|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 29, 2008 13:24:48 GMT -6
Yes. It was a way to avoid discussing the inferior product we had with the AOP. Grant recognized it immediately when he arrived at the AOP and saw the officers were infected by the myth. Then, they won a lot more with a lot more. Not saying Lee was bad, but grossly overrated in history because it fluffs Grant (who would have none of it, ironically and honorably) and the Army.
Lee was what the media wanted Sitting Bull to be. That template, er, failed, so they tried others. But no buncha savages could wallop the 7th. Not in the script. Has to be an Evil Genius or a West Point Traitor (not hard to find after the CW).
Bear in mind, not a few good soldiers are over rated because it makes those who beat them look great to the public, which the press loves as much as the winning general. Montgomery never seems to have admitted that Rommel, his enemy inflatadoll, wasn't in Africa at all during El Alamein, because he had to have beaten the Desert Fox. This doesn't mean Rommel was bad, or not better than the opposition all else being equal, just overrated to make the defeat that much better.
Yamamoto's rep is a house of cards, really. Does well attacking by surprise with no war declared and unprepared enemy. Loses in most even fights from Midway on, and loses totally when on the defensive till his death. But he was the Other's Bin Laden: a Mastermind! Went to US colleges! Evil Genius! Japan arguably had better admirals (it sure had worse) that might have done better with what Yamamoto arguably wasted in his vanity. If the US started treating momentary incompetence (of which the first Admiral McCain was indisputably guilty) as reason to shoot failures (to encourage the others, Voltaire noted about Byng), we might have lost the war.
Key officers in the Navy, guilty of mistakes and failures early, became the real heroes later (Admiral McCain among them). It could be swept under the spin rug of fighting A Genius, and an awful lot of excellent officers might have gone the way of Short and Kimmel. So, thank god that did not happen, and a benefit of this deception template.
There is a compassion and courtesy about it unless it is believed and unqueried and taught as fact, at which point it becomes dangerous.
In my lifetime, Washington was called a great combat general and you could take entire courses on the Revolution and never meet the names de Grasse or Rochambeau but spend entire hours on the Delaware crossing and Lexington Green and no mention of Arnold till he became a traitor or any officers but Washington and Lafayette. Ethan Allan and other colorfuls, of course. Francis Marion. John Paul Jones, who mercenaried his way to imperial Russia and died in Europe, yet is still posited as holding the United States first in his heart, all evidence to the contrary. But France won Yorktown for us, bluntly, and after that, England had to call it in. But we call it Washington's triumph, which in some ways it was, and others not. He was a great President and leader, but others were far better soldiers, a fact of which he was jealous.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Sept 29, 2008 16:27:37 GMT -6
My guess is that if Lee had had the AOP he would have been in Richmond sometime around July of 61. Grant never beat him in a set piece battle and the draws they fought Lee really shaded them.Even in defeat his army withdrew in good order, You can only rate Lee against Civil War generals and only Longstreet might have come close.Lee in command of the Federal army would have ended the war in the first year.Grant in command of the confederate would have achieved the same result but in favour of the Federals.That is how good Lee was. Lee was good enough to be over rated Grant never was.And in warfare physiology is half the battle.
|
|
|
Post by clansman on Sept 30, 2008 6:15:39 GMT -6
darkhorse. I agree. Neither Crazy Horse nor Sitting Bull nor any of the other great leaders could ever be called generals. As you say they led by example. There was no order of command. If other warriors didn't want to follow them they didn't. As regards your Civil War I believe there are a lot of similiarities between that conflict and our own Jacobite Risings of the 18th century. Both conflicts led to family against family, brother against brother, spouse against spouse, friend against friend.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 30, 2008 6:58:15 GMT -6
There are some comparisons to the Jacobite risings, but not that many. Our CW was very much a continuation of the English CW, however, an actual culture war that the Cavaliers lost twice. Nevertheless, with that impressive record of total failure of hereditary oligarchs, we're to ooh and ah when they periodically emerge to stare manfully into the middle distance and say we need them again.
