|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 1, 2009 15:07:34 GMT -6
yeah right excuses again. It happened because your "heroes" run into a village with children, women and livestock. The favorite habit of that great guy of yours, coward GAC and his brave deeds. As long as the army stayed out villages indians go for individual pride into battle and don't matter the global outcome. Rosebud was won by the NDN's in their opinion. The result was retreat of the whites and terrific deeds of bravery. The stupidness of your master was that he once again went for the village, like in the old days hoping for a washita renewal urged by his presidency desire. Now he had a summercamp gathering and they were not sleeping, for once ... There were no indians leaders giving orders. the only orders were let's stay together this summer. They were all figthing for their families, shouting running counterattacking. 4 cheyennes held of your troops no leaders needed.
|
|
|
Post by galderton on Jul 1, 2009 18:57:12 GMT -6
Wolfgang...a little harsh don't you think? Custer didn't even know about the Rosebud! All credit to the Indians for standing their ground this time and that is what caught Custer off guard. It had nothing to do with the presidency, or his ego, but had everything to do with winning victory! However, the Indians won because they had sheer numbers. It had nothing to do with weapons, or tactics, but they overwhelmed Custer with numbers. Just as the Union had done so the Confederacy 10 years earlier.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 1, 2009 20:41:43 GMT -6
There were no indians leaders giving orders. the only orders were let's stay together this summer. They were all figthing for their families, shouting running counterattacking. 4 cheyennes held of your troops no leaders needed. So why were there war chiefs? Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 1, 2009 20:44:53 GMT -6
Wolfgang...a little harsh don't you think? Custer didn't even know about the Rosebud! All credit to the Indians for standing their ground this time and that is what caught Custer off guard. It had nothing to do with the presidency, or his ego, but had everything to do with winning victory! However, the Indians won because they had sheer numbers. It had nothing to do with weapons, or tactics, but they overwhelmed Custer with numbers. Just as the Union had done so the Confederacy 10 years earlier. I have to certainly disagree with this theory. Numbers =made no difference=, to either the Civil War or the Indian Wars. It was about leadership, and tactical decisions, period. Numbers are just one of many factors, all of which good leaders take into account and win regardless. It mattered not one whit if there were 1,500 Warriors or 4,500 Warriors...the outcome would be exactly the same with the same cavalry officer decisions, is my firm position. And if Grant won because he wore down Lee enough to finally get a decisive battle at Five Forks, it was only because the Southern leadership finally could not make the correct tactical decisions to defeat Grant, of which they had several opportunities. It was about the leaders, not the numbers. The South failed because it was outgeneraled, not outnumbered. Clair
|
|
|
Post by galderton on Jul 2, 2009 7:30:22 GMT -6
It was about the leaders, not the numbers. The South failed because it was outgeneraled, not outnumbered.
I totally disagree with you on this point. It WAS all about the numbers. During the final years of the Civil War when Grant was in charge, there was no significant tactical genius on his part! He simply kept pounding away at the south knowing that they could not replace their losses. Cold Harbor, Spotsylvania, etc..... it was simply numbers. The south could not match their material or physical prowess. Simply numbers..... At the Little Big Horn, I agree that there were tactical mistakes that Custer made, but the overwhelming numbers of Indians on Last Stand Hill put the final nail the coffin. Numbers matter.....it did in the Civil War and it did in Montana...
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 2, 2009 8:25:05 GMT -6
<It was about the leaders, not the numbers>
Then why did many military men say they did not have enough forces to go into Iraq? Why did so many generals tell politicians that the numbers were not sufficient (and they were right!)
Why do law enforcement officers always want to have over-whelming numbers when dealing with criminals?
In sports it's who has the most runs, TDs, baskets, goals, etc. that decides who wins.
I think numbers do matter . . .
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 2, 2009 8:33:14 GMT -6
Numbers mater in the degree of the consequences of tactical mistakes. Smaller forces can beat larger forces so numbers alone are not the issue. One of my issues is that the soldier must be trained and disciplined for the actions they engage in battle. My personal belief is that in close quarter battle while mounted the Indians were superior in horsemanship and weapon systems. By that I mean that statistically the average or mean of skills was higher among the Indians. Certainly there is overlap at both ends of the bell shape curves for a soldier to be better or and Indian to be worse but the mean of the Indians data was significantly better in those skills. Tactically the cavalry would have wanted to avoid CQB.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 2, 2009 9:05:22 GMT -6
I think in most cases modern armies want to be able to kill from as far as distance as possible. The closer you are to an opponent the better chance of personal injury and/or death.
In "less modern times" when there were no fire arms close-quarter combat was the norm and it was gruesome (not that modern warfare is not) but when your weapons are axes, lances, clubs, swords, etc., the wounds are horrific and usually death was not quick.
In Indian culture Indian-on-Indian warfare was a game for honor, trophies, and status and success was based on daring deeds and not so much on killing.
Whether Indians would have used "germ warfare" against an enemy is not known . . . but it would not be very honorable nor could you bring home a trophy if someone died miles away from you from a disease.
