|
Post by bc on Jun 2, 2013 17:00:27 GMT -6
Every officer is usually entitled to an enlisted orderly or helper/stryker and Alcott being the only one with Nowlan would likely be his choice. Britt, I guess ProBoards decided to upgrade their system. Have you seen it on your cell phone yet? The other site hasn't changed yet. I am still uncertain of this Alcott business. Nowlan had I Company sergeant, George Gaffney, assigned to him, and Gaffney was on the "Far West." Alcott was from A Company and was the only NCO with three A Company privates left at the PRD. The question becomes, why would Alcott be on the "Far West"? I can see already I am going to have to extend some of my work into early July 1876. Best wishes, Fred. I'm not sure I've even heard of Alcott until the other day. I was going through the exhibits for the online RCOI and notice a letter from Reno and his report and one referenced he couldn't give Terry an exact count of dead and wounded because he lost 7 of the first sergeants who apparently kept the rosters. Co. A's first Sergeant Heyn was wounded which may account for inaccurate rosters for Co. A and others. I don't know if Heyn went back to FAL with the Far West or not or how badly he was wounded. bc
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jun 11, 2013 9:37:26 GMT -6
I have seen this avatar before, yes it belonged to an Arizona Ranger called Steve or to the people who post on these two boards ‘’AZ Ranger & Benteen East’’ so who is this rb guy who also goes under this moniker, the only other person who goes under the name of rb is Rosebud/Justin, but doesn’t he live further north? And is he a Ranger, I thought that he was some sort of rancher and lived on the Rosebud River, strange one this, and rather juvenile too.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 13, 2013 12:11:05 GMT -6
It is if you ask me in that it has a badge number on it. Grow up. He is a better man then you will ever be, AZ that is and Ian is too.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 13, 2013 14:20:04 GMT -6
Justin: It is not a matter of my being happy. It was a matter of you using something to which you were not entitled. You used not a generic badge which would have been perfectly fine with me. You used his badge to which only he is entitled to display. Now I did not build the building, or cast the statue on my avitar either, nor is my name Betsy Ross. What I did do is go to school there, and am therefore entitled to identify myself with that school, in much the same way one does should they post a college insignia as an avatar. It is a small thing but one that has meaning to Steve, and the meaning he places on it should be your first concern, not how much mileage you get out of making fun of it.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 13, 2013 21:48:11 GMT -6
Justin: I don't care who struck John or who struck John first. That is between you and Steve. I have no part in it, no skin in the game.
You did the right thing. That is what is important, important mainly to yourself.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jun 14, 2013 6:57:48 GMT -6
Here is something interesting to ponder...
"The other rule is, never fight against heavy odds if by any possible maneuvering you can hurl your own force on only a part, and that the weakest part, of your enemy and crush it. Such tactics will win every time...."
Anyone tell me who said it... and when?
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jun 14, 2013 7:15:49 GMT -6
Hi Fred; was it Stonewall Jackson?
I have the full paragraph here;
"Always mystify, mislead, and surprise the enemy, if possible; and when you strike and overcome him, never let up the pursuit so long as your men have strength to follow; for an army routed, if hotly pursued, becomes panic-stricken and can then be destroyed by half their number. The other rule is, never fight against heavy odds, if by any possible manoeuvring you can hurl your own force on only a part, and that the weakest part, of your enemy and crush it. Such tactics will win every time and a small army may thus destroy a large one in detail and repeated victory will make it invincible."
Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson, quoted by Brigadier General John D. Imboden
Another one by STJ is;
‘’The only true rule for cavalry is to follow the enemy as long as he retreats’’
P.S. My Spider sense was tingling when I answered Fred’s post, I think it could be tricky dickey question.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by Gatewood on Jun 14, 2013 7:31:23 GMT -6
Sounds like something that Sun Tzu would say
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jun 14, 2013 7:47:06 GMT -6
I think old Sun Tzu had a vision of what war was going to be like in the 20th century, when he said;
‘’The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting’’
He must have had a dream of what war in the future would be like with fast firing breech loading cannons and rapid fire machine guns.
In other words; The 75mm M1897 Field Gun The Maxim Machine Gun The Lee Enfield Bolt-Action Rifle
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 14, 2013 8:25:45 GMT -6
It sounds like something from Bill Dupuy, during that agonizing time when the contenders were Dupuy's mobile defense vs. air land battle.
Sun Tzu said something very similar, and as all tactics, operational concepts and strategy were the brain child of the ancients I would consider him the prime source to be used by the moderns. Would not surprise me if Gideon did not mention something of the kind as he sat around the campfire with the chosen 300.
Whomever said it knew what they were talking about. But saying it is not the trick. Applying it to the proper situation, and knowing what that proper situation is, is the trick.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jun 14, 2013 8:31:54 GMT -6
I am absolutely positive Bill DePuy would have said it as well and I could almost guarantee he read it; but...
Good job, Ian! Right smack on the money: Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson, it was!
I started reading the Shelby Foote, three volume set, The Civil War. This may be the best written history I have ever read. I am on volume one and can barely put it down.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jun 14, 2013 8:50:58 GMT -6
Thanks Fred, I hope things go well with your trip, I don’t know how much freedom you have when you walk the area, but I would like to stand around the ford B area and try and imagine the view the Indians would have had whilst the Troopers moved up on the high ground.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jun 14, 2013 9:09:38 GMT -6
... I would like to stand around the ford B area and try and imagine the view the Indians would have had whilst the Troopers moved up on the high ground. I have some pictures already, but I will take some more. My iPhoto crashed some time back and I have never re-organized it. Plus, my friends have sent me zillions more, so I need to take some time and try to put everything in order again. I will check my files today and either post some here or e-mail a few direct to you. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 14, 2013 9:23:48 GMT -6
14 JUNE 1775 ----- Some politicians thought they needed an army. Ten companies of expert riflemen (note the word rifle) were authorized to be raised in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia. Some fellow from Virginia went off to Boston to lend those folks a hand.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jun 14, 2013 12:07:14 GMT -6
... I would like to stand around the ford B area and try and imagine the view the Indians would have had whilst the Troopers moved up on the high ground. OK, Ian, let's try this... i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc285/flwagner3/P1010167.jpgThis picture is Ford B, looking toward the valley. Smith's company-- E-- would have been in front of the photographer. You can see how things have been distorted because of the fill used to build the road. I would assume the original sight did not have that mound you see to the front. Boyer's Bluff is on the left, but you can see it better in the photo below. i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc285/flwagner3/P1010164.jpgThis shot is of the ford and the so-called Boyer's Bluff off to the left. I will dig around for more pictures showing what the Indians would have been looking at. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|