What Can Godfrey's Century Article Tell Us?

[quincannon]

" I don't understand how you fire and maneuver successfully"

Truer words have never been spoken during the long history of mankind, and if you don't understand, I ain't going to tell you. Read a book.

You must really try to read more comprehensively as well, in that what I said was in police work overwatch is probably the more preferred method.

[yanmacca]

This is how the British Tommies did it during WW2, but of course they were not on horse back; It shows how a infantry section would use this tactic when faced with ememy positions.

[quincannon]

The essence of fire and maneuver Ian, as your drawing most adequately points out, is that the suppression provided by the nature of fire is meant to both immobilize and distract those you are attempting to maneuver against. The fire does not have to be accurate. Anything in the general area of those being flanked is all that it really takes. Automatic or indirect fire is the best for the job, but really anything that keeps the volume of fire as high as possible will do most of the time, if that is all you have to offer.

In reality it is just like every old B rated cowboy movie you have ever seen - You keep um down and I am going behind that rock over yonder and sneak around behind them. Keeping them down is the essential ingredient to going behind the rock and sneaking around behind them. Thusly you learn just as much from Tom Mix and Gene Autry as you do from the schoolhouses like Benning and what once was at Knox. I guess that should be for you Camberly and Salisbury Plain.

So, the understanding of the concept is far from rocket science, but still it is science, a basic form of science, like the foaming volcano we all tinkered with in junior high school. Simple is good, and the more simple you keep concepts the easier they are to train to, and then execute if the time comes for that execution to take place.

Overwatch is similar in concept. The basic fire support and maneuver elements are there, but the difference is that in using overwatch any fire that is necessary is more precision, as opposed to high volume. The theory is that under the protection of the precision instrument, say a sniper or several snipers located in positions of advantage, the same thing can be accomplished, that being, the covering of the maneuver element. Overwatch is in many situations far better if you intend for your maneuver to take on the element of surprise. Overwatch in place does not especially telegraph that maneuver is taking place, only that the force you intend to hold in place is being aggressively watched, and fired upon as needed, while a high volume of fire is a red flag that maneuver is in progress, and your bacon is about to get fried. 

[azranger]

Aug 21, 2020 19:17:42 GMT quincannon said:

" I don't understand how you fire and maneuver successfully"

Either you intentionally wanted to mislead what was posted or you don't understand context. If you want we can all take others out of context. Myself I try to remain truthful. 

Truer words have never been spoken during the long history of mankind, and if you don't understand, I ain't going to tell you. Read a book.

Glad to see you agree with me. If these particular soldiers could not ride, shoot from horseback, or make hits with their carbines then there is no way to fire and maneuver successfully. What makes you think they did? One only has to read Sgt Ryan to see what he states about this particular body of soldiers. "Even Custer would not fight these soldiers mounted.  When the Indians decided to fight it was game over for Custer's five companies. 

You must really try to read more comprehensively as well, in that what I said was in police work overwatch is probably the more preferred method.

Why?  You don't know the difference between spoken and written but we understand your point. Are you assuming there is a bunch of idiots here and that they can't comprehend what you did in your post?

All you are doing is showing how low you are willing to go, If you think that what you presented as a quote read by anyone carries the same meaning as the original sentence. Please don't lecture us on comprehension. 

Original sentence:  I don't understand how you fire and maneuver successfully when you can't ride at speed, shoot from a horse, or hit something with your carbine.

Chucks edited quote: " I don't understand how you fire and maneuver successfully"

Regards

Steve

[quincannon]

What makes you think that I said that the fire support element was mounted? I said no such thing. Don't put words in my mouth. You said mounted. I did not, nor did I agree with you when you did. If you will read what I said you will discover I was completely silent on the matter. In fact when you mentioned mounted I was purposely silent, not wanting to upset you in the spirit of brotherhood. I figured that your words would speak for themselves when those who read them form their own opinions.

