# Custer



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Gow" <jgow@home.com>* on *Fri, 8 Dec 2000 20:30:35 -0500*
There is a lot of speculation on the so-called last stand.
First, as has been pointed out, it was a case of monumental ego, expecting
to have an afternoon of what today would be called "genocide"..
Second, Gaul and Crazy Horse between them, Gaul being the anvil to Crazy
Horse‘s hammer, exhibited inredibly good combined arms tactics.
However, the fact remains that the troops were armed with a poor rifle, that
had an undue number of hard extractions, that the rifle could not be
reloaded.
Compare this with the engagement at Rourke‘s Drift, where the rifle duid not
have such a failure, and you‘ll understand that Custer could have shot his
way clear.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jackie and John Pullman" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: Sabres/sabers
> Now to be fair, I don‘t think that Custer was a great leader of men. But
as
> a leader of irregular calvary, he wasn‘t a slouch. He had to have
something
> on the ball to be one of the youngest generals in the Civil war. Problem
> with Custer was that "When in doubt, Charge!!" could be his personal
motto.
> It worked well enough for him in the war. Also he was lucky! Bad
combination
> at the end. I won‘t go into his personal faults. He had a pile of them and
a
> large number of his men and officers hated him. But if we look at the
little
> bighorn, he commanded to the end. His men couldn‘t have been placed
better,
> they died fighting in place, and he died  with them. Yes, he screwed up.
> Yes, he tackled the odds, but to be fair to him, in his personal history,
> that worked! Call it luck, audacity or whatever. But it worked.
> I have no great personal respect for the man. Personally I think that he
was
> undisciplined and a martinet when it came to his men. Not to mention an
> immense ego. But when push came to shove, he could hold his own.
> Just trying to be fair.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *DHall058@aol.com* on *Fri, 8 Dec 2000 21:32:23 EST*
I have to admit that I‘m very impressed by the depth of knowledge my brethren 
on the list possess about GA Custer. I‘m comfortable using the term 
"brethren" because Joan hasn‘t commented on this topic!  In so many ways, 
Custer defines what was good and flawed about the U.S. Cavalry during its 
adulthood.  
Now, I‘d love to improve my meager grasp of Canadian military history...Is 
there a legendary cavalryman in Canada‘s past that John Ford overlooked, and 
is therefore anonymous to us Yanks? 
Dave Hall
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Gow" <jgow@home.com>* on *Fri, 8 Dec 2000 22:05:34 -0500*
I‘ll try and respond to that one, though cavalry is not my forte...
Canada, with an entirely different type of westward expansion, and treatment
of its native Indians, evolved very differently than the USA.  Our
philosophy of an army was more to the concept in the 1800‘s until well into
the 1900‘s that the Permanent Force was there in small number as a training
cadre for a militia that would form the Regiments and fight.
We did not have a Civil War, so no actions there for any would be spur
winners.
The LDSH was formed in Calgary by Lord David Strathcona for service in South
Africa, and it, of course was horsed.  It was commanded by Sir Sam Steele, a
Commissioner with the NWMP, later our RCMP, who, in fact were the "monitors"
of the settlers and the natives as western Canada evolved, and the Yukon
Gold Rush etc happened.  These were some pretty fine horsemen and "cavalry"
as we knew it leaders..no last stand or bloody battles against equivalent
forces to compare them to US history, so they are perhaps not so well known.
but in true terms of efficiency, not many natives or settlers were killed
or wrongly treated under the monitoring of the RCMP
We did, of course, have the Riel Rebellion in 1885, and Canadian cavalry
"units" were formed and employed in this campaign, but most of it was
pursuit phase, ambush etc, up to a more or less set piece battle at Batoche,
where the under-armed natives were firing stones and nails due to a lack of
proper ammunition.
Cavalry units the Canadian Mounted Rifles etc were formed for WWI, but by
the time they were trained, shipped over and ready for deployment, there was
no use for them in a cavalry role, and a crying need for infantry.
If one were to say that the current Armour contingent is an externsion of
cavalry, well we had Worthington, and you might take a look at Simmonds as
well for cavalry like thinking, but Canadian troops were predominantly used
in frontal attack like Caan to break the linch pin of the defence, while
US Generals like Patton got the glory assignments that "let the dogs
out"..likewise, it was Canadians that got assigned the polger country
battles in Holland, where it was infantry/artillery shows, as Armour lacked
the ability to maneuver, due to terrain.
