|
Post by miker on Jun 14, 2023 15:26:36 GMT
I would, if I had my way, replace my lawn with (1) rocks and punji stakes or (2) astroturf.
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on Jun 14, 2023 17:09:47 GMT
Miker I agree - scope creep of threads can get annoying. Ah well - being personable is fun too!
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 14, 2023 20:20:23 GMT
We seem to live in two different worlds.
My front lawn is done in rock, and Astro turf becomes more cost effective every time the price of lawn mowing goes up.
Now, ask yourself Ian, how well you could keep a lawn if you lived in the high desert instead of on an island where it rains frequently. It has rained here sometime every day for the last month. That is why my grass is over three, approaching four feet high now. That is highly abnormal for the desert, and I live in the high desert, where rain is abnormal, grass does not grow worth a crap, where dust storms and tumbling tumbleweeds are the summer time norm. I threw my lawn mower in the trash, and gave up trying to be Mister Green Thumb thirty two years ago. Have you any idea how many freshly sodded lawns I have put in at great expense in those thirty two years? Six is the answer, all of them failed due to local conditions.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 15, 2023 5:47:54 GMT
To be honest QC, if knew or remembered all that before, I wouldn't have made that comment. Your first line about a guy cutting your grass sounded to me like you had a thriving green lawn which was just crying out to be cut.
Our lawns are feeling the pinch, the last few years old "blighty" has been hit by really dry hot summers, the effects of elneo and global warming are kicking in.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 15, 2023 13:20:45 GMT
I assure you it is thriving at the moment. Really thriving. Problem is that if we were having normal weather patterns the lawn would be barely surviving maybe, perhaps, might.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jun 26, 2023 10:10:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jun 28, 2023 1:11:32 GMT
KIDDER BREESE www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/events/wwii-pac/guadlcnl/guad-1.htm Anecdote. We know that Custer's fivecompanies did not move north or west of the battle ridge because surviving officers and those of Montana column were over the terrain. A number of them mapped what was found on the ground. Cavalry horses stampeded into the river and that caused some confusion. Any way, good luck to you all. Save your last bullet.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Sept 14, 2023 7:05:12 GMT
Moving on I have a couple of other things.
We have Curley saying he saw Custer and Bouyer in conversation in MTC.
We have often had people say (correctly in my view) that if Custer wanted to have eyes at Ford B, (as say Fred Wagner opines) he certainly does not need to take himself, headquarters and two companies down there.
Bouyer body has been identified at his marker down near the river although some say he was actually shot near the river on the Northern edge of Ford B (MTC).
I think it likely that part of the Custer conversation in MTC was Custer sending Bouyer down to scout at the river at Ford B; while Custer moved his command on to the Northern Valley.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by miker on Sept 14, 2023 12:31:34 GMT
Moving on I have a couple of other things.
We have Curley saying he saw Custer and Bouyer in conversation in MTC.
We have often had people say (correctly in my view) that if Custer wanted to have eyes at Ford B, (as say Fred Wagner opines) he certainly does not need to take himself, headquarters and two companies down there.
Bouyer body has been identified at his marker down near the river although some say he was actually shot near the river on the Northern edge of Ford B (MTC).
I think it likely that part of the Custer conversation in MTC was Custer sending Bouyer down to scout at the river at Ford B; while Custer moved his command on to the Northern Valley.
