dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Feb 28, 2017 3:59:11 GMT
If I am not mistaken, Benteen's statement that Reno's timber location was a "No 1 defensible position" was made after he carefully studied the battlefield after June 25 & 26 when the hostiles had left the area? How could Reno be expected to have known to remain in the timber area while under attack by a large, unknown, number of Indians? The dust, noise, smoke and uncertainty of where the enemy was or how many especially if he is in an area that he has no knowledge of and its dimensions would all be factors Reno had to process, correct?
So did Reno screw the pooch by leaving the "No 1 defensible position" and going to the bluffs based on what he knew at the time? Inquiring minds want to know.
Regards
Dave
Deadwood thank you for the RCOI site
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 28, 2017 11:01:13 GMT
The timber position could have been as strong as any on earth and it does not matter one bit.
Benteen may be very correct in that it was the number one defensible position. That is a subject for debate on the face of it, but also irrelevant. It has no bearing on the situation.
Bastogne is the number one American poster child for a strong, stubborn defense, in a very viable position, held by the best the American Army had to offer at the time. It held for more than eight days before it was relieved. The Germans came close to penetrating and destroying the position several times, but never got to light their cigar. The reason was that by the time Bastogne was occupied then became surrounded the Bulge was starting to be contained west of Bastogne, and German penetration westward came to a halt. Therefore the possibility of the relief of Bastogne existed, before the 101st dug their first foxholes. Bastogne could be and was ultimately relieved because the German maneuver ran out of steam.
There was a similar situation that existed at Bir Hacheim in the Western Desert during the Gazala Line battles, The 13th Demi Brigade of the FFL held a very strong position, but on this occasion the Germans both contained it and more importantly bypassed and went deep into the rear of it, dashing any hope that it could be relieved. The correct decision was made to break out of that position, while the getting was still good.
Reno was more in the situation presented by Bir Hacheim than Bastogne. He was snookered not by firepower, but by the maneuver of the Indians to the south of him, cutting off any avenue through which a relief effort could be launched, SO, it does not matter a fart in a windstorms worth if it was a strong position, a number one defensive position, or one ordained by God Himself as defensible. It's strength did not matter.
When the Dick and Jane went up the hill crowd makes these pronouncements of theirs it reminds me, at least in this instance of Biblical verse - Everyone remembers an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but everyone forgets the next line, which makes the first irrelevant for the purposes of human kind. If you only look at the first line it may tell you one thing, but if you couple it with the second it takes on a completely different meaning.
So Dave the ability to defend is not the issue. The ability to hold and ultimately survive is the issue. One is not the same as the other. Since when did you start paying attention to anything the Caped Crusader has to say. He lives in his mother's basement for Christ sake.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Feb 28, 2017 12:15:47 GMT
Dave,
There are clowns on these boards that have an agenda. They continually bring this up, some clown even brought up the Baker Battlefield, approximately 60 miles north in MT. What they never mention is that on this day is that the NA's COG, support, hearth and home was less than a mile away. The NA's had interior lines for support within their village, so they could react to existing threats, and upcoming threats, rapidly. They neglect to mention that this was only a portion of the force the NA's could bring to bear, They also neglect to mention that the timber was already being infiltrated, the NA's had also worked behind across the river and were beginning to fire down into that timber. Then there was that little thing of WHERE WAS THAT PROMISED SUPPORT COMING FROM? Lets remember GAC was not big on sharing his plan on this particular day. Stalingrad was a #1 defensible location as well, and there were break opportunities as well, but Paulus followed his orders, how did that workout.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 28, 2017 12:37:16 GMT
If you look at the timber position, you see that it offers soft cover (meaning that it may hide you but it won't protect you from bullets) and a water supply. It also has a river running down its eastern side which could be loosely termed as an obstacle, along the western side we have a cut bank (I hope that is the correct term) which allows cover to shooters who are facing out west. But saying all that you would need every man in the regiment to man the place along with all the ammo.