Certain units, such as the BCD‘s, performed exceptionally in WWII in a
variety of battles in the Italian campaign, going through normous obstacles
and problems to support an sustain our infanteers, but the battles in Italy
are not the 1 reading material either, and the commander would only have
been a LCol...we sure did not have many Armour Generals..at least in command
positions...
All this being said, the Armoured component in Canada today and through the
past thirty odd years that I‘ve had personal knowledge of them, are fit to
be judged on a par with any in the world.  Their equipment is expensive and
maintenance heavy, and as a result they tend not to be showcased so much,
but they have a pretty solid idea of the job.
John
Okay, now the rest of you can jump on my head...
----- Original Message -----
From: 
To: 
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: Custer
> I have to admit that I‘m very impressed by the depth of knowledge my
brethren
> on the list possess about GA Custer. I‘m comfortable using the term
> "brethren" because Joan hasn‘t commented on this topic!  In so many ways,
> Custer defines what was good and flawed about the U.S. Cavalry during its
> adulthood.
> Now, I‘d love to improve my meager grasp of Canadian military history...Is
> there a legendary cavalryman in Canada‘s past that John Ford overlooked,
and
> is therefore anonymous to us Yanks?
> Dave Hall
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Ian Edwards" <iedwards@home.com>* on *Fri, 8 Dec 2000 23:21:12 -0700*
John from Ian
A good summary. Only a couple of small nit-picks:
1. Wasn‘t "David" Strathcona. He was originally Donald A. Smith, later Lord
Stratchcona.
2. Mounted Rifles were not cavalry. They didn‘t fight as cavalry. As I
mentioned in a recent post the horse was only used to get them rapidly close
to battle where the men dismounted and fought as infantry - light infantry
or as Rifles skirmishers to be more exact. One of Canada‘s most
knowlegeable cavalrymen was a member of Toronto‘s Dennison  sp? family
first name escapes me founder etc of what is now the GGHG and wrote The
Book on MR tactics, recognized wordwide in its time.
The 1st to 5th Canadian Mounted Rifles in WW1 fought as infy bns as you
said. Additionally, The 5th Canadian Infantry Battalion known as the
"Western Cavalry", and IIRC mostly from your old home town of Saskatoon
along with the 6th Cdn Inf. Battn Fort Gary Horse were formed to be
cavalry but saw service only as infy. Possibly others raised by cav. regts
and saw service as infy.
Canada  did have one brigade of calvary that served in WW1, composed of
squadrons from various cavarly regiments and it fought as cavalry on the
Western Front whenever trenches, barbed wire and MGs didn‘t get in the
way.
As a reader of the Sharpe series Napoleonic Wars that you mentioned
recently you will appreciate that a square of infantry is impervious to
cavalry. The horse just won‘t penetrate the barriers of infantry fixed
bayonets. But as our gunners would be quick to point out, the square was
vulnerable to arty fire as the square was not able to move very fast if at
all. The Sharpe series the books - the TV series was terrible, at least the
one I watched very enlightening if one can get past the melodramatic plot.
But like all series, should be read in sequence. Now, a calvaryman with a
lance instead of a sabre/saber, well ....
but as usual I digress.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gow 
To: 
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: Custer
> I‘ll try and respond to that one, though cavalry is not my forte...
>
> Canada, with an entirely different type of westward expansion, and
treatment
> of its native Indians, evolved very differently than the USA.  Our
> philosophy of an army was more to the concept in the 1800‘s until well
into
> the 1900‘s that the Permanent Force was there in small number as a
training
> cadre for a militia that would form the Regiments and fight.
>
> We did not have a Civil War, so no actions there for any would be spur
> winners.
>
> The LDSH was formed in Calgary by Lord David Strathcona for service in
South
> Africa, and it, of course was horsed.  It was commanded by Sir Sam Steele,
a
> Commissioner with the NWMP, later our RCMP, who, in fact were the
"monitors"
> of the settlers and the natives as western Canada evolved, and the Yukon
> Gold Rush etc happened.  These were some pretty fine horsemen and
"cavalry"
> as we knew it leaders..no last stand or bloody battles against
equivalent
> forces to compare them to US history, so they are perhaps not so well
known.
> but in true terms of efficiency, not many natives or settlers were killed
> or wrongly treated under the monitoring of the RCMP
>
> We did, of course, have the Riel Rebellion in 1885, and Canadian cavalry
> "units" were formed and employed in this campaign, but most of it was
> pursuit phase, ambush etc, up to a more or less set piece battle at
Batoche,
> where the under-armed natives were firing stones and nails due to a lack
of
> proper ammunition.
