| Author |
 Topic  |
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - September 02 2008 : 09:39:38 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brent
AZ Ranger--welcome home!! Since you were in the USMC, I assume you were in I Corps. So was I. I was assigned to the 198th Light Infantry brigade of the Americal (23'rd Infantry) Division. HQ's was at Chu Lai (about 40 miles S of da Nang), but I spent most of my field time at LZ Dottie and LZ
Fat City--mindlessly walking up and down those high hills in a usually fruitless search for the NVA. Seems we never knew where they were, but they always knew where WE were
Anyway, as for Marcus "That was a charge, sir" Reno--it was a disorganized rout with Reno leading the way. Some of the men didn't even know they were leaving the Timber. I believe he was properly placed in command due to his rank and prior service. But at the LBH
he was weighed in the balance, and found wanting. The only real band-aid he has is the fact that he wasn't supported in the first place. So the fact that he stopped when faced with a growing # of Indians and no support is understandable. What he did after that is not.
And about DeRudio--even the Indians suggested they left a few warriors near Reno Hill just in case the soldiers tried to do something. But they did absolutely nothing--not even making an attempt to see IF there were a lot of Indians still there. Allowing of course for the entire force of warriors to wipe out Custer.
Since they did not have radios or other electronic communication it doesn't surprise me that some say they didn't hear the commands. Reno was responsible for communicating to all troopers individually. There was not time to have roll call when they got outside the timber. I suspect some stayed in the timber intentionally.
Lots of charges result in 60 or more per cent casualties and all are disorganized when the opponents meet. If you turn horses loose at top speed which is charge gait (gallop to us rangers) there is no organization. That usually took place at 50 yards and closing to the enemy.
The problem as I see it is that there was two many Indians and to long of a distance to the rallying location. It is fact that at first they rode toward the Indians with Reno leading. Once a trooper fired all his shots from his revolver and maybe one shot from his carbine he was unarmed and it would be a race to the regroup location. I would guess they wished they had their sabres when the Indians moved on close. That would seem like a buffalo hunt to the Indians.
The whole battle was a rout with less casualties in Reno's battalion than Custer. The Indian's should not have been able to destroy 5 companies with Custer and I see no indication of offense by Custer. The difference I believe is leadership style. Reno was less of a risk taker and his assessment that they could not hold the timber without support or more ammunition caused him to make a decision to move before the Indians could stop him from doing it. Custer appears to have been trying to mount an offense without success and went on the defense to late and lacked support distance among the companies.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
  |
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 02 2008 : 09:44:22 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sgtmajor109th
From what I learned of a retrograde operations. It is operation in
which a force in contact with the enemy frees itself for a new mission.
By Reno's acoount in his report it was charge, by others it was a
retreat. However I was under the impression that Reno only had one
mission, what was the other?
Reno's mission per Custer was to bring them to battle. Without a doubt mission accomplished. Custer could never complain that Reno did not bring Indians to battle rather than running off.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 02 2008 : 10:02:06 AM
|
[quote]Originally posted by joe wiggs
The general consensus regarding Reno's actions in his "charge" from the timber seem to hover around not so good to terrible. What did his contemporaries have to say about him?
Memorandum by Captain Robert G. Carter, July 6, 1923:
'General D.S. Brainard told me this date that he has often heard Capt. (later Gen.) Whelan and Lieut. (later Gen.) C. F. Roe, both of the Second U.S. Cavalry and of Terry's command, say that when they reached Reno's defensive line on the bluff all of Reno's officers talked wildly and excitedly about the fight, and of Reno's cowardice, etc. A little later they shut their mouths like clams and would not talk...This was later shown by their testimony before the Reno Court of Inquiry, where all but Godfrey refused to charge Reno with cowardice.'
Apparently, unlike the forum, Reno's contemporaries had no issue in using the derogatory term against Reno.
[/quote
Everyone you quoted was not there. Which officers that were there made such statements which were recorded in the reports of the actual battle by those arriving on the scene immediately after the event or any report they made themselves. If you put it in a report you would have to defend it and if not it hearsay only.
