing to properly recon, concentrate forces and command his regiment........? You see the point.....?
WO
The point is the man was entitled to express his opinion. What I took exception to was QC (follow up post further clarified his position) saying he should have kept his trap shut. Regardless of agendas, allegiances etc, based on his authority and knowledge he had ever right to give his opinion. It may well be gibberish, but he had the right. Same as Terry and Sheridan. Should they have kept their traps shut too since they weren't there? Everyone has a right to express his/hers opinion but a wise man knows when they should and when they shouldn't. It seems from looking at Miles history, he was not wise. Beth
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 9, 2015 18:19:16 GMT -6
I think you miss the point.
The point is that Miles had no way of offering an educated opinion. Educated opinions require education. Any dumb ass can ride a battlefield and talk to officers and read accounts. That is not battle analysis. There is no doubt about one thing, Miles never read a battle analysis, because there was none in his time. I wish I still had the bootleg copy of the C&GS staff ride adapted and used by the 3rd Cavalry when they were here. I had to return it, and have only my notes.
To make it short for you, at each critical decision point, you are presented with the situation, and asked for your actions and orders. You are then evaluated on those actions and orders. Had Miles or any other contemporary been subject to the process, there would be a lot less unhelpful commentary, and much more appreciation of what was done.
I am still waiting for any proof of deliberate falsehood at the RCOI. For a lie to be a lie is must be a deliberate attempt to deceive, and not just an opinion that you or perhaps I don't agree with.
A case in point read Fred's initial post on this thread, then compare it to the statement Benteen made about his thoughts on Custer's fate when Martini arrived.
The trap as a tactic is as old as time itself. Commit that to your diary Mr. Cohill.
I am also still waiting for your evaluation of which was the better air defense fighter platform the BF109 or the FW190. I know the answer by the way, for the German evaluations told me so, and not the rumor mill of contemporary accounts by Allied pilots.
|
|