>
> Cavalry units the Canadian Mounted Rifles etc were formed for WWI, but
by
> the time they were trained, shipped over and ready for deployment, there
was
> no use for them in a cavalry role, and a crying need for infantry.
>
> If one were to say that the current Armour contingent is an externsion of
> cavalry, well we had Worthington, and you might take a look at Simmonds as
> well for cavalry like thinking, but Canadian troops were predominantly
used
> in frontal attack like Caan to break the linch pin of the defence, while
> US Generals like Patton got the glory assignments that "let the dogs
> out"..likewise, it was Canadians that got assigned the polger country
> battles in Holland, where it was infantry/artillery shows, as Armour
lacked
> the ability to maneuver, due to terrain.
>
> Certain units, such as the BCD‘s, performed exceptionally in WWII in a
> variety of battles in the Italian campaign, going through normous
obstacles
> and problems to support an sustain our infanteers, but the battles in
Italy
> are not the 1 reading material either, and the commander would only have
> been a LCol...we sure did not have many Armour Generals..at least in
command
> positions...
>
> All this being said, the Armoured component in Canada today and through
the
> past thirty odd years that I‘ve had personal knowledge of them, are fit to
> be judged on a par with any in the world.  Their equipment is expensive
and
> maintenance heavy, and as a result they tend not to be showcased so much,
> but they have a pretty solid idea of the job.
>
> John
>
> Okay, now the rest of you can jump on my head...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: 
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 9:32 PM
> Subject: Re: Custer
>
>
> > I have to admit that I‘m very impressed by the depth of knowledge my
> brethren
> > on the list possess about GA Custer. I‘m comfortable using the term
> > "brethren" because Joan hasn‘t commented on this topic!  In so many
ways,
> > Custer defines what was good and flawed about the U.S. Cavalry during
its
> > adulthood.
> > Now, I‘d love to improve my meager grasp of Canadian military
history...Is
> > there a legendary cavalryman in Canada‘s past that John Ford overlooked,
> and
> > is therefore anonymous to us Yanks?
> > Dave Hall
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> > message body.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *DHall058@aol.com* on *Sat, 9 Dec 2000 01:55:11 EST*
John,
Thank you for the history lesson, and a good springboard for future reading!  
By the way, we competed against Canadian armored units for the annual gunnery 
trophy at Lahr, and your Leopards frequently kicked our collective butts.
Dave H.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Gow" <jgow@home.com>* on *Sat, 9 Dec 2000 02:04:11 -0500*
Damn it Ian, I wrote that and LOOKED at it and said "There‘s some small
thing off here..." and sent the SOB regardless...thanks for the reminder,
Donald it is!
My point with the Mounted Rifles was that we really did not have "Cavalry",
at least as the Americans saw it, or, indeed, the Brits...we had mounted
soldiers, whose philosophy of the attack and defence would certainly be
different from "cavalry"...and no doubt leads to our slogging, if gallant,
infantry heritage through both the World Great? Wars..which again
addresses the point the questioner made...where are Canada‘s Cavalry
leaders?
I did not, and do not, claim to be any expert on cavalry.  But I did think
that Sam Steele was a good example of a competent, if not expert,
cavalryman...would/will debate that but not much else...Canada is not a
nation of cavalry history/experience...I believe Armour a derivative, some
notable, national,spirit is there, but "Death or Glory"  17th Lancers is
not QUITE what Canadians are about...or so I fondly believe...
In spite of Stockwell Day, just to press that button...laughs, quietly
IIRC, the 5th was out of Yorkton, but will not push the point, that was a
lot of years ago.  Will ask about it next week I‘ll be back to the frozen
plains God Bless Them! cooking and caring for my parents...
Now to catch you in a very minor point...in the Sharpe series, fighting out
of Spain, an infantry square is beaten in a cavalry charge led or followed
by our hero Major Sharpe...and indeed Kipling writes of how the "Fuzzies"
broke the British square without Arty..and in that series, as in the
"Flashman" series, the writer pointed out that if you nudged the lance
point aside, the trooper was defenseless...certainly, no arm of any army can
contract to a defensive position that "cannot be beaten"...though some have
tried, with varying degrees  of success, though almost all lost it in the
end, without relief...
Will now disappear from the web for a week or so...
On the road again ...
Albeit, Mike, if you are reading this, in rather nice hotels...
But thanks for the compliment, Ian, there are likely few that could reach
into history and debate my point or points, and you are one of them...
