|
Post by quincannon on Jan 12, 2013 15:18:52 GMT -6
DC: I understand.
If you don't think it happened like that then it would not make sense. It could not make sense.
The only way it would make any sense is going there willingly was in pursuit of an objective. You will note here I did not say a good objective. I did not say it was a wise thing to do. I do not agree with the doing. In fact I don't agree with anything the man did post 3411. But it boils down to one of two things. He went there willingly and by extention that means with an objective in mind, or he went there because he was forced.
My non-specific to LBH point was that cavalry as an organized body can go places and do things, things within its capabilities, that are not often thought of a cavalry missions, not on cavalry terrain, and without or surrendering the normal advantages that cavalry has, the ability to quickly employ mounted shock action and effect. The Dull Knife fight is but one example of this latter. So in attempting to make this larger non-specific point I lent confusion to the specific - Why in hell was he on Battle Ridge in the first place - discussion.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 12, 2013 15:33:22 GMT -6
Why in hell was he on Battle Ridge in the first place - discussion The same reason Reno is on Reno Hill,he was forced there. The command cannot do a u turn while under attack in the area of MTC and thus must use the other exit which is Deep Coulee leading up onto Battle Ridge.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 12, 2013 15:53:50 GMT -6
And you KNOW they were attacked in MTC - HOW?
And you KNOW they could not turn around - HOW?
You KNOW less than most. You SPECULATE MORE than most. You are LOCKED INTO YOUR OWN VIEWS more than any other. You are RECEPTIVE to nothing. So tell me how you KNOW, chapter and verse, testimony and evidence.
Without testimony and or evidence you KNOW nothing, yet you label these things as possitive occurances as if you KNOW,or were there, but when you are called upon to submit proof or at least some semblence of evidence that what you say is true we either do not here from you or the subject is changed. So in addition to being a BFer you are nothing but a big fingered sharpshooter, unwilling to provide evidence or proof, unable to logicly think through a problem or situation always, like the drunk at the bar, wishing to start an argument for its own sake.
You are unworthy of further comment, in addition to being completely unworthy of trust.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 12, 2013 16:59:42 GMT -6
I figured that my comment about a delay would solicit a response from someone, but I did not intend it in the way that you probably perceived it. Gatewood, If this post is how you define "delay," then we agree 100%. Nicely done. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 12, 2013 18:49:43 GMT -6
I like all of us here know nothing of the goings on beyond MTC. There is only spectulation. In the recent exchanges you have provided no evidence,no proof to support your GNJ theory in fact what you have done is remove one inconvienent element by simply stating that it was irrelevant. Now you tell us what other elements can be dismissed as irrelevant? I'v continually asked, based on the tactical situation,how much time could Custer expect to be allowed for his GNJ.It seems that time is also inconvienent and can be termed irrelevant.
You are RECEPTIVE to nothing. AZ our resident horseman who has first hand knowledge of the terrain and former service mangave us his considered opinion on the terrain.Did not stop you dismissing the disadvantages he highlighted as irrelevant.
And you KNOW they were attacked in MTC - HOW Three columns came into contact with the Indians.Two were instantaneously counter attacked ,the third was attacked and wiped out.The issue is when was it attack.On the balance of probability I go for instantaneously.
And you KNOW they could not turn around - HOW? No but I know a u turn performed while in contact with the enemy is a tactical no-no.And it is probable Custer had some tactical awareness
I note the personal stuff.I wont respond other than to say it is negative and does nothing to enhance our debates.
.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 12, 2013 18:59:56 GMT -6
Richard: I warned you what would happen if you messed with any I listed again.
Did you think you were dealing with Tinker Bell? Or did you make the assumption based upon my supposed infantry background that I was incapable of hitting hard, fast, and often. You got your first taste. If you want more it is waiting for you. If you want it to stop, that is a simple procedure. You will enter into these discussions as a gentleman. You will put previous anamosities aside for good. You will listen to what others have to say with respect, even though you may disagree. You will not take what others say out of context to further your own ends. You will not use others for your own purposes. and finally but most important you will discuss and not pick fights for their own sake. Absent all this, I will rip your bloody guts out and feed them to the dogs. Is that clear.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 12, 2013 19:56:13 GMT -6
There is no joy in Boulder this night. I am sure my Annapolis dwelling brother in law is revelling in good cheer though. San Francisco and New England I think. I took my black draped Redskins banner down this afternoon after the appropriate period of grief.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 13, 2013 3:48:50 GMT -6
I will rip your bloody guts out and feed them to the dogs. Is that clear Phew! I thought for a minute there you were going to take my lunch money. Uno duce una voce.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jan 13, 2013 8:03:02 GMT -6
Looks like the 7th fought over three different types of terrain; Reno; flat ground Custer; hills, folds and coulees Benteen; for what I have read, Benteen had the worst of it, it got so bad on his horses he detailed a party to scout ahead to look for any satellite Villages, thus taking the pressure off his whole command. Just look at this short film shot from around Battle Ridge, and see the area as he pans round; www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSYi4n60QfIThe difference in the terrain is striking, the area is split in two by the road, just look at the difference between the areas either side of road, one looks nice and even similar to a large depression, the other one is all cut with folds and coulees. I can see from a number post you guys have a few big Football games coming up, well there is a rather large game going on today between Liverpool and Manchester United (I think you lot call it soccer), now when you have two sons, one supports Liverpool and the other Man Utd, then you can imagine the fireworks that are about to explode in the living room this afternoon, I think I will see if there is any work to do in the garden, keeping out of the way is the order of the day, Sue can separate them if they kick off. Ian.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 13, 2013 8:41:48 GMT -6
Nothing to date has replaced the individual mounted soldier. We don't see cavalry riding 600 motorcycles for example. But exactly 71 years ago (January 1942) Japanese troops riding bicycles played a prominent role in the invasion of Malaya Were the bicycles the fighting platform or were they transpiration? I think we all agree that mounted cavalry, mounted rifles, and riding infantry used horses/mules. Some could fight from the horse also and others dismounted always. Good luck riding a bicycle across the LBH. Hopefully we will be riding across it again this June. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Jan 13, 2013 8:49:31 GMT -6
Thanks much for the video. I'm sure the more experienced folks here know of these videos...but for people like me, they are really informative in that they allow us to see the terrain as you have pointed out. Nothing like a picture to put things into perspective.