The Highland Scots and those further south aren't really on the same page through history, and the Catholic/Protestant issues aren't really defining or very clear, and they never really operated as a nation for long partly because of the romanticized clan system. (I'm a MacLeod) They were far less united in cause or enemy in 1745 to Culloden Moor than the Confederates, and the Confederates were less than a finely tuned acapella group. More a group of soloists with different record deals trying to select and perform only one song to win a contest.
And, the Culloden camp followers and ambulatory wounded were sent to the the Tidewater as slaves. So, the syllogism isn't really there as it is to England's CW.
Being Vikings, though, by unrequested genetic infusion, the Highlanders had many similarities to Native Americans. The Viking Warrior Manual and Spiritual Handbook had many similarities to, say, the Sioux. Life served as a vehicle to demonstrate warrior bravery and skill, and much else revolved around that to their cultural pain and eventual collapse. Heaven was a perpetual and probably chemically enhanced bull session of their accomplishments in those fields. Life would go to hell and the Giants would win and the world recreated by the One, an opening Christian missionaries lept upon. Rather Hindu, actually. Or just human.
It would not be surprising if Viking culture and Viking blood made its way into the Native American genetics and cultures; there's no reason periodic seasonal contact couldn't have been sustained. But more likely, a shared climate teased out the similarities.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 30, 2008 7:08:07 GMT -6
I believe that the Indians were to close to use indirect fire with a bow effectively. 45 degrees is about the best angle you can use for the greatest distance with a bow and arrow. As you approach vertical the arrow reaches the apex of it flight and stops then tumbles to the ground at terminal velocity from gravity.
So lets get the distance from which the Indians supposedly used indirect fire. Also does anyone think there is more than 2 % chance of a hit if the distance is acceptable for indirect fire?
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 30, 2008 7:19:33 GMT -6
Apaches could hit a man sized target at 100 yards with direct fire.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Sept 30, 2008 7:26:20 GMT -6
I would think that from 100 to 400 yards to be an acceptable range for indirect bow fire.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 30, 2008 7:29:51 GMT -6
No guess on percentages of human casualties, but raining arrows (or rocks or frogs) - despite the disciplined training over the years by wise Soldiers with WP approved suction cupped missiles in anticipation of just such an event - would probably incite meaningful movement among the mounts and cause stress to horseholder shoulders, and fingers.
Once horseless and supplyless on high ground with increasing but limited cover by corpse, it had passed well beyond the 7th inning stretch and the home team always has the last at bat. If needed.
But, that's true by direct or indirect, arrow or bullet.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 30, 2008 7:48:46 GMT -6
I would think that from 100 to 400 yards to be an acceptable range for indirect bow fire. Clair I don't think you can indirect fire at 100 yards effectively. At 300 fps what angle would you have to use? If the Indians are massed at 400 yards, get out of there. I think Henryville had as much impact as indirect fire from arrows. AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 30, 2008 8:00:11 GMT -6
No guess on percentages of human casualties, but raining arrows (or rocks or frogs) - despite the disciplined training over the years by wise Soldiers with WP approved suction cupped missiles in anticipation of just such an event - would probably incite meaningful movement among the mounts and cause stress to horseholder shoulders, and fingers. Once horseless and supplyless on high ground with increasing but limited cover by corpse, it had passed well beyond the 7th inning stretch and the home team always has the last at bat. If needed. But, that's true by direct or indirect, arrow or bullet. I agree anything impacting horses or horseholders would certainly induce stress to the horses. Regarding the percentage of arrows in indirect fire to have actual hits and be significant , I don't think they had enough arrows. Since there wasn't thousands of arrows on the battlefield how long did take for them to police the area of arrows. Then they needed to sort them out by owner since the arrows were not standardized. AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Sept 30, 2008 8:14:43 GMT -6
Just to raise some speculation; say 1,500 warriors of which 1,000 engaged the Custer battalion, 50% armed with bows and half of those in a position to give indirect fire gives 250 shooters. Say 20 arrows each and a one percent hit probability gives 50 hits. My guess, that's probably a high number as I'd suspect the hit probability would be some lower value, especially against troops in open order like a skirmish line. Firing toward a cluster, maybe one per cent doesn't smell too bad. However you cut it, if the warriors achieved 50 hits with indirect fire that has a pointed impact on the fight.
