Thursday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Thursday, January 19. 2017

Dream weddings and the Christian vision

Brandeis Hires Anti-Semitic Islamist With Al-Qaeda Links

Insty likes Tom Price

The NYT on Tom Price

Trump talks stupid on trade

Trump is talking politics, not economics, Don

Hottest year on record

War on Betsy DeVos shows the left hates giving educational hope to poor kids

Martin Armstrong Rages: Ken Rogoff Is "An Elitist Who Has No Respect For The People"

Lagarde Urges Wealth Redistribution To Fight Populism

Genius. Pay off the hoi-polloi

Davos Elites Call For a Ban on Physical Cash... in the US.

The Elites are insane, drunk with arrogance and power. No wonder people rebel.

Oxfam's upside down inequality study

The Once and Future Obamacare Death Spiral

On the 20th of January, the dustbin of history will slam shut on the Utopian American Progressive Left.

Trump Faces Time Bomb in College Loan Program

Z-man on medical bills:

After a quarter century of chanting about health care, most everyone seems to buy into the belief that it is a fountain high up on Magic Mountain. It is guarded by the twin dragons of Big Pharma and Big Insurance. The keepers of the faith sent their paladin, Barak Obama, to slay the dragons so that the people could dip their cup into the fountain of health care, getting all they need. His failure to accomplish this is proof that the dragons are mighty and therefore the most extreme weapons must be deployed.

It’s all ridiculous nonsense, of course, but that’s where we are with the topic.

Pentagon readies aggressive ISIS proposals for Trump

The overweight American infantryman

How does China's first aircraft carrier stack up?

Why doesn´t Europe protect itself?

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 05:48 | Comments (64) | Trackback (1)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: www.thepiratescove.us
Tracked: Jan 22, 09:27

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

One...

#1 JJM on 2017-01-19 08:10 (Reply)

...for the money...

#1.1 tennesseered on 2017-01-19 08:19 (Reply)

Where shall I go? What shall I do?

#1.2 I am not a snow flake! on 2017-01-19 11:22 (Reply)

Medicine that makes an actual consistent difference in the treatment of disease has only been around for 30 to 65 years. When I was a kid there were a few vaccines, a few modestly effective antibiotics, topical antibiotics, a primitive insulin, asprin, opiates, and baking soda.... There wasn't that much that could be done regardless of status or income. At that point the REAL advances in health were as much a consequence of childhood VACCINES, potable water, adequate nutirion, and occupational safety. I am not referring to trauma treatment in this comment.
That aside, consider the possibility that modern medicine is outstripping the ability of regular people to pay for it. Extreme preemies may have life long expensive complications, an aging population consuming drugs, not for a few years, but for decades, people who survive terrible accidents may need life long medical support, along with those who suffer brain injuries or cancer. Yes, it is ironic that modern medicine begets the need for more medicine. I don't necessarily have a solution and I don't think much of the ACA; I'm just pointing out that sometimes these outcomes have to be considered and addressed; it is not just a consequence of magical thinking. .

#2 Exasperated on 2017-01-19 08:17 (Reply)

That aside, consider the possibility that modern medicine is outstripping the ability of regular people to pay for it..

As a counter example look at what has happened to the price of largely privately purchased (insurance rarely covers it, and government doesn't fund it) lasik surgery in the last couple of decades. The cost has dropped dramatically, it has become far more widely available, and the procedure has improved significantly in safety and comfort.

There is a consistent pattern. Government artificially restricts access to a resource. In health care this includes such policies as Certificates of Need, the IPAB, FDA approvals, required coverage in insurance, and others. Limited access drives up the per unit cost, to which, surprise!, the answer is almost always additional government subsidy and regulation. One would almost suspect that was the goal in the first place.

#2.1 Christopher B on 2017-01-19 12:15 (Reply)

The root cause is this: the price people are willing to pay for anything is the difference in perceived value between having the thing and not having it. So long as people continue to place an insanely high value on being alive rather than dead (intentionally being absurd), there will be continuous upward pressure on healthcare spending.

It's not that people in the past were less willing to spend on healthcare, they were simply unable to. Either what they needed did not exist (see Rockefeller's daughter dying of diphtheria), or else they simply did not have the resources. Stating that healthcare is an absolute right that a government has an absolute duty to provide places a claim of population times that value of being alive on the public fisk, effectively backed by the full faith and credit of the nation.

