|
Post by Gatewood on Jul 12, 2012 6:30:22 GMT -6
I can imagine it was a powerful experience. I envy you that. Some people just don't "get it" when they stand on ground like that. Some do.
PM, Just a note of interest of personal experience. I couldn't count the number of battle fields that I have visited and hallowed ground that I have walked, but three instances stand out in my mind as being almost eerily spiritual in nature. The first was standing on top of Lookout Mountain in Chattanooga, the second was standing on Surrender Field at Yorktown, and the third was standing on the Plains of Abraham at Quebec.
I don't know why those three experiences seemed to have a bigger impact on me than all of the others, unless you believe in those things that maybe I was there before. Who knows?
|
|
|
Post by plainsman on Jul 12, 2012 7:08:25 GMT -6
Indeed. "Who knows?" I certainly don't, but have had similar feelings in various places in my life. Battlefields seem to predominate. Gettysburg is almost too manicured for it anymore. Culloden was so much "rougher" and somehow more powerful. I'm looking forward to a visit to LBH.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jul 12, 2012 7:40:12 GMT -6
I found Glen Coe to be very eerie; even in the summer it looks bleak.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 12, 2012 8:13:07 GMT -6
I had a great post yesterday but it never made it.
I did have my GPS but it documented the trip we made and was not any particular route. I recorded the waypoints. We rode down SSR crossed Cedar Coulée and went over some think that Custer went rather than down Cedar Coulée/ One thing that Chip pointed out to us was the accounts of what was observed seem impossible if Custer was on SSR. The view from there is mostly of the frontage road and beyond. You can see the building named "Fort Custer" and its red roof but not much of anything closer.
For sure the route was relatively easy but I am not convinced that Custer scouted it first then chose the easiest route.
The GPS for me explains things such as Benteen's scout. If you use a flat map you come up with around 7 miles that Benteen deviated from Reno Creek. The GPS recorded 11 miles and shows the profile of the ups and downs.
So for me dawdling is not appropriate term for negotiating terrain features that slow one down. From the start most Benteen "dawdler" supporters have a relative small difference between Benteen and the pack train traveled.
My thought and Terry can chime in is that you could take a smoother route but would have to travel many more miles to take that route. We compared what Darling presented and found that it matches the accounts given by those that were with Benteen.
I don't believe you can cut it much shorter on the distance Benteen traveled because it gets steeper and more difficult the closer you get toward Reno Creek. If you take the easier route which I would think would be closer to 15 miles than you would not observe Custer nor move through defiles. I suspect we rode fairly close to the actual route traveled which two good observation areas where you could see to the bottom of Reno Creek and would arrive there about the time Custer would be moving through viewed area. We went through 2 defiles that would force single file at extended order and reforming on the other side. The ride to no name was all up and down and some area so steep you have to switch back to negotiate them. When we rode down no name it was 104 degrees and when rode the Custer area on the 26th it was 103 degrees. This seems typical of the temps at this time of year around noon or later.
For those that ride horses how important is water when riding in these conditions?
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 12, 2012 8:46:00 GMT -6
Steve: I think it was last year that you rode the Benteen scout route. Assuming that your start point was in the approximate location of Benteen's start point, could you detect from that vantage point the difficulty of the terrain from the outset, or was the difficulty only detectable en route? Terrain as you know, especially out here in the west can be very deceptive. What initially looks fairly good to the eye from a distance can be something altogether different once you are on it.
|
|
|
Post by Gatewood on Jul 12, 2012 8:57:44 GMT -6
When considering the condition of Benteen's horses and the need to water, etc., I think it is important to consider not just the ground and conditions of that march but the fact that the horses had already been pushed hard with little rest, water, oats, and probably just general care for a couple of days previously.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 12, 2012 9:30:05 GMT -6
I want to say again that what AZ and Zekesgirl have done and continue to do is actual re-enactment, valuable, done at some small risk and expense, and entirely constructive from every view. It utterly blew apart the dawdler contenders who cannot even yet give up what is their obvious prejudice against Benteen, and who are perfectly willing to lie and distort with no shame.
The more Benteen is attacked, slandered, and then has his actions actually investigated and compared to the ground at issue, he comes across as surprisingly modest in his own claims for his movements, and accurate. Every time. I find it hard not to admire and like the guy.
Worse, it's to make their ridiculous aged and overweight ploddings in front of the ticket buying public seem of some value to history. It is not whatever, and in my experience it's an insult to theater as well.
Bevo Boy continues to insult this apparently good soldier with the dawdling contentions, and his insistence upon Reno being drunk - the only explanation in his mind for what seems to others, including some combat vets, as at least a reasonable alternative and command decision on the ground - is utterly offensive. I don't get how vets of the Vietnam era would tolerate such airy and baseless contentions being made about their own actions in combat by someone who has no idea what it is like. While I do not know either, it occurs to me that there are a lot of 50-50 calls in combat, and if examined with such varied evidence warped by time and agendas as those at the LBH - and often by wannabes, Chickenhawks, and Fanboys.... the Clueless - utterly false conclusions might well be made.
