|
Post by quincannon on Jun 8, 2016 17:23:23 GMT
Dave with regard to your latest message.
Plowing through all three pages was worse that the Death for a thousand cuts and the Chinese water torture being applied simultaneously.
Normally, I take no pleasure is seeing a man intellectually disembowel himself in public, however in this particular instance I laughed my scrawny little ass off, rolled on the floor, damned near fell down two flights of steps, barked at the dog, played my Garryowen CD fourteen times, burned Philip St George Cooke's epic tome, made a contribution to the Ranger Hall of Fame, and started a petition to erase Manhasset, New York from the register of place names. Did I mention I laughed my ass off. Are there no limitations to self delusional stupidity?
|
|
|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on Jun 8, 2016 18:22:51 GMT
Dave with regard to your latest message. Plowing through all three pages was worse that the Death for a thousand cuts and the Chinese water torture being applied simultaneously. Normally, I take no pleasure is seeing a man intellectually disembowel himself in public, however in this particular instance I laughed my scrawny little ass off, rolled on the floor, damned near fell down two flights of steps, barked at the dog, played my Garryowen CD fourteen times, burned Philip St George Cooke's epic tome, made a contribution to the Ranger Hall of Fame, and started a petition to erase Manhasset, New York from the register of place names. Did I mention I laughed my ass off. Are there no limitations to self delusional stupidity? Evidently not in this instance QC. Classic case of not knowing when to fold tents and slink off. Reminds me of the father in My Big Fat Greek Wedding, always trying to twist words into having a basis in the Greek language. Difference is there is nothing humorous about The LBHA Board's excuse for a Moderator's nonsense nor his intent to cause harm. Best, David
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 8, 2016 19:29:31 GMT
Chuck you answered my question right there, Calhoun may have withdrew his line in good order up to two times before he was fixed, Reno battalion left the field at different intervals and even left one company virtually stranded, and they were the last to seek refuge in the timber area, even now I don't think anyone knows who actually gave orders to withdraw or stand in that battalion, in fact nothing is clear.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 8, 2016 19:55:46 GMT
The best course of action is to leave the Malevolent Musketeer to his own devices David, and three or four things will eventually happen.
1) When Secretary Clinton becomes President Clinton II, she will deport The MM to the land of his birth, and settle him in a less than safe house in Transylvania, across the street from Vlad's castle. Steve will write her a thank you card saying all is forgiven, and the world will again be a happy place.
2) Draft The MM into ISIS as instructor in cavalry tactics, confuse the living hell out of them, and perhaps a passing drone will pee-pee in The MM's borsch.
3) Outlaw The MM's presence in civilized society, for society itself, as ignorant and stupid as it sometimes can be does not require any further reduction in mental capacity.
4) All of the above.
|
|
|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on Jun 8, 2016 20:41:48 GMT
The best course of action is to leave the Malevolent Musketeer to his own devices David, and three or four things will eventually happen. 1) When Secretary Clinton becomes President Clinton II, she will deport The MM to the land of his birth, and settle him in a less than safe house in Transylvania, across the street from Vlad's castle. Steve will write her a thank you card saying all is forgiven, and the world will again be a happy place. 2) Draft The MM into ISIS as instructor in cavalry tactics, confuse the living hell out of them, and perhaps a passing drone will pee-pee in The MM's borsch. 3) Outlaw The MM's presence in civilized society, for society itself, as ignorant and stupid as it sometimes can be does not require any further reduction in mental capacity. 4) All of the above. Concurred. Just don't let him near anyone's adolescents!
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Jun 9, 2016 1:16:37 GMT
At Calhoun Hill I cannot imagine why anyone would think the Company L skirmish line could hold their position for any length of time. I cannot see how the terrain would allow it. I still feel it possible that what went on was a failed effort to withdraw. Does this make any sense of Company C markers? Cheers
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 9, 2016 7:40:03 GMT
I think I am not being clear with my analysis, but I write what I am thinking but it never comes out the way I thought, my fault folks.
