|
Post by quincannon on Jan 11, 2013 16:19:18 GMT -6
And truer words were never spoken.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 11, 2013 16:37:14 GMT -6
The discussion by your request is "what is cavalry country" and you profess not to know. That's because it's not a military term per se but a layman's term, one that I use, and I've explained how I use it based on how I've seen it used by others.
It doesn't define cavalry, it just defines the ground that cavalry would consider heaven or 'ideal', and that as one where cavalry can perform the one thing others cannot: a mounted charge in line to achieve shock at contact where attention can be paid the opponent more than the ground beneath.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 11, 2013 17:05:12 GMT -6
OK I'll buy that. My question was more along the lines of what is not cavalry country, looking at cavalry as a function and not necessarily a branch, as long as you will buy my premise that the mounted charge, their unique capability, is not the only function of cavalry, nor was it ever intended to be in American useage..
Wild I am not confused about anything. It is you that are confusing the Nubian Light Horse Chowder and Marching Society (European specialized cavalry) with American cavalry which is a general purpose force, that can either operate in conjunction and in support or being supported by other arms or operate on its own and for extended periods, mounted or dismounted, offensively or defensively, who may also act as peacekeepers, constabulary, or cow herders if need be, and still can.
It is the trained man, not the mount that is important
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 11, 2013 18:53:11 GMT -6
Don't they have echelons, wedges, and diamonds in the Irish Army or is the column the only way you can fight your way into the pub?They don't have any horses other than the show jumping team. As the 7th were navigating via linear features rivers,ridges,coulees etc and because of the broken nature of the terrain it is safe to conclude that the formation was line astern. What I find amazing is that you seem to be suggesting that the 7th was capable of conducting a dismounted attack on an enemy who outnumbered them 10 to 1. You have dismissed European cavalry shock tactics and advocated a dragoon style action?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 11, 2013 19:50:38 GMT -6
So what do horses have to do with cavalry? Cavalry is a battlefield function that happened at one time to be mounted on horses. It is basic tactics that is the issue and the basic tactical principles that govern movements and movement formations offseting the various imperitives of speed, control, proximity to the enemy and security that is at issue not the mount or the fact that the movement is either mounted or dismounted. Don't please buy into the hoo haa rubish found only at the costume shop or period adventure novels. The business of killing is serious and is not governed by the reenactors script. And just because they were negotiating the features you mentioned they had no need for march security, is that what you are saying. They are in the middle of Montana in the summer of 1876, a place chock full of hostile indians and they are marching in the fastest, most easily controlled, most insecure formation in the book, through country that is so full of opportunities for ambush and sudden thrust that it makes your head swim with the vapors just thinking about it, IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER POSSABILITIES RICHARD? ?? I would not move through the middle of Montana in the summer of 2013 in a column. I am not suggesting a dismounted attack of any kind. I said that American cavalry was being sold short by yourself and DC and that they were capable of mounted or dismounted action both offensively and defensively, and if you knew B from a bulls ass about the terrain conditions in Montana as DC knows and articulates quite well but you are only familiar with by virtue of Google Earth and a very poor ability to measure anything but straight line distance, without being influenced by the fact that your ruler itself is a preconceived notion you would know damned well that such a thought would be the furtherest thing from my mind and as such it is another poor attempt of yours to see if you can irritate me enough to kick your sorry ass off the bar stool. I think European style cavalry outlived its usfullness about 1800 and that the more utilitarian all purpose mounted force capable of being able to both ride and chew gum is preferable. Hats off to AK. His bullcrap meter is in overdrive.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 11, 2013 21:03:25 GMT -6
Yes that is what I'm saying.In fact was it not the practice for the company which reported first to Custer to take the lead?And no there were precious few Indians about to threaten the column.
I am not suggesting a dismounted attack of any kind. I said that American cavalry was being sold short by yourself and DC and that they were capable of mounted or dismounted action both offensively and defensively The only form of attack open to Custer was a mounted attack but you refuted this suggesting that the 7th were a general purpose outfit capable of attacking on foot. We are discussing the specific here not the general and if you introduce the general you must clarify this. and if you knew B from a bulls ass about the terrain conditions in Montana as DC knows and articulates quite well but you are only familiar with by virtue of Google Earth and a very poor ability to measure anything but straight line distance, As a military cartographer and surveyor I think I know a thing or two about terrain representation thank you very much.
