|
Post by conz on Sept 26, 2008 13:37:53 GMT -6
Wild said it: "That line as indicated by the markers was never fought but suffered instantatious paralysis."
And you defended it.
Most Soldiers are heroes, even our belittled Reno and Benteen. You might even be a hero...I don't know you or your history.
I don't claim to be a hero, and neither need nor desire veneration. I'm self-actualized. <g>
But one of my jobs around here is to persuade the students of the LBH to see the Troopers and officers of the 7th Cavalry as members of a veteran and professional organization that could well carry out its country's missions, and was glad to do it.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by wild on Sept 26, 2008 14:18:35 GMT -6
This has nothing to do with nationality.The US does not have a monopoly of bravery or for that matter cowardice.These were soldiers ,any country's soldiers with the usual mix of human strenghts and weaknesses as individuals but together they formed a system under leadership and that leadership placed them in an impossible position and all systems fold when overloaded.1y can process 2x feed in 20x and it blows suddently. The myth does no justice to those troopers who bravely tried to do their job.It gives Custer the "get out" that the situation into which he placed his command was sustainable and but for any amount of excuses etc etc.
crzhrs Exactly
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Sept 26, 2008 17:49:38 GMT -6
"...paralysis..."
I have to wonder if this is not another one of those words that is conjuring different images in different heads.
Not necessarily meant to describe them standing frozen, wide eyed, wetting their pants and with huge snot-bubbles extending from various nostrils.
I see it as fresh out of options. Think fast but with no time to do so.
M
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 26, 2008 20:05:04 GMT -6
Nonsense. Didn't defend, didn't even address it previous because it's not a position held, and it doesn't gibe with my unoriginal theory of past MTC activity. Again, like with the note, you misread. In the kindest interpretation.
Even so, it would not be surprising were it true to one degree or another, because we have much information it's a not uncommon reaction to unpleasant surprise in combat and in civilian life. Freeze, fight, or flee. It's nonsense to pretend US soldiers aren't given to human reactions, especially that day at their level of exhaustion and the less than adequate training the 7th had had for the job to be done.
No benefit is given soldiers, living or dead, by false witness to their actual deeds. And the facts are, we have no ability to know at this point what were kindnesses accorded indicated by social code and cliche phrases and what were true recollections or fearful reupholstering.
Benedict Arnold was probably our best combat officer, and that doesn't change because he became a traitor to our cause. Especially in a nation where we bow to traitors like Lee and Longstreet, Jackson and Davis. But Arnold left no defenders here, so it's okay to make him an ogre, second only to Judas. But because Lee was good looking and had family who fought for us, despite his responsibility in killing more Americans than any other General, we forgive and bow. Because we adore Washington, he was in my lifetime puffed up as one of the greatest generals ever, because he was a good and savvy politician and man.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Sept 27, 2008 1:04:26 GMT -6
Just one further observation.What ensured that there were no survivors was military disipline.Their last act as soldiers was not to act as individuals and scatter allowing for some to escape but to hold fast and look for leadership.Were they unfortunare that there was no Reno among the officers?
|
|
|
Post by clansman on Sept 27, 2008 6:14:08 GMT -6
There was a similiar scenario here in Scotland during the Jacobite Uprising in 1745. At the Battle of Prestonpans trained government soldiers broke and ran before the charge of hundreds of yelling highlanders. Panic in warfare is a normal response in many fighting men. It is how you deal with it that matters.
|
|
|
Post by sherppa on Sept 27, 2008 7:19:37 GMT -6
Yes, indirect fire did play play a role in the defeat of the 7th at Last stand Hill and in the area of the Deep Revine. Your input and expertise have been of great assistance. (especially the maps posted by conz)
thank you conz.
Having said that unless there is documented evidence to the contrary let's talk actions of the individual Soldiers on the thread I am starting.