What did Godfrey have to say about Benteen battalion and his own company never being engaged offensively that day? Reno's battalion appears to be the only battalion that engaged offensively.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 02 2008 : 11:34:08 AM
|
| About Reno's charge to Reno Hill--did the men actually form up, or was it mostly single file with Reno just out in front?? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 02 2008 : 1:07:53 PM
|
Where did Indians say Reno's retreat was a Buffalo Hunt, and how do you know it wasn't referencing Custer?
Any tale that appears more than a few years after the fact ought to be immediately suspect as a melding of existing stories and views, Indian or white.
Remember: we do not have Indian testimony, because they were not under oath. We do not have Indian accounts, either, only what we are told are Indian accounts through third or more parties, not rarely by dubious translation. And Indians get excited, lie, and are confused like anyone else.
Count the levels of separation in the Carter tale above between those who were there and could have known and its appearence here. No closer than fourth hand to Brainard, and that's assuming "Reno's officers" would be talking like that in front of the men two days after the battle, and somehow did so with no intent on deflecting attention from the loss and their own performances. Naturally, Reno prevented them from heroism and victory. Godfrey, in any case, did not call Reno a coward, went out of his way not to.
Given what Reno knew AT THE TIME, or could possibly have known, they had to get out while they could. They did form up according to those there, albeit not all of them, and Reno was sitting on his horse when BK was killed in front of him from 30 feet away. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 02 2008 : 5:24:29 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
[quote]Originally posted by joe wiggs
The general consensus regarding Reno's actions in his "charge" from the timber seem to hover around not so good to terrible. What did his contemporaries have to say about him?
Memorandum by Captain Robert G. Carter, July 6, 1923:
'General D.S. Brainard told me this date that he has often heard Capt. (later Gen.) Whelan and Lieut. (later Gen.) C. F. Roe, both of the Second U.S. Cavalry and of Terry's command, say that when they reached Reno's defensive line on the bluff all of Reno's officers talked wildly and excitedly about the fight, and of Reno's cowardice, etc. A little later they shut their mouths like clams and would not talk...This was later shown by their testimony before the Reno Court of Inquiry, where all but Godfrey refused to charge Reno with cowardice.'
Apparently, unlike the forum, Reno's contemporaries had no issue in using the derogatory term against Reno.
[/quote
Everyone you quoted was not there. Which officers that were there made such statements which were recorded in the reports of the actual battle by those arriving on the scene immediately after the event or any report they made themselves. If you put it in a report you would have to defend it and if not it hearsay only.
What did Godfrey have to say about Benteen battalion and his own company never being engaged offensively that day? Reno's battalion appears to be the only battalion that engaged offensively.
AZ Ranger
AZ, your statement regarding these gentleman as "not being there" has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. They did not have to be there to overhear others speak of what occurred. I did not place this information in a "report", I've placed in a forum which is open to facts, probabilities, speculation and, more importantly, common sense.
Retrieved information from other sources may be utilized as best seen fit by the reader, don't you agree? Furthermore, I have read nothing about these historical persons that would lead me (or you) to believe that they would wantonly create malevolent mis-information that would horribly affect innocent persons in such a cruel and adverse manner. If so, why did these gentleman (all of whom became General officers in the U.S. military) not make this information open to the public?
Finally, Godfrey's command was not only engaged that day, his efforts may have very well saved Reno and Benteen. From their observation place on Weir's Point, Benteen decides that such a position was not defensible. He, therefore, about faces and starts towards Reno to make his opinion know to Reno who is approximately 1/2 mile to the rear. I agree with Benteen,Reno's bluff was a better position to defend. The only problem I have is he forgot to tell the others he was leaving!
French had received no orders to leave but, he mounted his men and departed yelling at Edgerly to retreat. When "M" and "D" troops rumbled pass Godfrey the Indians were close behind them.
Godfrey was familiar with retreat tactics (something Reno-obviously- did not learn at West Point)and dismounted his thirty or so men. As the embolden warriors surged over a rise,he utilized control fire which sent them reeling back wards. Alternately firing then withdrawing the men kept the Indians back. The same Indians that destroyed Custer's entire command!
|
Edited by - joe wiggs on September 02 2008 5:44:13 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 02 2008 : 11:06:04 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
[quote]Originally posted by AZ Ranger
[quote]Originally posted by joe wiggs
The general consensus regarding Reno's actions in his "charge" from the timber seem to hover around not so good to terrible. What did his contemporaries have to say about him?