I really believe you are starting to lose a step or two, and the first sign of that is always not comprehending what you read to its fullest extent, and its accuracy of content.

That's twice today you have failed to read. The first was this mounted nonsense, and the second was what I said about "preferred" methods.

So sit back, take a deep breath, and read what I said, and I believe you will see the error of your ways in this regard. Your apology is optional.

OK then let's put your whole quote out there:

I don't understand how you fire and maneuver successfully, when you can't ride at speed, shoot from a horse, or hit something with your carbine"

You do it successfully by not riding riding a horse when you are trying to shoot, not depending upon hits when you are putting down supporting fires, but rather depending upon volume. Your mission is not to kill, rather it is to suppress, and prevent the enemy from moving if possible, and distracting them from the people that are engaged in maneuver. It does not mean your maneuver unit must necessarily be mounted either. They may only be seeking a position of fire advantage, where they can pour more fire on the enemy from a different direction. 

Your preconceptions are what are tripping you up - not me. So I will go back to what I originally said in making that partial quote of what you said. Truer words were never spoken - you do not understand and I ain't going to tell you. 

[azranger]

Aug 22, 2020 0:44:12 GMT quincannon said:

What makes you think that I said that the fire support element was mounted? I said no such thing. Don't put words in my mouth. You said mounted. I did not, nor did I agree with you when you did. If you will read what I said you will discover I was completely silent on the matter. In fact when you mentioned mounted I was purposely silent, not wanting to upset you in the spirit of brotherhood. I figured that your words would speak for themselves when those who read them form their own opinions.

Nothing makes me think that since I never posted what you allege. Here is my sentence: Would it be mounted or dismounted for instance. To me the objective was to move north as they did yet apparently someone felt they needed to address small numbers of Indians on their flanks. None of these engagements were to their front. No one from either side gets hit as far as we know. 

I really believe you are starting to lose a step or two, and the first sign of that is always not comprehending what you read to its fullest extent, and its accuracy of content.

Right diagnosis wrong patient.

That's twice today you have failed to read. The first was this mounted nonsense, and the second was what I said about "preferred" methods.

Read it again. Would it be mounted or dismounted for instance. I don't think you have a clue about preferred methods of first responding officers in rural areas in my opinion. Since the incident in Colorado the role of first responding officer has changed. We train in active shooter scenarios with mixed agency participation. Big city law enforcement can respond with teams in a timely manner. 

So sit back, take a deep breath, and read what I said, and I believe you will see the error of your ways in this regard. Your apology is optional.



OK then let's put your whole quote out there:

I don't understand how you fire and maneuver successfully, when you can't ride at speed, shoot from a horse, or hit something with your carbine"

It's apparent to me that you failed to understand that the most likely way these particular soldier fired their carbines was after they dismounted. I absolutely was referring to dismounted firing but left it open. The only example I have of troopers firing from their horses was when Reno retrograded and they pulled their revolvers. The only shooters that I am aware of fired rifles and that would be French and Ryan. 

You do it successfully by not riding riding a horse when you are trying to shoot, not depending upon hits when you are putting down supporting fires, but rather depending upon volume. Your mission is not to kill, rather it is to suppress, and prevent the enemy from moving if possible, and distracting them from the people that are engaged in maneuver. It does not mean your maneuver unit must necessarily be mounted either. They may only be seeking a position of fire advantage, where they can pour more fire on the enemy from a different direction. 

Why stop and dismount when you are on a ledge where you can't go to the Indians and they can't get close to you. Seems to me you should move forward and guard your rear as you get out of  range of the enemy position. If the Indians were not making hits then why stop. Do you know how many cases were found at the Indian sites and what was the range of their weapons?

Your preconceptions are what are tripping you up - not me. So I will go back to what I originally said in making that partial quote of what you said. Truer words were never spoken - you do not understand and I ain't going to tell you. 

