azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Apr 8, 2021 17:52:58 GMT
No I do not expect Custer knew anything about a Spitz. It was a known concept before his time, but its use at LBH would not have been appropriate under prevailing circumstances. All I wanted you to do was research the concept for your own base of knowledge. In short though a Spitz is an advance detachment from the main body of an organization that travels far in advance of the main body usually up to twenty or thirty miles in advance, to seize a clearly defined critical objective such as a bridge or crossroads that is in the zone of advance of the main body. It is specifically designed for the mission, and no two are ever alike, just as no two missions are ever completely alike. It is a combined arms force, mobile enough to substitute speed for stealth, and strong enough to hold what they seize until relieved. As I mentioned to Ian, the Spitz is what put the Lightning into Blitzkrieg. If Custer didn't know it doesn't matter does it?
My approach is more like an investigation. The military side not so much other than decision points. The base of knowledge that one could have known doesn't matter. I have spent a lot of time pursuing the Indian accounts because I don't believe Custer was an idiot. I believe as William has said sometimes the dragon wins.
You are beating a dead horse when you continually bring up the sorry state of training affairs in the 7th Cavalry Regiment. I do not think you will find anyone on this planet or in fact the entire solar system that would disagree with you, except Rini of course. I think an answer doesn't change just because you say it is beating a dead horse. My opinion remains the same. I believe the fast majority believe that the 7th was the best of cavalry units. It is only a small subset that believe otherwise. Attend the LBHA meeting in North Dakota this year and it should change your opinion. Generally speaking (Lieutenant Colonel) Bender and Clair gave you good and proper information. I have no dispute with them in that regard, although I would say that being a West Point graduate does not make you any smarter than anyone else. There are a hell of a lot of dumb ass jerks that have graduated from Hudson High. No argument here By the by I do not believe that Clair ever served in a cavalry unit any day in his career. I think he was strictly a tanker, which while similar is different in scope and emphasis. Mike and Colt can probably fill you in better than I. Remember that some of the units in the U S Army that carry cavalry designations presently were in Clair's time tank battalions, and today combined arms battalions. Cavalry in its true form in the U S Army is reserved for reconnaissance units, except in the First Cavalry Division, which carries the traditional titles regardless of their present organization. The same is also true for the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, which continues the traditional title although it is organized as a standard heavy brigade combat team. The 2nd and 3rd Cavalry Regiments are likewise still designated cavalry, although both of them are Stryker Brigades. My friend Tom Spalding served in the 7th Cavalry in Vietnam and flew around in helicopters. I do appreciate all the military personnel here and their wealth of knowledge. I prefer movements and tactics that have positive results. I started looking at this battle in 2009 in earnest to attempt to find out what resulted in the destruction of 5 companies of cavalry. I wanted to see what factors could improve law enforcement officers survivalibility.
The most significant contribution again came from (Lt, for Chuck) Col. Bender. He brought up PACE planning and from that our Department's Procedure Manual was change. Specifically in execution of a search warrant and decoy operations. He suggested I read Blink and rapid decision making. It makes sense but not all officers make the right decision even with the same input. For me that is the Art of War. You are in fact learning the Art and Science of War by your own admission above by listening to people like Bender, Clair, and might I say Mike, Colt, and myself. Your experience in the Marine Corps only introduced you to the application at the lowest level of the Art and none of the Science. So why don't you just consider those I mentioned as helping you broaden your horizons. I am in fact learning all the time and I tell that to our officers and to the students that attend the Park Ranger Training Program at Northern Arizona.
It may the lowest level but it is where the rubber meets the road. I think it gives me a better understanding of what goes on in combat and high-stress situations. That is one of the things that I know about William is he has been there and done that. I don't know what others have done and it doesn't change my opinion of them.
