|
|
Post by fred on Sept 3, 2012 10:53:52 GMT -6
Yes, I believe he made the right call... I agree. Best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 3, 2012 11:02:55 GMT -6
Sherppa; My impression of that place is I would not have wished to fight anyone there. I have only been there once and did not throughly walk the ground, but that was my impression that lingers. I trust Steve's eye for ground. I also trust Fred's concurrance that it was not the place to fight. Reno Hill was no defenders dream either, but far better I think.
Fred: orderly or not, I still think Custer would have ordered and Cooke would have administered the message. It is the level of command that makes me think so. At the company level I would have instructed myself. At the battalion level I did not have a whole lot of time for what must have been a routine procedure. I would have told my 3 and he would have taken care of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 3, 2012 11:14:57 GMT -6
Well, you are both correct. I have been there several times and have walked it each time. There is no way they could have held out. Calhoun Hill-- for all its faults-- was a better place to defend. Reno Hill-- because of the more open fields of fire-- was still the best defensive position. The only Indian tactic-- other than a prolonged siege (days)-- that could have worked would have been multiple charges with strong forces at each point. The charges they tried were too few, too intermittent, and with insufficient warriors. I guess they would have needed a more upscaled command and control! ... orderly or not, I still think Custer would have ordered and Cooke would have administered the message. I must have misread something here. This is precisely what I think happened. Custer instructed Cooke to send someone back. Martini was the choice; a note was the medium. Best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 3, 2012 11:34:40 GMT -6
Fred: I think my impression was based upon the broken aspects of the terrain. One would have had to deploy to encompass all of it, and there are several places where any breakthrough in a company defensive area possibly would not be detected in time to react with a counterattack. Add to this the expanse of the terrain and the number of troops available did not allow you the luxury of a dedicated reserve. The other place did not either for the same reasons, but it did allow you to pull from another place in the perimeter should it become necessary. Like almost everyplace else Weir Point has some advantages, but I feel that in this particular position the disadvantages far outweigh them.
Sherppa: I think the one rule to always keep in mind when choosing a defensive position, or in fact doing anything of a tactical nature, is to assume that the enemy is every bit as smart as you are. If you leave open an opportunity for him, he will find it
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 3, 2012 15:54:41 GMT -6
Chuck, essentially, I agree with you, 100%. The terrain is brutal to defend; the surrounding areas are way too easily accessible to the enemy; Weir itself is too small for any size unit to defend; there are awful fields of fire... or maybe none. Just terrible.
Best wishes,
Fred.
|
|
|
|
Post by sherppa on Sept 3, 2012 15:56:43 GMT -6
Sherppa: I notice on the other board that you inquired about Benteen remarking that he would not wish to defend Weir Point/Peak. In your post you agreed with Benteen's accessment. I am curious as to why you are in agreement, extracting from that the idea that you too must think it poor for defense. This is not a right or wrong question, but I think one whose answer, is quite important. To my way of thinking the only advantage that Weir Point has is the high ground, nothing more. There is no more cover than on Reno/Benteen, actually to my observations there is less. At least on R/B Hill there was the low spot to coral the horses and wounded. Definitely not perfect but I do not see where any such area exists on Weir Point. I see your point about SS and it being higher then R/B Hill and the problems shooters gave the Soldier from there. But I do not think it would have been any better on Weir Point I actually think it worse with its' exposed hill sides. I do not think that it provides any better cover than LSH, and has as many if not more opportunities for Warrior encroachment to well within rifle and in some areas bow range (if used in an indirect fire manner). There are a number of minor drainage's and fingers that create a great deal of dead space that could be easily infiltrated and exploited. Much as I envision happened at LSH. sherppa |
|
|
|
Post by sherppa on Sept 3, 2012 16:20:44 GMT -6
Sherppa; My impression of that place is I would not have wished to fight anyone there. I have only been there once and did not thoroughly walk the ground, but that was my impression that lingers. I trust Steve's eye for ground. I also trust Fred's concurrance that it was not the place to fight. Reno Hill was no defenders dream either, but far better I think. Agreed, either location would be tough ground for anyone to fight on. Yes, I too trust Steve or Fred's abilities for terrain analysis. In the number of trips I have made I have yet to have the opportunity to get of the blacktop. I did get some new pictures on this last trip a couple weeks ago that did a decent job of showing several places; that would depending on troop deployment provide excellent avenues of approach. They would have given excellent cover and concealment for attacking Warriors. sherppa |
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 3, 2012 16:24:31 GMT -6
Sherppa and Fred: I am working on old memory and some photos, both yours and mine Fred, and all I can see possible on Weir and its surrounding area is the necessity to defend from the forward slopes of all of the associated high ground. Snookie from Jersey Shore could take on that position with very little trouble. When you are forced to defend by the deliberate act of exposing your own force to fire. be it repeating rifle or spit ball, you are in deep s**t.
