|
Post by ulan on May 20, 2012 2:16:12 GMT -6
Thank you Gerry!
I try to understand what Renos intension was when he let his battalion change the marching order into a galloping rows.
Was it just because he want to reach quick a point for his allready planned skirmish line near the indian village?
Or was it because he want to move in full gallop into the village but was stoped than by a deep ravine in front of the village?
Peter Thompson: "The cavalry dashed into the village where one of the noncommissioned officers halted and struck up the company's guidon alongside of a teepee before he was shot from his horse. The halt was but for a moment, for the Indians came rushing towards them in great numbers."
Peter Thompson did not see Reno´s skirmish line in front of the village but did see the command galloping into the village.
Futher more Thompson saw: "Major Reno seeing that he was greatly outnumbered ordered an immediate retreat to a grove of cottonwood trees, which stood on the bank of the river about a mile from the upper end of the village, where they found shelter for their horses and protection for themselves..."
To see the battalion charging into the village and then retreating directly to the timber is very different to what Reno and his men reported.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 21, 2012 8:11:13 GMT -6
since the military calls the canter or lope a gallop what is a full gallop?
Peter Thompson reports events he did not see and hears from others.
|
|
|
Post by scottbono on Jan 2, 2014 17:44:31 GMT -6
First of all, Loopty-Loo, you have the board quote system so screwed up I can't even quote your post. Figure it out!Next, like Quincannon said, do your homework before you spout off at the mouth. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know damn well they initiated the medal with that goal in mind. Only when they had no other way of recognizing the heroism of enlisted personnel did they change the parameters... and initially, it was awarded only to enlisted men. Next, I would like you to prove to me how that American army was one of "the best on earth." The Prussians had just eaten the Frenchman's lunch and you compare the American rabble army of that era to the Prussians? Are you for real? And you think for one moment those guys could tackle the British? Yeah, sure there were Civil War vets... have you any idea of the percentage? Then you turn around and excuse the Seventh's "incompetence" on an excessive number of recruits. More crap! Give me a number... a percentage. Prove to me Custer was burdened with recruits. I dare you. You sound like Rini trying to tell me about tactics or how to read a map. You two belong together. Try backing up what you have to say before you open your mouth with stupidity. And you know that cavalry charging infantry in the Civil War was an effective tactic, right? You know this for a fact...? Enlighten me. I also do not know how your answer to DC's #4 has anything to do with Indians flanks. It probably has more to do with your inability to understand simple English. The rest of your post makes no sense at all. It isn't even worth addressing... groups, units, and the tremolo that killed Custer. Nice! How about too many Indians fighting intelligently... ever think of that... too many Indians!Manners dictate... Best wishes, Fred. Hmmm...would that make Phil Sheridan the equivalent of...Moltke? I think not. Just finished a good book on the 1870 Franco-Prussian War and then read your comment quoted here. I think Connell said it rather quaintly (my paraphrase) when he described the 7th a a group of immigrants, farmers, etc. staggering about the Plains. The armed forces were not looked uon gently by the public back then and for good reason. What resonated with me regarding your answer was the simple word "too". Too many Indians, too much ground, too little thinking, too much bravado - the list goes on.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 2, 2014 18:04:29 GMT -6
I just made a new years resolution not be let my self become irritated by peckerwoods. You are testing that resolution early, please do not test it often.
I have read both your posts this day, responding to things said long ago. So what. Is there some point you would like to prove by purple and black bodies with an arrow stuck in the penis, your views of Sheridan's abilities on the battlefield vs. Moltke (how do you determine who was better, they never fought each other) or that Connell was the fountain of all truth.
I think your avatar sucks as well, but I am not an art critic. So when you become a military critic, by reading more than a book on the Franco Prussian War and Connell, then I might take you seriously.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Mar 25, 2015 17:51:58 GMT -6
TAKE THE HIGH GROUND AND HOLD IT - It didn't work.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Mar 25, 2015 19:13:35 GMT -6
HR What does the Korean War have to do with the subject matter of this thread? Regards Dave
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 19:22:48 GMT -6
It's subtle but very clever.
Regards
Mark
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 26, 2015 7:18:25 GMT -6
TAKE THE HIGH GROUND AND HOLD IT - It didn't work. Seems to me that they survived at the Reno/Benteen location. Do you have a link that states something different? Not a movie site I hope. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 26, 2015 7:25:04 GMT -6
Good on you Dave for recognizing that Take the High Ground and Hold it was a product of the Korean War.
The other part is from "I am the Infantry - Queen of Battle - Follow Me.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 26, 2015 7:31:09 GMT -6
Wikipedia
The film was originally to be shot at the U.S. Marine boot camp in San Diego, California under the title The Making of a Marine.[2] It was later asserted that "the Marines refused to cooperate because they did not want to stir up old controversies over the toughness of their training program."[3] The Army, however, cooperated fully with the studio, and location filming took place at Fort Bliss, El Paso, Texas.
|
|