Sometimes I think we are getting a lecture from a professor. 

Regards

Steve

[quincannon]

Your mistake was assuming that whatever was going on was done mounted. That was your assumption, not mine. In fact if I were in the assuming business, my first assumption would be that the fire support element for this alleged fire and maneuver was not mounted.

Further if I was in the assuming business, I would assume that there is no evidence of any fire and maneuver taking place. That was your assumption, not mine. All I did was label what you were trying to say, as fire and maneuver. The only thing we know about this affair is that firing took place. The maneuver was something you assumed to have happened, a product of your fertile brain.

Once again the assumption of maneuver is what is tripping you up, something that there is no basis of fact for, or evidence of.

"Nothing makes me think" Are you not the one that mentioned this morning, suppression fires and maneuver. Read what you wrote. So while you have nothing making you think, I point to your post as evidence of that is exactly what you were thinking. It is the last sentence of fourth post from the bottom on page 3. You are Arizona Ranger aren't you. 

[azranger]

Aug 22, 2020 1:38:33 GMT quincannon said:

Your mistake was assuming that whatever was going on was done mounted. That was your assumption, not mine. In fact if I were in the assuming business, my first assumption would be that the fire support element for this alleged fire and maneuver was not mounted.

Never suggest what others assume. That is your error. I assume that they would fire their carbines dismounted but I can not  rule out that they stop and fired from horseback. Forever I follow Sgt Ryan a combat veteran and his opinions of these particular soldiers. There is zero evidence that Reno had his battalion or Benteen had his battalion fire their carbines while mounted. I believe they may have been trained to fire from horseback while stopped since the cavalry tactics manual describes how it is performed. I think Taylor stating he never fired his revolver while mounted is a different story. When ammunition allocations are low how much time and budget would you spend on shooting a revolver while mounted and moving. 

Further if I was in the assuming business, I would assume that there is no evidence of any fire and maneuver taking place. That was your assumption, not mine. All I did was label what you were trying to say, as fire and maneuver. The only thing we know about this affair is that firing took place. The maneuver was something you assumed to have happened, a product of your fertile brain.

I never used the words for fire and maneuver because it doesn't fit what I learned in the Marine Corps including the Guidebook for Marines.  

Once again the assumption of maneuver is what is tripping you up, something that there is no basis of fact for, or evidence of.

The Indian position have a closer associated soldier position that is on the flank of the Indians position. It occurs both to east and to the west. 

"Nothing makes me think" Are you not the one that mentioned this morning, suppression fires and maneuver. Read what you wrote. So while you have nothing making you think, I point to your post as evidence of that is exactly what you were thinking. It is the last sentence of fourth post from the bottom on page 3. You are Arizona Ranger aren't you. 

I do think that you can not rule out suppression fire from dismounted soldiers. In my Marine manual it uses fire and maneuver to advance toward the enemy. There is nothing to the front of these companies that is indicated by Indian sites. There is nothing in Deep Coulee until the Indians fill it up with Henry repeaters. 

I think the only objective the first responding Indians had was to slow calvary movement but not prevent it from moving forward. The forward movement by the cavalry was not blocked and they continued on at least as far as crossing Deep Coulee and arriving at the Calhoun area. The large number of Indians (mostly Sioux) then moved in from Deep Coulee and had the soldiers where they wanted them. The Cheyennes were also getting ready and they would take care of the other end where E and F were located. 

I think there is good reason to believe that they moved north and the artifacts support movement north of LSH it's just not conclusive of how many companies were there. 

I don't rule out scenarios that have all 5 companies moving north of LSH nor do I rule out the Donahue theory that only E and F moved north. The only thing I rule out is what is shown on Godfrey's map with CIL only moving to the Calhoun area and Custer with E and F only going as far as LSH. 

Regards

Steve

[azranger]

Page 47 Custer Cases and Cartridges in the Description and Analysis chapter.