Combat vets deserve measured and informed critique by those with standing to do so, and nobody should tolerate the never-were's trying to bask in their limelight at this late date.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 12, 2012 10:00:42 GMT -6
You know DC, if the Black Knight of the Hudson wishes to jump off a cliff, there are those of us who enjoy the distraction, and frankly the entertainment value. Again it says more about him than it does the subject matter.
His latest diatribe against Benteen involves Benteen's selection of First Sergeants. He opines that it was more for his skill in baseball than for his prowless in leadership, administration, or battlefield performance. He says three years service, when supposedly more experienced people were available is disgraceful and shows Benteen's desire to have a first rate baseball team exceeds his desire to command a combat ready company of cavalry. One can presume therefore that time in service is the determining factor and one cannot become a "good" First Sergeant without many more years than three. As you know arguing the point with him is like trying to make a point face to face with the Teddy Roosevelt bust on Rushmore. Stone is less than receptive I have found so I will not argue my rebuttal only state it.
1) My late ex-wife's uncle was drafted in 1941 and was with the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Benning. When it came time for that division to provide a cadre for the activation of the 79th Infantry Division, Bill was chosen and by the end of 1942 he was First Sergeant of a rifle company in the 315th Infantry, 79th ID. In early 1945 he was that regiment's Sergeant Major.
2) My father in law joined the Navy in 1942. By the time of Saipan (mid 1944) he was a Chief Petty Officer.
Rest my case.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 12, 2012 10:09:15 GMT -6
If it were not for those who melt when in contact with actual soldiers, I'd hold him annoying but harmless as well. Unfortunately, it's only those who know, like yourself, or cynics who suspected based on rhetorical tells, like me, who can avoid his nonsense. People believe him because of rank, the pulled forelocks displayed by others when discussing events with him, and West Point. Depressing.
It's important that it be kept in front of the public that he's wrong just about always, absurd not unoften, and chronic bin material as a rule. Also, he denigrates the soldiers, living and dead, he wants applause for respecting. So long as he pointlessly and affectedly capitalizes Soldiers and Warriors he can say anything about them. I don't see him as the amiable non-entity, just a rare WP failure to rise, you guys do.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 12, 2012 10:22:32 GMT -6
DC: Never think it is rare for a West Pointer to fail to rise. That in itself is a false impression. There is all the difference in the world between The Plain, and the real Army, and not a few fail to make the grade for one reason or other. Ex West Point graduates who never make it above Captain are a dime a diozen in the civilian world. The ones that should be ashamed of themselves are the ones that conclude that matriculation at Hudson High gives you the key to the natonial treasure of military knowledge without much more in the way of military study. They are the ones that place the West Pointer's opinion at a higher level and unjustifiably so. Just because someone once was admited to the Long Gray Line, is a sign that they passed the exam and were connected enough to get an appointment. Nothing else. West Point is the line of departure, not a place of military anointing.
I should add three things about West Point Graduates. All of these are officers I knew while on active duty.
1) WP graduate number # 1 has all of the required military schooling and was on the faculty of the National War College at McNair. He is the author of five books on military matters, has two PHD's, a cavalry officer, and a decorated combat vet. He retired as a Colonel. He comes from a Quaker background that has no previous military connection.
2) The second officer reached four stars, a decorated combat vet, and since retirement has held a couple of high Federal Government posts. Now look at who his daddy was and the list of his early assignments that gave him exposure to the powers, and then speculate where his career would have gone if his name were Smith or Jones. Good officer, but one who the WPPA looked out for.
3) The third officer also reached four stars. He is and was dumb as a box of rocks, yet the four generations of West Point graduating parents, grandparents before him paved the way and the WPPA was active in his career, when he should have been cleaning sewers.
All these men have with the last ten years been visable as talking heads. Some more than others. Two of the three deserved elevation to higher echelons One did not but got there anyway.
I should also add that the VERY BEST officer I was ever associated with while on active duty was a former enlisted man and OCS graduate and rose to the rank of Lieutenant General, and when I say that he was the very last officer on active duty that made a World War II combat jump he should not be that hard to identify. The man was so damned good they should build a monument to him at Fort Benning and in a way they have.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Jul 12, 2012 15:37:36 GMT -6
I think you misunderstand the relevance of USMA. The Army draws its officers from USMA, ROTC and OCS. A college degree is preferred for officers, in the fond hope that it will improve their decision making ability.
USMA is in the second tier of schools as an institution. Remember, we have programs at MIT, Stanford, Duke, half the Ivies, Georgetown, etc. USMA has had a past history of accreditation issues, due to too many instructors with MAs, and too few PHDs and similar academic quality issues. Now, West Point is not a community college, it has become a decent tier 2 school.
