|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 11, 2019 13:01:20 GMT
Running Tom? Do you mean keeping fit running/jogging or running for the local mayor.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jul 11, 2019 18:38:32 GMT
Dog catcher, my own!
Back to what I started. There was a question and answer period on the last day of the LBHA conference. The opening question was, did Benteen disobey orders when he broke off his scout? The answer given by the panel was yes(obvious) then one of the panelist added, it was not the only order he dis obeyed that day. Later, the response to another question about why Custer died and was not supported, one of the panelists said "because Reno crawled into a hole and Benteen did not come to Custer's aid, the second time he disobeyed orders."
I could not hold my tongue. I raised my hand as if to ask a question and asked Mike Donohue, in his military experience is common for a commander to ask for support then to continue distancing himself from that support? Mike has never been the military. His answer was on that day Custer did. My thought, no shit. I also asked if an officers first duty is to the mission, what is primary responsibility. I got no takers and was cut off, as I was told this was not a debate forum, besides we need to get ready for dinner.
Anyway these are a great group of people. Mike is a great researcher and historian. Bruce Liddic is a scholar, researcher, and a gentleman. But, the group name should be changed to The GAC Little Bighorn Association.
I guess, what I am saying is not all of the questions will ever be answered, and none asked if Custer disobeyed orders, on two occasions before the battle and fixed the circumstances so that it would only be his show. And it was, sadly the performance was not a critical success.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 11, 2019 18:57:58 GMT
The LBHA reminds me of a doctor who comes out of the operating room to inform the family that the operation was a great success, but your mother died.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 11, 2019 19:30:01 GMT
I suppose if Custer had explained his battle plan to Terry and Gibbon and the like before they left FAL, they would probably think it was sound, by clearing the dinner table and using a dinner plate to substitute the village and send one battalion [pepper pot] straight at the objective and sending an another battalion [salt shaker] on a wide sweep to encircle from the right, then hitting the village on the flank with his five company battalion [mustard pot], would probably go down a storm, but he didn’t and never even told anyone out side of his own HQ, what he was planning to do.
I suppose if the same plan was executed by a brigade and they took into account the distances, then who knows!
Tom, I don’t know how they can sit and talk about this battle if they all think that Custer was right ‘period!’ they may as well just be a member of the brown board and listen to no other views and all be disciples of he who talks shite!
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 12, 2019 4:12:30 GMT
What Custer did was sound tactics. Unfortunately it was sound tactics for a 19th Century division. Not so much though for an under strength 19th century cavalry regiment. Method must be supported by means. If you do not have the means, even the best method is not worth a pound and a half of warmed over cat shit.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Jul 12, 2019 4:22:43 GMT
Such a sad story Tom, nice people, but on a constant search for anything but truth. To get back to Custer; We have him on Weir watching Reno for some long period of time We have him on 3411 We have him now on Greasy Grass We have him on Bouyer Bluff We have him down by the river with Curly
Everywhere but commanding his own attacking force. Hmmmm. Some one explain to me why Custer needed to look into the valley again once he knew there was a big village. Once he knew that, his one purpose was to get to the other side of that village as quickly and quietly as possible in my view. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 12, 2019 11:02:47 GMT
Hi Mac, sorry about the semi-final mate, but someone had to go out.
Didn’t Peter Thompson see Custer on a solo recon? Apparently, he saved a squaw from being took as a slave. If I have this right, then you can add it to your list!
If I was asked, then I would ask Steve just what could you see from Blummer ridge and would he have a good view of the extent of the village. I agree with you that once he had his first real look from either 3411 or Weir [take your pick], then this would be all he needed to continue north and once the column went down either middle or cedar coulee [again take your pick], then he would be out of LOS of the village.
Now, once in MTC, he may have wanted to be on the high ground both for observation purposes and safety, so I would say that he never went on Bouyer’s bluff, Greasy Grass or even ford B.
By keeping to the ridges of Blummer and battle, this would give him not only LOS, but the advantage of being on high ground and a safety bumper to avoid being attacked from the village. All these things together would make sure that he had ample warning of oncoming enemy bands and a quick route to the northern end of the village.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jul 12, 2019 14:28:46 GMT
You know, I don't take anything away from the traditionalists that believe that Custer deployed the three companies along Battle Ridge to be gobbled up by an enemy at his orders. I like Mac and Chuck believe their was more to the tactics employed by a man who had a plan of action, which included those companies in the north. Do I think all 5 companies went to the Ford D area? No. I think it was his plan to use those three companies as a covering force on battle ridge and to bring them if should he find an unopposed crossing, to bag his hostages.
