Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2021 16:30:30 GMT
Well Crow's Nest what have you learned from this enlightening discourse? Sell all your Kraft stock. After Ian eviscerated American Cheese it will take a tumble when the markets open on Wall Street this coming Monday. I have lost the cheese wars to Mike. I thought my ersatz borscht gambit was a war winner, but momentarily forgot what a clever little rascal he is. Sneaky I tell you, sneaky. He brought out his heavy artillery and flummuxed me with Armstrong and Aldrin I think you are correct. The Reno Hill portion of the fight seems to have a bad case of Idon'tgiveadamnaboutititis by us moderns that follow the battle. That should not be the case in my view. Any time the Indians had wanted too they could have hit the Daily Double, but apparently had no desire to make any big bets on it. I really don't know how many casualties were incurred during that portion of the fight. Mike, I think found the numbers by company on the Internet. He will share. That material is also in "Garryowen In Glory" as an annex. Regardless, the Indians did not need that fight. They were casualty adverse. All they need do is fix and contain the fix. I am happy you are sharing your views, but they do keep me off important stuff like cheese, but that's life. KIA for KIA and Companies
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2021 16:32:07 GMT
Mike, I cant follow you. Yes, No, No, Yes, Maybe See the edit above
|
|
|
Post by crowsnest on Jul 10, 2021 22:00:32 GMT
Based no those numbers roughly 2/3 of all non-Custer casualties occurred in the timber and in the flight from it.
1 or 2 on the Valley Skirmish Line
1 or 2 on the Weir Advance
They were losing about 1 man every 2 hours on the Reno/Benteen fight.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 10, 2021 23:58:48 GMT
That sounds about right, but also take into consideration that they were not fighting 24 hours a day on Reno Hill. Those casualties occurred when the Indians were probing the position. Considering that the number of casualties must be divided by the number of probes I would think. Looking at in that light those numbers could be of more concern. You also must look at the area that was being covered. That area was huge, when you consider it was being defended by men armed with single shot rifles. Every casualty you take means that you are covering less and less of the perimeter, OR you are shrinking your perimeter, and that too has its limitations. Shrink to much and your front side is going to be shaking hands with your backside.
Where, may I ask, are you going with this? Does this phase of the battle have a particular interest to you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2021 1:24:27 GMT
And I didn't find data on number of wounded, only KIA and DOW.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 12, 2021 19:50:12 GMT
Now who in the hell do you think I am going to listen to, NASA, or the Madam. I don't have to live with NASA. What I have trouble with is revisionist history, that is personal agenda driven. You and I both know that Crook got his ass handed to him operationally, but at the same time scored a minor tactical victory, but only by the hair on his chinny chin chin. The idea that Rosebud is sometimes called Crooks Defeat speaks to how history treats this battle, but it was specifically only an operational defeat because the results of the battle cause Crook to fail to meet operational objectives. That's what happened. It cannot be changed. Now I do know people, the ones who were dropped on their heads at birth, that do say the Alamo was a Texian victory. Their faulted reasoning is based on the delay the Alamo caused the Mexican Army. They all live in Texas by the way. The truth is that after crossing 700 miles of desert in the winter, and about starving man and beast in the process, Santa Anna could not go one step beyond San Antonio until he rested and refitted. Sort of like Patton running out of gas. So the Dropped On The Heads at Birth Brigade, twist, and snivel, and quibble, and fabricate to suit their own beliefs and agenda. I despise them, and you can be damned certain you are not one of them, lest you took my post the wrong way. NOW IT IS PROVOLONE DAMN IT. Gentlemen, you are both wrong, everyone knows that the moon is made from green cheese.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2021 20:07:30 GMT
Beth. Chuck is wrong. I could be wrong, but the astronauts who landed their and took samples back for testing say its American Cheese. So sorry, you are wrong. Just make like easy and admit it.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 12, 2021 21:38:05 GMT
Well Beth, Green Cheese was my GO TO until thirty two years ago come September, when one of the prenuptial agreements stipulate that I must then and forevermore forswear the Green Cheese stick for Provolone. I also believe completely in the Big Rock Candy Mountain, and take it as absolute fact that George Washington threw a silver dollar across the Potomac, chopped down that darn cherry tree, and never told even a teensy weensy white lie to Martha.
