|
Post by quincannon on Feb 28, 2014 17:36:00 GMT -6
As I understand our purpose here it is to both dispense what knowledge we possess, and glean knowledge from others. Knowledge is fact that may be salt and peppered with our own interpretation of these facts, and again based upon these facts offer opinions on issues that might fill in the gaps where no determined fact is available to us. It is a mutual exercise in learning.
People who dispense opinion, without and underpinning of fact which they may be called upon to produce when questioned on their opinion are about as useful as a condom in a convent.
Fred you do as you please regarding the other board. Only you can determine your capacity to withstand the stress brought on by expressed gross ignorance. Your efforts will have no effect. They are more a voice crying in a wilderness of stupidity.
TOM: You were tested for want and found not wanting. You have done an exceptional job here. I am very glad you are in our company.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 1, 2014 8:57:14 GMT -6
I am a member of the organization that the other board is linked to and see a need to monitor and comment. I attempt to use my investigative skills when evaluating the thread discussions. The military officer and decision making is lacking on my part but I have attempted to learn from those that are officers.
Fred I understand your position with Bill. I attempt to do the same regarding Peter Thompson because I consider Gerry a friend and we both know where we stand. That being said guys like MG should not be allowed to make up false facts and information. You have a wealth of facts and data that can be used for all to have an informed opinion. That is the best that we can hope for.
Bill uses parts of testimony and accounts to make up his time line and other statements but he starts with an opinion and he presents it in a manner that not always in the manner presented. For example he states that 3 miles is supporting distance for cavalry and that Montrose stated 300 yards. He then drops into his boring infantry v cavalry. The truth is that Montrose stated 300 to 800 yards and the source Bill used for cavalry stated 1.5 miles to 3 miles. Notice that for infantry he used the closet in the range 300 yards and for cavalry he used the maximum of 3 miles. You can pick the same as Bill if you use his predisposed filters.
Reno didn't stay long enough in the valley
Benteen went to slow
Reno and Benteen sat on Reno Hill while hearing heavy volleys
Cavalry v Infantry differ in tactics etc
I am sure there are more.
The perfect example was how Bill decided Mathey arrived at 3 PM he started with 3 PM worked it backward to chose whether Mathey started at 11 or 12. That is not what Mathey did. Mathey stated they started at 11 or 112 and than estimated a rate of speed of the front of the pack train. What Mathey did not give us is the rate of speed he used so we don't know if he started his time estimate from 11 or 12. So if Mathey used his rate of speed at 11 and it was really later than his 3 PM would be later. Bill makes that impossible by assuming the 3 PM is correct and all errors are only in rate of speed and starting time. Mathey did know that it was 3 PM when he arrived yet Bill takes it as fact because it fits his model. Bill leaves out the range and choses whichever end suits him.
The point is that Mathey gives us an estimate using a range of time and nothing more.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 1, 2014 9:15:08 GMT -6
Hi Steve, yes the debate over supporting distance can be separated into Infantry and Cavalry, sure Infantry units have to keep a shorter distance between one and other because of their slower movement rates, but have an advantage with the Rifle being accurate at longer distances then the Carbine, but in the case of Cavalry the distance of three miles is ludicrous, they couldn't even see each other at three miles, so without any sort of communication equipment how do they know if one units need support from another at this distance? Montrose’s distances look more realistic and more to the point feasible, if one unit is in trouble any supporting units should be able to see what is going on and be able to respond quickly, so how can this happen when the two units are three miles from each other.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Mar 1, 2014 9:29:31 GMT -6
You can pick the same as Bill if you use his predisposed filters. He confuses enthusiasm for experience. AK
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 1, 2014 9:36:00 GMT -6
Ian
I don't think that it just infantry v cavalry. It is timing. That the rate of a horse mounted infantry soldier is different than a foot soldier is a given yet they are both infantry. I could be wrong and would like hear the doctrine from those officers here. I suspect the distance is based up on time that the support can move up actually support.