Memorandum by Captain Robert G. Carter, July 6, 1923:
'General D.S. Brainard told me this date that he has often heard Capt. (later Gen.) Whelan and Lieut. (later Gen.) C. F. Roe, both of the Second U.S. Cavalry and of Terry's command, say that when they reached Reno's defensive line on the bluff all of Reno's officers talked wildly and excitedly about the fight, and of Reno's cowardice, etc. A little later they shut their mouths like clams and would not talk...This was later shown by their testimony before the Reno Court of Inquiry, where all but Godfrey refused to charge Reno with cowardice.'
Apparently, unlike the forum, Reno's contemporaries had no issue in using the derogatory term against Reno.
[quote]
Everyone you quoted was not there. Which officers that were there made such statements which were recorded in the reports of the actual battle by those arriving on the scene immediately after the event or any report they made themselves. If you put it in a report you would have to defend it and if not it hearsay only.
What did Godfrey have to say about Benteen battalion and his own company never being engaged offensively that day? Reno's battalion appears to be the only battalion that engaged offensively.
AZ Ranger
AZ, your statement regarding these gentleman as "not being there" has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. They did not have to be there to overhear others speak of what occurred. I did not place this information in a "report", I've placed in a forum which is open to facts, probabilities, speculation and, more importantly, common sense.
They can only have second hand information and certainly did not take the majority of the survivors input. Which survivors with Reno were overheard to say he acted as coward? It is not you that needed to put it in report but the ones that were informed of cowardice. If an officer knew of such conduct would not he have a obligation to report it? Never happened did it for all the years up till Reno requested a Court of Inquiry. The brave coward callers never appeared before it was to late for a court martial.
Retrieved information from other sources may be utilized as best seen fit by the reader, don't you agree? Furthermore, I have read nothing about these historical persons that would lead me (or you) to believe that they would wantonly create malevolent mis-information that would horribly affect innocent persons in such a cruel and adverse manner. If so, why did these gentleman (all of whom became General officers in the U.S. military) not make this information open to the public?
Which officers made statements of Reno's behavior that were there to to interview other solders after the battle on the battlefield? You should read more about French whom seems to be the primary complaint ant against Reno. He stated he mounted his command so he must have heard the orders when they left the timber.
Finally, Godfrey's command was not only engaged that day, his efforts may have very well saved Reno and Benteen. From their observation place on Weir's Point, Benteen decides that such a position was not defensible. He, therefore, about faces and starts toward Reno to make his opinion know to Reno who is approximately 1/2 mile to the rear. I agree with Benteen,Reno's bluff was a better position to defend. The only problem I have is he forgot to tell the others he was leaving!
French had received no orders to leave but, he mounted his men and departed yelling at Edgerly to retreat. When "M" and "D" troops rumbled pass Godfrey the Indians were close behind them.
And French is the great accuser of Reno?
Godfrey was familiar with retreat tactics (something Reno-obviously- did not learn at West Point)and dismounted his thirty or so men. As the embolden warriors surged over a rise,he utilized control fire which sent them reeling back wards. Alternately firing then withdrawing the men kept the Indians back. The same Indians that destroyed Custer's entire command!
You have to be kidding! The Indians were only coming from one direction toward Godfrey. That is the only way that tactic works. If the Indians are on your flanks and behind you it won't work. That is what Reno faced. Indians surrounding his position. It is obvious from the Custer battlefield what happens if you let them do that. Right?
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 05 2008 : 5:46:25 PM
|
I sometimes wonder why the term "second hand information" is delivered and tossed about as if it exemplified a rancorous philosophy created to destroy all that is known about the battle and/or muddle know facts to serve a personal devious agenda. Those men I referred to were contemporaneous individuals who had assess to information that developed in the time that the battle occurred. They were privy to information that we will never know nor hear of. I am not insinuating that their words and thoughts should be carved in stone. However, to summarily dismiss information such as this with a casual comment of negative connotation serves no real purpose.
