|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 11, 2014 11:51:34 GMT -6
In line with your concubine story, Napoleon was having trouble getting his cavalry to charge an enemy cavalry, so he lined up his lancers on both sides of the cavalry and placed his infantry behind them. This was done to force them ahead as well as to give them confidence. They had no choice. If I have to dig up this citation, I will, but it was done!
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 11, 2014 14:10:49 GMT -6
I just looked it up, and the spot alfakilo thinks is 3411 is not. It's on the northwest corner of the Reno field boundary, considerably further back. Just because graphics become granite quick, it might be good to correct that. I'll retreat to my initial post on this, which I now think is correct.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Feb 11, 2014 18:15:25 GMT -6
I just looked it up, and the spot alfakilo thinks is 3411 is not. It's on the northwest corner of the Reno field boundary, considerably further back. Just because graphics become granite quick, it might be good to correct that. I'll retreat to my initial post on this, which I now think is correct. DC, what I was trying to show was that your statements about what could be seen from 3411 were correct. The exact placement of 3411 wasn't the point.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 11, 2014 18:52:19 GMT -6
Understood, and I didn't mean to play gotcha, it's just that once a graphic is up, it can be forever and has more oomph than text. When Fred's book is torn from the muse's side, the plantlife trying to be a pain will jump all over that, or try to. They'll get hammered, but it will provide an unnecessary commotion.
I make more errors than anyone, but provide no graphics, so people have to read words and only those with tired lips will find my mistakes.
And, also, it's important that folks realize that zippo north of Weir Pt. or Sharpshooter on the east side of LBH can be seen from 3411, which I think is a blooming issue.
|
|
|
Post by brenda56 on Feb 12, 2014 4:09:32 GMT -6
Maybe this is an issue, maybe not but it does bother me. Problem is there is no definitive answer but.......
As five battalions enter Medicine Tail Coulee two end up near to the ford, nearish would probably be more acceptable. Later the five battalions reunite in the Calhoun area. That's basically the situation presented by a number of authors. A bit grey and evasive, intentionally so maybe.
The two at the ford B may have gone there for a look however other views include the possibility of five battalions intent on a village attack. Now add in the support for Reno and the situation becomes a bit confusing.
Now I accept that I may have misinterpreted a few things but assuming that the 5 became a 2+3 then a 5 again there's possibly something about a critical decision point or a critical point that didn't include a proactive decision, namely the splitting of the 5 companies to a 2+3 (in or around somewhere in MTC ?)
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Feb 12, 2014 8:33:43 GMT -6
Good Afternoon Brenda, I have eluded to some of the points you made a week or so ago that they changed formation from 5 to 2+3, Fred also has brought up this point, so whether or not it was a tactical decision to aid movement or it was a reaction to Indian sightings I don’t really know but I don’t think that all five Companies arrived at the MTF so they did in my view split and this again in my view accrued in MTC.
It’s great to see so many Ladies from Great Britain posting on this board, Brenda and Margaret along with Trisha (who is also with the Keogh Battalion) really make a different to the place, along with their views.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Feb 12, 2014 10:26:34 GMT -6
And, also, it's important that folks realize that zippo north of Weir Pt. or Sharpshooter on the east side of LBH can be seen from 3411, which I think is a blooming issue. I took the photos from the car pullover spot that is located at the southern end of SSR. Here are two references for where the 3411 point is...it seems to me that this may be slightly north of the pullover area. In any case, the idea is that the view of the village areas towards Ford B is restricted, and we'll never know exactly what Custer saw from his visit to 3411 (or where ever he looked out from). I've revised my attempt to show the orientation of the four views from where I stood in the pullover area. The red X for the 3411 point is about as close as I can determine from the topo pictures that I have attached. I hope these pictures allow others to see what you were describing. AK
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 12, 2014 10:42:29 GMT -6
First off Brenda, I believe you meant five companies, not five battalions.
Second I think this board could well use a tutorial on combat formations, the strengths and weaknesses of each, and when it is more appropriate to use one over the other. Those that don't understand could learn, and those of us that are supposed to know could certainly use a refresher course, including myself.
Third and on point. Custer in all probability entered Cedar Coulee in column, with battalions in column. Once he reached the mouth of that coulee where in enters Medicine Tail Coulee, he most probably did one of two things:
1) Send the Keogh Battalion up onto the L-N-C Ridge complex and proceed down MTC with the Yates Battalion. At this point the two battalion columns would be parallel to one another with Yates most likely slightly in advance of Keogh. That formation would be called a right echelon with battalions in column. Were they to be parallel (meaning directly opposite each other, neither one in advance of the other) it would be then termed a line, battalions in column.
2) His second option would be to remain in column, battalions in column, and take the whole up on to the ridge complex, and follow the ridges on a northwesterly axis.
Whichever course of action he adopted makes no real difference. The "tell" that the excursion to Ford B was a reconnaissance and not an attack was that when Custer sent Yates with his battalion to Ford B, the Keogh Battalion remained a mile to the rear, something that would not be done were it an attack. At the conclusion of the Ford B affair the Yates Battalion did not go back from whence it came, but rather moved away from Ford B in a northeasterly direction toward the high ground at Calhoun Hill/Battle Ridge. Keogh continued north seeing this, and the whole joined together somewhere in the vicinity of Calhoun Hill.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Feb 12, 2014 10:58:14 GMT -6
Hello Chuck, yes this has no markings of a full blown attack, leaving around 130 men out of a force of 210 way back on a ridge line around a mile away does not constitute a full assault, well not in my book anyway.
