|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jan 8, 2015 6:39:45 GMT -6
Not been over there for months and months, but I guess that nothing has changed, Bill will still be preaching and Wild will still be a pain in the ass, so I don't think I will bother.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 8, 2015 7:18:11 GMT -6
I just wish they would use the bible to preach, and not make up their own theology.
|
|
|
Post by Colt45 on Jan 8, 2015 10:29:27 GMT -6
I have been occasionally reading Steve's jousts with Bill over on the other board. I have read enough there to know it would be a waste of time signing on to post, as Will mentioned earlier in his post about the amateur and the professional. We all know which one is the pro and which one is the amateur. As a former armor officer, my emotional side wants to blast all the amateurs and dress-ups as to their goofy use of army terms and doctrine, but my logical side tells me it would just be a waste of time, so I don't bother. It is, however, truly amazing how much time and how many posts go up over "fix" and "flank" and what was Reno supposed to do with regard to "fixing" the hostiles. It seems the "moderator" over there really wants that board to be his personal chapel of knowledge with him being the all-knowing guru of all things LBH.
|
|
shaw
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by shaw on Jan 8, 2015 14:59:48 GMT -6
This is an interesting point. But Custer didn't give Reno specific directions in this matter. "Demonstrating" to draw NA attention is different than what Reno did. Reno charged and then halted and fought on foot. Custer didn't share strategy with anyone except maybe those who rode with him to their deaths (and then maybe not even them). Montrose, I think that Custer just wanted Reno in the valley and making a holy show of his self, he knew that when the village spotted Reno that this would cause a reaction, so this is what he wanted, I don’t think it mattered to him if Reno had to halt and fight on foot in line or ride through and cut the place up, the reaction was enough to allow him to deliver the killer blow. One thing that does irk with me is that he thought that the Indians would run and that two battalions of three and five would be enough to do the job, so it he thought that these warriors would be frightened to death and scatter, then why was he worried that satellite camps would attack his flank. He sent Benteen out to deal with any threat from this area and reduced his combat strength by three companies, so why would he think that the village would run but these other smaller camps would attack? Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 8, 2015 18:54:18 GMT -6
I have no doubt that Reno was under the impression that he was an advanced guard for the main body when he crossed the river and moved to contact, a contact that was achieved just short of the south end of the village. He moved forward mounted, stopped, dismounted and continued to move forward on foot. All this is consistent with the dragoon tactical procedure of the day, and with mechanized and motorized infantry technique of today. The technique is to advance as far as possible mounted then dismount and continue the mission. Further it is completely consistent with the mission of an advanced guard, to first achieve contact and then develop the situation for later exploitation by the main body
The problem here is that when Custer turned onto the bluffs without Reno's knowledge, Reno was no longer an advanced guard. An advance guard must first be in advance, and must be guarding something.
Reno did what he was supposed to do. Custer did not do what he was supposed to do. That is both simple and apparent.
Now under these changed circumstances, the only thing Reno was capable of doing was drawing upon himself every Indian that could grab horse or firearm or both. He had no wherewithal to fix a toilet much less fix those Indians. He was pushed back, first refusing his left flank, then a retrograde to timber. He probably had very few minutes to access his situation and act. He took the proper action and ordered a breakout. He broke out, losing many a man in the process, as this type operation usually does. He had no option to retreat in any sort of orderly manner by bounds the way these things are normally done. He had no open rear that activity requires. Had he waited five to ten minutes more than he did, he would have lost them all. I think he did as good a job as could have been done under the circumstances. He was a very flawed man, whom I have no personal use for, but I do not give a rats behind about that. My personal opinion of him has nothing whatsoever to do with how he performed. It was ragged assed, but he got most of them out and it was his decision to do it.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jan 8, 2015 20:23:27 GMT -6
QC,
He would not have won any "dressage" awards for the nicety and orderliness of that retreat but disaster was rapidly bearing down on him. As you say, he was no longer advancing or guarding (beyond the distant mule train, until he swings back to the timber). His left flank in that valley was always dangling in the air, and the only force in danger of being fixed (but for its flight to the bluffs) was his own.
WO
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 8, 2015 20:38:57 GMT -6
WO: Welcome back. You have been missed. I trust you enjoyed your trip and time spent with son and daughter.
"Being pretty" and "working somehow" are often mutually exclusive. Such was the case here.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jan 8, 2015 20:58:25 GMT -6
QC,
Many thanks. Lovely break, and good to be back in the winter north!
I also doubt that being the unwelcome recipient of Bloody Knife's brains assisted calm reflection.....
WO
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 8, 2015 21:00:38 GMT -6
Blood and brains on your tailor mades have an upsetting influence on bowel movements, don't do a hell of a lot for the bladder either.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jan 8, 2015 21:08:07 GMT -6
QC,
Indeed. Some focus too much on the command and control difference between the US cavalry and the hostile camp. The key is recognising that this was a battle between irregular light cavalry (many on foot as sharpshooter/sniper infantry on the day) and regular dragoons. The exercise of central command and control by GAC wasn't exactly impressive...
WO
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 8, 2015 21:18:36 GMT -6
I think the word you are searching for is not impressive, but rather non-existent. Snookie my youngest cat could have done a better job at C&C than Custer did. Of course Snookie has a PHD in tuna fish.