The most amusing thing on the board at the moment is the struggle to keep his Dark Eminence in the tent.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 11, 2013 21:21:01 GMT -6
No Richard you are talking the specific. If you can't keep what I say in its proper perspective then that is not my fault. If you can't discern between the two I suggest you are the one that should peer into the mirror of responsability.
We do know at one point coming toward the battlefield from the Divide they were in two parallel columns providing a measure of security for each flank, and that my friend is not a line astern. Custer could be a fool but assuming that he was an idiot too is an an assumption best made in Ireland.
Is that the same cartagraphic experience that had you underestimating the Reno/Benteen hilltop position by several hundred yards. I noticed when AZ called you to task on the issue you did not pop up and say - You must be wrong because I am a military cartographer. Maybe you don't remember because I believe that was the week you were nuking the USSR for the sake of motherhood and apple pie, or were you trashing the US for its treatment of homophobic terorists in drag wearing burkas. It is so hard to keep these things straight and in their proper perspective. I also noticed that you made the same mistake with Fred just yesterday, calling him to task on distance. The truth is though where you think Fred was measuring to is far off the mark. I know where he was measuring to, and I think we both thought it best to let the egg spatter collect on your face until his book is published.
The only one who wants to see DC in his tent as you put it is you, because he has your number, you know it, and it scares the crap out of you. Pulling the mask off the Lone Ranger is the least of you worries at the moment, because I have your number too.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 11, 2013 21:30:40 GMT -6
... if Reno/Benteen had moved to support Custer sooner, what would have been the impact if, rather than following his trail and "supporting him from the rear", they had re-entered the valley (good cavalry country) in accordance with Reno's original orders and re-struck the south end of the village while the warriors were drawn off fighting Custer? ... As long as we are speculating, I speculate that part of their delay in moving... was due to considering/discussing alternatives such as this. Gatewood, Your post brings up several issues as well as what I believe is some misunderstanding. When you review all the accounts pertaining to Indians in the valley as Benteen arrived, it becomes fairly clear many, if not most remained there for 30 minutes or so after the last of Benteen's command reached the hilltop. If you go through enough data you will find the names of about 106 Indians who we are fairly certain were in the Reno fight. You will also find the names of about 185 claiming to be in the Custer. If you do any sort of statistical analysis of the various numbers and times, you can reach a reasonable-- academic-- solution that tells me only about 399 of the "Reno" Indians made it to the Custer fight. That is hardly enough to tip the scales. That also leads to a further analysis that puts the total number of warriors in any fight that day at about 2,100... give or take a few. Under the circumstances it appears to me any sort of sortie off Reno Hill by that group would have been sheer suicide. Next... the "delay" on Reno Hill. I appear to be something of a lone wolf here... though I may have DC and the gang on my side... but I submit to you, the delay was minimal. Define "minimal." You are exceptionally well-grounded. How long from Benteen's arrival do you think it was before the command started its move to Weir? This is one of the most distorted parts of this entire battle and it is sure to engender some pretty loud explosions. It is also one I have spent an inordinate amount of time working on. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 11, 2013 21:52:51 GMT -6
No Richard you are talking the specific. If you can't keep what I say in its proper perspective then that is not my fault. I take you at your word;the 7th were a multi role outfit with the capibility to attack on foot.And this in the context of the LBH.
I also noticed that you made the same mistake with Fred just yesterday You should check the post before making accusations.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 11, 2013 22:07:29 GMT -6
And you have never used this distance of a mile or less than a mile or a measurement expressed in meters in the past? You have not? You disclaim ever using it? Are you sure? Be careful. Perhaps not yesterday, but in the recent past you have. You were inaccurate then as you are quibbling now. Seamus a' chaca was a quibbler. I expected more of you.