#2.2 Another guy named Dan on 2017-01-19 13:18 (Reply)

The most extreme forms of medicine may in fact be outstripping the ability of "regular people" to pay for it. But we're not going to get far with the idea that no one of us can afford the most expensive medicine, but all of us together can afford the most expensive medicine for everyone at once.

For decades, the cutting-edge medicine has been available only to people with lots of money at their disposal--their own or some kind of donated money that lands in the laps of a lucky few. The medicine typically gets streamlined and cheaper with scale, experience, and competition. Gradually, regular people get access to it at a price that's within range of a regular budget. Does that mean there is inequality at each moment? Yes, it does. It also means that each generation gets better medicine that it can afford, a form of inequality we should be embracing.

#2.3 Texan99 on 2017-01-19 13:38 (Reply)

Really good comments who reveal awareness of the paradox.
"It's not that people in the past were less willing to spend on healthcare, they were simply unable to."

Exactly! I had an argument with a lefty once who insisted that the system killed his mother and that life saving treatments were denied her because she was poor. Except, she got cancer at a time when it really was a death sentence. I'm not saying that wealth and status might have bought someone a few days, weeks, or months but basically there was NO effective treatment, regardless of your status.

#2.4 Exasperated on 2017-01-19 16:59 (Reply)

My mother and aunt trained for and became Registered Nurses (RNs) in the 1930s. They witnessed the arrival of sulfa drugs and penicillin - to them, truly miracle drugs. Today, the research points to drugs tailored to a patient's DNA - another miracle. Whether said drugs can become truly affordable - as sulfa and penicillin were - is another issue.

#2.5 Frances on 2017-01-19 23:23 (Reply)

"Lagarde Urges Wealth Redistribution To Fight Populism"

But not the sort of wealth redistribution that would see her and her kind personally reduced to the same living standards as that squeezed and angry middle-class of course.

#3 JJM on 2017-01-19 08:28 (Reply)

They want wealth redistributed from everyone else to themselves :)

#3.1 JTW on 2017-01-19 09:05 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Hottest year on record ... Increase is one-hundredth of a degree. Margin of error is a tenth of a degree.

Glad they brought up margin of error. The trend over the last 35 years is 0.175 ±0.040 °C/decade. It is virtually certain the Earth's surface has warmed, especially in the high northern latitudes, consistent with greenhouse warming.

#4 Zachriel on 2017-01-19 08:35 (Reply)

Or consistent with the Little Ice Age ending in the 19th Century.

#4.1 NJSoldier on 2017-01-19 09:01 (Reply)

NJSoldier: Or consistent with the Little Ice Age ending in the 19th Century.

The mechanisms involved with natural cycles do not explain the current warming trend.

#4.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-19 15:25 (Reply)

You are, once again, wrong. The trend over the last 41 years is 0.0175 ±0.0040 °C/decade. Leave this to the professionals.

#4.2 A Distinguished Climate Scientist on 2017-01-19 09:23 (Reply)

A Distinguished Climate Scientist: The trend over the last 41 years is 0.0175 ±0.0040 °C/decade.

You have your decimal misplaced. The trend is 0.169 ±0.032 °C/decade over the last 41 years.

#4.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-19 15:26 (Reply)

No, my colleague is correct. You are using outdated data and models that have been shown to be erroneous. I suspect you are not a Qualified Climate Scientist at all.

Is that true? Are you Qualified?

#4.2.1.1 An Even More Distinguished Climate Scientist on 2017-01-19 15:39 (Reply)

An Even More Distinguished Climate Scientist: You are using outdated data and models that have been shown to be erroneous.

We'd be happy to look at your citations to the scientific literature to support your claims.

#4.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-19 16:01 (Reply)

In other words, you have no qualifications.

amirite?

#4.2.1.1.1.1 An Extremely Distinguished Climate Scientist on 2017-01-19 16:36 (Reply)

An Extremely Distinguished Climate Scientist: In other words, you have no qualifications.

We use evidence to support our claims, not an appeal to our personal authority. What do you do?

Did you have scientific evidence to support your claim?