Here what I study from the Marine Corps although this is a newer version.
www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCDP%201%20Warfighting%20GN.pdf?ver=2019-01-31-110543-300
Steve, it is not enough to know what was done. To completely understand you must know why it was done, or for that matter why it was not done. Sometimes to find those answers you must go back as far as the ancients. I assure you that Hannibal Barca used the same procedures as Custer or Merritt or McKenzie. Caesar used the same mental calculations before he crossed the Rubicon. The continuum of military history is looking at what is past and applying it to the present and the future. I disagree. If I am going to study something, it would be the successful side of a battle. What you mention above is what you did and still do to some degree. I am now going to give you a small example of what I am trying to get across to you, something you said above that you learned from me. Before I ever mentioned that what Reno did from the timber was not a retreat, but rather a breakout from encirclement, everyone that populated all of these pages was calling it a retreat. Some of the unwashed still do, and a small number of them should know better. If you look at it as a retreat, then it is no wonder that most people consider it a cowardly shambles of an episode of the battle. If you look at it for what it was though, not a retreat, but a breakout, from encirclement you can see that it was executed for the most part properly. it was the correct decision under the circumstances, and both Reno and what was done must then be looked at in a new light. Absent the application of the proper terminology to the operation and how the operation was to be executed, along with the associated drawbacks and pitfalls of the operation itself, then, one could never understand what occurred I agree with what you state above and it makes sense but the argument with most persons is that Reno should not have left the timber not how he did it.
I have heard from lots of persons that Reno did not have a rearguard as they rode off. Even a Lt. Col. stated that. I use my knowledge of horses to form the opinion that it would be useless against a force that has surrounded you has a faster horse. I ask anyone to explain how Reno erred by not have a rear guard.
The horses are moving away from the timber as fast as they can move so if you place any gap by slowing to shoot you can never catch up. Horses would move away at a rate of speed that would put 100s of yards between the rear guard and the horses running at up to 30 mph. The Indians could move from either flank and also to the rear.
Even a Corporal in the Marine Corps knows that a rearguard is not effective unless the enemy is only approaching from the rear. Since these soldiers couldn't ride or shoot it would be a death sentence. The best thing could do is have Captain French and other shooters in the rear while moving and fire from an independent seat.
I do appreciate your efforts. William states Custer erred by not following Reno into the valley and he has explained why. Col Hoyt states the same thing for a different reason (horses as the COG). Since I am sure that they also studied the Art and Science of War, it is sufficient reason to state that even if you studied both Art and Science, it doesn't mean you make the best available decision.
Regards
Steve
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Apr 8, 2021 18:06:26 GMT
I think I understand the general consensus. To my eyes, the fall back should have ended on the LSH complex. It's looking a bit forlorn anyway. Crappy as it may be, it is better than being chopped up on the march and strung out. Make them come to you. And you are leaving the dehorsed CO F behind. Like I said, I have to go back through that whole thread again. It is not adding up, so I have missed something. Mike I think there were too many terrain features close to LSH that would make the use of the arrow fired from behind cover an effective weapon. I walked with my rangefinder around LSH and if you walk down the Deep Ravine Trail you can see these locations. In order to clear them, you would need fire from Cemetery Ridge. I also know that at Calhoun Hill you have to stand to fire at locations in Henryville. So it's an Indian prone-fire against a soldier pop-up standing fire. The same can be found on the south end of RH where Benteen was located. There are Indian markers really close to the trooper locations. We rode close to the bottom of that location and the red markers are obvious from that side. Cover fire from below could suppress the troopers while others crawled up close. I am sure the charges were made to push back on the creepers. Regards Steve
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Apr 8, 2021 18:32:06 GMT
It certainty is as good as anyone else's Mike, I did one similar, but it is lost in the midst of time, but I may still have it lurking about in my PC. I recall mentioning about that big bank, Mac said it could be cemetery ridge, but I thought it was greasy grass ridge, but there you go. Do you actually have them reaching the ford d flats? I disagree with the idea of the Sioux pulling off a double envelopment. I think a more accurate description is a swarming attack cutting the companies up mostly piecemeal, but the effect is the same. (A rose is a rose by any other name.) Crazy Horse seems to have displayed some tactical genius in the actions at the Rosebud and Little Bighorn, so it may well have been a double envelopment, but he is no Hannibal. My thinking involved the Sioux having Home Field, staying between the families and soldiers and being led but in chaos. Swarm yes, but little swarms, hanging together to see what they could do. What they did and do today, is chaos - if allowed. They did not hang in on contact but slash and burn and run off 'with' horses. When the horses were gone they organised the absolute best possible, and all fired one salvo on command and rushed in. Varnum reported the volleys for what they really were. The hostiles organised very brief fire superiority and blew the troopers away before rushing in.
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on Apr 8, 2021 20:41:30 GMT
Just a question for my own knowledge about "Spitz". Could Operation "Market Garden" during WW2 be considered a "SPITZ" operation.