Cheers
As you probably anticipated, I bet you know I disagree. while it is great that you think that "Custer does not need to take himself, headquarters, and two companies down there," you only have superficial knowledge about what is needed to develop or execute a plan. Personnel reconnaissance is fundamental for success in battle and time spent in reconnaissance in never wasted. Map reconnaissance is insufficient, but sometimes that is all you get. Custer had never been to the battle area and his scouts had probably not been there in some time. You cannot appreciate the terrain except by going to a vantage point to examine it. Once you have examine the battle area and developed your plan, you should bring your subordinates forward and issue the order from a vantage point to enable them to see the terrain. Custer knew he needed to conduct reconnaissance of the area to develop a plan. Once he thought he had been discovered, he decided not to do it. His plan, such as it was, was to try, as the German's say, " First the Panzers punch a hole, then see what develops.*" He never punched a hole. He didn't see what developed. He rode around uselessly to no avail, except dyeing tired and thirsty. He, however, was punched full of holes. Chuck and I fundamentally disagree about what happened or how we would have done if we were there. I appreciate and understand his point of view. My view would be different had I gotten down into the river's edge. Unless I get back, increasingly unlikely, I am unlikely to come to a final conclusion. My view is that he should have advanced down MTC far enough to get eyes on the river. I think two companies up and three providing security is reasonable, given that he sent his chief scout off most of his troops with Reno. Many times I have moved out far in advance of my company to conduct personnel reconnaissance. In my six years in Germany, I probably conducted reconnaissance of my general defensive position, our local assembly area, our forward assembly area, and my routes once a month. I would go alone, with my organic and attached platoon leaders, my forward observer, and sometimes my tank commanders. I expected my platoon leaders to do the same. We would go up and rehearse it, since we had more than enough time to do so, even to the point of being inside a rail tunnel with a train going by to make sure we could use it as an escape route. *By the way, the Prussians/Germany had known this since the 30 years war, learned it again at Jena, and had fully adapted their method of command and combat by the time of the 1870 Franco-Prussian War.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 14, 2023 15:27:04 GMT
Were this Kelly's or Beverly's Fords on the Rappahannock in the Summer of 63 what Mike describes is exactly how it should have been done. One or two up with the main body in support and the commander present with the lead element is textbook Ford Crossing 101. This is not the Summer of 63 and Ford B is neither Kelly's or Beverly's
Consider this:
1) Custer was engaged by Wolf Tooth. Minor, but still you have an enemy force on your flank or rear
2) Custer could see all he needed to see concerning Ford B from a fairly good distance. When both the north and south sides of that ford are occupied by large numbers of hostiles, you don't really need to see how good the actual crossing point(s) are. You know that this is not the place where you wish to stick your nose in.
3) Under these circumstances sending a scout or scouts to keep an eye on the ford is sufficient, and you move onward or backward, depending upon the sum totality of the situation.
4) Books give you the rules. Moral courage and judgment give you the tools necessary to break the rules.
|
|
|
Post by miker on Sept 14, 2023 16:27:59 GMT
Where we differ Chuck is #2. I remain unconvinced that Custer could see what he needs to see from “some” vantage point in MTC or from the word of his scouts.
If I get back there, you can be sure I will go over the ground carefully and try to take into account any difference in terrain from 1876 and now.
Until then you I refuse to stake out a position one way or the other.
Everyone else’s conclusion may be different than mine, but I remain committed to observing for myself.
|
|
|
Post by miker on Sept 14, 2023 16:51:38 GMT
Here we s have something else to consider.
No one -NO ONE- knows what happened to the Custer battalion except that they died, perhaps with their boots on, except Martini and Curly. And many people don’t believe what they say.
Anything else is conjecture whether it’s from professional knowledge or study or from studying livers. The Indians have a point of view and reports, but they do not know what Custer thought.
Also, I need to look up the difference between theory and theorem.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 14, 2023 17:30:25 GMT
Vantage point: Drawing on "no one, no one" and you are absolutely correct there, no one knows that any vantage point that Custer may have had was in MTC. It very well could have been on the eastern ridge line. That area just south of Henryville offers excellent observation of Ford B. The only thing we do know for sure is that at some point Custer's battalion was in MTC. Was he in it to cross it, or in it to proceed along the coulee? We do not know.
We know that somehow those units got to the places where the markers show their bodied were found, and that is all we know for certain. Artifact finds help us, but they are not exclusively definitive. Anything that CAN BE explained two ways cannot be definitive.
I am getting to the point where after years of these discussions, all I KNOW is the same as you Mike. Custer and those with him died. The rest is something I give a flying f**k about less and less with each passing day. I'm not a great fan of beating my head against a stone wall either. YOU CANNOT KNOW WHAT YOU CANNOT KNOW
|
|