The 7th Cavalry and the other nine were all multi-capable organizations. They were capable of attacking on foot should the occasion arise. Could they? Yes. Should they? If the right situation presented itself yes. Did the right situation present itself? No
The only possible situation where a dismounted attack was in any way feasible was in a valley scenario, and that only as an attack that started mounted, was halted, and a dismounted follow on attack taking place after fire superiority was gained or regained. That is highly speculative and not one that I would find likely or probable given the actual disposition of forces. It could or would only occur if a regimental sized attack was launched in the valley, and it was necessary to dismount to facilitate the further capture of the village or part of the village due to the restrictions of terrain.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 11, 2013 22:19:47 GMT -6
You are the accuser without having the decency to first check your information.And then issuing threats if I don't find this imagined post.Just what kind of a man are you?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 11, 2013 22:26:02 GMT -6
I am the man who has seen your post(s) on this board giving the distance of the northern movement variously at a mile, 3/4th of a mile, or somewhere in the neighborhood of a thousand meters. That is the kind of man I am, one with a very long memory and a very short, at times, fuse as you are about to find out.
I am the kind of man who you deliberately let me hang myself out to dry with DC for defending you, when you knew damned well what he meant by the drunk at the bar comment and I did not. If you think I have forgotten that, think again. So the question is what kind of a man are you? I will sum it up in two words---- buddy f***er.
You are the kind of man who would do anything, use anyone, and say anything to settle your score with DC. I don't know what caused that nor do I care. But you had better damned well worry about me, if I decide to settle my score with you.
But you need not bother your head about what is past. It is hardly worth the efffort. What should concern you in the future is screwing with DC, Fred, or myself, messing with any of the truely nice guys on this forum, you know who they are, or trying to sucker some new guy not here presently into doing your dark work of retribution as you did to me. I have only myself to blame for I went in willingly, no matter how deceived I was by you. You try that little number while I still live and the recesses of your dark and brooding soul will be drained of its marrow. Not a threat. I do not threaten, but I do make solemn promises
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 12, 2013 4:02:58 GMT -6
A very troubled post? I posted nothing of a personal nature but if my views on the Natal Native horse caused the onset of 3am vapours it is very much regretted.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jan 12, 2013 8:53:17 GMT -6
If the speculation is still the order of the day;
What if GAC did encounter a mass of warriors as he hit the bottom of MTC, and then turned right to the high ground, the warriors now begin to chase him, he soon realise that his worn out horses aint gonna out run the warriors so he stops and decides to defend Battle ridge/Calhoun hill, so he starts to place his command is skirmish order, 210 men, take out the HQ/Staff, Doctors, Orderly’s, Civilians, Company Officers, 1st Sergeants and Horse holder, with this lot taken out the line his strength would drop to around 150 men, now after around 30 minutes he is faced with about 1000+ warriors and has to defend an area with a scope of 360°, each man has 50 rounds of Carbine ammo in his belts another 50 rounds on his horse, canteens maybe only half or virtually empty of water, warriors are all around, troopers are beginning to drop as the incoming fire exceeds the outgoing fire, then Benteen appears with his Battalion plus whatever he could scratch together from Reno’s Command on Weir point, there is a sea of Indians between the two commands and Benteen’s outfit is spread all over the peaks, what can Benteen do to save GAC and his dwindling command.
Just speculating guys.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 12, 2013 8:53:34 GMT -6
My two cents. I think when DC is using the term cavalry country he is referring to horse mounted cavalry and its ability to deploy formations and/or tactics and the use of speed to mounted soldiers as an advantage.
I agree with the idea of a trained soldier but will add that the horse is living and has the mind of a prey species. We are used to equipment and vehicles that do what we ask and we are trained to use them. We don't train our vehicles.
We do and must train horses. That being said terrain effects the mobility of the horse unlike that of a gas fueled vehicle that only requires more fuel use going up a hill. At the top of the hill the vehicle is not tired just a little less fuel on board.
In the terrain past MTC my personal opinion is that the advantage goes to the individual fighter on horseback. The individual only worries whether he can make it or not. If you must have some type of formation then that terrain limits your mobility and makes the routes chosen predictable if you know the terrain. That advantage went to the Indians. They knew what Custer would find after crossing MTC and the most likely path that troops in formations would most likely take.
There is very few places that you can't ride as an individual as compared to what a soldier would select leading troops. That would apply to the river crossings also between an individual rider and a company of troops.
My view of tactics is that you have some to chose from and making the right choice could be limited by terrain features. My Bottomline is that the terrain past MTC was an advantage to large numbers of single warriors that had no formation to maintain.
That the horse is also a mode of transportation confuses the issue in my opinion. Once on the ground then the individual cavalry soldier is at a disadvantage as compared to an infantry soldier with a rifle and bayonet.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|