Be Well Dan
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Apr 9, 2021 2:54:55 GMT
Can we please understand that the American Indian warrior never "swarmed" anyone.
The standard battle formation was a half moon formation, which probably was a standard for all forces through out history with varying amounts of sophistication. This formation allows a challenge to the opponents flanks but, because they were casualty averse, also allows you to quickly disengage and retreat. Warriors only closed the half moon to create an envelopment when they were sure they could win. This is what was happening in the valley fight. The warrior numbers in the valley had become so large that they were closing around Reno. He did well to charge out when he did. I do not think charges usually have rear guards!
The warriors were a truly democratic force, everyone had a vote and could come, stay, go, as they pleased. Women were allowed to fight and sometimes did "the fight where the girl saved her brother" that is Rosebud. This simply means that those in the field were very committed to the job. Were the Minutemen a swarm?
They had, and followed leaders (officers) like Crazy Horse, Gall, Lame White Man et cetera.
They issued communications. All the Cheyenne knew Custer was coming to the North end of the village because there had been criers in the village announcing this.
In the valley messengers arrived to tell everyone that there were soldiers going North, that is why Crazy Horse headed back. When he left, his followers (Companies) went with him; leadership/command.
At LSH the Cheyenne quickly formed a half moon around LSH. In accounts there is mention of them watching LSH to identify officers so that they could target them. At Calhoun Hill the Sioux (and Cheyenne) formed a half moon around Calhoun Hill. Crazy Horse showed tactical excellence in realizing he could close the net by moving past the flank and up Deep Ravine. Finding Keogh there was just a bonus. When these two half moons meet it becomes a double envelopment. That was good fortune not planning, but that is still what it was.
It was not ever a swarm. It was trained fighters who knew the basic plan and who willingly followed leaders, and maintained the "game plan". If Custer thought it was a swarm that explains his defeat immediately.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 9, 2021 14:59:53 GMT
Steve:
I remain rational (for the most part) BECAUSE I do not attend LBHA conventions. You remain rational, in spite of attending them, because you understand that units cannot operate well unless soldiers operate well. You have a unique bit of training that they do not have that enables you to see. They are not what I would call rational at least on this subject.
Breakouts from an encirclement do not normally leave a rear guard. They may leave some behind, but that is not generally a purposeful action, more due to circumstances. That said all units on the move have someone charged with guarding their rear while the column is in motion. In the case of Reno fro the timber the last company in column was the rear guard. I do not recall which one that was at the moment, but you can bet every farthing you own that rear guard had no intention of stopping for anything or anyone.
Dan: Yes Market Garden employed a Spitz, as did the Invasions of Sicily, and Normandy. They was not done the way we normally think of the operation involving a ground advance, but nevertheless the objectives of the Spitz force in each of these instances was to seize critical objectives within the zone of operation, that would materially aid the follow on main force. At Sicily the Spitz was the 505th Parachute Infantry RCT. At Normandy it was the 6th British and 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions that seized bridges and causeways for the the follow on over the beach forces. In Holland the objective of the main Spitz was to seize the bridge over the Rhine, while the use of the two American A/B division was to seize the other bridges that would make the crossing of the bridge over the Rhine feasible.
Gavin said in his book on airborne warfare published shortly after the war that the Sicily and Normandy airborne missions were essentially cavalry operations. In other words he meant that normally those things would have been done in more normal (meaning not an over the water invasion) circumstances by cavalry. I have been told by others over the years that it was Sicily, Normandy, and Market Garden that was the impetus for Gavin writing his landmark article in Collier's Magazine in the mid 1950 "Cavalry And I Don't Mean Horses" where he proposed formation of air cavalry, which was later studied, and experimented with in the early 1960's and eventually became the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) in Vietnam.
So what you can do is look at any time a small mobile force ranges in front of a larger main body at a goodly distance for the specific purpose of seizing something critical, assume that SPITZ is present. It may be called something different but it it a Spitz nonetheless.