#4.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-19 17:14 (Reply)

We don't know who you are, except you are using outdated and false information, You have evaded several challenges to your argument from personal authority and always hide behind the "imperial we" when cornered.

We don't feel it is our job to make you show your sources but if you are going to use them, you must show some grasp of what they are and how us real scientists interpret them.

Besides, we are bored with your procrastination and lying.

s/
several bored guys at NOAA

#4.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 The Most Distinguished Climate Expert Ever on 2017-01-19 17:35 (Reply)

The Most Distinguished Climate Expert Ever: You have evaded several challenges to your argument from personal authority

We have not made an argument from personal authority, but supported our position by appeal to the evidence. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but ignore the evidence. If you ever decide to address the evidence, or to cite scientific research, then we will be happy to respond.

#4.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-19 17:49 (Reply)

You did. Claims without authority is an argument from authority.

We're not interested in your opinion.

#4.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 The Best Climate Experts You'll Ever Talk To on 2017-01-19 17:59 (Reply)

Not at all, b/c none of the greenhouse warming models match the observations both forward and backward through time.

What's it like to be wrong?

#4.3 DrTorch on 2017-01-19 09:53 (Reply)

DrTorch: none of the greenhouse warming models match the observations both forward and backward through time.

The Likelihood of Recent Record Warmth

#4.3.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-19 15:30 (Reply)

"It all depends on what the meaning of is is" If you cherry pick your data, choose your starting and ending point of the period measured well AND MOST IMPORTANTLY have the NOAA revise temperature data to favor the AGW meme. Then indeed you can sell this fairy tale that The trend over the last 41 years is 0.0175 ±0.0040 °C/decade. But if you look at the real data not the fake data and choose 1934 as your starting point and 2016 as your ending point we are actually having global cooling. 1934 was the warmest year in the 20th and 21st century.

The trick, as a majority of climate scientists seem to already know is to pick a cold period to start your graph and a warmer period to end it if you intend to demonstrate global warming. But something terrible happened to the warmies in the last two decades; the modest warming trend since the 70's "froze" and the expected warming never happened. This put NOAA fiction department into high gear and since then all offending temperatures have been erased or adjusted and even the seemingly good date for the AGW scheme needed even more puffing to keep the image of a world in trouble.

There are so many variables that can be measured and so many that can be ignored that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore.

#4.4 SweetPea on 2017-01-19 10:48 (Reply)

SweetPea: Then indeed you can sell this fairy tale that The trend over the last 41 years is 0.0175 ±0.0040 °C/decade.

You have your decimal misplaced. It should be 0.175 ±0.040 °C/decade.

SweetPea: But if you look at the real data not the fake data and choose 1934 as your starting point and 2016 as your ending point we are actually having global cooling.

SweetPea: 1934 was the warmest year in the 20th and 21st century.

You are confusing the anomalously hot weather in the U.S. with global mean temperature.

SweetPea: There are so many variables that can be measured and so many that can be ignored that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore.

While the distribution of heat in the climate system is highly complex, the basics of greenhouse warming are somewhat simpler as the Earth's surface can only receive or emit energy radiatively.

#4.4.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-19 15:35 (Reply)

SweetPea: But if you look at the real data not the fake data and choose 1934 as your starting point and 2016 as your ending point we are actually having global cooling.

The trend for that period is 0.099 ±0.015 °C/decade. It's somewhat less because of the reduced greenhouse forcing in the earlier part of the period.

#4.4.2 Zachriel on 2017-01-19 15:59 (Reply)

How does China's first aircraft carrier stack up?

Liaoning is Chinese for "target". At 20kts, it couldn't keep pace with British battleships in service in 1917.

#5 Will Bithers on 2017-01-19 09:15 (Reply)

"The overweight American infantryman"

Very good article!

(And not what you might think it's about.)

#6 JJM on 2017-01-19 09:32 (Reply)

I knew what it was about - and they are right, too much crap in their rucks. And they are trying desperately to put women in the Infantry at a time when men are being stretched to their physical limits there.

#6.1 NJSoldier on 2017-01-19 09:40 (Reply)

In studies after WWI, the German army determined optimal infantry load as 60 pounds. For some reason, modern commanders don't seem to recognize that getting somewhere fast does not mean soldiers will then be able to fight effectively.