I know that all of the main skirmish lines failed that day, I suppose that’s why they went 360° on Reno hill, as any line has flanks and if you enemy is in large numbers and the terrain allowed him cover then he will eventually work around you, and if he had a mounted element, then this will make it easier and faster for him to achieve.
We all know the tactics employed during this era to combat this threat and the use of mounted formations on both flanks of your skirmish line would allow you protection either to halt and throw back any flanking moves or to stem them and allow the skirmish line to reposition or even fall back.
Now what has this to do with this battle, well C Company could have been such a unit and positioned on the flank of Calhoun’s line, but we have already covered that scenario, but other thing is that although the main skirmish lines all failed that day, it is difficult to say who performed well and who didn’t and what I was trying to get across was that even though Calhoun had no chance of holding out on that hill, he did perform well and did his duty, in fact both officers from that company did and died on the spot.
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 9, 2016 13:59:14 GMT
The only "defense" during that battle was conducted on Reno Hill from the evening of the 25th to the morning of the 27th, and at no other time.
Being stationary and skirmishing is not a defense.
Defense is divided into two main types, deliberate and hasty, and those two are further broken down into positional and mobile. Nothing that happened up to the action on Reno Hill meets those criteria.
Previous actions might be described as the disputing possession of terrain, or perhaps there are better words to describe it, but defense is not one of them.
To defend implies that you intend (main mission)to hold a given piece of ground for whatever reason, but the one most often given is that ground is key terrain. There was no one on that battlefield tied to holding any one piece of ground up to the evening of the 25th, therefore they were not defending. The ground on that battlefield was meaningless, until they got to Reno Hill, and that place became key terrain for the failure to dig and an hold it meant complete destruction of the force.
SO THEN if one rates Reno and Calhoun on how well they defended it is no wonder that one thinks their performance not up to accepted standards. It is like trying to rate the Washington Redskins passing game by how well they execute an off tackle play.
So let us once again review the fundamentals of this particular battle:
Look before you leap.
Knowledge is power.
Training means something
Shooting over a piece of ground without a deliberate intention to prepare and hold it is not defending.
Cavalry when it dismounts does not become Infantry.
An offensive operation without an assault is like kissing your sister - meaningless.
Breakouts are high casualty producing operations, that if they do succeed, succeed only by the hair on their chinny chin chin.
In heaven there is no beer, Saint Arnold, sanctified and blessed man that he was, notwithstanding
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 9, 2016 14:12:58 GMT
There must have been times in that battle that would have forced these companies to defend for their lives, because late on they were being attacked from all angles and probably even lost their horses.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 9, 2016 14:48:23 GMT
I have been reliably informed that all the hard liquor, heavy rock music and fast women are all residing in hell, no wonder ACDC wrote the song "hell ain't a bad place to be"
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 9, 2016 14:58:13 GMT
Ian, if you are not defending your life you are not in battle.
The point here is that most folks divide battle into attacking and defending and are either ignorant of or ignore the vast area in between that is neither.
Attacking is any offensive operation designed to eject your enemy from a given place. An attack without an assault does not meet the criteria of ejection, and is therefore meaningless.
Defense implies that the place or sector (in the mobile defense) you are defending has meaning, and that meaning is by defending that place offers you a position of advantage over the person trying to take it.
Disputing possession is neither attacking or defending. If you enter an alley from one side, and your adversary enters from the other, you are disputing the temporary possession of that alley, but the alley itself has no meaning, no value. The area south of the village and Calhoun Hill were both disputed, but neither had any value. Value is defined as a place where the possession of which offers marked advantage to one side or the other. In other words you cannot successfully accomplish what you wish without possession of the frigging place.
