|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 23, 2009 10:11:21 GMT -6
This is worth reposting My Rifle: The Creed of a US Marine
by Major General William H. Rupertus (USMC, Ret.)
(written following the attack on Pearl Harbor) This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. My rifle, without me, is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will...My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit...My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will ever guard it against the ravages of weather and damage as I will ever guard my legs, my arms, my eyes and my heart against damage. I will keep my rifle clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will... Before God, I swear this creed. My rifle and myself are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life. So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace! |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 23, 2009 12:12:31 GMT -6
Yep...that's the grunt's attitude. <g>
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 23, 2009 12:16:47 GMT -6
Only hits matter. You compensate for marksmanship by increasing numbers of shooter and rounds put in the air, Where there is lead there is hope. Marksmanship to me is simply math. There is more hits per shots fired. So if marksmanship is poor increasing the number of shooters and/or number of shots fired will increase the number of hits. LOL...I love debating with a professional...but you still DON'T get it. <g> You are missing a critical part of that formula, is my entire position. What you have is not wrong, but it is incomplete. The REAL life formula is: "If marksmanship is better and the potential for hits increases, the enemy ducks down lower and you get LESS hits if anything, but certainly not more." My point refering to the modern military is simply a reflection on the argument everyone makes...that the Army and Marines (moreso) are so hooked on marksmanship, but it really isn't marksmanship that wins battles. Now the ATTITUDE that goes along with being a good professional marksman is MUCH more important to winning fights than the skill itself. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 23, 2009 12:20:15 GMT -6
"...the only reason we have rifelmen at all is to replace machine gunners when they become casualties from artillery..."Nonsense. The 'ultimate weapon' was, is and always will be an infantryman with his rifle. You pretty much just said, 'If all else fails.. call in the Infantry.' "When the objective absolutely, positively has to be taken over night..."M Hoo-Ahh! As we would say, and pound our chests. And rightly so. But I'm not backing off my statement. <g> I'll defer back to what I said to Steve, and say that the ATTITUDE of being a professional Soldier or Marine and the best marksman you can be is more important than the skill itself. And you want to be the best, of course...never know when you might get in a tight fight and you want to be your best. But it doesn't win battles...not today, and not at LBH. Custer didn't need the SEALS to defend his command or win the battle at LBH that day. He had everything he needed. The 7th Cavalry was plenty adequate to do the job. It was the officer's decision making that screwed the 7th, not any lack of skills of the Soldiers. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 23, 2009 16:24:39 GMT -6
I haven't studied Beecher's in a long time. I do recall though, that the main reason they survived was because the Warriors kept charging at them, but they kept killing enough of them, mostly at point-blank range, to stop each charge, so that they were never "overrun." A good example of a very small amount of firepower keeping away a huge horde of attackers without the discipline to simply ride through the lead and get into close combat with the outnumbered enemy. Clair No NO it was just pure luck or hazard like most of history. Only 9 indians died (according to the indians  ) and among them ROMAN NOSE sort of Crazy horse of the cheyennes remember allready those dog soldiers and arapahos were in it for sports and not for annihilation in the '60, why do you want to pursue action with such bad luck bad medecine. Pure hazard because they had 2 snipers dug in elsewhere from the main group (cut off buy accident actually) that the indians never noticed during the battle and kept on charging being shot at withot understanding where it came from proofs nothing only pure hazard or luck is major factorthis discussion about markmanship vs numbers becomes supernatural now i understand those cheyennes had Bullet Proof and Ice make medecine againts those supernatural forces if the Astonisher is right and Custer got shot right at the beginning anyway why bother they were lost like the Cheyenne without roman nose |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 23, 2009 18:30:59 GMT -6
if the Astonisher is right and Custer got shot right at the beginning anyway why bother they were lost like the Cheyenne without roman nose You don't understand the Army or Soldiers very well. Every Soldier has a marshal's baton in his knapsack, as Napoleon liked to say. <g> I'm sure Reno and Benteen would be very happy if Custer was shot and they could step up and take command...I doubt they'd worry very much. But really, if Custer was shot, there would be a little hesitation while the word got to CPT Keogh, the next officer in command, and he would step up and lead the attack on the village. Not that big a deal...happens all the time in the Army, you know. Gen'l Custer was not the whole Army, and the 7th Cavalry could operate just fine without him. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 23, 2009 19:08:25 GMT -6
The REAL life formula is: "If marksmanship is better and the potential for hits increases, the enemy ducks down lower and you get LESS hits if anything, but certainly not more."
So there were no visible targets and they just sat there and waited to be flanked and overrun?
Those piles of brass at Calhoun in what is consistent with a skirmish line were fired at?
Where were the masses of Indians shot that deterred the Indians and caused them to "duck down lower" or give up the fight?
It happened at Yellowstone. Enough horses and Indians shot to keep them away at a safe distance. At LBH the Indians closed and destroyed the whole battalion. They weren't afraid to close.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 23, 2009 20:24:18 GMT -6
So there were no visible targets and they just sat there and waited to be flanked and overrun? There were very few visible targets...it was an "empty battlefield," as they say, even with hundreds of men within a few hundred yards of each other. That's how it goes, before the close combat. The key then, is how did the combat become "close" under such conditions. THAT is what anyone's model has to account for. So when did the close combat begin on the Custer field? Many, if not most now, maintain that it was when C Co moved off Battle Ridge and charged on Greasy Grass Ridge, behind which hundreds of Warriors were hiding. The Warriors didn't go to the Soldiers...the Soldiers came to them! And THAT is the ONLY way the close combat began against Custer's wing. Without it, Custer would have survived that day, most likely. And you see, Keogh did not "sit around and wait." He advanced against the Warriors that kept popping up and sniping at the rear of L Co on Calhoun Hill from GGR. There were snipers all around...an annoying and nearly harmless trade of shots by heads poking up from the grass on both sides...Troopers and Warriors all lying down, only to be seen when they rose to fire. All fired during that long "skirmish phase" versus ephemeral targets so many Warriors explained about. What...you thought they fired 20-40 rounds at hordes of mounted Warriors charging up the hills at them? Grow up! (LOL...I'm sure you don't think so, but this "Little Big Man" image came to my mind. I think this IS the scene many nubile students of LBH have when they first read the story.)