#6.1.1 SgtBob (Link) on 2017-01-19 11:21 (Reply)

A head-to-head comparison of China's Liaoning carrier with a Nimitz-class carrier is highly misleading, The Nimitz is obviously superior, but there are other considerations. First, it should be noted that Britain's new carriers, the Queen Elizabeth II and Prince of Wales, are similar to the Liaoning and her Russian and Indian sister ships in size and air wing. The QEII and PoW will have superior engines and speed, but they will carry F35B fighter bombers that have a range and weapons load somewhat inferior to China's J15. The fact that Britain opted for this kind of carrier rather than a Nimitz class indicates there are down sides to the Nimitz. The most obvious are the very high construction and operating costs. Britain's choice also suggests that no one is planning for high intensity, carrier-on-carrier warfare a la Midway. These carriers are intended for policing Third and Second World countries.

The US seldom deploys more than three Nimitz carriers (and none recently), and these are expected to cover the whole Eurasian coast line other than the Arctic. Another three are in training exercises, and three others in refit and repair. One is usually in dry dock for refueling and refit, a process that takes two years.

China is building two more carriers. One apparently will be similar to the Liaoning, but the other is expected to be closer to the Nimitz design, which would allow more and high performance aircraft.

China clearly intends to have naval supremacy throughout the South China Sea. Even one Liaoning beats no Nimitz. And three Chinese carriers and their battle groups would be a severe threat to a Nimitz-based battle group.

#7 bob sykes on 2017-01-19 10:03 (Reply)

Throughout Viet Nam, the US was able to maintain two carriers off the coast of that country (Yankee and Dixie stations) while still having forces available for contingency in Korea. To my knowledge, that is still the capability the US is maintaining in the Pacific. While there were more carriers back then, most of them were still oil-fired and required more frequent rotations for fueling and refit.

This does point out how screwing up the alliance with the Philippines hurt. The US loses a major base for long-range maritime search and monitoring aircraft, like the P-3 and P-8. Interestingly, the logical replacement location for such bases would be Viet Nam, which also has contested sea rights in the area and recent issues of trade and politics with China.

#7.1 Another guy named Dan on 2017-01-19 11:02 (Reply)

The Overweight Infantryman:
It appeared to be a self serving article. Is she suggesting that each infantryman be assigned a horse or a llama perhaps to carry these things or that they just not carry food and ammo? Do not forget that the reason the M16 was introduced back in 1964 was to reduce the weight of ammo and the weapon itself. In the movie "Black Hawk Down" the rescue team choose to not carry the ballistic inserts in their armor to save weight. This was put into the movie because it was a fact and explained a number of U.S. military deaths in that firefight. Is the author suggesting that an infantryman shouldn't carry these life saving devices?

Even Custer's troop's in the famous Custer's last stand suffered from this flawed thinking. They ran out of ammunition which allowed the Indians to move in close enough to kill them all.

I applaud the efforts by the military to improve and lighten the combat load but I would hope this is accomplished without a political agenda interfering with our readiness.

#8 IdahoBob on 2017-01-19 11:13 (Reply)

"Even Custer's troop's in the famous Custer's last stand suffered from this flawed thinking. They ran out of ammunition which allowed the Indians to move in close enough to kill them all."

There's no evidence Custer's battalions ran out of ammunition, the fact that .45-70 ammunition from government Springfields was used against the Reno hilltop defense position shows otherwise.

Custer's messengers to Benteen ordered him to hurry forward with spare ammunition from the pack train, but that message originated before Custer was in action. Once the heavy fighting started in the last stand areas, it was over in well under an hour, perhaps as little as 30 minutes.

#8.1 Will Bithers on 2017-01-19 11:43 (Reply)

Custer when he realized the size of the force against him sent a message to Captain Frederick W. Benteen "COME ON. BIG VILLAGE. BE QUICK. BRING PACKS. W.W. COOKE.
P.S. BRING PACKS." This was his reserve ammunition that he needed for a battle of this size. While he waited for the ammo he fought a holding action intended to preserve ammo until Benteen arrived. While he did this the Indians choose to allow themselves to become targets just so that they could get close enough to fire arrows into Custer's position. If Custer had all the ammo he needed this would have been a shooting gallery for his men all armed with a powerful rifle.