Sherppa you are correct there is more dead space there than dead soldiers on Battle Ridge. I got my pictures out this afternoon and while I thought it was bad this morning when I posted, seeing them it is much worse than my recollection.
Time available: All the playboys and experts always forget METT-T, and one of those big T's is time available. Was there sufficient time available to organize a defense. Don't think so when all those feathered fellows are heading your way. By breaking contact and covering the withdrawl from Weir to RH, it purchased some time.
|
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Sept 3, 2012 17:02:42 GMT -6
Hmmmm.
I regard Weir point as completely indefensible. I note that all the officers who were there think the same.
If you want a defensible position for an 1876 US force, you need dead ground. The ideal position is a bowl, low ground surrounded by high ground.
You want dead ground to park horses out of enemy line of site. This also lets you put your aid station where enemy cannot hit it. It also lets you place a reserve where it is safe, and freely move units around the perimeter.
Weir peaks is not a bad attack position where you form up to attack the enemy. Of course, for an attack you want 3 troopers for every enemy, normal doctrine.
For defense, the terrain is very bad. To defend this spot would require a much larger force. My estimate is no less than 1500, with artillery support.
Respectfully,
William
|
|
|
|
Post by sherppa on Sept 3, 2012 17:04:11 GMT -6
Sherppa and Fred: I am working on old memory and some photos, both yours and mine Fred, and all I can see possible on Weir and its surrounding area is the necessity to defend from the forward slopes of all of the associated high ground. Snookie from Jersey Shore could take on that position with very little trouble. When you are forced to defend by the deliberate act of exposing your own force to fire. be it repeating rifle or spit ball, you are in deep s**t. Sherppa you are correct there is more dead space there than dead soldiers on Battle Ridge. I got my pictures out this afternoon and while I thought it was bad this morning when I posted, seeing them it is much worse than my recollection. Time available: All the playboys and experts always forget METT-T, and one of those big T's is time available. Was there sufficient time available to organize a defense. Don't think so when all those feathered fellows are heading your way. By breaking contact and covering the withdrawl from Weir to RH, it purchased some time. I am in total agreement. (METT-T), it appears you have spent some time in the game? I appreciate the discussion, sherppa |
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 3, 2012 17:09:20 GMT -6
Your Dukedness: HMS Montrose will dock at my shipyard on Friday. The keel will be well and truely laid on Saturday. I shall keep you informed.
Sherppa: Actually METT-T has a couple of more letters attached to it presently which I forget.
Yes I did browse around the edges for a short time, long enough to ge me in trouble.
LTC Montrose is much more current than I.
|
|
|
|
Post by sherppa on Sept 3, 2012 17:25:37 GMT -6
Sherppa: Actually METT-T has a couple of more letters attached to it presently which I forget. Yes I did browse around the edges for a short time, long enough to ge me in trouble. LTC Montrose is much more current than I. Yes, and the concept is once again being reassessed and updated to better reflect the current state of military affairs and operations. sherppa |
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 3, 2012 17:27:08 GMT -6
Something tells me you may have browsed around the same edges as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by sherppa on Sept 3, 2012 20:24:38 GMT -6
Nothing worthy of mention. Spent most of my time in the rear with the gear.
sherppa
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 3, 2012 20:28:10 GMT -6
Based upon your posts, in the rear with the gear my ass!!!!!!!!
|
|