However, in desperate times and if the means were available to Indians . . . who knows.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 2, 2009 9:40:30 GMT -6
I totally disagree with you on this point. It WAS all about the numbers. During the final years of the Civil War when Grant was in charge, there was no significant tactical genius on his part! He simply kept pounding away at the south knowing that they could not replace their losses. Cold Harbor, Spotsylvania, etc..... it was simply numbers. The south could not match their material or physical prowess. Simply numbers..... At the Little Big Horn, I agree that there were tactical mistakes that Custer made, but the overwhelming numbers of Indians on Last Stand Hill put the final nail the coffin. Numbers matter.....it did in the Civil War and it did in Montana... It's cool to disagree. <g> I do think that Grant was a better tactician that most give him credit for, but his army was not capable of doing much more than he did. The genius of Grant was in accepting his army's limitations, and recognizing hs enemy's weaknesses, and getting the job done by matching his strengths against their weaknesses. Lee had a fine army going into the Wilderness...that battle, and Spots right on top of that, destroyed the Army of No. VA...not in numbers, but by killing its leaders and ruining its regiments. After Spots it was never capable of offensive action again. Lee was entrenched. Had he been able to make competent counter attacks, he could have held out forever. That he was beaten in battle at Five Forks, the fight that actually ended the Confederacy, shows not superiority of numbers for the Union, but pure better leadership by the Union commanders in that fight over their Confederate counterparts. Numbers matter, but no more than logistics, technology, terrain, weather, civil considerations, etc...it is just another factor, and in itself, NEVER decides battles. Good leadership wins even when it is outnumbered, or has worse weapons, or its Soldiers are more tired or more hungry. That is why we pay the Generals the big bucks. NO EXCUSE for Confederates to say they were beaten by superior numbers...that is just a cop out, in my book. They were defeated by superior leadership. If the Southern generals had been better than the Union ones in 1865, they should have won the Civil War and been an independent country today, is my position. Same principle for LBH, to stay on topic. <g> Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 2, 2009 9:46:01 GMT -6
<It was about the leaders, not the numbers> Then why did many military men say they did not have enough forces to go into Iraq? Why did so many generals tell politicians that the numbers were not sufficient (and they were right!) We had more than enough forces to destroy the Iraqi Army...the only thing the Army complained about was not having enough forces to ensure a rebellion did not ensue...you have to have a presence to keep insurgents from building up. Evenso, you see that we did figure out how to do the job, using great leadership and great Soldiers, with only half the Soldiers the Army said it needed. I agree completely with Steve's assessment as to the importance of numbers. For one, they allow you to overcome mistakes. So you like to have "overkill" if you can, to make up for any problems that perhaps half the force should be able to handle. It's "insurance." But if all your leaders are absolutely perfect and make no mistakes, you can get by with a small fraction of the force you might think you would need to get any military or police job done. The US soccer team recently beat the number one team in the world, Spain, even though in the last couple minutes it played with a man short. We were simply better than they were, that day...we didn't need superior numbers. We agree that they DO matter....all I'm saying is that they are but one consideration in a formula for success among many, and that the most important factor is almost always leadership decisions, because they can take into account to mitigate other factors you may be weak in. Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 2, 2009 10:05:01 GMT -6
There are times when you lose as when you make mistakes (physical/mental) then there are times when you get beat even though you did everything right.
It's one thing to get beat fair & square and another when you lose due to your own failings.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 2, 2009 11:23:58 GMT -6
There are times when you lose as when you make mistakes (physical/mental) then there are times when you get beat even though you did everything right. Hmmm...when do you lose when you do everything right? I guess if you are set up for a task that cannot be accomplished with the resources at hand. In our case here, it goes back to the argument that just because of numbers, there is no way the 7th Cavalry was going to accomplish its mission that day, or even that Custer's battalion was going to survive. I don't see any rational basis for making this assumption, though...it presumes FAR too much importance to raw numbers. Novices can do that, but not professionals, in any field...saying it is mainly about being outnumbered is far too simple. Yes, I agree. My position is that the 7th Cavalry lost because of its own failings, AND because the Warriors were good enough to take advantage of those failings. If neither of these is present, the bloodletting of the 7th doesn't happen, is what I'm saying...and it has little to do with numbers, you see. Now where I acknowledge numbers matter here is that on the lower side, the cavalry does not have enough numbers to make up for many mistakes...more than just a couple and you are in big trouble, due to your lack of numbers. And on the superior side, the Warriors have more than adequate numbers, along with their aggressiveness partly caused by those numbers, to take advantage of the cavalry mistakes. So here, I think, we can agree where numbers were an important factor to the outcome. Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 3, 2009 11:07:26 GMT -6
Then we need to know who made mistakes and when the mistakes were made.
At one point do the dominoes start falling for the 7th?
(Off post, but still a numbers "thing") As for numbers the defenders of the Alamo was vastly outnumbered and were in a fortified positioned yet lost with no survivors.
At Rourke's Drift British soldiers were vastly outnumbered and in fortified position yet held out and survived.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 3, 2009 12:42:26 GMT -6
(Off post, but still a numbers "thing") As for numbers the defenders of the Alamo was vastly outnumbered and were in a fortified positioned yet lost with no survivors. The American defenders made serious mistakes; the Mexicans didn't. Evenso, the leadership decision here was whether to defend, or not...they could have withdrawn if survival was the main objective. But it wasn't...they were supposed to delay the Mexican Army in their invasion of Texas to give the Texans time to muster their main army. And this they did, so they WON the Battle of the Alamo, because they gained their objective. Note also that there were only no survivors because the Mexicans massacred the men who surrendered and the wounded. Yep...and given better leadership, perhaps the Americans could have, as well. But survival was not the objective at Alamo. Clair
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 4, 2009 16:12:22 GMT -6
One of my issues is that the soldier must be trained and disciplined for the actions they engage in battle. My personal belief is that in close quarter battle while mounted the Indians were superior in horsemanship and weapon systems. By that I mean that statistically the average or mean of skills was higher among the Indians. Certainly there is overlap at both ends of the bell shape curves for a soldier to be better or and Indian to be worse but the mean of the Indians data was significantly better in those skills. Tactically the cavalry would have wanted to avoid CQB. AZ Ranger YES
|
|