It is very distasteful for most of us to use the word "coward" because it smacks of accusation from those who don't have the moral right to toss such damnation towards another. The problem here is how would you describe Reno's "charge" and actions on Reno Hill. What adjective do you think would best describe his military tactics or lack thereof? That is the dilemma of the Ren question.
Do you, in all honesty, believe that a monumental difference exist between 2,000 warriors hitting your military front and the same amount flanking your right and left when the battle terrain is flat? When your manpower is significantly less than the opponent? When you have approximately 22 men (less horse holders) comprising your fighting front? In the final analysis, both scenarios would have the same result, total annihilation were it not for Godfrey. The adverse is also true, were it not for Reno the tragic results of this battle may not have occurred.
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 06 2008 : 6:12:33 PM
|
| Second hand information has many problems Was the first person accurate and was the second accurate in what they were told. Both instances could be truthful but not accurate. There is no way to ask the second hand person questions to clarify anything other than what he was told. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 06 2008 : 6:32:27 PM
|
quote:
Do you, in all honesty, believe that a monumental difference exist between 2,000 warriors hitting your military front and the same amount flanking your right and left when the battle terrain is flat? When your manpower is significantly less than the opponent? When you have approximately 22 men (less horse holders) comprising your fighting front? In the final analysis, both scenarios would have the same result, total annihilation were it not for Godfrey. The adverse is also true, were it not for Reno the tragic results of this battle may not have occurred.
Absolutely without any doubt. I doubt even in the Godfrey instance it would have been total annihilation but certainly more casualties possible.
That is such a basic retreat maneuver for being followed from one direction only that I can't believe you asked that question. How do you check someone in front of your battalion by firing to the rear of the group of troopers you would be trying to cover? Every military man knows exposing your flank is not a good thing because it can be rolled up like dominos by an enemy fighting only one trooper at a time as they go down the skirmish line.
Reno was completely surrounded and a skirmish line rear guard would do no good. Think about it Joe. Reno is riding toward the Indians and you think soldiers stopping and shooting from behind him would have an effect on the Indians in front of him or to the flanks? More likely troopers and horses hit by friendly fire.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 06 2008 : 8:19:51 PM
|
AZ,
The point I was trying to make and, obviously, not doing a good job of it is this; prescribed military maneuvers taking properly at a critical time in battle may save the day. This is the situation facing Godfrey who took the proper actions.
Reno did not enter the battle "surrounded" he allowed this misfortune to occur because, unlike Godfrey, he failed to enact prescribe military tactics. He deserted the skirmish line where a "leader' is needed most. He could have sent someone else to investigate the Indian infiltration into the wooded area to his rear. He order his men out of the timber without ensuring that utilizing the prescribe trumpet call was sounded so that the entire command was aware of the call out and not just a portion of it.
He failed to order, ask for volunteers, grab a few men himself and make a stand or do anything construct a rear guard action to aid his command. Once on the hill, Benteen took command because Reno was hopelessly incompetent. According to Benteen, Reno even suggested that the command move out under the cover of darkness and abandon the wounded.
Had Reno acted in the manner of Godfrey, personally overseeing a sustained and controlled discharged of firearms (as Godfrey did) may have prevented his being surrounded. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 06 2008 : 11:27:02 PM
|
Again you are wrong. Godfrey was protecting the rear of a moving unit which is much different than an on the ground skirmish line. The Indians that circled were out of range of the carbines so they moved at will.
Reno set the skirmish line and the Indians flanked it. It rotated 90 degrees to meet the enemy movement. Then they moved in to the timber. More Indians circled them. The Indians moved to the rear of the troops. Reno decided to move out. He could have stayed but would not have that choice in another few minutes as the Indians closed. The timber was to large to provide a 360 degree perimeter with the troops Reno had at the time. The number of troops was to large for the Indians to ignore like they did for the few that did remain. That expains why a civilian scout would think saying in the timber in small numbers would be a good idea.
