|
Post by wild on Jan 29, 2013 12:26:06 GMT -6
Just bought the USS Constellation,A 40 Gun Frigate 3 masts.Measures a metre long and the detail is only superb.Beautiful beautiful ship.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 29, 2013 12:47:29 GMT -6
Which one? The original one of the Barbary Wars and the War of 1812, or the rebuilt fiction (it was actually a new ship that used components of the old) that still exists in Baltimore's Inner Harbor today?
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 29, 2013 13:07:11 GMT -6
The first one 1790 or something.Defeated two french ships.I can just stand and look and enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 29, 2013 13:21:05 GMT -6
The first one was a frigate. The second one was a sloop of war. I would love to know where they got the plans to build the model of the first one. They were in fact two different ships although there has been a very long arguments about that. There was a paper written late last century by a couple of guys from I think the David Taylor Model Basin that showed conclusive evidence that they were in fact different ships. Regardless, she rivals Constitution, as a must see for those who love the age of fighting sail.
Berthed near her is The Pride of Baltimore, a replica of the design type of Baltimore shipbuilders, many of which served as privateers in the War of 1812.
|
|
|
Post by Gatewood on Jan 29, 2013 14:02:41 GMT -6
A number of years ago I visited the USS Constitution, not long after she had been fairly extensively repaired/rebuilt. I had the effrontery to ask the guide how much of what I was looking at was "original", and he seemed put out by the question and never answered it. After returning home, with my curiosity unsatisfied, I sent a similar inquiry to the ship's website and received the reply that it was all considered to be original. I guess that I can understand their contention, to a degree, as anything is going to require some degree of maintenance and replacement of components, which doesn't necessarily render the whole as non-original, but what I really wanted to know was, if I were to touch something, what were the odds of my swapping DNA with someone from 1812, and I couldn't get an answer to that.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 29, 2013 15:22:09 GMT -6
With all due respect to everyone......
In the future, can we agree that movies, novels, ship models, and other stuff ought to be on sections of the board devoted specifically to that? Too many Custer designated threads have of late biodegraded into the the ruminations of Olde Men. Myself included. This thread about Victory Disease started out okay, but it isn't fair to the board to turn every thread into utterly unrelated issues.
I detest herosrest and his ilk for polluting the Independent Research arena when nobody replied to his crap elsewhere, and he just keeps expanding. But push to shove, I cannot find much difference to here beyond he was actually trying to be a pain. If people we supposedly want to attract to Custerland were to follow recent threads they'd conclude we were fed jello in the Common Room and put to bed at by seven.
There are sections for this. If nobody posts in them, I don't think that excuses our pollution here.
That said, the USS Constitution can be doubted to have a splinter of 18th century or 19th century wood aboard unless behind a glass case on the wall. Guns are probably valid, though, especially after their dismal rate of success as AA batteries in the Solomons during the early part of the Big One, they were finally retired. Not accurate, not fast firing, but durable. Some were made in England, which was amusing to E and Prince Phillip when they toured her a while back.
Okay? It's hard to seethe at herosrest if we do the same thing. The board is not ours, it's devoted to others and that ought to be respected more than we seem to do of late. I'm guilty as anyone.
|
|
|
Post by cefil on Jan 29, 2013 16:20:45 GMT -6
Thanks for the shout out to Lt. Cdr. John C. Waldron, one of Fort Pierre's favorite sons (along with Casey Tibbs). Tibbs may have the museum, but Waldron has the bridge that connects us across the Missouri to Pierre. By the way, Waldron's mother was a girlhood friend of the Bower family, of One and Only Genuine Original Family Band fame. Midway, rodeo, and family bands all in one posting with nary a Custer in sight (though he did pass through here once). Another item off the bucket list...
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 29, 2013 16:48:23 GMT -6
Keeping in mind DC's admonition, and he is correct. Midway, John C. Waldron, Victory Disease and Little Big Horn are all related within the purpose and scope of these various Custerland discussions
Midway and LBH are so much alike in that one side expected the enemy either not to have a vote, or to only vote their way.
Waldron, given his orders, did what he thought to be right, and not the right thing
Many times the lessons to be drawn from battles is not who went how far or went around this or that side of the ridge. The real lessons come from the notions present preceeding the battle, or the men who saw their duty clearly in spite of given situations or contrary orders. Waldron was one of those men.
|
|
|
Post by Gatewood on Jan 30, 2013 15:16:21 GMT -6
QC, I couldn't figure out how to attach the model picture to the PM that I sent you, so here it is. This is a Hornet model in its "Doolitle" scheme, which was modified for Midway as per my PM. (Hope this works) Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 30, 2013 15:49:24 GMT -6
Gatewood: That is about as good as it comes. Many thanks.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Jan 30, 2013 20:02:00 GMT -6
The Victory Disease theory has problems.
There were several hundred combat actions during the Indian Wars. Combat patrols, offensive actions, defensive actions etc. The vast majority were favorable to US forces. The campaigns and operations steadily wore down the tribes.