They are too smart, and too undisciplined, for that. They won't take casualties...as soon as the bullets fly close, they are backing out, or dismounting and hugging the ground out of sight. Won't ever hit too many that way, no matter how sniper-trained you are. How many Indians and horses were shot at Yellowstone to keep them away, do you think? More than were killed at LBH? I don't think so. So you think that MORE Warriors were killed at LBH than Yellowstone, but that they were MORE likely to overrun Army lines at LBH, although they wouldn't at Yellowstone with even fewer casualties? Check your logic here...I don't get it. Maybe its just me...I can be thick headed, sometimes. <g> Clair |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 24, 2009 10:45:52 GMT -6
It was your point that marksmanship kept the Indians lying down and ducking. My point is that at Calhoun at least one Indian was not out of sight or they would not have fired and if it was only one that is really poor marksmanship.
Pvt Peter Thompson states he saw lots of Indians including those riding in the big wheel. Hardly the image of lying down in fear of the marksmanship. Certainly they were not afraid of the mounted trooper with revolvers.
The Yellowstone examples stands for itself. The Indians were advancing and the troopers fired killing warriors and horses. With somewhere around 4 to 1 odds in their favor they did not try to close the distance again. So the answer is enough were shot. My logic is simply this the Indians were sufficiently impressed with the troopers marksmanship on that day.
Since you argued terrain doesn't matter what allowed the Indians to close?
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 24, 2009 11:34:03 GMT -6
It was your point that marksmanship kept the Indians lying down and ducking. My point is that at Calhoun at least one Indian was not out of sight or they would not have fired and if it was only one that is really poor marksmanship. The HUNDREDS of Warriors that we KNOW were hit at LBH might not agree with you though, eh? If you think 50 named Warriors were killed outright that day, how many do you think, overall, were shot in some way or another? They rode in a big wheel in front of Reno, too...all these wheels were WELL outside effective range of the Trapdoor carbine, of course. If they weren't afraid of mounted troopers coming at them with revolvers, why did they "part like the seas" in front of Reno's messy formation as he rode for the bluffs? They would not DARE to oppose any cavalry formation from the front. They would only get close when they could come up on the rear of the formation. And revolvers, of course, can only be used in close combat. That would not make any Warrior "stand off." It sure chased them out of the way, though! Same Troopers, and same Indians, on our day. So? The Indians didn't close...the cavalry closed with THEM, both in Reno's fight and Keogh's fight...and also with Yates' fight (E Co). Until this happened, no Warrior could get close to any cavalry formation. The only place I think this didn't happen was the destruction of F Co. I think they went down under a hail of arrows...the only true "attrition" firefight in this battle. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 24, 2009 14:02:21 GMT -6
well I dunno but it does not seem the LBH here anymore but some allien space battle that does not look like the fight I imagined. I imagined dust panic retreat noise yells. The Discovery Channel is closer to reality as Conz channel i'm afraid. Anwyay if it happend your way it would take 2 weeks and not 2 hours. hey conz when you start your day you argue with your family over the heat of the toaster and the salt on you egg right away or you wait all day untill we show up?   |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 24, 2009 16:20:57 GMT -6
well I dunno but it does not seem the LBH here anymore but some allien space battle that does not look like the fight I imagined. I imagined dust panic retreat noise yells. The Discovery Channel is closer to reality as Conz channel i'm afraid. Anwyay if it happend your way it would take 2 weeks and not 2 hours. Exactly right...I don't believe LBH "looked" much like what most people imagine in their heads. A lot of empty, empty, empty,...little stuff here and there for the longest time, and then all of a sudden, WHAM...and its over before the officers knew what was happening to them. This last part is what most people think the whole battle was like. Who has time to argue with anybody but you guys?! This is where I get all my angst of the day out...<g> Really, when all you do is think about tactics in Afghanistan all day long, this is merely entertainment... Clair |
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 24, 2009 17:35:13 GMT -6
what most people imagine in their heads. A lot of empty, empty, empty,...little stuff here and there for the longest time, and then all of a sudden, WHAM...and its overClair you see you believe in alliens, look what you write ;D |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 24, 2009 18:52:00 GMT -6
you see you believe in alliens, look what you write ;D LOL...well, I HAVE seen a real flying saucer. I was about 10 or 11 years old, living in Pusan, Korea, at the time. Now I don't know if they were aliens, but it surely was a flying saucer that did things no aircraft I ever knew, then or today, could do. Every kid on our school playground, and the teachers, saw it. Everything came to a halt, and we just stared at it over the city. It hung for a while, then zoomed away over the ocean horizon towards Japan. Maybe they were Japanese aliens? <g> But to keep this on thread, I think the operators of that saucer WERE superior to the U.S. Army. See...I can admit inferiority. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Jul 24, 2009 20:14:56 GMT -6
"...I HAVE seen a real flying saucer..."
I have always suspected so.
BS
|
|
)