People sometimes get upset when I key in on the meaning of specific words. The problem is that words in my former form of employment have specific meaning, and no other, and if one wishes to understand they MUST learn that intended specific meaning, absorb it, and make it their own.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 9, 2016 15:18:27 GMT
Ian, if you are not defending your life you are not in battle. The point here is that most folks divide battle into attacking and defending and are either ignorant of or ignore the vast area in between that is neither. I must fall in that void myself, as I try to write posts for the average new poster to come on board and take part.People sometimes get upset when I key in on the meaning of specific words. The problem is that words in my former form of employment have specific meaning, and no other, and if one wishes to understand they MUST learn that intended specific meaning, absorb it, and make it their own. I don't think they get upset, they just don't have the military back ground that some on here have, I don't think that they intentionally write stuff that sticks in the craw of the military folks, its just how they see it, as its hard to keep up with you lot some times.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 9, 2016 15:43:18 GMT
Our purpose here is to teach, at least in part, and to dispel previously held notions that may not be totally accurate or complete.
It does not stick in my craw for I do not expect anyone without that given experience to have that knowledge from the outset.
What sticks in my craw is the continual misuse or lack of absorbing knowledge after the correct terminology and the meaning behind it has been provided, OR when the preconceived idea becomes such holy writ to them that they cannot deviate from it.
There is a poster, who over the years repeatedly refers to dismounted cavalry as being Infantry. That drives me completely up the wall, nearly to the point of pulling what little hair I have out by the roots. That point that cavalry does not become Infantry when dismounted has been endlessly discussed and adjudicated over these many years countless times, and the reasons why plainly given. There comes a point though when repeated expressions of ignorance become something else that begins with the letter S.
Why is this important many may say. It's important because dismounted cavalry does not have the capabilities associated with Infantry, and therefore ARE NOT Infantry.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 9, 2016 15:56:20 GMT
I know that Chuck, but I have never said that in my post, the important thing is that these companies fought on foot either by choice or were forced to, that still doesn't make them infantry, not even light infantry, but they put boots on the ground and took on the enemy at long range with their carbines, and as we know these weapons are not as effective a long firing as their longer infantry counterparts.
Both commands (Reno and Custer) fought on foot at some period and were beaten by overwhelming odds, so the only tactic available to the cavalry is keep mounted and only attack ground units that are either running away or are disorganized, which is what cavalry have been used for along with scouting, for centuries.
To be honest it seems like both Reno and Custer forgot this fact and they were pro-cavalry, if Reno knew that his cavalry were not designed to stand their ground on foot and his rout forward was a cavalry death trap, then why didn’t he simply dismount and fire a around a dozen volleys in the direction of the village and then high tail it out of there, the same with Custer, if his battalion was blocked at every rout and the number against him were too great then why didn’t he do the same and retrograded, both he and Reno should have been experienced enough to realise that this mission had gone passed the point of being a cavalry mission because the enemy were standing their ground in large numbers.
BTW: Does anyone here think that Custer would have took his regiment and used the same tactics against a regular infantry regiment?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 9, 2016 16:46:02 GMT
I know you haven't Ian. You know better, and are fully conversant with the strengths and weaknesses of the various arms of the service.
Perhaps I expect to much of long time posters who I think should know better by now.
The admonition is that cavalry or armor even in the modern day, when it dismounts, is not Infantry either. During the Iraq conflict Infantry was in such short supply, due to a lot of factors and not just the force structure per say, it was not uncommon for cavalry and armor units to be dismounted by design, not tactical necessity, and deployed without the equipment that made them what they were. The practice was a complete disaster, because they were neither organized or trained for the Infantry mission, and being neither, were not even plused up with the equipment types and levels that would give them some imperfect semblance of Infantry capability. Montrose waxed long and hard on this subject on one of the other boards not here. His words and the lessons they teach are worth a read or re-read.
When you use tools you call a spade a spade. You expect it to have the capabilities of a spade. Therefore it is highly inadvisable to call a screwdriver a spade and expect it to dig a hole for you.
Custer would have creamed a regular Infantry regiment of the era. For the question to have the validity intended though it must be restructured to ask - Would Custer have used the same tactics against a regular Infantry division of that era. That answer depends upon how much of a death wish he had.
|
|