Just don't let anyone confuse you by mixing the terms Advanced Guard with Spitz. Both operate in front of a advancing main body, but the Spitz operates much further forward than an advance guard. The Spitz is designed to seize and hold something specific, while the advance guard is there only to provide security and develop the situation for the main body.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2021 22:10:53 GMT
The Soviet Operational Maneuver Group is another example. I would say, however, that an offensive Covering Force Mission, in the old days which would have been conducted by an Armored Cavalry Regiment, is not because its job is to strip the enemy reconnaissance, find the main battle area, probe for and/or create weakpoints, and pass the main body through.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2021 23:29:55 GMT
Swarming is not just a bunch of fire ants wandering aimlessly. It has command and control. Okay, we did call it the "ant treatment" in the 1/11 ACR where we would look for ways around people and continually attempt to find a flank or a gap. The Cav Troops would do that and we in the tank company would then get talked into a gap or in some cases make one where they thought we could get through. Swarming is also related to Recon-pull where the Recon units pull the main battle units forward. This is similar to the Indians fixing Reno and then as more of them came, they slid around the flanks to turn him.
Maybe it was only swarm-like.
Warned or not, the Indian's were surprised on that day. And it took time for 'the word' to get to Crazy Horse that Cavalry Main Body was circling around behind. While he did an amazing job of launching his forces at the Rosebud and at the LBH, my opinion was he was not so much in control of the whole bunch, but they knew to "follow me and do as I do."
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Apr 11, 2021 1:56:45 GMT
A couple of thoughts. First Fred's timing
2:07 pm Boyer leaves Weir and heads for Custer's column in MTC. 2:23pm Reno begins retreat So Boyer probably could not tell Custer Reno had left the valley.
2:19 Boston Custer meets Martini Again I feel it unlikely that Boston and Autie Reed paused to look in the valley and if they did there is no certainty that Reno had started the retreat at that time.
Consequently it seems entirely likely that Custer never knew what was happening at the South end of the village.
When did Custer decide to head South from Ford D? In understanding what happened tactically this is an interesting question.
The first movement back South was by Sgt Butler. The warrior account says that they intercepted a lone rider heading South and eventually forced him to dismount and finally killed him. Forensically the warrior details match perfectly with the position and details of Butler's body. The warrior accounts say that when Custer moved out of the valley one company rode straight over the ridge (Company L..Butler's company).
Put these together and they suggest Custer was in a hurry to get out, and back to the South, while he was still in the valley at Ford D. This is when he must tell Calhoun to send Butler back, and order Calhoun to get straight back and...?? How is this impacted by Custer actually NOT knowing Reno has left the valley? By now, Benteen has arrived at Reno Hill. Where might Custer think Benteen is at this time?
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Apr 11, 2021 9:32:22 GMT
The way I look at it is this, if GAC actually KNEW!!!! Reno had not only been defeated but was being over run, why didn't any of this get into the Cook note?
Surly Cook wouldn't send for Benteen without telling him this important point.
Benteen was riding totally blind into a maelstrom with no direction. If Reno was in trouble then Benteen should have been told, so in my eyes Custer didn't know, he just wanted his full strength into action.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Apr 11, 2021 15:01:41 GMT
This is an old chestnut which rides tandem theories of what Custer intended for Benteen. Short and sweet, four companies (five if you prefer) were beyond MTC going across the divide to Deep Coulee at least, by the time trumpeter Martin saw Reno skirmishing in the valley - on his way to Benteen with Cooke's written note. Therefore, when Custer issued the orders, there was a set of circumstances in place, based upon his orders and intent. He was going to cross the river and fight in the valley, ie support Reno. So why would Custer order Benteen to forsake Reno fighting in the valley and march the DHK battalion east of the river blowing kisses and waving at the AGM battalion. He wouldn't and didn't. Benteen was sent across ford A. If Reno had bottom lipped it in the valley he could fall back on Benteen and pull a hord of warriors with him. In that situation, Reno, Benteen, Mathey and Mcdougall unite on Ford A. Hell of a place to fight but there was water and cover. In support of what I have just said, Benteen was perfectly aware of what was expected and discussed it with Terry on the 27th June, 1876. He was not up for renewing the fight in the valley and one assumes this relates to his estimate of enemy numbers. Benteen was sent to close up and support Reno. Custer intended to fight in the valley. This leads me to my major difficulty with the five companies moving across Sioux Ford to attack in the valley. There are several strands, firstly, the distance to ford D and back to the village is the same again as the march from seperation to Ford B. Secondly, having committed to a ford d crossing which was defended by 10 (ten) hostiles and six of them having only bow and arrows, regardless of who might have been injured and killed, why stop - knowing Reno, Benteen, Mathey and McDougall should be directly up the valley 3-5 mile. It never made sense and never will. Reno did not advise Custer of the retreat from the valley. So who did tell them? No one! I know I have missed some critical part of the thinking on this unless it really simply is hypothetical twiddling, and crave enlightenment.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Apr 11, 2021 15:17:46 GMT
I'm trying to context the ford d matter I outlined. So, it's June 5th 1944. A V1 falls on Eisenhower. US Army pack up and sail home!