#8.1.1 IdahoBob on 2017-01-19 14:49 (Reply)

IdahoBob: If Custer had all the ammo he needed this would have been a shooting gallery for his men all armed with a powerful rifle.

That's the story that's often been told, but archaeological research suggests that Custer's position was quickly overrun, and they never mounted an organized defense.

#8.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-19 15:57 (Reply)

Much of the official record is murky because his two feild officers disobeyed his orders and subsequent to the massacre distorted the battlefield records. But after considerable archeological investigation it is believed that Custer and his men stood off the Indians for 1 1/2 hours. Hardly quickly overrun. And that was the point that they didn't make an organized offense because they were in a holding action awaiting resupply of ammo.

#8.1.1.1.1 IdahoBob on 2017-01-19 16:37 (Reply)

IdahoBob: But after considerable archeological investigation it is believed that Custer and his men stood off the Indians for 1 1/2 hours. Hardly quickly overrun.

The archaeological evidence indicates that they disintegrated as a fighting force, were dispersed, and some survived for a short while before being picked off by the natives. The evidence doesn't support a "last stand".

#8.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-19 17:11 (Reply)

find any source that says Custer's battalions held off the indians for that long. the end of the fighting was heard by the Reno/Benteen defenders and the killing of the wounded was seen from the disorderly "advance" by Weir from Weir Point and gives times nowhere near that long.

Heavy firing started from Keogh's stand after 4.30. Firing from Custer Hill wass over a little after 5.00.

Reno displayed inept leadership after he went on the defensive but what a more competent leader might have accomplished given his impossible task to charge the village is hard to imagine.

time and motion studies show that Benteen was negligent at best on obeying Custer's orders to rejoin him. if he had taken the trot after the first (verbal) orders he'd have met the messenger bearing the written orders after Benteen passed the pack train and maybe, possibly reached Custer while he was at the head of Medicine Tail Coulee but without the reserve ammo.

the written message is ambiguous. COME QUICK cannot be reconciled with BRING PACS. mules cannot be hurried at the pace of horses.

the Reno Court of Inquiry quietly exonerated Benteen from not joining Custer.

what he might have accomplished if he did join Custer is pure guesswork. best guess is covering a fighting retreat.

#8.1.1.1.1.2 Will Bithers on 2017-01-19 17:27 (Reply)

"find any source that says Custer's battalions held off the indians for that long."

http://custer.over-blog.com/article-10729683.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rich-grant/unlocking-the-mystery-of-_b_7017522.html

#8.1.1.1.1.2.1 IdahoBob on 2017-01-19 19:30 (Reply)

I wrongly assumed you had a basic idea of the battlefield geography and Custer's troop disposiiton. but its clear you don't have much of an understanding of this battle.

the two hours referred to in the HuffPo article, which is a bare summary, means the two hour period from beginning of Reno's charge about 3.00pm to the last shots heard from Custer Hill, a few minutes after 5.00pm.

this is based on testimony from the Reno Court of Inquiry and countless interviews with survivors both Army and indian, the best collation with time and motion studies being the timeline prepared by Gray in Custer’s Last Campaign: Mitch Boyer and the Little Bighorn Reconstructed. Custer was seen twice during the valley fight which puts him at the head of Medicine Tail Coulee halted at about 4.00 (last Army witnesses are here), Yates at the cutbank of Deep Coulee at just before 4.30, volley firing heard by Reno's men before and just after 4.30 by Keogh's men covering Yates' retreat up Deep Coulee. Heavy firing heard by Reno ended after 5.00, accounting for two separate last stands in about half an hour, or 15-20 minutes each.

this is really basic history. if you don't know this stuff, you shouldn't be spreading misinformation. the blogger is parroting information with his own twist. you need to learn the difference between primary and secondary sources. this isn't climate science where you can make up shit.

do you any explanation for army .45-70s rounds being used against Reno if, as you claim, Custer ran out of ammunition?

#8.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Will Bithers on 2017-01-19 20:16 (Reply)

From your own link:

"Unlocking the Mystery of Custer’s Last Stand... Reno shattered, and his battalion in chaos... Overwhelmed by superior numbers of Indians, the soldiers gave way to panic and fled... acting like they were drunk, running like a buffalo stampede, throwing away their guns and crying like babies... with half his men dead, surrounded, in dust and confusion... Rather than the fight to the last bullet often depicted... was quickly overrun... we know the battle at the end lasted just minutes — not the long protracted battle of films."