37 artifacts 100% .45/55

"While standing in this area, it is not possible to see any of the opposing Indian positions. It is noted while on horseback it is possible to just look over the crest of the ridge and see Indian position 4 and 5."

So without stating they shot from horseback the alternative would be that they fired at positions that they could not see while standing. 

Regards

Steve

[quincannon]

And you know that this analysis is correct? How?

Do you know where the Indians were when the soldiers shots were fired? No you don't, nor did the person that wrote the report. All the person that wrote the report knows is where Indian cartridges were found, and where soldier cartridges were found, and you cannot even be certain at the direction they were being fired. Those positions may be the same, but not necessarily. You don't even know if they were shot at the same time.

An alternative might just be that Indians were sighted in Position X, soldiers dismounted and fired in position Y, and the Indians fled to and occupied position Z, and that is where they fired from.

An alternative to that is Indians fired on soldiers from Position Z, then advanced to Position X, and meanwhile the soldiers retrograded to Position Y, where they dismounted and fired on the Indians as they occupied Position X.

There are all sorts of variations to the above, only one of which has soldiers firing at what they cannot see dismounted, and that is not very realistic at all. Don't you pay any attention to what your friend Montrose has had to say about cavalry dismounting so that they may bring their most effective weapon the carbine to bear? He has probably said it a hundred times since I have been on these boards, and while I would tend to look out the window if he told me the sun was shining, I fully concur with that. Why do I concur with someone I don't really trust? Because what he has to say in this matter is fully consistent with dragoon TTP then and today, and I believe in the adherence to TTP in combat. You fight as you train, and when the 19th Century dragoon was fired upon he dismounted and fired back, just like when today's mechanized Infantrymen,(today's dragoon) riding in a carrier are fired upon, they drop the ramp and dismount, and mounted maneuver transforms itself into dismounted maneuver.

Look I do not want to maintain an eternal state of conflict between us. I have better things to do with my time and I am sure you do too. Why can you just not accept the fact that I know my business, and you know what is near and dear to you, firearms and horses. I cannot possibly because of my limited experience compete with you in your arena, and you can't really compete in mine.

While I acknowledge that you are more informed than the average bear on LBH, it being important to you, and not especially to me, at least to your degree. I will take you to task on anything that you assume that is not labeled assumption, and further take you to task on anything you say that could have more than one reason for or explanation of, but for some reason attribute only one. Never think for a moment that I am belittling you for having no interest in, or knowledge of any battle than this one. You said that, not me. What I am saying to you is that not having an interest in other battles, or the military arts and sciences in general, is like walking around unsupported on one leg. I would think you would realize that to understand LBH to the degree that you wish to, that you would jump at the chance to learn what battle in general is all about as a vital aid to that understanding.

I'll give you but one example, one that happened just over the last 24 hours. Colt said and I concurred that it is highly unlikely that Custer would go to Ford B, for any purpose, a faint being chief among them with one or two companies in tow, and leave others back along the ridge line. I have never met the man, other than here, but I have a deep respect for his views, not because of him, but because we went to two different schools that both taught the same subject, the same way. We were both trained in some ways to be interchangeable with one another with a few weeks of skill cross leveling. That is possible only because the doctrine that was the basis of what we were taught is the very same. So while we are not at all alike, nor do we always think alike, we have the same corral of doctrine that surrounds us. That does not mean we will always agree either, especially on the minor points.

So what you do is in effect not have any respect for our education, skills, and experience. I would think it would be just the opposite. That is why your appending "Regards" to all of your posts rings so hollow to me. You say you regard me/us, yet pay no attention to what I and others have to say. Try this approach. If we say something that you don't agree with ask us why we think that. You make us give you our reasoning. There is not a damned one of us that is going to lie to you or blow smoke up your ass, but your attitude suggests to me that that is exactly what you think we are doing. So then, either modify your approach, or cease giving me your regards. That can only label you as a politically correct phony.