|
Post by quincannon on Feb 28, 2017 16:55:07 GMT
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, Without that second sentence the intent of the expression is meaningless at best and totally misconstrued at worst.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 28, 2017 16:59:27 GMT
My doorbell plays in sequence the complete score of Vivaldi's Four Seasons. It is sold at the in the Classic Doorbell Department at Lowe's and Home Depot.
But for you old Friend Dang, Dang, Dang. Answer your door. There is a guy standing on your front porch that says he is from Publishers Clearing House and has some sort of check for you.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 28, 2017 17:03:33 GMT
I hope its not a rubber one and its enough to get us to the states next year.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 28, 2017 17:07:35 GMT
You probably don't know what I am talking about. Each year Publishers Clearing House gives away as a prize usually something in the multi-million range. This year the prize was $5000 per week for life, and the winner was a woman of 93 years.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 28, 2017 17:21:31 GMT
Yes I googled it, it sounds similar to out post code lottery.
I hope the old darling has a good few years left to collect all that dosh, she may even have plans to go sky diving or climbing Everest, or she could send half of it to me, have you got her home number?
|
|
|
Post by dgfred on Feb 28, 2017 17:36:38 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. Haha... I believe you would argue with a fence-post. Better than everything else = good in my opinion (and it turned out that way too)
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 28, 2017 17:44:48 GMT
Greg:
I want you to fully understand that I am not trying to play a game of smart ass with you here.
I want you to put yourself just for a moment in the position of the commander in the timber, sitting in your foxhole, radio in hand trying to tell your commander who is several miles away, what your present situation NOW, this very moment, is, what if any assistance you may need, or what your intentions are. The accuracy of the word picture you present to him is the only thing he has to go on
If something happened five minutes ago you must tell it that way, and as briefly as possible. If it is happening now, that too must be conveyed. All he knows is what you are telling him, and you are in many cases depending upon him to save your bacon. If you are not accurate enough, he may take an action that causes more harm than good. If you telling him you are flanked (just that) what is he to think? Does he call for fire on your left when you really meant they were in your rear.
The importance that is placed upon this accuracy in the use of words may very well escape the majority of people, but to us, it may mean life itself. If we were talking last night's basketball game, it would no really matter. But that is not what we are talking is it. If you want to play the game you play by the rules long set, or you cannot appreciate the full picture of what we are trying to study.
Yes I would argue with a fence post if I thought the fence post wrong. You are coming from a different world in which you may be correct, or it is not something that matters. When you enter into battle discussion, you enter my world where it does matter, and you are wrong.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Feb 28, 2017 18:03:23 GMT
I started this thread not because of the Caped Crusader but in spite of him to learn more about this issue. There are many of us civilians who are not intimately aware of military tactics and thinking so are confused by the statement “No 1 defensible position” by Benteen.
Benteen's actual statement was:
“I think it was a No 1 defensible position, from my knowledge of it now.” Looking at the complete statement it indicates to me he used hindsight for his comment but Reno did not have that opportunity. I want to learn enough about this subject that I my respond in an intelligent manner.
Reasons why this was not a “No 1 defensible position”. I am seeking correction and additional information as this list is neither complete or accurate.
1) The Indians had out maneuvered him to the South preventing any relief effort reaching his position.
2) Defense was not the issue but survival
3) The interior lines were held by the hostiles and they were infiltrating Reno's line of defense
4) Timber location offered concealment not cover. Cover stops bullets concealment does not
5) Reno was holding too large an area for the number of troops he had
6) Enemy numbers increasing
7) Ammunition depletion
Regards Dave
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 439
|
Post by colt45 on Feb 28, 2017 19:21:00 GMT
Given that Benteen made the statement at the RCOI, in hindsight, I think he was indicating that at the time, given the option of staying out in the valley with only 120 men, which would guarantee becoming surrounded out in the open, or moving into the timber to fight, that moving into the timber was the best option available, the number 1 defensive position AT THAT TIME.
He also indicated that the position could not be held for any real length of time due to the enemy response. Had Reno stayed in the timber, the Indians would have undoubtedly brought more shooters to bear on the timber. There is Indian accounts of having begun to penetrate the timber and they were of the opinion that they would have been able to wipe out Reno had he stayed there longer.
When Reno realized how the timber was becoming surrounded and that he would not have the ammo to sustain himself in the timber, he made the decision to breakout and attempt to get across the river to break contact. Once on the hill, that became his best available position for a defense, and once the journey to Weir Point terminated, he moved back to that position. The hilltop position was not a good position, but the best one available due to the open fields of fire it afforded the soldiers. In the timber, there weren't a lot of open fields of fire and their primary weapon needed open fields of fire to be able to bring its main advantage to bear, that being greater range than the Indians' repeaters.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 28, 2017 19:34:20 GMT
Dave, I think I covered all of those questions in an earlier posts.