#8.1.1.1.1.2.1.2 Zachriel on 2017-01-19 20:27 (Reply)

Yes it does indeed say that. But I assumed you knew that Custer and Reno were two different people. It was Custer and his men who fought the Indians for an hour and a half not Reno. This is the problem when you are merely picking nits instead of using your wit; you act like a nitwit.

#8.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1 IdahoBob on 2017-01-20 00:51 (Reply)

From your own link:

"Custer, flanked by his two loyal brothers, a beloved nephew and some 50 other troopers, was quickly overrun. From shell casings, we know the battle at the end lasted just minutes — not the long protracted battle of films."

Custer was quickly overrun, the battle lasted just minutes.

#8.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-20 06:43 (Reply)

As I have already said there have been recent archeological evidence that has changed the story. The linked story doesn't reflect this. The battlefield was never before fully examined AND it was never protected from looting of artifacts. The numbers of fired cartridge shells found in the past represent a very small fraction of the number that were on the ground on that day in Jun 1876. Literally thousands of these spent shells were removed over the years and in the very recent period many more have been found as well. This demonstrates that the battle was longer then first believed and that Custer's men used most and in some cases all of their ammunition fighting the Indians.

One last thing that is important to understand this battle: The inquiry exposed a coverup but failed to expose a lot of the facts. Over time the competing interests were able to spin this event in their preferred ways. As a result there a 2 or 3 competing narrative about the events that day and 2 or 3 camps of supporters who jealously guard their version of the facts. While we may never know the total truth about what happened that is no reason to give up looking and accept some version of settled science as an answer.

#8.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1 IdahoBob on 2017-01-20 11:07 (Reply)

IdahoBob: The linked story doesn't reflect this.

It's your link. We merely read it.

#8.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-21 10:20 (Reply)

Custer didn't run out of ammunition, he ran out of men.

The written message was sent while Custer's battalions were halted at the head of Medicine Tail Coulee. Custer suspected that Benteen had dawdled on the backtrail and was no closer than the slow moving pack train. But he knew that Reno's attack has been stopped and he'd deployed in a dismounted skirmish line and was in trouble. His primary purpose was to relieve the pressure on Reno -- hence the Yates feint at Medicine Tail Ford and the heavy volley firing from moving along Nye-Cartwright Ridge. This was not a rearguard action waiting for Benteen but was meant to, and did, draw indians away and relieve the pressure on Reno.

There was a rearguard action by Keogh's battalion fought at reunion point (where Yates reunited with Keogh) but the best guess is to buy Custer time to get Yates' battalion down from the ridgelines into the village which is consistent with Custer's attack plans and attack mentality. If he wanted to wait for Benteen, this is where a defensive stand might have been made, because casualties were light and all five companies wholly intact.

The Custer and Keogh last stands are separated in time and distance, but they were probably both over in 30 minutes. A cavalryman would have carried 100rds carbine, 24 rds revolver ammo. They were dying faster than they could expend ammo. This ammo was recovered by the indians and used against the Reno/Benteen defense site.

#8.1.1.2 Will Bithers on 2017-01-19 16:23 (Reply)

"Custer didn't run out of ammunition, he ran out of men"

Which begs the question, why? Because he was in a holding action because he was, wait for it... short of ammo.

#8.1.1.2.1 IdahoBob on 2017-01-19 17:20 (Reply)

You haven't explained the use of captured .45-70 ammo against the Reno/Benteen position if Custer's men ran out of ammunition.

If Custer were afraid of running out of ammunition, then separating his forces and establishing a holding position at Reunion Point to wait for Benteen makes no sense. Custer had twice as many men as Benteen, and by this time, Benteen would have had the impossible task of fighting through the indians surrounding the Keogh last stand area.

it is truly amazing that zachriels is running circles around you. so here's some help. Company L men died in a skirmish line with their officers behind them suggesting that Co.L was overrun rapidly. The other two companies of Keogh's battalion were clustered around the command group with a string of bodies found in the direction of Custer Hill, the inference is that the battalion suffered slower (but still rapid losses) and that survivors from the other two companies broke.

the last stand group on Custer Hill defended a small area behind horses, shot as makeshift cover. the area is too small for the probable number of men there, there is evidence of a skirmish line, or possibly one or two attempts by fleeing men to escape towards the river.