What is discussed is whether the advance guard gets so far ahead that it can be defeated without time for the support to come up. That needs to be a consideration.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 1, 2014 9:44:42 GMT -6
opinion. That is the best that we can hope for. Bill uses parts of testimony and accounts to make up his time line and other statements but he starts with an opinion and he presents it in a manner that not always in the manner presented. For example he states that 3 miles is supporting distance for cavalry and that Montrose stated 300 yards. He then drops into his boring infantry v cavalry. The truth is that Montrose stated 300 to 800 yards and the source Bill used for cavalry stated 1.5 miles to 3 miles. Notice that for infantry he used the closet in the range 300 yards and for cavalry he used the maximum of 3 miles. You can pick the same as Bill if you use his predisposed filters. Regards Steve I know I am being selective in picking my quote here, thanks Steve, the Marines to the rescue. Yesterday, I said I was confounded as to why Custer did not strike at ford B. Fred gave me all the right reasons. But my first thought was if Keogh is only a mile to the rear, why can't Custer call him forward? What is the line of sight from Keogh's position to ford B? How long would it take to get Keogh to this point of attack? How hard for the command Custer/ Keogh to cut through center of village here burning and shooting as they went? My full scenario, in earlier post. As I will be at the battlefield this Summer , I will probably have the answers, just trying to get preview.Regards,Tom
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 1, 2014 9:51:00 GMT -6
The military officer and decision making is lacking on my part but I have attempted to learn from those that are officers. Yes, but you are smart and you are well-read. In addition, you are the kind of person who sits back, says little, and learns. To me, people like you make perfect officers, so I look at you that way. I suspected that of you, but meeting you confirmed it. In addition, you have an extremely commanding presence, and mark my words, that's important. My wife always tells me when I walk in a room, dressed up, people part and notice. That is doubly apropos for her and for you. Maybe it is self-confidence, maybe it is an aura of arrogance, I don't know. But I will tell you, when you walked into the Montana Brewing Company that evening, I friggin' noticed, I'll tell you! I like Bill; I always have... even when I hated him. There is something about him... and I just like him. I deal with his prejudices and I tell him, but I no longer argue them with him. The Reno Hill and Weir Point businesses are perfect examples. He skews the facts to fit his prejudices, but I accept that for what it is. The Godfrey 2:30 arrival on Reno Hill is a perfect example. Yet you have a dozen other examples that point to a slightly later time and the difference skews everything immeasurably. Bill agrees with my "relative" time ideas, yet he sticks to this one particular "specific" time. Then, he calls Wallace a liar regarding the divide crossing time, another "specific." To me that is not good analysis... but I won't argue with him. Those are his choices and if that's what he wants to go with, it's fine. I am no longer in the arguing business with Bill. He is a decent man and he has been kind to me. I will measure him by "likes," not "dislikes." Well, again, as far as I am concerned, I dealt with that issue in the Research Review article and there is no one who can successfully argue against it, simply because I packed all the ammo. No one can come up with more definitive accounts, simply because I have read them all and have reached my conclusions based on those accounts. Etc., etc., etc. Well stated. And he is completely wrong. That may be the worst of all his work. Which is a shame, because he does some good stuff... and believe me, he is as smart as a whip. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 1, 2014 9:52:53 GMT -6
Steve, in this case is the advance guard Reno? And the supporting unit Custer? Well in theory you could say yes, but in reality once Custer had place not only a river but a line of hills between himself and Reno, he could not support anyone until he found a crossing point further north, which he did but then found himself isolated with his own support miles back over rough terrain, so Billy Keogh should try and place theory in one box and reality in another, because they don’t mix.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 1, 2014 10:39:45 GMT -6
Ian,
Just out of curiosity, why do we need to label things here? "Advance guard"...? So what? Who cares? It becomes silly semantics. Reno was one of three "maneuver battalions" sent on a mission. Essentially, this was guerrilla warfare with few if any rules. You simply attacked as efficiently as possible, under the best circumstances as possible, with the most firepower you could muster. Surprise, subtlety, ruse... anything to gain the upper hand. "Advance guard"?