thank you,
sherppa
|
|
|
Post by conz on Sept 27, 2008 7:54:22 GMT -6
This has nothing to do with nationality.The US does not have a monopoly of bravery or for that matter cowardice.These were soldiers ,any country's soldiers with the usual mix of human strenghts and weaknesses as individuals but together they formed a system under leadership and that leadership placed them in an impossible position and all systems fold when overloaded.1y can process 2x feed in 20x and it blows suddently. The myth does no justice to those troopers who bravely tried to do their job.It gives Custer the "get out" that the situation into which he placed his command was sustainable and but for any amount of excuses etc etc. crzhrs Exactly I agree, crzhrs, that this is a condition of professionalism, not of nationality. That professionalism of the Regular Army manifests itself in discipline and motivation...the requirement to listen to your NCOs/officers and accomplish the mission. When such units break, they don't usually do so because they "see" a very threatening situation. They break when 1) there is confusion as to what they are supposed to do, and lose unit cohesion, breaking up their ability to fight together as a team, and/or 2) the physical (not as much mental) pressure becomes so great that they cannot possibly follow the orders they have. A combination of these two factors is usually what causes professional units to "break and run." And this running is not always panic...very good units run because it is the right course of action, and quickly rally to fight again. Good units that lose cohesion, as above, will come right back together and still fight hard if they can regain their "cohesion" and brief relief from pressure. The only way your model could work is if the battalion commanders under Custer did the same thing as Reno...ORDERED the men to "charge to the rear," and then they became confused, lost cohesion, and broke apart as a team, resulting in the "buffalo hunt" scenario. Do you think it is possible that Custer's units were ordered to run, then? Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on Sept 27, 2008 7:57:10 GMT -6
Just one further observation.What ensured that there were no survivors was military disipline.Their last act as soldiers was not to act as individuals and scatter allowing for some to escape but to hold fast and look for leadership.Were they unfortunare that there was no Reno among the officers? That is a very perceptive comment that I also agree with. Yes...if the command had been ordered to run, especially TO Reno's position, some percentage of them almost certainly would have gotten through and been part of his solid defense. Clair
|
|
|
Post by wild on Sept 27, 2008 9:49:11 GMT -6
Sherppa Yes, indirect fire did play play a role in the defeat of the 7th at Last stand Hill and in the area of the Deep Revine It is very unlikely that indirect fire was employed by either side in the battle.What people are describing as indirect fire is in fact the lobbing of arrows onto a visible target.Indirect fire is the lobbing of ordnance onto a target which is not visible.In other words hitting the enemy on the otherside of the mountain.This if it is going to be effective requires a spotter to spot the fall of shot and a signalling system by which he can signal alterations of aim.The Indians never developed this form of fighting and unforunately the 7th left their mortars with their sabres back at base.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Sept 27, 2008 9:59:15 GMT -6
Conz When such units break, they don't usually do so because they "see" a very threatening situation. As a general rule when the individual see that he has not got a snow balls chance in hell he will take to his heels.Your civil war is littered with examples of the finest units breaking and running.Self preservation is a natural instinct professionalism is what he gets paid for.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 27, 2008 10:54:15 GMT -6
Good units that lose cohesion, as above, will come right back together and still fight hard if they can regain their "cohesion" and brief relief from pressure.
The only way your model could work is if the battalion commanders under Custer did the same thing as Reno...ORDERED the men to "charge to the rear," and then they became confused, lost cohesion, and broke apart as a team, resulting in the "buffalo hunt" scenario.
Do you think it is possible that Custer's units were ordered to run, then?
That first statement is as close what happened for Reno either intentionally or not.
I have a hard time believing last stand hill was the preferred plan of Custer's on how to attack the Big Village"
It would not be unlike cavalry to move to a rallying point set by the HQ.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Sept 27, 2008 19:52:55 GMT -6
Conz When such units break, they don't usually do so because they "see" a very threatening situation.As a general rule when the individual see that he has not got a snow balls chance in hell he will take to his heels.Your civil war is littered with examples of the finest units breaking and running.Self preservation is a natural instinct professionalism is what he gets paid for. I disagree...do a survey of "finest units" that broke and ran without being shot at...just by what they saw. I doubt you'll find any. Study the breaking of the famous "Iron Brigade," I believe at North Anna...the event sent shockwaves through the army at the time, and was mentioned for weeks and months afterwards in officer circles. That was one of our finest units, I think most will argue, yet it went through hell and high water time after time after time, and was only a shadow of its former self when it broke and retreated as it attempted to attack across open ground under heavy fire. I doubt all the Confederates in Christendom could induce that brigade to break and run just because they suddenly appeared before them and charged at them. They would just pull down those black forage hats lower over their eyes and start blasting away... That's the way the 7th Cavalry was. Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on Sept 27, 2008 20:03:59 GMT -6
That first statement is as close what happened for Reno either intentionally or not. Yes...I think that is exactly what happened with Reno's battalion. I don't think the men panicked at all...I think they all followed orders in that "rout." Well, you can cut the difference between "attacking" and "defending" many ways. <g> We can't really tell, when the stands were taken on Calhoun and Custer hills, if Custer had given up on attacking yet, or if they were merely temporary defensive positions to sit a while while the situation developed. Anytime an attacking force has to either stop somewhere, or pin an enemy force, or protect a flank, it is "defending" even if higher command is still on the attack. Very common, but the best case for such a move would be Yates' squadron from Butler ridge near the Ford B back up to N-C or Calhoun Hills, and we DON'T see or hear much evidence for this being one of those "buffalo hunts," which is odd. The next best case for such a situation is retreating from Calhoun Hill toward Custer Hill. Yet so many men are found in "knots" around the officers of both L Co and I Co that they don't really look like panicked routs with buffalo hunting tactics either. So I'm not sure a case can be made for such an event on the Custer field. I allow that maybe the retreat of C Co from Greasy Grass Ridge to Calhoun Hill probably exhibits a bit of this. I'm not sure it is a good example for any panic, however, because if the tactical situation was what I think it was, the officers, NCOs, and men all knew that the only course of action was to "high tail it" back up the ridge. So I don't get a sense of men disobeying orders here, or that they were doing anything but moving as fast as they could up the ridge to their supports, their own fighting position having been made indefensible. Clair
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 28, 2008 7:24:00 GMT -6
How about chaos rather than panic?
|
|