When Custer met resistance he ordered C,I,&L to be the vanguard in a retreat south, with HQ, E, and F keeping the back door closed. C,I,&L were cut off and then the jig was up. Custer was hung out, surrounded, and killed on the highest ground he could find.
I also don't know that Custer was planning on Benteen arriving with poorly trained pack mules or just come himself, packs to follow. Note should have been clearer.
Did he expect Reno to hold in the valley(probably), survive the valley(?), or end up on a hill(no)? Those are all questions that we would not have had, had the Lt.Col. shared any of this plan with his subordinates.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 12, 2019 17:07:24 GMT
Tom's questions to the anointed at the LBHA meeting indicate no comprehension of doctrine on their part. That does not surprise me, nor should it surprise any of you. In a word DOCTRINE is boring, and an in depth study of just doctrine, is a cross between watching paint dry, and grass growing.
In short, doctrine is the framework upon which tactics are employed. Doctrine frees the overall commander from micro management, in that having doctrine in place tells the commander, that his subordinates will act within the confines of doctrine, without him having to oversee the subordinate commander's every move. It works in reverse as well. It tells the subordinate commander what he can expect from his higher commander. At no time does it tell a commander how to do something within doctrinal parameters, just so long as the commander at every level stays within those doctrinal parameters the how is left up to his best judgment.
So with that as prelude, let's look at Tom's question to the anointed assembled - "is it common for a commander to ask for support then distance himself from that support?" Doctrine says no, but at the same time doctrine does not limit the commander in doing what he feels necessary and prudent while waiting for that support. In other words the requesting commander can do anything he damned well pleases (almost) as long as he does not continue to distance himself from that requested support, and he is well within the limitations doctrine places on him. Likewise, the commander controlling the assistance has every right to believe that the commander requesting the support will refrain from further distancing himself.
Doctrine then is similar to the rules of Chess. You may play the game as you see fit as long as you observe the rules (doctrine), and the outcome will be determined by how well you play the game restricted by doctrine (rules)
See, I told you the damned stuff is boring, and yet you read it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 12, 2019 22:12:02 GMT
Doctrine also tells us two things regarding this battle that the overall commander could expect from his subordinates specifically.
Benteen: Benteen was conducting an armed reconnaissance, not a scout, nor reconnaissance in force. His orders from Custer were quite specific. He was to go in a given direction and if he found something he was to attack, then report. Had it been a scout, the forces allocated would be smaller, and the mission limited to reporting ONLY. Had it been a reconnaissance in force, the force allocated would have been larger, there would most likely been a secondary mission of diverting attention attached, and the report requirement would have remained constant. Reconnaissance or scouting entails reporting what you find or do not find. So Custer had every right to expect Benteen to go out to a point where in his best judgment he had fulfilled the mission, then return. Benteen, looking at the strict limitations of doctrine, did not disobey any order.
Reno: Reno was conducting an advanced guard mission, or more properly had every reason to believe so, based upon what he was told by his commander. Actually that is not completely true either, for that message from the commander was relayed to him, and the possibility that some misunderstanding or orders was present although not likely. An advance guard commander, according to doctrine moves forward of the main body to accomplish two things. He must make contact, and then develop the situation, setting the stage for follow on action by the commander of the main body. When it becomes apparent that the main body commander has not fulfilled his part of the overall movement to contact, doctrine tells the advance guard commander that he must extract himself the best he can, and fall back upon the main body. Nothing that you read in this paragraph places any direct blame per say on the main body commander. He may have been held up, and unable to meet his obligations due to something completely out of his control. A couple of examples in the modern day might be an air attack, or an attack by fires. In the specific case of LBH, we know that Custer was diverted or diverted himself onto the bluffs. That was indeed Custer's fault. I just did not want to leave the impression though, that if the advance guard must withdraw, that it is always the fault of the main body. It's not. It is just specifically to this battle, and can be attributed to the incompetence of one man - Custer. So, you may take away that Reno did not disobey any order either. He operated completely within the parameters of doctrine. and Custer should have anticipated, in fact expected, such a move on Reno's part when his promised support did not or could not arrive.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Jul 13, 2019 12:46:52 GMT
Rather than comment on Custer and Ford D here I am starting a specific thread.
|
|