#8.1.1.2.1.1 Will Bithers on 2017-01-19 17:55 (Reply)

Custer didn't foolishly separate his forces he was performing a classic cavalry tactic known as the anvil and the hammer. He did make a mistake however he put two of his less trusted officers in charge of the divided forces and they failed terribly. These two officers lied in the inquiry which has contributed to the misinformation that still follows this entire affair.

Your confirmation bias is showing and you seem unaware that not only are there very different opinions about what happened that day but that there are new archeological discoveries and other information that has changed even the previous disagreements about what happened. If you ever decide to open your mind again do some research you might find it interesting.

#8.1.1.2.1.1.1 IdahoBob on 2017-01-20 00:42 (Reply)

For an Indian perspective on the battle, I commend "Custer Died a Runnin'" by Celtic Cowboy. You can get to the song on the following link:
https://www.redhouserecords.com/store/cowboy-celtic

#8.1.2 Frances on 2017-01-19 23:33 (Reply)

The Army is looking to move away from the 5.56, stating it doesn't have sufficient lethality. Seems the strategy developed to fight Soviet conscripts - wound them, and tie up a couple troops - doesn't work with the Ali Babas. wounding them just makes them angry. So the M-16 variants probably don't have an infinite lifespan and the combat load will be getting heavier soon.

Yes, the loads are outrageous. The author didn't get into specifics but a full infantry company hike in the boondocks is likely to include a mortar with baseplate (OMFG heavy) and a handful of light machine guns, which eat ammo like a fat chick eats a couple pints of Hagen Dasz. The officers and senior NCOs aren't doing their job, if they don't make everybody carry some extra mortar and machine gun fuel. And water, shit yes, lots of water.

This is before we talk about extra socks to prevent foot rot, basic field hygiene stuff, food, a fart sack and a tarp or any of the other stuff, much less the Major/author's beloved 20 lbs of extra batteries, NVGs and etc. Infantry ain't light, and if it's airborne or light infantry, it's infinitely heavier and plummets through the air. Those in the Very Special Forces can wind up carrying even heavier basic loads, which is why they've spent all manner of taxpayer bucks on various kinds of ATVs. It's just getting too tough to move light infantrymen around...

#8.2 Jablonski on 2017-01-19 12:51 (Reply)

Trying to remember our load over there in the jungle. Depending on how long before estimated resupply we'd carry up to 12 meals, a case, of c-rats which if memory serves was about 25 lbs. Then ammo. I think standard load was 200 rounds or so of 5.56 but after our first engagement most of us started carrying 400 rds. maybe a bit more depending on intel. Then as you say everyone had a 100 rd. belt of 7.62, sometimes two. Plus again, 1 60mm always and if traveling with the 81 crew a round of that too. Then grenades, smoke grenades, pop-up flares, ka-bar, claymores, 3 or 4 canteens of water, etc. Hell, the old steel pot helmet weighted a little over two pounds, the flak jacket a bunch. Didn't have a scale to weigh of course but knowing the weights of a bunch of that stuff we estimated a small load was 80 lbs. minimum. A long patrol 100 or 110 lbs. at least until you ate some of that weight. Then go out and hump up and down mountains all day, dig a fighting hole at the end of it, get 4 or 5 hours of interrupted sleep due to standing watch, then get up and do it all over again for days and days. Longest period beyond the wire for us was 47 days one time.

Yeah, lets put women in combat.

#8.2.1 XRay on 2017-01-19 14:45 (Reply)

The entire world of the military and gun enthusiasts is divided on the 5.56. Most of it relates to the famous argument that can get you into a fist fight in bars everywhere "what's the best gun for __" fill in the blank. But it is simply untrue that the 5.56 is not lethal enough. In fact the only legitimate (in my opinion) criticism of the M16 platform is simply that it is so well made to such close tolerances compared with, say, the AK47, that it requires regular cleaning and oiling to keep it dependable. Unlike the AK47 you cannot drop it in the mud, subject it to endless blowing sand or other contaminates and expect it to work dependably.