This whole thread though is about rational thought on this battle, and that rationality begins, only when fan boy is dismissed. You can get nowhere, can accomplish nothing with these people, therefore it becomes an exercise in gossip. You can fix ignorance. You can't fix stupid, and evidently don't have much hope in fixing fanboyitis. My only hope is that they all get terminal jock itch from those authentic wool trousers, then have Saint Pete tell them---- Hell boy you can't come in here you don't know what a fix is.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on May 14, 2015 19:42:33 GMT -6
I haven't looked at the other board since the summer. Based on recent comments here, I took a look. Caveat: Please no personal attacks on anyone. My focus is on having a reasonable discussion. 1. The amateur versus military professionalism issue continues over there. A theory stated as fact is that reenactors understand 19th century tactics better than military professionals. My issue is that many tactical discussions are arrant nonsense, in any century you want to pick. If I were to state that the 7th Cavalry were dressed and equipped as a roman legion, I would be wrong. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. Fundamentals of tactics are frequently wrong on that board. You can post manuals and copy definitions, terms, procedures; and it is totally over the head of some of the amateurs. I left that board because it is hostile to anyone with military experience. To defeat facts, that board on a daily basis derides, denigrates and insults at those who have served. The more you know, the more hated you are over there. The arguments on that board are not rational, they are emotional. Put aside the emotion, and let's look at some of the theories over there with tactical applications. 2. Reno could have defeated the Indians with the force he had, with no help from the rest of the regiment. The theory is that if he had continued to attack and not stopped, he would have won the battle on his own. By the way, they have been discussing this theory with hundreds of posts, for months. Okay, what was the tactical situation? Reno started his attack with 2 companies up, one back, a standard procedure. He used the river to protect his right flank, his left was in the air. Indians rapidly focused on his exposed left. A hunting party of 100-ish showed up out of a creek to the left, and hundreds more mounted and moved around Reno. Reno was forced to move his reserve into line. He still lacked the combat power to extend across the valley. In fact, he needed the 5 companies of the main body. Reno was defeated when the Indians got behind him and started an attack into his rear. They had their own flank protected by the river as they attacked north. Indian numbers were 5-900. So what does continuing to attack north with unprotected flank and rear do? The command would be annihilated with no survivors, within 30 minutes. The Indians get behind you faster if you keep moving forward. As you close in on the village, all those warriors still fixing their make up join the fight faster and in greater numbers. Many men who never fought in the battle now join in out of necessity. A culminating point in or near the village puts you in the open, on a flat plain, with no cover. From a tactical view, this theory has zero chance of success. It is a suicide run. 3. The other dominant theory is that LTC Custer ordered MAJ Reno to conduct a holding attack, while GAC attacked the enemy flank. Again, facts jump in t prove this a false theory. 1) The orders issued by GAC to Reno do not say this. Right here, this theory is counterfactual. 2) The only place to conduct a flank attack is on the left. Custer did not go there, so again, theory is false. The decision not to enter the valley put Custer out of support of Reno. The buffs and river made a flank attack physically impossible. Custer met and was mainly defeated by separate groups of Indians in the circles further downstream. In other words, different Indians at a different location in time and space. By the logic of the other board Wounded Knee is also a flank attack. It's still the 7th Cav, fighting the same Indians, just at a different point in space and time. 3) LTC Custer had a single company approach Ford B. His other elements were stretched out over a mile away. It is fascinating that the Custer fanatics think George Armstrong CUster would conduct his main attack with 20% of his force. Whatever happened at Ford B, it was not an attack. Also it was not on a flank. The Indians in this area faced GAC. SO he would have been attacking straight into their main line of battle, and across a river. 3) GAC moved past the Indians fighting Reno Flank attacks are a window in time and space. There was a window to conduct a flank attack, but GAC was not in poition to do so. I find the theory that officers trained in tactics do not understand tactics badly flawed. There is no such thing as infantry and cavalry mindsets. The issue is professionals versus amateurs. Those who do versus those who do not. Those who know versus those who know not.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 14, 2015 20:12:31 GMT -6
I find the theory that officers trained in tactics do not understand tactics badly flawed. There is no such thing as infantry and cavalry mindsets. The issue is professionals versus amateurs. Those who do versus those who do not. Those who know versus those who know not. Boy, oh boy, is that for sure!!! Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by dave on May 14, 2015 20:38:36 GMT -6
Montrose I would to have the opportunity to meet with you and listen to your thoughts regarding GAC, 7th Cavalry and LBH. It would be a treat. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by montrose on May 15, 2015 9:34:39 GMT -6
The amateur theory is that hussars are more successful than professional officers because they ignore tactics. War is an odd endeavor, there are times the side with bad tactics win. In fact GAC in ACW shows this. This US cavalry was deployed in penny packets 1861-3. This led to them being dominated by the CSA. Joe Hooker reorganized the US cavalry in early 1863. From this point forward, they were better equipped and better organized than the CSA. But their leaders were gun shy from 2 years of defeat. They needed charismatic leaders to force more aggression. GAC thrived in this environment. He would ride up to an encounter, and no matter what the situation on the ground, "Come on, you Wolverines" and pitch into closest enemy he saw. Post ACW was different, and GAC was incapable of adjusting, or even recognizing, the new environment. Look at his 1867 performance. kancoll.org/khq/1970/70_2_millbrook.htm A classic hussar performance, completely fulfilling the typical performance of someone using the cavalry mindset. The other board has a few thousand, maybe tens of thousands, of posts proving that GAC embodied the amateur/cavalry tactics and decision making at LBH. So what is the missing piece of the amateur/cavalry mindset? Notice they will not discuss outcomes. They have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that people who use the amateur/cavalry mindset are tactically incompetent. They make decisions that lead to not just defeat, but catastrophic defeat. So why do Rinni and Conzelman believe this is a good thing? Professionals do not just want to fight and win the nations wars, we want to do so at the lowest cost in lives possible. There is a marked tendency in military history to focus on the battles with the largest losses and the commanders who lose the most men. Tactical competence is often overlooked by non professionals. The amateur/cavalry theory does not explain why it leads to defeat and excessive casualties., in fact the hussars need excessive friendly KIA to enhance the glory of the hussar. The theory is contemptible.
|
|