Once Reno decided to leave, they formed outside the timber and picked a point to rally according to Moylan. They went straight at the Indians which is about as close to the description of a charge with the leader at the front as you find. That the troops became disorganised is the norm for a charge. They fight as foragers on their own and move to the rallying point. The problem I see is that distance was to far to maintain revolver fire. Once they ran out of the rounds loaded in the revolver the Indians would notice the lack of fire and move in closer.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on September 06 2008 11:29:01 PM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 07 2008 : 6:07:13 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Where did Indians say Reno's retreat was a Buffalo Hunt, and how do you know it wasn't referencing Custer?
Joe Wiggs
The killing of the Hunkpapas, White Bull and Swift Bear, took place during the frenzied pursuit of Reno's fleeing troopers-a running fight which some lakotas sarcastically referred to as a buffalo chase."
Hokahey! A good Day to Die! Richard G. Hardorff, p.42-43
|
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 07 2008 : 6:39:13 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Again you are wrong. Godfrey was protecting the rear of a moving unit which is much different than an on the ground skirmish line. The Indians that circled were out of range of the carbines so they moved at will.
Joe Wiggs
I won't resume this discussion by exclaiming that you are wrong regarding any of your posts. I believe you to be knowledgeable and forthright in your respponses. I'm not an expert in this area and, can only relay what I feel to be reasonable responses with as much ardor as you. Godfrey did more than protect the rear of a moving unit. He saved what was left of the entire command. Had he not taken the action he did the warriors,who hotly followed, would have over taken the fleeing/disorganized soldiers.
AZ
Reno set the skirmish line and the Indians flanked it. It rotated 90 degrees to meet the enemy movement. Then they moved in to the timber. More Indians circled them. The Indians moved to the rear of the troops. Reno decided to move out. He could have stayed but would not have that choice in another few minutes as the Indians closed. The timber was to large to provide a 360 degree perimeter with the troops Reno had at the time. The number of troops was to large for the Indians to ignore like they did for the few that did remain. That explains why a civilian scout would think saying in the timber in small numbers would be a good idea.
Joe Wiggs
You have conveniently disregarded the fact that Reno's failure to command the skirmish line,as I mentioned above,is the critical reason that the skirmish line failed. The line was flanked more due to incompetency that any other factor. A military officer must be held to a higher standard than the layman. If you are truly convince that Reno's military tactics were sound then say so and be done with it.
AZ
Once Reno decided to leave, they formed outside the timber and picked a point to rally according to Moylan. They went straight at the Indians which is about as close to the description of a charge with the leader at the front as you find. That the troops became disorganised is the norm for a charge. They fight as foragers on their own and move to the rallying point. The problem I see is that distance was to far to maintain revolver fire. Once they ran out of the rounds loaded in the revolver the Indians would notice the lack of fire and move in closer.
Joe Wiggs
Is that the same Moylan that Beenteen described as "Blubbering" like a waif when he arrived. Is it not reasonable to anticipate that Moylan, embarrassed by his own actions, would be prone to back Reno up rather than have his own actions scrutinized. Moylan, like Reno, prior to this battle served with honor. Neither of them could be proud of their efforts at the Little Big Horn. Reno burst into the open rather than "formed" there. In military jargon when you say "they" formed ontside of the timber should not the entire command be part of that formation? How do you explain "G" company being left behind. Remember, we are discussing professional soldiers. Again,a prescribed rear guard action would have enabled the command to detach from engagement in some semblance of order. Finally, don't you think it a little bit awkward that Reno was the first to reach safety while loosing 35 men;even proponents of Reno admit that this was not his finest hour.
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 07 2008 : 6:48:18 PM
|
| I missed the part of buffalo hunt where the buffalo shoot back. White Bull and Swift Bull were killed by the buffalo? The buffalo got Roman Nose and Little Whirlwind also. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 07 2008 : 7:49:56 PM
|
According to Hardoff, the twelve Indian casualties in the valley fight, as many as six were attributed by the lakotas to the Rees. This feat was accomplished by only three of them. Reno's entire command got the other six. Can you imagine what they could have done had they stopped running for five minutes?
Swift Bear, White Bull, Roman Nose were slain, Two kettle,and Chased by Owls were fatally wounded. The lakotas said it was the Ree scouts who got them, not the buffalo. these allegations can be verified in Orin G. Libby's book. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 07 2008 : 8:42:51 PM
|
So when we count Reno's strength the scouts count? Since there were only 14 enlisted men lost in the charge to the river then 6 dead Indians is some good shooting don't you think. The kill ratio woud be much higher for the charging cavalry then the hundreds of Indians. The high number of Indians makes the total higher but not a good showing in regards to ratios.