Speaking of perspective...that is my only concern about these videos. I'm not certain that the perception of distance as provided by the camera lens is correct. It may be that things tend to appear further away than they may actually be. I've only been to the battlefield once...perhaps a more knowledgeable poster could comment on this.
AK
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 13, 2013 8:57:17 GMT -6
AZ: I agree in principle with your entire post. DC's use of cavalry country is not really the issue either. I knew why he used it. I have used the same term myself many a time. Cavalry country as we like to think of it is broad open areas, like Brandy Station/Flleetwood Heights, open vistas and the like. Two points though: If we keep this mindset of the broad open vista as "cavalry country" and at the same time relegate those other areas as no go's or crazy to go there areas for cavalry it skews our view of why cavalry might have gone there and forces us to make possibly wrong conclusions based on preconceived notion. The case uppermost in point. DC's favorite scenario, and one to which he has obviously given a lot of thought to is roughly Custer gets whacked in MTC, and an informal chain of command takes over, rationality, based upon where they choose to go next goes out the window, and fate takes the lead in what comes next. I believe his words in substance are on the order of --------- no rational officer would lead his men into that country north of MTC. So what then can we conclude to be the genesis of DC's theory, evidence that Custer got whacked, or going onto that terrain (concluded as being foolish) so therefore something must have happened to Custer earlier? Custer may very well have gotton whacked. It may very well have initiated something very foolish, but if we use that as the sole basis we do ourselves a diservice. The second point is that despite what view the at large population may think of as cavalry country, the truth is that men on horses in tactical formation have done it in less than desireable terrain, they continue to do it today in vehicles (and your correct the vehicles don't require training, only maintenence which may be worse). When the ability to negotiate terrain with either type of beast stops, the mission does not, and good troops press on. In your various duties do you not do the same? Do you not enter areas of difficulty from both terrain and man? Do you not adapt to what confronts you? You do not need to answer for I know you do. You may go slower. You may exercise more caution in one area, more intensly required from another. You put mission above all else and drive on. Now for all who think I am smoking some funny stuff, reasearch the events of Thanksgiving Day 25 November 1876. Everything I have said about cavalry, mounted or dismounted, easy or rough terrain, will be validated by that research. Everything., and I believe you will conclude like I have that cavalry country is where cavalry needs to operate, not where it wants to, the dismounted operations in conjunction or in addition to mounted are feasible against hostile indians in certain circumstances, and that good commanders and well trained troops can overcome the difficulties of weather and terrain, by adaptation, courage, and determination. And Steve, as you well know there is no force on earth more powerful than the individual infantryman and his bayonet, the Ultimate Weapon, the guy who closes the last 100 yards even if he does not particularly like the idea. And your son is also quite correct, giving lie to this infantry mentality crapola we are treated to elsewhere. I agree in principle with where a soldier could go "if necessary". I often heard when the going gets rough the tough get going. My only point is the degree of difficulty of terrain has an impact on what you can do in a horse mounted formation. Columns slow down due to terrain features. Indians did not have that same limitation. I appreciate the officers here and their knowledge and know my limitations in certain arenas. That being said I will assure you that my horses are higher maintence than my vehicles and I have never had my vehicle be afraid to do something or intentionally try to harm me. Regards Steve
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 13, 2013 9:05:51 GMT -6
Steve: Just change their oil more often and all will be well.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 13, 2013 9:37:14 GMT -6
They have a bad habit of getting rid of everything I feed them and in a different form
Steve
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 13, 2013 9:49:02 GMT -6
Alfakilo Speaking of perspective...that is my only concern about these videos. I'm not certain that the perception of distance as provided by the camera lens is correct. Depends on he lens in use.Some can make the back ground appear closer or push it further back. Newn has posted an item off the net covering the battle[on Battle Basics].It claims to be based on Indian accounts.Interesting that there is no mention of a GNJ which also depends on Indian accounts.Which Indians can we believe?
|
|