| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - May 28 2005 : 11:25:41 AM
Last night, I got a chance to read the newest CBHMA's "Greasy Grass," and found the article by Ron Nichols very interesting. He briefly goes over the battalion divisions/assignments of the Seventh for 1876 and makes the argument that had GAC not changed the battalion alignment on June 25th and instead, gave Reno another company, if not two, for the initial press into the Indian village, the LBH might have turned out differently. Would the Indians have run/scattered if they saw more men on Reno's lines? From what I understand, Nichols is pro-Reno, so he may be putting a little more faith in Reno's ability than is deserved.
What do you all think? |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - October 19 2011 : 4:04:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
When someone is doing their job why would you use the term deserted then if you have a clear understanding of military operations.
quote:
If you insist that Reno "did his job" knowing full well that he did not, further exchange on this topic is useless. However, I would be amiss if I failed to mention the following:
My pertinent issue is not that he left the field but, how he left it. The orderly movement of a military unit from an hostile environment untenable due to a superior force must be "covered" by a rear guard action. No attempt was made by Reno to do so, do you agree?
Reno deserted the line
So when Custer rode off ahead of his troops to do an assessment and make a decision on what to do next to state Custer deserted the battalion or was he doing his expected job.
quote:
I am stupefied by the above comment! Obviously Custer's recognizance to ascertain and develop military intelligence would not be translated as "desertion" by anyone, nor have I. Is it possible that you harbor such an intense and negative perspective of my statements that you simple can not "see" what I an writing?
Reno had to assure the horses were safe and whether there was a better position based upon what the Indians were doing. It is you use of words such as deserted instead of recon that bothers me. I guess it shouldn't since you believe that account and testimony are the same.
quote:
The senior commander of a military unit is not obligated to ascertain such meanly tasks as to the condition of the horses; that was one of the reasons the military developed junior ranks to take such "burdens" from the shoulder of the commander. If you could show me a single document or account that states Reno looked for anything other than a way out, I would be flabbergasted. By the way, this offer does not include anything by you! Does not the real danger(for the command)exist in a firing line which slowly diminished because no "commander" was in charge to prevent it from doing so. As a result, Reno's military front was dangerously reduced to such a state that danger was suddenly imminent.
ifwhere the horse o
So is deserted and recon the same also Joe?
quote:
No, obviously the two terms are not the same.
|
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 10 2011 : 10:53:36 AM
When someone is doing their job why would you use the term deserted then if you have a clear understanding of military operations.
Reno deserted the line
So when Custer rode off ahead of his troops to do an assessment and make a decision on what to do next to state Custer deserted the battalion or was he doing his expected job.
Reno had to assure the horses were safe and whether there was a better position based upon what the Indians were doing. It is you use of words such as deserted instead of recon that bothers me. I guess it shouldn't since you believe that account and testimony are the same.
So is deserted and recon the same also Joe? |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - October 09 2011 : 10:33:43 AM
Az, I wish to apologize for my method of reply to your post, sarcasm is never necessary to support a point of contention. I accuse you of "flaunting" information quite known to the other members as unnecessary and grandiose on your part but, I perform the same act by pointing out that the rest of the board have an awareness of "tactics" that are at, the least, comparable to your vast knowledge. I guess i got carried away. |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - October 08 2011 : 7:49:34 PM
I'm going to write real s---l---o---w so you can understand me. all the commanders you so eloquently referred to during this battle were engaged in a frenzy to save their own butts. Please do not bore the forum with your classroom expose of "military actions" as the vast majority of the posters here are quite familiar with military tactics. Your failure to realize this salient point appears to be germane to your obvious allusions of grandeur. Az you definitely the MAN!  |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 01 2011 : 7:51:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
What a detailed and informative expose on "skirmish" tactics. Thank you for your efforts and I agree with you regarding Reno's decision. However, after making his decision, Reno deserted the line, ceased to ensure its integrity, and led his men (not all of them mind you) in a jumbled, mad-cap, spurt toward "dem dar hills." I wish you exquisite thesis had covered that portion of Reno's profound and historic "decision."
Your lack of understanding military actions leads to you drawing wrong conclusions. The company commander controls the fire power of the company. The battalion commander needs to maneuver the companies therefore if withdrawing to the timber is being considered only Reno could make that decision which being a good officer would require him to look at it in order to make an informed decision. While doing that the company commanders should be keeping their companies in the fight on the skirmish line.
AZ Ranger |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - September 10 2011 : 12:13:03 PM
What a detailed and informative expose on "skirmish" tactics. Thank you for your efforts and I agree with you regarding Reno's decision. However, after making his decision, Reno deserted the line, ceased to ensure its integrity, and led his men (not all of them mind you) in a jumbled, mad-cap, spurt toward "dem dar hills." I wish you exquisite thesis had covered that portion of Reno's profound and historic "decision." |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 29 2009 : 08:40:29 AM
There are basic cavalry formations starting from either in column or on line. The line provides more fire power forward if the terrain allows the formation. Cavalry charges should have a portion of the unit to fall back on if repulsed. Reno started with 2 companies in advance and 1 to the rear. Taking all things into account Reno put all 3 companies on line.