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 1, 2014 11:42:06 GMT -6
Advanced guard - Note the use of the word guard. Guard from what
1) A detachment of troops sent ahead of the main force to reconnoiter and provide protection.
2) A military unit sent ahead of the main body to find gaps in enemy defenses, clear away minor opposition, and prevent unexpected contact. Using those above definitions derived from field manuals of both infantry and armor I find that Reno advancing toward that village was no more an advanced guard then I am Queen of the May
If anything Reno was the VANGUARD of an expected three battalion strength attack. The term is not used much anymore, it is also confused having similar roots with the advanced guard, but has a completely different purpose. It is the advanced most unit (first in line) of a larger body normally traveling in column, whose purpose is to, at either first contact, or a predetermined point form the basis of a line of battle with the intention of the following units to form to the right, left, or both of the vanguard in that line of battle.
The distance of a constituted advance guard away from the head of the main body is at least one terrain feature. In smaller units such as a platoon, the job of the advanced guard is done by the point, and distance rather than terrain features are the guiding principle. The point should be out far enough to where firing on the point, does not impede or prevent maneuver, by the platoon that follows in overcoming whatever adversary is located to your front. As a platoon leader I would expect my point in closed terrain out perhaps a hundred meters. If the terrain was more open, that distance would increase. In either instance the distance between the point and the main body of the platoon, would be covered by connecting files.
They don't teach this crap at the costume shop.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 1, 2014 11:44:32 GMT -6
Argh! NOW you note this?
Because of the jargon and definitions that non military types or military types who've never been in combat can utilize to give themselves stature.
Without it, they fear being indistinguishable from the likes of me, who never served. Bevo Boy and Costume Lad and so many others want to discuss things they've read about being unable to draw on personal experience in the field.
It's not the combat vets who drown us in jargon, acronyms, and parade ground procedures or who thrill to knowing the actual breakdown of foreign army units to the permissible number of strikers for an officer in the field with brevet rank awarded before 'whenever' (and for which they'll provide a definition, a graphic of a moon struck officer after a facial in full uniform, a list of trivia, and info relevant decades before or after the battle).
If on patrol, and an officer sends a guy or two near him to the right to check out a burning vehicle, and they both return with info in about five minutes and rejoin the unit, nobody seems to feel the need to record or remember this as a Right Flank Scouting Optical Assessment Procedure Team Action, which of course in all critical ways fully recalls Scipio Annapolis' sending of 4 legions to his right flank to face Sythian Yahoos in 234 BC in Thrace before the Battle of Ennui. If Custer sends Reno ahead to begin the action, it is doubtful the term 'advance guard' occurred or absorbed much mental energy. These are small unit actions.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 1, 2014 12:56:39 GMT -6
... a Right Flank Scouting Optical Assessment Procedure Team Action... I checked Clausewitz. They dropped this formation in 1573. Who won? Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 1, 2014 13:28:46 GMT -6
Who won the Battle of Ennui?
We don't know. Nobody cared enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2014 13:59:03 GMT -6
Only the olde remember the Ennui fight (aka the Battle of Boredoom).
It wasn't Sythians though; it was Pythagokoreans of the Hypoteneuce.
Sheesh.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 1, 2014 14:18:32 GMT -6
You Sythianphobes are all alike... Always trying to work the angles. If they kept the elephants in the square formation, and the camels in the Hip, they obviously won, as the eleven elephant coprolites from four distinct animals found in the 11 square mile area that may have been the site of the battle before the volcanic activity, change of river course, and gentrification changed the image, clearly prove.
The Sythians were betrayed by the barrista in East Sythiaton who told Annapolis' men to bring mice. Lots of mice.
|
|