So really Reno had about 150 max and had also shot off a considerable amount of ammo, so they could see that as their man power strength and firepower was decreasing, the Indians was increasing, so do the maths;
Holding a position too large to hold with the men you have got. Many ingress points in which your enemy could infiltrate. Enemy strength growing by the minute. Yours weakening. Ammunition shortage immanent.
So Reno could not hold this position.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 28, 2017 12:46:07 GMT
In addition ask the French how their fortified line to keep the Germans out worked out for them. It was beaten by maneuver alone.
The Dick and Jane crowd have no understanding of the fact that fire and maneuver work in conjunction with one another. As such applying the word clown to them, gives clowns a bad name.
More battles are won by the application of maneuver, than are ever won by firepower and assault of a defensive position. Maneuver, properly done can make the defense of any position totally irrelevant. In the case of Reno's timber, they could have been allowed to defend until doomsday, and Reno's force would have been totally irrelevant to the battle that was around them. They could have been contained, no move ever made to assault them, and the Indians still had sufficient forces available to take on the rest of what Custer offered them and defeat it without breaking sweat.
The Malevolent Musketeer is of the view that those 900 or so Indians facing Reno were important to the outcome of the battle. In your opinion were they? Therein lies your answer.
The Malevolent Musketeer also maintains that the ammunition supply that Reno had was sufficient for prolonged defense. One hundred rounds per man expended at a rate of one per minute allows for a defense of one hour and forty minutes, no longer. He had already skirmished for 20 or so minutes, so using that same one round per minute rate of fire, the length of the defense was now down to one hour twenty minutes. At some point, about 30 more minutes into the defense, and using that same rate of fire, the ammunition supply was then in the red heading toward forty percent left, and ultimately towards bingo. What would you do?
When dealing with the pronouncements of the Malevolent Musketeer, you must live it to ever believe that such nonsense can come from the mind of a human being.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Feb 28, 2017 14:53:56 GMT
Dave
I almost think it was a Benteen sarcasm and his follow up to defending the timber area is ignored. Benteen was asked how long could they hold and he stated it depended on the Indians. He did state by the next morning they would all be dead. The most important testimony by Benteen in my opinion is his statement that on Reno Hill or in the valley it would not change what happened to Custer.
He stated he would not cross the river until the pack train came up. That would add approximately 45 minutes to the minimum time for support in the valley. (So if you study when a breakout should be performed does 45 minutes seem a lot longer that than Sgt Ryan's in a few more minutes they would be fixed and then destroyed).
We sometimes want all posters to be on a even playing field but it is training and experience that is looked at in my business for expert opinion. There is a reason for that and it is not just to exclude others. Being a Marine NCO we were not taught much about retrogrades and breakouts. Other than the great Chesty Puller who was ordered to do so.
So first Clair used the term retrograde and I looked it up and learned. Later Chuck brought up the term breakout. I looked it up and found an overwhelming amount of information. What officers have in thier toolbox on what to do is larger than what some such as myself have in thier toolbox. It would seem obvious if you don't know what a breakout is and when to do it that you end up with drunk and cowardly as your only choices.
The key thing I learned about a breakout is that as soon as you are aware of overwhelming enemy forces surrounding your location then the sooner you breakout the better the results. If you stay until the enemy gets all its forces in position you may be fixed and no longer have any choice. I believe that is what happened to Custer.
So now I feel comfortable to discuss a breakout but I did not have it in my toolbox of what to do. Once you understand it then Sgt Ryan's statements make more sense. So I did not have a breakout in my toolbox of what to do when surrounded by overwhelming numbers of the enemy closing in on your location. That is the essence of having posters of different training and experience.
The problems for us NCOs, enlisted men and civilians lies in what officers have learned by training and experience that they can use for a different situation and therefor a different best available choice that we don't have. Do I always believe what they say. I think arrow dodging training taught me to verify. But I could not look up breakout and learn about it without Chuck stating that Reno performed a breakout. Even when I first heard it I thought no kidding Reno broke out. Then I studied it and when it had the best chance of success. I also learned that it results often in high causalities when you can't break contact.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Feb 28, 2017 15:05:46 GMT
I have sat across the from the timber area and it is a lot closer than it is from SRR to Reno Hill. Given time and a few sharpshooters they could punch holes in any line and shoot horses. I think the fear factor of a trooper losing his horse is often ignored. I think French had to threaten his company with death to prevent running to the horses. French apparently did not think it was such a good defensible site. He went from the skirmish line directly to his company horses.