Now lets look at from the perspective of the Indians, so they have 150 soldiers bottled up in the timber, reports come back saying that more were to the north and even more were coming from the south, now I would guess that the 150 in the timber would be the least of their worries as they have them cornered after chasing them off the prairie.
The problem they would face is who blocks the southern force and who goes to destroy the northern force and who wants to play guard with the bunch in timber, now there would be enough Indians to do all three, but organizing these forces would be a problem.
So it would depend on the Cheyennes to check the northern bunch and I would guess the 900 in the valley would be enough to hold the place, so at the end of the day if Reno stayed he was toast.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Feb 28, 2017 20:02:27 GMT
Colt Based on your knowledge and opinion did Reno stay too long in the timber? Did he leave too soon not waiting for the promised support? Did he leave just in time?
I realize all of this would be conjecture on your part but please realize there are many like me who do not have enough military knowledge to question or refute the statements of pretenders who are misleading many. Those like the Malevolent Musketeer with their purported expertise on the Battle of the Little Big Horn based on bogus credentials such as having a college degree or reenactment experience must b counterbalanced by the truth.
Yan I did not realize you had covered all of this material in former posts so I will stop. Would you please send me in the right directions for those posts? Thank You Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 28, 2017 20:39:13 GMT
Dave: You are correct that Reno leaving at this or that time would be a matter of conjecture. All of us may differ legitimately on should he have done it sooner, but I do not think any of us would differ on should he have done it later than he did. I suspect strongly that we would all agree that if he had waited five more minutes breakout would be impossible and they would have died there.
Interior lines is something to be cautious about saying. Interior lines means that the position you hold (in this case the Indians) allows you to shift forces from place to place within the confines of hat position faster than those with exterior lines can. Shifting faster, means reacting faster. The Union Army held interior lines at Gettysburg, The Confederates exterior.
Ian touches on it above. The Indians could easily shift to meet any threat, north or south, and still keep Reno contained in the timber.
Don't stop. Get you ammo together. You are doing nothing by reviewing the bidding. Preparation is nine tenths of the fight. Prepare.
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 439
|
Post by colt45 on Feb 28, 2017 20:45:51 GMT
Dave, It's very hard to say whether Reno should have left earlier or stayed later. My opinion is if he lingered any longer, he would not have been able to leave at all, unless Benteen and his 140 or so were able to break through to him (doubtful). So, should he have left earlier? That is a decision only the man in charge on the spot could make. Impossible for us today to say with any certainty he should have left the timber earlier, it's just speculation. The facts are that he did leave in time to save most of his command as opposed to getting fixed in the timber, so by default he left when he should have.
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on Feb 28, 2017 21:16:29 GMT
Beth, Gentlemen,
For me Renos decision falls under one of my favorite military adages "When you are in an untenable position , right or wrong do something" What we think or Benteen or Terry think doesnt matter. The only opinion that matters is that of Major Reno, He felt the position was untenable and he DID Something. From what I can gather, I agree with Colt, that the something he did saved the majority of his command.
Be Well Dan
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Feb 28, 2017 21:52:34 GMT
Would Benteen have continued to Reno's side if they were still fighting in the timber? I would think not as Benteen would have seen the smoke, hear the firing and paused to determine what in the world was going on instead of riding into the fray. Now what that have been sound military judgement? With the Indians attempting to set the timber position on fire along with the black powder smoke from over a hundred carbines as well as hostile guns the battle scene must have been very obscured.
Coming back to the main question "No 1 defensible position", was Benteen being flippant with his answer at the RCOI or did he really believe what he said. I realize he was answering a what if question but what was gained by his they would prevailed for "5 or 6 hours" against 900 plus Indians and yet be dead by daylight answer? It seems as he just threw it out for the wolves and never elaborated or explained. All this has done is provide sham experts with ammo against Reno which only obscures the truth?
Poor ole Marcus had a difficult hand to play that day and he played it poorly with mis or not understood reasons. I have always wondered if Reno was facing a Kobayashi Maru test with no correct answer. However Reno and the majority of his command survived which was the correct answer for them.
The great misconception that Reno should have held out for 15 or 30 minutes more ignores the actual situation he faced at that time and place without the ability to call time out and rethink his actions. Custer's movement north and failure to support Reno's assault was the cause of defeat but Reno became the scapegoat. Am I wrong in this conclusion? Regards Dave
|
|