In fact, we now have a career path for USMA instructors, where the Army pays for your PHD, and you spend the rest of your career teaching at USMA. So this isn't the problem riven school of the 1970s, many improvements have been made.
OK, so now our USMA grads, other college grads,and OCS grads finish school, then what? They are Military Education Level Zero, they don't know squat. They all go to an Officer Basic Course to learn to be a Second Lieutenant. DO you know the skills and knowledge we expect for a new 2LT? There is no grand tactics or theater level campaign planning.
Numerous studies have been done on source of commission as a function of officer performance. There is no, repeat no, correlation. USMA grads fail no more, and certainly not less, than any other source. This is due to the fact that book learning does not mean the ability to lead, and the judgment to make effective decisions. In fact, USMA grads are notorious for a rigid, inflexible decision making process.
Now here is why the USMA argument is overblown. They have the lowest retention rate of any source of commission. Half leave at the end of their initial contract with the Army. At the 10 year mark, only 20% are still in.
Ohhh, and don't assume that the retention is a function of quality. Many of the best and brightest leave the Army at 5 years, and go on the great careers in the civilian world.
So I do not see an argument on where folks went to school as relevant to their performance over a 20-30 year career.
|
|
|
Post by zekesgirl on Jul 12, 2012 15:43:16 GMT -6
QC, the ground is very deceiving along Benteen's route.
As you ride along, you see a row of fairly tall trees in a depression. Ok you think there is a little dip in the ground there. When you reach that little dip you realize that there is twenty+ feet of tree below what you saw from a distance.
Best part is; the branches of the tree touch the sides of that little dip.
Straight down and then straight up the other side.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 12, 2012 16:09:26 GMT -6
Montrose, Years back when conz was here tooting the WP toot as one of many reasons we should be glad to have him, I pointed out that not only had WP been a dubious source of pride for the US in some years, but that some of the people who ran and taught there thought poorly of the students and the whole thing. General Lincoln, who was there during Nixon, was pretty scathing. conz, of course, knew nothing of any of that, and was a complete shill. It's still up, and you'd find it amusing, I think. My brother ended a major in the Reserves (it was not his dream to be a soldier, but he was drafted just before the Berlin crisis), and I had a cousin who did not go to Annapolis but was one of Rickover's guys in the nuclear navy and ended up captain of a boomer back in the day. Not close to either in age, but in the time spent with them it was pretty obvious our cousin, who went to Colgate (played lacrosse against Jim Brown) was beyond scary smart and he advanced through the Navy schools always with the cutting edge assignments, but without Rickover's backing he'd not have advanced at all over the Annapolis crew. I always imagined WP was much like that: Harvard of war in their minds but Duke in reality. Still good, but..... What impressed me, though, was Mencken, who said whoever taught WP students how to write was not paid enough and did a damned good job. He'd know. Grant, Custer, Ike, MacArthur all could sit down and write an excellent first draft. That sounds like a backhanded compliment, but not from me. It does suggest that a graduate's vague orders were deliberately so. I was also impressed with the Vidal family. Gore Vidal was born at WP, his father was their best athlete ever (by many in agreement) and a graduate and coach and a professor there and his brother, Gore Vidal's uncle, was a grad ending a general. Vidal knew the Point and its innards better than conz, who attended, and had the distinction of being on dangerous duty if not combat during WWII, something that conz doesn't admit to. Vidal in his prime was brilliant and now is bordering on insane, but he's near 90. Somehow, he doesn't fit the image of the Point's shills and his comments about it never found the audience they deserved. If you ever get a chance, read his bits on it. As an infant, he was the football team's mascot one year. Terrible team, though. Gossipy and entertaining and yet nobody has challenged him on much of it. They're good, but not THAT good. Here: www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1973/oct/18/west-point-and-the-third-loyalty/?pagination=false
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jul 12, 2012 16:32:46 GMT -6
Bevo Boy continues to insult this apparently good soldier with the dawdling contentions Dawdling cannot be proven nor is there any proof of an increase in pace or any messages passed down the line to quicken the pace. Was Benteen not a few hundred yards in advance of his battalion?How could he control the pace from that position?Was he actually present when his battalion watered?Was the watering just at the troopers discretion?Maybe Benteen did not dawdle but you can bet there were some old sweats who were in no hurry.
Just because Bevo Boy takes up a particular cause it does not render that cause unjust.
|
|
|
Post by plainsman on Jul 12, 2012 18:11:32 GMT -6
Maybe he controlled the pace of his battalion by the "follow me" principal. There were also other officers under him, and non-coms. Was he supposed to ride behind and whip them?
There'll always be 'old sweats' who hang back, and young ones, too. He found some of them among the packs and gave them a job carrying boxes for the redoubt.
|
|