But it is worth saying again the advantage to the 5.56 is that you can easily carry twice the ammo for the same weight as a .30 cal round.

#8.2.2 IdahoBob on 2017-01-19 15:01 (Reply)

It's all context. The weapons. Our recent ventures, day patrols, home at night or maybe two. M-14, sure stop shot, usually. 16 maybe two or three instead, three round burst selection levels that.

Extended periods in the bush, humping hard, M-16. Cleaning, M-14 less needed, no question. Though M-16 not as difficult as commonly thought.

In some ways I would have preferred the M-14... but in fact that is an emotionally based decision, I trained on it. The 16 stopped targets at 3/4 hundred yards, vouched for.

The 14 would have been heavier and harder to lift on target. Thus missing the milliseconds of kill time required for engagement in the above.

Commonality is bullshit. Yes, perfect for logistics. But logistics, though they do win wars and save money, can be wrong, too. Keep stuff in storage. You never know when, where, or whom you will be fighting.

#8.2.2.1 XRay on 2017-01-19 22:26 (Reply)

This was very interesting reading. Thanks for sharing. Hearing about all the gear you guys had to carry, reinforced my decision to join the Navy (84-89). Cheers.

#8.2.3 B Hammer on 2017-01-19 15:26 (Reply)

"The Army is looking to move away from the 5.56".

Congress and the DoD are committed to the enhanced performance M855A1 round, a 5.56 cartridge.

#8.2.4 Will Bithers on 2017-01-19 18:49 (Reply)

"Trump Faces Time Bomb in College Loan Program"
End the program. End the loans, the grants and all cash assistance. It is not the federal governments place to do this and it has contributed to the high costs of college as well as the dilution of the legitimate degree programs that colleges offer. It is little more than a wealth transfer scheme.

#9 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-01-19 11:19 (Reply)

Used to be even 20 or 30 years ago that the army used up their infantrymen by loading them up, sending them out, and knowing that many would suffer injury. Didn't matter. More soldiers where those come from.

If someone in the infantry cannot keep up (women or weak men), then too bad for you. Time to get out of the infantry. There are other jobs, you know.

That is why many former military have knee and back problems, among other issues. Carrying heavy loads on your back for many miles is hard on the body. If you didn't want to be used up and spit out, then don't join the military!

#10 MissT on 2017-01-19 11:33 (Reply)

Here is proof that Russia did indeed try to influence our election: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGe3pypQWl0

It also tells you of Russia's involvement in the planned terrorism/activism to disrupt the inauguration.

At 18:40 the women spells it all out for you, what is the final solution off the left.

#11 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-01-19 17:08 (Reply)

"Trump is talking politics, not economics, Don"

You know, I've been wondering recently whether Trump really has an agenda as is not lamented by the media. They aren't very broad-minded and probably can't contemplate a different kind of President, one who was not seeking to promote his side of the collegial debate, but one who knows how to get others to work for him.

Trump seems to enjoy throwing red meat out for the dogs to chew on. Sure, it "scandalous" and "unbecoming" at least according to those eating it up. But it does spur vigorous debate. A lot of items simply disappear as each side find their position embarrassing.

Suppose Trump talks "scarily" about trade, but really only to get things sorted as others react in anticipation of negotiations.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Trump do something outrageous with executive orders. Something on the level that will finally prompt Congress to act to constrain the power they've given away to the executive. And Trump will fight right up until he signs the legislation. The media will hail it as a Trump defeat, a failure. And Trump will simply smile and say, "Did I?"

DC will be all at sea for quite sometime. We'll finally have a pro-American President, but it's been decades since we had a pro-Constition President. That's terrifying to the DC denizens.

#12 JK Brown on 2017-01-19 17:16 (Reply)

War on Betsy DeVos shows the left hates giving educational hope to poor kids:

The left hates the idea that hope can be derived from any hand but their own. How does one advance the power of government if people realize they don't need it?

The left hates the idea of a well-educated public - they much prefer a malleable populace that they can sling propaganda at via their media machine.

The left sucks.

#13 Vince on 2017-01-19 18:22 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, January 19. 2017

Thursday morning links