He also wrote an early letter supporting Reno. That he later states he should have shot Reno is inconsistent with his earlier support. I would ask him if you truly felt that way then what stopped you. In hindsight he changed his opinion and probably what he thought about shooting Reno while performing the breakout.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 28, 2017 16:06:27 GMT
Words do have meaning, and the meaning becomes readily apparent when the word is used properly and as it should be.
A strong defensible position in itself sounds formidable. It is only strong though if the positions adjacent to it are equally as strong and not subject to allowing the enemy to maneuver around you. If this is not the case then you position is not strong, it only gives the illusion of strength.
A strong defensive position in itself sounds formidable. It is only as strong though as the men, material, and provisions you have to man it. If any one of those three ingredients are lacking, then the position can appear as strong as Peter, The Rock, building God's Church, but in reality is the sand foundation upon which the building will crumble.
Lot of tactics in the Good Book. The same methods used in the saving of souls many times can be used to relieve men of their bodies.
Words do have meaning. Properly used they can build pictures of events and how things are done. Improperly used, as in arrow dodging horses, is disservice to both language and intellect.
|
|
|
Post by dgfred on Feb 28, 2017 16:07:50 GMT
No way... they were being flanked on both sides. Now it seems the hill position was a pretty good one. Held out a full day when the warriors 'could' have tried any number of things to destroy them.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 28, 2017 16:11:01 GMT
You also have to take into consideration just what made Reno syphon off men from his skirmish line, at first he had three companies in skirmish plus a detachment in the timber, but one by one starting with G and then A and finally M, they pulled back to the timber. Things got so bad that A and G had to provide cover fire for M to disengage and get clear, in the end all three were in the timber or its brow.
So really Reno never chose the timber because it was a great place to defend, it was his only choice and the Indians forced him make that choice, once there and seeing how things were developing out on the prairie, Reno gave the order to get out.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 28, 2017 16:14:13 GMT
I do not know what you mean by no way. What are you trying to say Greg.
If you are referring to the timber position you are incorrect. They were not being flanked on both sides. They had been flanked on one side (past tense), the game already afoot in their rear, and were being flanked on the other (present tense).
The hill position was lousy. It was the best position available, that is what made it pretty good, but only when pretty is compared to what else there was in the vicinity.
|
|
|
Post by dgfred on Feb 28, 2017 16:25:02 GMT
past tense- flanked
present tense- flanked
That is what I said.
Best defensive position available = good
Dang.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 28, 2017 16:40:11 GMT
No. Words have meaning, They must build word pictures
Flanked - past tense. At the point of decision that had already occurred, and the Indians were around their flank and well in their rear.
Being flank - present tense. At the point of decision that effort was in process and served to hasten the decision to break out.
So no that is not what you said and you failed to construct a word picture that accurately portrayed the events then transpiring.
No again, Good is good. Best available may be good or not so good. In this case it was not so good, but it was the best available. Using the words that portray what you think completely and coherently save you a lot of trouble when you are called upon to defend your words. There are a hell of a lot of people in your future that will point to that place and point out its many deficiencies, and ask why you think it is so good. They are correct. Then your comeback is I didn't say it was good. I said it was the only game in town, and better than everything else. Only game in town and better than anything else is a far cry from good.
Double Dang.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 28, 2017 16:40:37 GMT
I think it is important to look at what the question was when Benteen said the Timber was the No. 1 defensible position. Often times when you take an answer out of the context of the conversation, it changes totally the meanings. Plus the follow up questions and answers are just as important.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 28, 2017 16:54:47 GMT
Here is the page from the RCOI, please don't say triple dang as it sounds like someone is ringing my door bell;
|
|