In fact the best operational victory by the Indians was the effort to shut down the Bozeman Trail. The US was forced to commit massive resources to build railroads before they could try again. Note that the main effort in 1876 was along the river, the Bozeman Trail remained extremely difficult, as demonstrated by the logistic constraints on Crook's Department.
So we have a theory that explains one action, and fails to explain hundreds of others. The theory fails.
The LBH was a winnable fight. The fight companies in the north fought poorly. Their tactics were bad, and they died in widely separated company clusters. It takes an amazing degree of incompetent officers to cause such an outcome. The poor tactics and weak fighting by these companies can in no way be associated with the other 3 Bn commanders, nor Old Barnum.
The decision to scatter the Regiment across the in 8 pieces, where none could support another is the main cause of the loss. Of the 35 regiments in the Army, only one could have and did do so badly.
The discussion on GAC dying early is based on the premise that he would not make the decisions that he did make. LBH is not an isolated Custer case. He was relieved of his command for gross incompetence in an earlier Indian campaign.
The whole Custer Luck legend is based on bad decision making with fortunate outcomes. Hope is not a method. Neither is luck.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 30, 2013 20:31:57 GMT -6
Just to be clear, I don't think it panned out that anyone was in a position to make decisions that affected the doomed command after crossing MTC. I don't think anyone of the officers would willingly take the five to where they ended up, and while I do blame Custer, it's for the organization that he nourished.
He rode near the front, I think got wounded, did not cede command, and they tried to make a temporary retreat that allowed them to stay mounted and get organized. Not irrational, but I don't think Keogh was clear on what was happening and they were both bumped and nudged to the end game and lost all pro active power.
I do think there was an accepted actual COC and the official one, and when a Custer or the Custer was hit, the actual with TWC took over. Suspect everyone understood and did not mind and this was only unusual for the number of nepotistic family and friends in such a small force. Made small dif as they were running with short unsuccessful delaying actions. Seems consistent with how TWC had acted earlier, and he DID know his bro's wishes. Bringing the regiment forward and sending Kanipe I suspect were anticipatory to Custer's thoughts, and correct. That's if Kanipe was sent at all.
Suspect Custer wanted to go into action at MTC ford because they could see few warriors, and it WAS the quickest way into the village no matter the goal: horses, civvies, burn and pillage, or run to Terry. I do not think Custer would leave Reno to his own. His career would never survive, and Reno or Benteen would have been shot there if anybody thought they'd deliberately left Custer to die. Custer's nepotism had seen to that.
Reno and Benteen would have loved to rescue Custer. All the plus and more and none of the bad for letting him and his guys die.
I do agree the 7th fought poorly, but considering the practice and training - if any - of the men, what could be expected if the Indians did not run right off?
The Indians were involved 100% in the fights and wars whereas the US devoted a pittance of its time and wealth to winning the West. I think that Victory Disease cannot apply to one battle. When the Japanese lost at Wake early, they hardly went into the prenatal position to think things over. They knew it for what it was: a nothing action that turned out bad, but meant nothing and then they proved it. They had no public media to placate, as the US did, but Grant was right: Custer made an idiotic mistake, but it was not a big deal in the scheme of things. But the mistake was in his long time attitude to the Indians and to practice and training, something he had never himself seemed to make his commands do except when brass was visiting.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 30, 2013 20:46:59 GMT -6
Montrose and DC: I think if you would read Shattered Sword you would come to understand just how bad Victory Disease or a feeling of superiority against anything that could be thrown at them permiated the IJN and in particular Kido Butai, not only at Midway but for the first six months of the war> I is not a great leap then to see this all playing out in the attitudes that prevailed in the 7th Cavalry.
Will: I don't think I have ever argued that this battle could not be won, should have been won, and that the reason it was not won must be squarely on the shoulders of the commanding officer. Don't think there are to many here that feel otherwise. We can argue the attainment of objectives, we can discuss decisive outcomes or their absence, but victory was there for the taking, but for a number of gross tactical errors, that were certainly not brought about by a healty respect for the enemy.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Jan 30, 2013 20:58:13 GMT -6
So we have a theory that explains one action, and fails to explain hundreds of others. The theory fails. As I understood the paper, it was a cautionary tale, a 'don't make this mistake' using two examples, one being the LBH battle. I didn't get the impression that the author was trying to apply his theory to all actions...he wasn't giving a history lesson so much as advice. At least as I see it. AK
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 30, 2013 21:06:55 GMT -6
Shattered Sword is on the web in sections, I discovered. There's no doubt they thought they'd win, but every victim of the disease knows they'll be setbacks and not a big deal overall. The Japanese brass were convinced that the Americans would negotiate before all the manufacturing preponderance kicked in. They thought as a mixed race nation we were inferior and couldn't operate as one. Because they sure could not, nor could they imagine it.
Yamamoto was fully aware that the Yamato was built with parts carried by mules from the factory to the shipyard. He knew full well they'd lose if he could not get us to the table early. That was not a baseless theory, either. We came rather closer than admitted.
Every war, the death roles matter big time here. It's hard to imagine us sustaining the percentage losses of Britain or France or Russia or Germany and having the will to fight as well as they did. Because we never got close to their loss percentages and we had big calls for peace early on.
|
|