The skirmish line either mounted or on foot was used by cavalry for engagements both on offense and on defense. Since there were no sabres there was no intent to charge into a large number of combatants from the start of the expedition. The column charge would not deploy much firepower forward. If the troopers were composed of mostly right-handed shoulder weapon shooters the right flank has little protection. If in column of fours the interior troopers have no field of fire without the possibility of hitting another trooper.
The moving skirmish line only needs to halt to engage. The column would need to reform into a skirmish line to place the most effective fire forward.
I think Reno made the logical textbook taught choice for the circumstance.
AZ Ranger
|
| Benteen |
Posted - November 28 2009 : 8:38:04 PM
I only wish Chasber was here to finish his own thoughts on this, he knew. |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - November 28 2009 : 7:01:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
Joe,
Chasber made some interesting observations that I think are interesting, and would like to re-address:
Something that is interesting about Renos' advance, why would Reno use the wrong formation to attack the village? The line would be broken and separated upon contact with the village. The separated pieces would then be unable to communicate or support each other. Reno was West Point trained and had to know this stuff. Reno used this particular formation on purpose and for a reason. My personal favorite possibility for that reason is that Reno used the line formation because he was told to. This in turn opens up the possibility that there was more of a plan in play than has ever been admitted to by the principal players.
quote:
Have mercy, methinks you are going to bust the whole thing wide open. Never thought of this before. I see where your going with this. JW
Utterly unknown is not quite accurate. The command had passed through and studied several previous camp sites. Custer also had some of the best scouts possible with him. Basic recon I believe would be studying the terrain from the crows nest, sending Benteen to see if there Indians in the upper valley, and having Boyuer and the Crows well out in front. Far enough so that they observed the Lone Tepee band for awhile before it packed up and scooted out. Dividing the force to attack a village from multiple directions was a distinctly unusual thing to do if you don't count Palo Duro, Wa****a, Powder River, Bighole... I do not fault Reno for forming his skirmish line when he did, I do not even fault him too much for going into the timber to hide while the skirmish line was engaged. I do fault him greatly though for taking a third of the line with him when he went.
quote:
Stand by Radio, we have a confirmation here...JW
In Reno's own words his orders were to charge the village. Custer was moving to support that charge not a skirmish line a mile away from the village. According to Gray's timelines it was 17 minutes from when Reno left the Timber till he reached the top of Reno hill. As Reno had only sustained 3 casualties up to the point he stopped defending the timber position, was his charge to the rear justifiable at that time? Can we condemn Custer for not supporting Reno when Reno didn't hold a position long enough to receive that support. Most of the descriptions of the firing heard downstream identify it as starting about the time Reno reached the top. I would suggest that you study the descriptions of that firing and where it came from, paying particular attention to the descriptions of those who were left in the timber. I feel that it is highly probable that Custer did attack. We know Reno stopped a mile short of the village. We know bullets being fired from the skirmish line were not reaching the Indians and the village was a good half mile beyond them. So how do we explain the Indians who talked about bullets rattling through the tepee tops?
quote:
I'm with you 100% JW
How do you catch an enemy that can move farther and faster than you. If Custer had advanced down the valley with the entire regiment the warriors would have attacked him to buy the time needed for the village to get away. You would wind up with a nasty fight and then a summer spent chasing Indians all over the country. Which is actually what happened anyway. The point I am trying to make is that dividing the regiment to attack from different directions was Army sop at the time. Custer was going by the book it just didn't work. This brings us to reasons why it didn't work.
quote:
Why didn't I think of this??? JW
Were there overwhelming numbers? The Indians never attempted to close with Reno as long as a defensive fire was maintained. There are multiple references as to how good Reno's position in the timber was. There are comparable actions against overwhelming numbers of these same Indians. The Indians had learned a very expensive lesson, you don't charge troops who have cover. There are detailed descriptions of the troopers bullets not reaching the Indians they were fired at. That is how far away they were keeping themselves. The Indians themselves said they didn't understand why Reno left as they could not have got to him in the timber. Under these conditions a half hour would not make much of a difference and Reno still could have lost 30 men in his panic charge to safety.
[quote]I believe this line of thought deserves a thread of its' own. Fantastic!!! JW[/quote
|
| Benteen |
Posted - November 28 2009 : 1:37:06 PM
Joe,
Chasber made some interesting observations that I think are interesting, and would like to re-address:
Something that is interesting about Renos' advance, why would Reno use the wrong formation to attack the village? The line would be broken and seperated upon contact with the village. The seperated pieces would then be unable to communicate or support each other. Reno was West Point trained and had to know this stuff. Reno used this particular formation on purpose and for a reason. My personal favorite possibility for that reason is that Reno used the line formation because he was told to. This in turn opens up the possibility that there was more of a plan in play than has ever been admitted to by the principal players.