Yours,
Mike Powell
|
|
|
Post by clansman on Sept 30, 2008 8:56:16 GMT -6
There are two popular misconceptions about the Jacobite Rising of 1745. Firstly, it was not Scotland versus England. Many lowland Scots and some highland clans, notably the Campbells, fought against the Jacobites. Glasgow was fiercely pro-government and were so antagonistic toward the highland army that Charles Stuart had to stop his troops from sacking the city. Secondly, as far as the clans were concerned it was not about religion, although success would have led to the restoration of a Catholic dynasty. It was more about inter-clan warfare, much like the American Indian with his inter-tribal warfare. The Duke of Argyll and his Clan Campbell were probably the strongest clan in the Highlands. They were strong supporters of the Hanovarian government and through this had been granted huge tracts of land, usually at the expense of other weaker clans. They were much hated throughout the Highlands and the Rising gave other clans the chance for revenge. Any excuse to fight a Campbell was a good excuse. There was another reason the clans followed Prince Charlie. They had long been supporters of the Stewarts mainly because the Stewart kings, particularly James VII, had treated them fairly. Having said that, of 30,000 fighting men in the Highlands only 6,000, my own clan included, joined the Jacobites. The rest stayed neutral preferring to hedge their bets. As far as the Culloden camp followers and the ambulatory wounded were concerned, there were very few of them left, because they were slaughtered where they lay.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 30, 2008 10:32:22 GMT -6
Just to raise some speculation; say 1,500 warriors of which 1,000 engaged the Custer battalion, 50% armed with bows and half of those in a position to give indirect fire gives 250 shooters. Say 20 arrows each and a one percent hit probability gives 50 hits. My guess, that's probably a high number as I'd suspect the hit probability would be some lower value, especially against troops in open order like a skirmish line. Firing toward a cluster, maybe one per cent doesn't smell too bad. However you cut it, if the warriors achieved 50 hits with indirect fire that has a pointed impact on the fight. Yours, Mike Powell I understand your math but I don't think there was 250 Indians within indirect fire range. I believe them much closer and within direct fire and CQB range. I think we are differing, not you Mike, on what indirect fire constitutes. You can not see your target so if it something that moves why even try it. Lobbing arrows from a distance is not necessarily indirect fire and is what I would believe was most likely to have occurred. I believe their equipment was capable of delivering arrows to 400 or more yards. If there was 250 Indians delivering indirect fire than there had to be almost as many Indian casualties from this fire, I would think. There was no Indian organization/ plan for them to know how to avoid hitting each other and they could not possible know where the other Indians were located. AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 30, 2008 11:06:33 GMT -6
Six or seven hundred, it appears, were provided as slaves, although it's contested. No doubt Cumberland slaughtered all non-ambulatory wounded (and some escaped), but it would be typical if his viciousness didn't increase in memory after the bans and suppression had festered for a while. God awful, though, whatever degree it took.
I'm a MacLeod. The REAL Highlands are north of Loch Ness. Otherwise, we have to include people named Gordon as peer Viking descendents. "Beware our ferocious Beserker, Gordon!" Doesn't work. Back to rewrite.
Between Culloden and Sterling are tea sipping foothills for birdwatchers. On Skye, real men eat seals they swam down and killed with their own teeth. In winter. Under the ice. Big seals. Sometimes walrus. Even Orcas.
British readily compared Indians to Highlanders for much the same reasons. Highlanders tended to be bigger than Brits and they were vicious, not to say insane or drunk, fighters. Schlessinger at Beecher Island said the Cheyenne appeared "like Highlanders" out of the grass. Strong cultural imprint. The pipes had to be terrifying, like eagle bone whistles, and being left facing charging giants with huge Claymores swinging about the heads while you're trying to calmly load your inaccurate and complicated weapon had to have been character building.
However, we should start a different thread.
|
|
|
Post by clansman on Sept 30, 2008 11:38:21 GMT -6
I live in the "tea sipping foothills" and I am a highlander. The Atholl Brigade was in the forefront of all the fighting. And for someone who doesn't live here to say he knows where the "real Highlands" are is slightly laughable, no matter what surname he has. No offence, I hope. None taken here.
|
|