By the way the statements that the Indians think the Rees did it is not very conclusive.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 08 2008 : 07:10:58 AM
|
The only thing that IS conclusive is that Reno's charge was stopped, he retreated, and then blubbered to Benteen that he was whipped and had lost "half my men".
Which I suppose at the time included the men he'd left behind?? |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 08 2008 : 10:33:55 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brent
The only thing that IS conclusive is that Reno's charge was stopped, he retreated, and then blubbered to Benteen that he was whipped and had lost "half my men".
Which I suppose at the time included the men he'd left behind??
Reno's objective was to stop the running Indians not charge a village of over 1,500 tipis. If you recognize a trap being set you would continue into it? Hundreds of Indians were waiting for him to proceed just a little further. He formed a skirmish it was flanked and he moved to the timber. He looked over the timber and the number of troopers it would take to keep the horses safe and the Indians out. He knew could not provide a 360 protection of the timber because it was to large. He made a determination not to stay in the valley due to the lack of immediate support and the increasing number of Indians surrounding him. He preformed a retrograde; formed up outside the timber, charged to the river, climbed the hill, and reformed. As soon as the pack train got up they proceeded to Weir. To many Indians again so they moved to a position they could defend 360 degrees.
Could this have been done better maybe. For sure it could have been done worse ending up like the rest of the regiment.
Let's sum up the rest of the regiment using your standards. They were stopped and never crossed the river which Reno crossed twice. They retreated LSH, etc. Lost all their men. So what is your point?
It is combat and things happen. If losing a friend in battle is not enough to make you emotional then was the person truly a friend. I have seen to many professionals under stress to think it abnormal to behave as Reno is described to say anything other than a confirmation of human behavior. It is so obvious that Benteen not being engaged yet is calm and he rides into a high stress situation. I am shocked that people that have been in combat, shoot outs, arrests, crowd confrontations, and other high stress situations would not understand what was going on.
When we debrief we all find out that we did things that we could have done better. I know I have heard things that I do not remember that I did. Some good and some not. You try to get better if you live.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on September 08 2008 10:35:56 AM |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 08 2008 : 12:39:16 PM
|
"Formed up and charged to the river" is being a bit too kind, I think.
No criticism of him stopping initially, or even deciding to retreat. It's HOW it was done and as you agree, perhaps it could have been done better. And from all I've read, Reno lost all confidence in himself after he retreated, and virtually no one at Reno Hill had any confidence in him once they got there. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 08 2008 : 1:47:34 PM
|
When later a scapegoat was needed, people recalled they themselves wanted to stay and fight, and they were fighting when Reno panicked, yada yada. As for "HOW it was done" nobody - no body - has shown how it could have been done better with obviously fewer casualties among men and mounts, which is the only definition of "better." Style points don't count.
Go ahead. Show on the maps where and how this retreat/charge/rout could have been done better. If you're not willing to show this, you shouldn't knock Reno. Understand you'll be presenting this for posterity, and that military men of vast experience in such matters of cavalry and combat might form opinions about your plan and you. In fact, I can guarantee it.
Be specific. No 'he shoulda formed lines and covered the crossing/sequential firing lines.' If there should be covering fire, state where and who and for how long, mounted or not, and provide time lines for these events. State estimated casualties at each stop for mounts and men, and which direction they fire at. You have maps and know where he was going to end up - he didn't - and we have accounts of Indian locations on the east bank. Don't grant yourself information Reno didn't or couldn't have at the time.
And when this superior plan is ready, post it with estimated dead and wounded.
Doing that would be constructive, otherwise its just a lot of bombast so people can pretend to what they weren't (not you, apparently) and dis an American combat officer. I contend most have no standing to do so, and nobody yet has shown how Reno could surely have extricated himself with less loss than he had.