Now as to that nasty rumor that Sally Fairfax was smuggled into George's cabin at Valley Forge, I must say that does test my faith in George.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Jul 12, 2021 22:32:23 GMT
From the other board, there was a discussion of who won what battle and the other results. This motivated me to look up the various definition modern US Army doctrine on effects on the enemy and wrote this short evaluation. I thought some might found it useful. Thanks
I use www.globalsecurity.org/index.html What is your opinion of the site?
Regarding the actions at the Rosebud and LBH Surprise and defeat occur largely in the commander's mind and a result of lack of proper security and reconnaissance. Crook was surprised at the Rosebud. Only the Scout's being deployed forever mitigated the surprise. The Indians were surprised at the LBH. I believe there are degrees of surprise. The Indians knew soldiers were coming down Reno Creek. They had guards out around the camp. Wolf Tooth and others left camp to move toward those soldiers. The surprise was that Custer moved sooner then they thought. Can you address the degrees of surprise and preparedness?
Thanks
Crook of course claimed that he held the field so he won the victory - A traditional measure of success. Strictly speaking this is true as the Indians withdrew from the fight. Crook was defeated, as I said, in his mind. The current Army definition of " defeat" is (From FM 3-90.1 Tactics) "Defeat is a tactical mission task that occurs when an enemy force has temporarily or permanently lost the physical means or the will to fight. The defeated force’s commander is unwilling or unable to pursue that individual’s adopted course of action, thereby yielding to the friendly commander’s will and can no longer interfere to a significant degree with the actions of friendly forces. Defeat can result from the use of force or the threat of its use."Destroy is similar, but involves significant loss to the enemy force: "Destroy is a tactical mission task that occurs when an enemy force has temporarily or permanently lost the physical means or the will to fight. The defeated force's commander is unwilling or unable to pursue that individual's adopted course of action, thereby yielding to the friendly commander's will and can no longer interfere to a significant degree with the actions of friendly forces. Defeat* can result from the use of force or the threat of its use. The amount of damage needed to render a unit combat-ineffective depends on the unit’s type, discipline, and morale. Destroying armored or dug-in targets with area fire weapons requires considerable ammunition and time, so forces do not normally attempt it unless they have terminally guided munitions."*Including the Defeat statement in the Destroy definition is confusing. Destroy requires the use of force whereas Defeat can occur from the threat of force.Lesser effects include Neutralization and Suppress. These are temporary conditions. Neutralization is generally thought to occur when the attacked force suffers 30-40% casualties and Suppression at 10%. "Neutralize is a tactical mission task that results in rendering enemy personnel or materiel incapable of interfering with a particular operation. (Figure B-25 shows the neutralize tactical mission graphic.) The two lines cross over the symbol of the unit or facility targeted for neutralization. When assigning a task to neutralize, the commander specifies the enemy force or materiel to neutralize and the duration, which is time- or event-driven. The neutralized target may become effective again when casualties are replaced, damage is repaired, or effort resulting in the neutralization is lifted. The commander normally uses a combination of lethal and nonlethal effects to neutralize enemy personnel or materiel. The assets required to neutralize a target vary accordingly.""Suppress is a tactical mission task that results in the temporary degradation of the performance of a force or weapon system below the level needed to accomplish its mission. It occurs when a commander employs direct or indirect lethal and nonlethal effects, such as artillery, electronic warfare, or smoke on enemy personnel, weapons, and equipment to prevent or degrade enemy fires, sensors, and visual observation of friendly forces. Unlike the neutralization task, the original target regains its effectiveness without needing to reconstitute, once the effects of the systems involved in the suppression effort lift or shift to another target."Lots of people like to use the terms " decimate" or " decimated" to describe severe casualties on a unit, but the term really means 1 out of 10. Thus, it is more like Suppression than Destroyed. Custer's Battalion was Destroyed. The 7th Cavalry as a whole suffered