|
Post by quincannon on Jan 29, 2015 13:43:14 GMT -6
No place I am aware of Beth and I have covered a good part of that field. It is much to broken and the concentration of massed fire in this manner is more suited to the open terrain of a Manassas, and the opposition being in orderly formations. Zulus were in such formations, Indians preferred cover, concealment, and infiltration. Another factor to consider is the Indian "mortar", the high angle suppressive fire of bow and arrow. Ask the French knights at Agincourt about its value. You do not mass against an enemy with this capability.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jan 29, 2015 14:22:10 GMT -6
QC, your comment about stating something should happen without first analyzing could it happen reminded me of a marketing class I took long ago when working on my MBA. The teacher posed a question to the class about what should company A do to solve a marketing problem. Quite a few answers came up about spend on ads, or do some market analysis, etc. The company's financials were available for all to see, so when I pointed out that the company did not have the funds available to implement any of the previously offered good ideas, the blank stares I got from the class were almost comical. I got an A from the professor. This scenario repeats itself everyday it seems. People forget to see if a perceived solution to a problem is actually possible, given existing circumstances. Scarface's ideas on how Reno and Benteen could have saved Custer, if only they weren't drunks and dawdlers/liars fits this flawed type of thinking perfectly. Colt, I don't believe in my short time on these boards that I have ever claimed "Reno and Benteen could have saved Custer". I have definitely claimed, and stand by it, that they did not do all they could to support him that day. Thanks Mark You ask so much of so few, but answer even less. I don't mind being ignored, mind you, I'm married. But, would you be so good as to answer the questions which I posed to you earlier, you may find your own answers!
|
|
|
Post by Colt45 on Jan 29, 2015 14:30:52 GMT -6
Mark, you may not have claimed Reno and Benteen could have saved Custer by direct reference, but your accusations against both men implies that they are directly or indirectly responsible for Custer's demise. You have also inferred that had Benteen bypassed Reno and proceeded directly north toward Custer, that somehow, those 5 companies would have been saved by 3 more arriving without the packs, as Benteen could not possibly have brought them with him if he were to arrive at Custer's location in time to prevent the complete annihilation of those 5 companies.
No actions taken by Reno or Benteen on the 25th of June, 1876, could have prevented the disaster at Battle Ridge and Last Stand Hill. It matters not whether Reno was drunk or not, nor whether Benteen dawdled or lied. As QC pointed out earlier, Custer was the sole architect of the disaster that befell him. He made it impossible for anyone from the other battalions to help him in any way.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 29, 2015 14:31:39 GMT -6
No place I am aware of Beth and I have covered a good part of that field. It is much to broken and the concentration of massed fire in this manner is more suited to the open terrain of a Manassas, and the opposition being in orderly formations. Zulus were in such formations, Indians preferred cover, concealment, and infiltration. Another factor to consider is the Indian "mortar", the high angle suppressive fire of bow and arrow. Ask the French knights at Agincourt about its value. You do not mass against an enemy with this capability. I had not thought of bow and arrow as mortar fire but I know how deadly it can be. I get bemused when I get a sense from some people that they think the bow and arrow were somehow like the toy Indian bows with the suction cup arrows we played with as kids. They weren't primative weapons like rocks and stick, they were very effective weapons. Thanks to movies and books like Mockingjay though younger generations have more of an appreciation for them. Beth
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 29, 2015 14:42:25 GMT -6
Beth: When someone directs direct fire against you it is a matter of their skill alone which determines if you will be hit or not. With indirect fire mortars, howitzers, field or naval guns of any time, it is a matter of not being the addressee when the package is marked To Whom It May Concern.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jan 29, 2015 14:49:09 GMT -6
Just a thought - the Sioux and Cheyenne were using arrows with steel points, not flint. c.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jan 29, 2015 14:53:56 GMT -6
Chris, you make a great point!
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 29, 2015 14:54:12 GMT -6
That is not a bit of comfort, either way, if one is sticking in you gizzard Chris.
For that terrain the bow and arrow handled with skill is much more lethal then rifle, repeating or not, in the hands of the average unskilled.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jan 29, 2015 14:58:33 GMT -6
Chris, also not pointed out that by this time, they often used matches to light their buffalo chips. That is the ones they were not using for the dip.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jan 29, 2015 15:00:41 GMT -6
Chris, you make a great point! Tom, That's going to leave a mark. Chuck, I was taking Beth's lead about new people reading threads later. Like some, (who shall remain nameless - Tom) I'm ill read but I'm guessing many don't know the switch from flint to steel came years before. Best, c.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 29, 2015 15:02:47 GMT -6
Beth: When someone directs direct fire against you it is a matter of their skill alone which determines if you will be hit or not. With indirect fire mortars, howitzers, field or naval guns of any time, it is a matter of not being the addressee when the package is marked To Whom It May Concern. I see the difference but sometimes in my brain I get a bit one tracked focused on say direct fire and forget that indirect would or could be happening at the same time. If the battle was a recipe, I am sort of at the looking at the ingredients and haven't gotten to mix. I'll get there and I appreciate everyone who is helping me. I know as far as historically correct and just about every other factor--acting, casting you name it that the "Son of Morningstar" series/movie is bad. Really bad, but I first love how badly the actor playing Benteen is cast and then has to wear that terrible wig. But the battle scenes help remind me that it wasn't like one of those cemetery tours where you go from place to place and people dressed in costumes tell you about their lifes. I don't know if that makes sense to anyone-- Beth
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jan 29, 2015 15:14:43 GMT -6
Chris, also not pointed out that by this time, they often used matches to light their buffalo chips. That is the ones they were not using for the dip.
Just a follow up.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 29, 2015 15:16:05 GMT -6
Chris, also not pointed out that by this time, they often used matches to light their buffalo chips. That is the ones they were not using for the dip. Groan
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jan 29, 2015 15:20:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 29, 2015 15:21:41 GMT -6
Following a recipe is a good description. I prefer one that describes battle as a symphony, where each part of the orchestra plays their own unique part, and the conductor places emphasis on each of those parts, by his reading of the score (situation)
Major Bigeard (Bruno his resistance Nom de Guerre)of the 6th Colonial Paratroops in Indochina, never carried a weapon in battle. He chose instead numerous FM radios that connected him with every one of his maneuver and fire support elements. He remarked later when asked about being weaponless, then being a general officer, that a personal weapon would be a distraction from his job of battle orchestration. He would be tempted to get involved in things that were not his business (a firefight) and fail in his duties of battle winning. I have always admired both man and advice.
|
|