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 11, 2021 16:00:51 GMT
That may have been a bit difficult HR since the first operational launch of the V-1 was not until 13 June 1944, but I do get you point.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Apr 11, 2021 17:08:20 GMT
Steve: I remain rational (for the most part) BECAUSE I do not attend LBHA conventions. You remain rational, in spite of attending them, because you understand that units cannot operate well unless soldiers operate well. You have a unique bit of training that they do not have that enables you to see. They are not what I would call rational at least on this subject. I think you get the full range of people but without a doubt you are correct. It is more of a Custer admiration association rather than LBHA. Tom and my friend Will Hutchison attend and several of the book writers. You have to decide what your expectations are.Breakouts from an encirclement do not normally leave a rear guard. They may leave some behind, but that is not generally a purposeful action, more due to circumstances. That said all units on the move have someone charged with guarding their rear while the column is in motion. In the case of Reno fro the timber the last company in column was the rear guard. I do not recall which one that was at the moment, but you can bet every farthing you own that rear guard had no intention of stopping for anything or anyone. That would make sense and it is intuitive at least to me. I believe French and his company were toward the rear. Dan: Yes Market Garden employed a Spitz, as did the Invasions of Sicily, and Normandy. They was not done the way we normally think of the operation involving a ground advance, but nevertheless the objectives of the Spitz force in each of these instances was to seize critical objectives within the zone of operation, that would materially aid the follow on main force. At Sicily the Spitz was the 505th Parachute Infantry RCT. At Normandy it was the 6th British and 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions that seized bridges and causeways for the the follow on over the beach forces. In Holland the objective of the main Spitz was to seize the bridge over the Rhine, while the use of the two American A/B division was to seize the other bridges that would make the crossing of the bridge over the Rhine feasible. My feeling is that we had large numbers of Indians that would protect their families at various parts of the village. I think that Col Mark Hoyt go it right with the horses being the center of gravity (COG). It has long been my belief even before I read his paper. What is funny or not is that someone copyrighted his paper. Soldiers could have either driven off the herd or shot the horses in the village. Gavin said in his book on airborne warfare published shortly after the war that the Sicily and Normandy airborne missions were essentially cavalry operations. In other words he meant that normally those things would have been done in more normal (meaning not an over the water invasion) circumstances by cavalry. I have been told by others over the years that it was Sicily, Normandy, and Market Garden that was the impetus for Gavin writing his landmark article in Collier's Magazine in the mid 1950 "Cavalry And I Don't Mean Horses" where he proposed formation of air cavalry, which was later studied, and experimented with in the early 1960's and eventually became the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) in Vietnam. Horses were done for as cavalry with the development of rifled barrels. The function of cavalry continues on with improved methods of transportation. So what you can do is look at any time a small mobile force ranges in front of a larger main body at a goodly distance for the specific purpose of seizing something critical, assume that SPITZ is present. It may be called something different but it it a Spitz nonetheless. I don't know the answer but would Cheyenne have as much concern if it were Sioux families being captured?Just don't let anyone confuse you by mixing the terms Advanced Guard with Spitz. Both operate in front of a advancing main body, but the Spitz operates much further forward than an advance guard. The Spitz is designed to seize and hold something specific, while the advance guard is there only to provide security and develop the situation for the main body. Thanks for sharing
Regards
Steve
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Apr 11, 2021 17:16:30 GMT
The way I look at it is this, if GAC actually KNEW!!!! Reno had not only been defeated but was being over run, why didn't any of this get into the Cook note? Surly Cook wouldn't send for Benteen without telling him this important point. Benteen was riding totally blind into a maelstrom with no direction. If Reno was in trouble then Benteen should have been told, so in my eyes Custer didn't know, he just wanted his full strength into action. Martin sees Reno in the valley. Its not till much later do they see Reno moving to the bluffs. Benteen sees it in progress.
|
|