about 268 killed and 55 wounded for a total of 323 casualties out of a strength of about 700. This reflects a 46% loss which result in them being Neutralized until they had a chance to rest, eat, rearm, and consolidate. Reno/Benteen had a strength of about 355 and suffered about 50 KIA and 55 WIA for 105/355 for about a 29% loss, so they are close to be Neutralized, but they were certainly Suppressed and Fixed/Contained. Fix is a tactical mission task where a commander prevents the enemy force from moving any part of that force from a specific location for a specific period. This may occur by engaging the enemy force to prevent its withdrawal for use elsewhere, or by using military deception, such as transmitting false orders. The commander uses fix in offensive and defensive actions; it is always a shaping operation. (Figure B-21 shows the tactical mission graphic for fix.) The commander points the arrow toward the desired enemy unit to fix. The broken part of the arrow indicates the desired location for that event to occur. B-57. Fixing an enemy force does not mean destroying it. The friendly force has to prevent the enemy from moving in any direction. This task usually has a time constraint, such as “fix the enemy reserve force until OBJECTIVE FALON, the decisive operation, is secured.” The tactical mission task of fix differs from that of block in that a fixed enemy force cannot move from a given location, but a blocked enemy force can move in any direction other than the one obstructed.Contain is a tactical mission task that requires the commander to stop, hold, or surround enemy forces or to cause them to center their activity on a given front and prevent them from withdrawing any part of their forces for use elsewhere. Containment allows an enemy force to reposition itself within the designated geographical area, while fixing an enemy does not. Geographic terms or time may express the limits of the containment. The contain graphic encompasses the entire area in which the commander desires to contain the enemy during the development of alternative courses of action.The Terry Column as a whole was defeated. One could argue the Reno/Benteen battalion conducted a successful defense but this conclusion should be tempered by the Indians withdrew as the Gibbon Column came closer. One could also argue, since the 7th held the field at the end, they won the battle. Hopefully, this doctrinal destruction can provide some clarity in the way we examine and evaluate the battle. Thanks it does help to enforce what other military officers have shared on these boards.
Regards
Steve
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2021 1:04:11 GMT
Easy question first. Global Security is a good site. In the old days one did not have to subscribe and then you had to pay a modest fee. Now it is much more expensive. Many, but not all references are available on line at various military sites. Go to rdl.train.army.mil/catalog/dashboard and then on the left side click on product type and you can select most, though not all, of any manual the Army publishes. There are in general four types of surprise, Tactical, Operational, Strategic, and technological. Maybe some others. The Indian's probably suffered tactical surprise. They knew the US Army Strategy and that operations were in progress. The Army was tactically surprise at both the Rosebud and the Little Bighorn because they did not anticipate the way the Indians would fight. The Army knew the Indians had rapid fire weapons, but I don't think, by itself it was the battle winner, except and insofar as it was coupled by the Army's lack of training, particularly in marksmanship. Had they carried sabers, there may have be a more even hand to hand fight, if they carried sabers. Crook and Custer were both surprised tactically, making my case for Surprise occurring in the mind of the commander. The Indians were surprised by Custer's approach, but they were able to recover and gain the initiative and Custer was never close to gain it.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 13, 2021 4:54:23 GMT
I think you left out doctrinal surprise Mike. No one ever thought the Germans to go through Poland like a knife through hot butter. No one expected therefore that a convergence of the AFV, radio, and close support aircraft incorporated into a cohesive doctrine, had been developed to that level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2021 10:09:27 GMT
I think you left out doctrinal surprise Mike. No one ever thought the Germans to go through Poland like a knife through hot butter. No one expected therefore that a convergence of the AFV, radio, and close support aircraft incorporated into a cohesive doctrine, had been developed to that level. That's a good one, I wish I had thought of it.
|
|