|
Post by quincannon on Jun 6, 2017 16:23:04 GMT
The answer Beth is Custer saw nothing. He did not look therefore he did not see.
He had no options because he gave himself no options.
Custer was working on assumptions, none of which proved to be true.
1) He worked on the assumption that there were only 1500 or so warriors present.
2) He worked on the assumption that the village circles would be separated by some distance.
3) He worked on the assumption that the first of these circles would be very close to Ford A
Looking would have disabused his mind of these assumptions and presented to him the facts as they lay on the ground.
He lost the battle before the first shot was fired, before the first horse broke into a gallop.
You either shape and prepare the battle space by reconnaissance, or the battle space eats you.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 6, 2017 16:32:23 GMT
I think that is the best film Gibson ever made, and I have said that in earlier posts too'
But did that bayonet charge to capture the enemy command center ever take place? Moore lost around 200 KIA/WIA in that battle out of a force of 450, take out a force to hold the landing zone and other elements, I wonder how many he had left plus ammo to take on this charge.
I still think that attacking Moore's flank up that gully or draw, was very basic and if it was true then it was no wonder Moore spotted the threat early. The Viet commander should have sent a force to draw Moore to this position before sending his main attack from another location, maybe at two different points.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 6, 2017 16:51:02 GMT
Moore did not have that many men when he first landed and throughout most of the battle. His numbers increased as people from 2-7 Cavalry were flown in.
Moore did eventually attack, but it was nothing like the dramatic episode in the movie. His main concern was to relieve the "lost" platoon, that was held together by Sergeant Ernie Savage after that dumb shit platoon leader was killed, and soon after the platoon sergeant.
I do not recall what Moore's total casualties were in 1-7. I think I have the figures somewhere but do not recall if the 1-7 and 2-7 casualties are split out.
My son was in a battalion commanded by Walter Marm who was awarded the MOH for LZ XRAY. Come to think of it I do not recall Moore ever mentioning Marm in his book, although he made several mentions of Freeman, and Crandall who would much later receive that same award, and Savage who should by all rights have received it as well, and did not.
XRAY was a fight very similar to the Custer portion of LBH. They were heavily outnumbered, but yet they prevailed, once again showing the difference in how the word professional is defined.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 6, 2017 16:53:58 GMT
There is the professional soldier, one who draws pay. Then there is the soldier who conducts himself in a manner befitting the profession. The difference is night and day.
I assume Ian that you are making some passing reference to the movie made by the guy you do not particularly case for.
The situations were similar. Moore had about a hundred or so more men than Custer on LZ XRAY, but that was offset by the numbers engaged against him at the point of contact. The difference was that Moore, had the planning in place to call for the support he needed should that situation arise, and Custer did not. Therefore, one can only conclude that Custer was professional in that he drew pay, and Moore was the one who conducted himself in a manner befitting a professional. The end state speaks for itself.
Ian I know guys who were professionals in that they drew pay for twenty years. One in particular that I see every Sunday. I assure you that this fellow, and his kind, could not manage to fight themselves out of a waste basket. So did such an officer end up in someplace where he was just rubber stamping things like how many potatoes to order or on the front line?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 6, 2017 17:04:45 GMT
No, he was an engineer, and served in the 101st Airborne Division in combat in Vietnam.
He graduated in the top ten his class at West Point, and retired as an LTC, which in itself tells you something about him.
The guy is smart as a whip, and at the same time dumb as a box of rocks. He would have been very good as a post engineer at Fort Swampy, but not worth a pound of crap on a battlefield. You need all kinds though to run an army, but we don't spend a zillion bucks to train and educate post engineers for Fort Swampy at West Point.
I am not going to identify this guy by name, as he is a very decent man, and I would not wish to offend or embarrass him in any way, nor will I identify his class. What I will tell you is that among the top ten of that class there were, I think seven general officers, and at least one of them a four star. Another (a two star) is a person you see on TV quite often as an analyst. I don't care for him all that much, but not because he is not a very smart guy.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 6, 2017 18:55:55 GMT
D-Day anniversary today, I wanted to start a thread with images of each of the five beaches along with the German defenses, but all the best maps were unavailable to copy as they are up for sale only, just goes to show that Normandy is still a big attraction and a money spinner.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jun 7, 2017 0:25:54 GMT
Chuck,
You do well not to mention names, but some even though you or I disagree with there point of view, or their politics are straight shooters. Some become political animals while still serving, and that can't be helped, at some level. I will throw one out there, Wes Clark, was a fine officer, bright guy, a bit of a politician, but is a fair analyst. He is a fair, yet political dude who I disagree with on some non military issues. Obviously never served under him, but have met some who did and they speak highly of him.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 7, 2017 0:51:05 GMT
Funny you should mention Wes Clark, and I will leave it right there.
Straight shooting is what concerns me most. Their particular brand of politics is of no concern, because straight shooting tends to level that out and bring politics into balance.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jun 7, 2017 10:58:43 GMT
One more for you, born not far from both you and I. Thomas McInerney. Lt, General, USAF. He had a very solid military career, was a serious contributor as a civilian after retiring, and contributed to/wrote an interesting book. He may have been in that 5 sided bldg. when you spent some time there.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Jun 7, 2017 11:52:13 GMT
Dave: I want you, Benteen, and Steve, maybe others as well, to think about this very hard. When have you heard a military professional in all these years that have passed, comment on Custer's outside motivations and emotional state at this battle, as a reason for poor performance? I suspect the answer is never. I think running to Libby and getting soldiers killed resulting in court martial is an example of Custer distracted due to outside influence.
So Custer has a chronic excuse or it is a genetic excuse. He can't help himself. That does not rule out additive factors that contribute to his situation. There was something noted in Custer's behavior at one of thier last officer calls. That he was not himself and that he thought he was going to die.
Regard
Steve
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jun 7, 2017 13:45:50 GMT
The commentary regarding that officers call, would indicate that his mind was somewhere else, in my opinion, but where?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 7, 2017 14:50:33 GMT
Running off to Libby was gross dereliction and negligence.
The officer's call was reportage of what other officer's thought, not proof that Custer thought anything.
There is never any excuse for a commander to take his eye of the ball of duty.
Neither one of you ever did I'd wager.
There were two reported occasions leading up to 25 June that Custer was reported to be introspective. I find that completely normal under the circumstances. It may have been nothing more than Custer thinking - OK I'm here, now how do I pull this off. That feeling may have been magnified by the fact that he was out on his own hook, with no one to tell him what to do. Could have been for a number of other reasons as well. I do not believe we should make this an exercise in mind reading when we have absolutely no contemporary evidence that he expressed anything verbally regarding these matters to anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jun 7, 2017 18:56:14 GMT
Chuck,
You maybe right here. At the Washita, he was acting on Sheridan's orders. At the LBH. he may have thought he was only under instructions by Terry! Hmmmm.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jun 7, 2017 23:54:15 GMT
For a simple guy he was very complex with extra personalities in his mind. He ranged from a kid on a summer camp trip to a martinet to a man without a plan like a kid drawing up a play on the playground. He had always had superiors looking out for him and guiding his actions from above but Terry had a hands off attitude and allowed GAC to act on his own. The bumbling planning and poor placement of his forces insured his place in history where as if he had been successful he would have been a little known or remembered soldier. Ironic that he had to die to gain fame! Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 8, 2017 0:04:07 GMT
Dave don't tell those who adore Custer that he was almost lost in history and would have been just a few paragraphs in a history book if not for his last command.
|
|