If they can't show that, just airily claiming it could have been done, somehow, they're full of it and deserve to be savaged. All 50-50 calls are granted to the commander on the ground, I'd hope. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 08 2008 : 3:53:56 PM
|
Lord knows I wonder why I waste my valuable time. Maybe its because I can virtually hear DC's screeching "No one could have done better than good old Reno(yada, yada, yada.) Despite numerous posts on this forum and,others as well, DC is the only one who just doesn't seem get it.
REAR GUARD ACTION!!!
A prescribed military tactic well known and used during this era. I realize that to do so under the circumstances would have been difficult but, the difficulty parameters were in direct proportion to Reno's inability to COMMAND the situation. I am not saying that the entire responsibility of this battle was Reno's. Mistakes were made by many. Again, even proponents of Reno admit that his frantic spurt towards the hill was not his finest hour.
Hell, I even believe you could have done a better job and, that's saying a mouthful.
Your inexplicable attempts to justify Reno's "charge" defies logic and is indicative of your jaundiced perspective of the combat roles of Custer, Benteen, and Reno. I am being redundant as every member of this forum must be aware, by now, of this eccentricity of yours. I only bring it up because I have grown so tired of it.
Let's make a deal, both of us will give the forum a break and not revisit this tiresome issue. |
Edited by - joe wiggs on September 08 2008 4:10:18 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 08 2008 : 8:02:47 PM
|
Joe your reguard action is the most absurd action that I have ever heard on how to protect cavalry charging into Indians that have them surrounded. At first I thought it was ignorance of the situation that caused you to state reguard. After you have been given the facts of Reno's men moving as fast as horses can travel and Indians surrounding them and not just pursuing from the rear you maintain a rear guard action would have less fatalities then the 14 that occurred.
Horses move at 44 feet per second or faster at the charge. How far behind do you want this rear guard before the Indians incircle them and kill them all. Tell me Joe how the Indians in front and to the side of Reno in the distance are effected by this rear guard action you maintain would be an improvement. Once they stop which way would you have them face. The rear? so the Indians could ride in on yet a smaller group from the rear and flanks.
The only advantage Reno had was timing and that reguired speed. It worked.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on September 08 2008 8:05:06 PM |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 09 2008 : 07:18:15 AM
|
DC: If someone is looking at what I say on this board for posterity, they'd better get a life!! Had I written a BOOK (always anticipating yours and AZ's of course) it might be otherwise. As for Reno's "charge" back to the hill--a good first step might have been to let everyone know that's what they were going to do??
Anyway,let's end this with just a few quotes:
"The men straggled out and started across the flat without any particular command and no bugle being blown, the officers digging spurs into their horses and every man for himself"
"I desire to be understood that my defense of Reno is entitely confined to his act of taking his troops out of the bottom. Of his personal conduct in the bottom or subsequently on the hill, the least said the better. If what Benteen told me at Meade in 1883 was true, and I have no reason to doubt it, then Reno should have been shot"
"I conversed with most of the officers of that command at one time or another in the field and nearly all were pronounced in their severe criticism of Reno"
"It was in leadership that Reno failed and that he had so failed was heard on all sides from his subordinates when Terry arrived"
'From the officers on the steamer I learned very minute details of the battle and appearance of the field and even at that early date they branded Reno and others as cowards"
And one more:
When Terry asked the surviving 7th Cavalry officers to supply an estimate of the # of Indian warriors, "the replies pivoted about the figure 1,500". Benteen stated" I have been accustomed to seeing Divisions of cavalry during the war and from my observations, I would say there were from 1,500 to 1,800 Indian warriors".
NO ONE IN THE GROUP AT THAT TIME PUT THIS ESTIMATE ABOVE 1,800.
So there we go--Reno a great combat leader--or at the LBH simply a drunken coward?
1,500 Indians, or 8,000?? |
Edited by - Brent on September 09 2008 07:36:13 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 09 2008 : 08:23:57 AM
|
That is exactly the point they stated what they say. That is different than the actual total. Indians weren't visible like a regiment riding in formation. That seems elementary to me. When would they have seen all those that attacked Custer. Benteen describes a comparison to what he has seen in the past. Reflecting back to the Custer battlefield he has higher estimates.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on September 09 2008 08:55:54 AM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The validity of the Reno Court of Inquiry