Things do get a little confused over the way the US Cavalry named its formations, Companies instead of Troops, Battalions instead of Squadrons, didn’t they amend these terms?
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 12, 2014 11:13:10 GMT -6
Ian: The law that organized US units stipulated that company sized units regardless of branch (Infantry, Cavalry, Dragoons, Mounted Rifles, Artillery) were called companies. That did not stop the more popular terms Troop and Battery from being in widespread use. In addition the initial use of the word squadron was meant to mean (officially) two companies of cavalry, dragoons, or mounted rifles) joined together for tactical purposes under command of the senior of the two company commanders. It was not until 1883 that the company of cavalry (by then there were no dragoons or mounted rifles) was redesignated as a troop, and the regiment organized into three squadrons of four troops each.
In the artillery companies became batteries (officially), but I am not sure of the date. You must also remember that field artillery was not a separate branch, and the companies/batteries of both coast and field artillery were present in the same regimental structure. There are still references to companies of Coast Artillery seen as late as the 1930's.
Small sidebar: The artillery regiments were broken up into separate batteries/companies of field and coast artillery around the time of the Span Am War. This arrangement lasted about ten years when they were again regimented, but this time into separate field and coast artillery organization. The lineage of the first seven FA regiments and the first seven CA regiments, contain so many cross overs from one regiment to another, it is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle blindfolded.
The term battery is derived from a field artillery company coming into battery, meaning lined up on target ready to fire. The same term is used by naval forces when the guns of a warship are turned toward the enemy ready to fire, and are said to be in battery..
For our purposes here the term company should be used as should the word battalion. The battalion was provided for by law when these units were organized by the inclusion of the three majors in the TO&E, but no organization for what a battalion was is stipulated. Therefore a battalion could be what we call today a task force made up of units to serve either the occasion or tactical situation. Initially from 1883 until at least the Span Am War the squadron was the same a task force. Later it became the more rigid and formal: 1st Squadron A,B.C, and D Troops: 2nd Squadron E,F,G, and H Troops: 3rd Squadron I,K,L, and M Troops.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 12, 2014 11:53:11 GMT -6
Ian: Additionally for the folks beyond our borders, many armies follow the British method of designation as follows.
British cavalry regiment would be what we would call a battalion or squadron.
The British Squadron,is what we would call a company or troop.
The British Troop is what we would call a platoon.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Feb 12, 2014 14:06:03 GMT -6
Hey Chuck, I didn’t know that British units were smaller than their US counterparts? A British Regiment being the equivalent of a US Battalion or Squadron, that’s new to me, it seems like they are one size down from each other, which is very interesting.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Feb 12, 2014 14:52:19 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 12, 2014 15:04:03 GMT -6
In the Briish Army the regiment can mean a lot of things. I directed this above comment to the regiments of the Royal Armored Corps, minus the Royal Tank Regiment.
Cavalry units of the British Army such as the Scots Greys are a battalion sized unit, consisting of three squadrons (US companies)
The Royal Artillery is one huge regiment, meaning they all wear the same insignia, share the same depot, etc. , but are organized into "field" regiments, the equivalent to a US FA battalion, and these field regiments are allotted on the basis of one per brigade.
Infantry units are organized into regiments, such as the Royal Regiment of Scotland, and these regiments can field anything from one to a great multiple of battalions for field service. Last time I looked the Coldstrem Guards fielded two battalions (same size as ours) The Grenadiers had two. I think the Scots Guards had two, with the Irish Guards and the Welsh Guards fielding one each.
Your support Services like the Army Air Corps, Logistics Corps etc. are also considered Corps/Regiments from which any number of field regiments can be formed.
So except for the Infantry in the British Army and the Royal Tank Regiment, where you see a 1st Battalion, 2nd Battalion of (fill in the blank) the term regiment normally means a battalion sized unit.
One of you WWII Infantry Brigades normally consisted of three battalions, and all three could come from separate regiments, In that set up the brigade was the tactical headquarters and each of those battalions tactical units, having their administrative headquarters at the regimental depot, where our regiments also consisted of three battalions, and the regiment was both an administrative and tactical headquarters.
The Infantry regiment in the British Army stemmed from the need to have battalions on foreign service. Essentially each regiment would consist of two battalions in peacetime, one away somewhere and the second at home collocated with the regimental depot. These battalions would exchange places from time to time. In time of war the regimental depot could raise additional battalions and train them for service as required. Over time this grew to a number of infantry regiments (and depots) that exceeded 120. What happened in fact is that the regiments/depots were fighting each other to recruit manpower, and the result was that all of these infantry regiments and the battalions that served under them were at very low strength levels, and could not be maintained. Along comes a fellow named Cardwell and says, wait a minute, lets do this. Let's amalgamate regiments having regional or functional ties, which in fact halved the number of regiments but created full strength battalions, two in number for each regiment. Some units were exempt, I believe the first (or oldest) 24 but the rest doubled up. That is why you had created the Royal Green Jackets out of two rifle regiments, and some of your county regiments like the Sussex, and Kent Regiments.
Look up Cardwell reforms and that should give you a better idea.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Feb 12, 2014 16:55:43 GMT -6
Enjoyed the video! The video says that Boyer told Custer that Reno had been defeated fairly early in the day. Is this correct? AK
|
|