|
Post by yanmacca on Oct 9, 2016 16:03:13 GMT
Ian, the Captain I was referring to(McDougal) was late to officers call, his company could have been ready as fast as any other. A good manager does not leave a good hitter on the bench, because he missed batting practice to circumstance. So that what it was for, I thought it was because of his company not himself, He was a Captain with experience and he had one of the strongest companies with 45 men. Strange though that McDougal got dropped for turning up late, Benteen missed the main one altogether because he couldn't find the HQ, it was too dark, but he was not punished. His place as pack train commander should have been taken by K company, this unit commanded by Lt. Godfrey was one of the weakest with 32 men.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Oct 9, 2016 20:31:45 GMT
When the pack train duty was assigned, was it obvious that they would be going into battle? Either way, I wonder why when it became obvious that they would be going into battle Custer didn't reassign McDougal's company. Was it that Custer was just so confident that he didn't think he would need McDougal or was Custer inflexible?
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Oct 9, 2016 23:26:52 GMT
The latter.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Oct 10, 2016 10:37:19 GMT
Beth I think that Custer had the idea that he could take the main village with 350 men, as Benteen was detached to find any satellite camps which means that he was not initially a part of the main attack, Custer would be worried about the safety of his packs, this was also a concern during the Washita battle and he felt that he had to withdraw and protect his train.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Oct 11, 2016 16:33:37 GMT
What I find the more I look around, is that both Reno and Custer may have saw Indians soon after they divided, some claimed to have saw them on sharpshooter ridge and some reports say that Reno went after a group in the valley, which goes along way to show that the soldiers were indeed spotted early in then thought.
Has anyone else saw any writings or accounts that state these sightings?
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Oct 11, 2016 17:40:34 GMT
The Indians Reno was chasing were in the area of the Lone Teepee, and had moved off and headed for the river. That, at least, is one story, as I recall
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Oct 11, 2016 22:27:11 GMT
Ian,
Sorry this took so long, been busy, have not had time to refer to. 12 officers and a vet surgeon were either on some sort of leave or detached service. If you want names and CO I can give.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Oct 12, 2016 9:26:06 GMT
Thanks Tom, I have a similar list already, but I appreciate the offer.
It is amazing that a regiment would leave twelve officers out of the roll call when they are about to embark on a campaign as large as this, what makes it worse is the fact that they detached troopers at various staging posts along the way, now some of this may have been down to a lack of horses, but it is pretty bad when a cavalry unit had to leave men behind through the lack of horses.
Wouldn't it have made better sense to check which of the cavalry regiments available had the largest amount of horses, I would rather have a full cavalry regiment led by some unknown colonel then a under manned regiment lacking in mounts, which was led by the a celebrity.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Oct 13, 2016 2:17:45 GMT
But the 7th was supposed to be 'the best' especially in the public eye. If they hadn't sent the 7th and the campaign failed it would have been a PR disaster, instead they sent the 7th, they failed and it was a PR disaster but at least they didn't hear "you should have sent Custer"
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Oct 13, 2016 11:21:17 GMT
The answer is Grant gave in and Truman did not.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 13, 2016 16:19:46 GMT
Ian brings up a very good point. Don't know if he meant to or not, but it is a point none the less.
Is it better to have a fully manned and equipped, but smaller force structure, or a larger structure that is hollow to the core?
We have been over this many times before, but it could stand repeating. The Army of 1876, like today is constrained by the money that Congress is willing to spend on it. The most visible sign of this is how much in the way of personnel the Congress is willing to fund. At the close of the ACW Congress added four regiments of cavalry to the force structure. What they either did not do, or what they failed to maintain was the personnel funding to keep these, then ten regiments, fully manned and equipped.
The question then, -- Is it better to have fewer regiments of cavalry each maintained at wartime levels of manning, and with full levels of equipment (that includes horses of course)?
I would argue that fewer and full is the correct course to take. For instance what is the difference between one 100 man company being given a mission, as opposed to two 50 man companies? The difference is the 100 man company saves more resources than the two 50 man companies. Just consider the salaries alone, and you will get my meaning. So the difference is not in the ability to perform the mission. The difference is in the savings accrued while performing the same mission.
In this regard I read an article in the Naval Institute Proceeding yesterday, suggesting that we do not build any additional ballistic missile submarines (one trick ponies), and instead build multi mission submarines capable of being primary attack boats with a strategic missile capability. I intend to open a thread on this subject under the Naval Warfare banner. First though I want to review more material, and take a look at what the limiting treaties say. On the surface though having more varied capability in one platform, that cost 75 percent less looks attractive.
Same basic principle with the expanded number of regiments as it is with the black boats. Would an internal change within the smaller number of regiments themselves as far as command and control goes, mitigate the vast territorial responsibilities that were the genesis of raising four more regiments, which made the total number of ten less capable.
More is not better. Only better is better
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Oct 13, 2016 19:59:52 GMT
Ian brings up a very good point. Don't know if he meant to or not, but it is a point none the less. I sometimes get the idea that I am thought of as a real "Wally"
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 13, 2016 20:28:21 GMT
You are thought of as a very respected member of our community, who without knowing it sometimes inspires me to soar like the eagles, in a direction not especially meant to be taken.
I have not the faintest clue what a "wally" is, and it probably is best that I do not know.
Now if you are familiar with the finer points of the most recent nuclear limitations treaty you would be of great help because I can't seem to find the specific details I am looking for.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Oct 14, 2016 8:58:48 GMT
Ah take no notice of me Chuck, the last few weeks have been pretty shitty to say the least, but it could be worse.
I do appreciate your comments though, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 14, 2016 11:51:41 GMT
I'll see the damage to your car and raise you the damage to my roof.
Mom was wrong. Life is not a bowl of cherries. She would have been much more accurate to say peach pits, occasionally served with some whipped cream.
|
|