Utterly unknown is not quite accurate. The command had passed through and studied several previous camp sites. Custer also had some of the best scouts possible with him. Basic recon I believe would be studying the terrain from the crows nest, sending Benteen to see if there Indians in the upper valley, and having Boyuer and the Crows well out in front. Far enough so that they oberserved the Lone Teepee band for awhile before it packed up and scooted out. Dividing the force to attack a village from multiple directions was a distictly unusual thing to do if you don't count Palo Duro, Wa****a, Powder River, Bighole... I do not fault Reno for forming his skirmish line when he did, I do not even fault him too much for going into the timber to hide while the skirmish line was engaged. I do fault him greatly though for taking a third of the line with him when he went.
In Reno's own words his orders were to charge the village. Custer was moving to support that charge not a skirmish line a mile away from the village. According to Gray's timelines it was 17 minutes from when Reno left the Timber till he reached the top of Reno hill. As Reno had only sustained 3 casualties up to the point he stopped defending the timber position, was his charge to the rear justifiable at that time? Can we condemn Custer for not supporting Reno when Reno didn't hold a position long enough to receive that support. Most of the descriptions of the firing heard downstream identify it as starting about the time Reno reached the top. I would suggest that you study the descriptions of that firing and where it came from, paying particular attention to the descriptions of those who were left in the timber. I feel that it is highly probable that Custer did attack. We know Reno stopped a mile short of the village. We know bullets being fired from the skirmish line were not reaching the Indians and the village was a good half mile beyond them. So how do we explain the Indians who talked about bullets rattling through the teepee tops?
How do you catch an enemy that can move farther and faster than you. If Custer had advanced down the valley with the entire regiment the warriors would have attacked him to buy the time needed for the village to get away. You would wind up with a nasty fight and then a summer spent chasing Indians all over the country. Which is actually what happened anyway. The point I am trying to make is that dividing the regiment to attack from different directions was Army sop at the time. Custer was going by the book it just didn't work. This brings us to reasons why it didn't work.
Were there overwhelming numbers? The Indians never attemted to close with Reno as long as a defensive fire was maintained. There are multiple references as to how good Reno's position in the timber was. There are comparable actions against overwhelming numbers of these same Indians. The Indians had learned a very expensive lesson, you don't charge troops who have cover. There are detailed descriptions of the troopers bullets not reaching the Indians they were fired at. That is how far away they were keeping themselves. The Indians themselves said they didn't understand why Reno left as they could not have got to him in the timber. Under these conditions a half hour would not make much of a difference and Reno still could have lost 30 men in his panic charge to safety.
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - November 18 2009 : 9:17:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
Joe, It may best be summed up in the words of Benjamin Franklin:
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
I love it!! What an apt description of the dark one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 16 2009 : 3:49:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
And only someone like you could say that Ranger. I suppose yours could be classified as 'community building' as well, huh Ranger? Who is ignorant now?
You for asking the question |
| Benteen |
Posted - November 16 2009 : 08:55:07 AM
And only someone like you could say that Ranger. I suppose yours could be classified as 'community building' as well, huh Ranger? Who is ignorant now? |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 16 2009 : 06:58:41 AM
By the number of posts it appears Joe has been working hard. |
| Benteen |
Posted - November 16 2009 : 02:44:33 AM
Joe, It may best be summed up in the words of Benjamin Franklin:
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - November 15 2009 : 5:43:24 PM
I just discovered this jewel and, despite the lateness, I have to make comment. First of all my apologies prolar for using his thread to state my case. Secondly, I never would have expected dc to display such an outstanding display of courtesy; to anybody. To say I am shocked to read this would be an understatement. Miracles do occur every now and then! |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - November 15 2009 : 5:41:20 PM
I just discovered this jewel and, despite the lateness, I have to make comment. First of all my apologies prolar for using his thread to state my case. Secondly, I never would have expected dc to display such an outstanding display of courtesy; to anybody. To say I am shocked to read this would be an understatement. Miracles do occur every now and then! |
| prolar |
Posted - September 29 2008 : 08:26:24 AM
DC, apologies not needed and unlike you. Thanks for the corrected spelling. I'm older. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 28 2008 : 11:32:20 PM
Probably true. Apologies. Olde. |
| prolar |
Posted - September 22 2008 : 2:05:06 PM
Lighten up DC, I was joking. However, I did misrepresent what AZ said. So my apoligies to him. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 22 2008 : 1:38:31 PM
No, it does not so appear. You quoted the line to which you responded. Further, AZ doesn't say Reno deserves praise, anyway. He just doesn't deserve condemnation given the results and painful fact that nobody shows how it could have been done with better results.
Before damning an officer, there should be more than wishful thinking to prove he was wrong. |
| prolar |
Posted - September 22 2008 : 11:56:57 AM
It must be a conspiracy. My post came up so it appears that I was agreeing with AZ that Reno deserved praise. I was actually responding to Brent's damning him with faint praise. |
| prolar |
Posted - September 22 2008 : 09:51:45 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Brent
"We will damn Major Reno with faint praise"
Which he so richly deserved. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - September 22 2008 : 09:49:01 AM
There is no praise for any command level officers that day. A few individual acts were brave. No one has ever posted that Reno was a hero or much more than barely adequate. There are praises from those that served with him in the valley. |
| Brent |
Posted - September 22 2008 : 06:59:40 AM
"We will damn Major Reno with faint praise" |