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Edwards" 
To: 
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 1:21 AM
Subject: Re: Custer
> John from Ian
>
> A good summary. Only a couple of small nit-picks:
>
> 1. Wasn‘t "David" Strathcona. He was originally Donald A. Smith, later
Lord
> Stratchcona.
> 2. Mounted Rifles were not cavalry. They didn‘t fight as cavalry. As I
> mentioned in a recent post the horse was only used to get them rapidly
close
> to battle where the men dismounted and fought as infantry - light infantry
> or as Rifles skirmishers to be more exact. One of Canada‘s most
> knowlegeable cavalrymen was a member of Toronto‘s Dennison  sp? family
> first name escapes me founder etc of what is now the GGHG and wrote The
> Book on MR tactics, recognized wordwide in its time.
>
> The 1st to 5th Canadian Mounted Rifles in WW1 fought as infy bns as you
> said. Additionally, The 5th Canadian Infantry Battalion known as the
> "Western Cavalry", and IIRC mostly from your old home town of Saskatoon
> along with the 6th Cdn Inf. Battn Fort Gary Horse were formed to be
> cavalry but saw service only as infy. Possibly others raised by cav. regts
> and saw service as infy.
>
> Canada  did have one brigade of calvary that served in WW1, composed of
> squadrons from various cavarly regiments and it fought as cavalry on the
> Western Front whenever trenches, barbed wire and MGs didn‘t get in the
> way.
>
> As a reader of the Sharpe series Napoleonic Wars that you mentioned
> recently you will appreciate that a square of infantry is impervious to
> cavalry. The horse just won‘t penetrate the barriers of infantry fixed
> bayonets. But as our gunners would be quick to point out, the square was
> vulnerable to arty fire as the square was not able to move very fast if at
> all. The Sharpe series the books - the TV series was terrible, at least
the
> one I watched very enlightening if one can get past the melodramatic
plot.
> But like all series, should be read in sequence. Now, a calvaryman with a
> lance instead of a sabre/saber, well ....
> but as usual I digress.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gow 
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 8:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Custer
>
>
> > I‘ll try and respond to that one, though cavalry is not my forte...
> >
> > Canada, with an entirely different type of westward expansion, and
> treatment
> > of its native Indians, evolved very differently than the USA.  Our
> > philosophy of an army was more to the concept in the 1800‘s until well
> into
> > the 1900‘s that the Permanent Force was there in small number as a
> training
> > cadre for a militia that would form the Regiments and fight.
> >
> > We did not have a Civil War, so no actions there for any would be spur
> > winners.
> >
> > The LDSH was formed in Calgary by Lord David Strathcona for service in
> South
> > Africa, and it, of course was horsed.  It was commanded by Sir Sam
Steele,
> a
> > Commissioner with the NWMP, later our RCMP, who, in fact were the
> "monitors"
> > of the settlers and the natives as western Canada evolved, and the Yukon
> > Gold Rush etc happened.  These were some pretty fine horsemen and
> "cavalry"
> > as we knew it leaders..no last stand or bloody battles against
> equivalent
> > forces to compare them to US history, so they are perhaps not so well
> known.
> > but in true terms of efficiency, not many natives or settlers were
killed
> > or wrongly treated under the monitoring of the RCMP
> >
> > We did, of course, have the Riel Rebellion in 1885, and Canadian cavalry
> > "units" were formed and employed in this campaign, but most of it was
> > pursuit phase, ambush etc, up to a more or less set piece battle at
> Batoche,
> > where the under-armed natives were firing stones and nails due to a lack
> of
> > proper ammunition.
> >
> > Cavalry units the Canadian Mounted Rifles etc were formed for WWI, but
> by
> > the time they were trained, shipped over and ready for deployment, there
> was
> > no use for them in a cavalry role, and a crying need for infantry.
> >
> > If one were to say that the current Armour contingent is an externsion
of
> > cavalry, well we had Worthington, and you might take a look at Simmonds
as
> > well for cavalry like thinking, but Canadian troops were predominantly
> used
> > in frontal attack like Caan to break the linch pin of the defence,
while
> > US Generals like Patton got the glory assignments that "let the dogs
> > out"..likewise, it was Canadians that got assigned the polger country
> > battles in Holland, where it was infantry/artillery shows, as Armour
> lacked
> > the ability to maneuver, due to terrain.
> >
> > Certain units, such as the BCD‘s, performed exceptionally in WWII in a
> > variety of battles in the Italian campaign, going through normous
> obstacles
> > and problems to support an sustain our infanteers, but the battles in
> Italy
> > are not the 1 reading material either, and the commander would only
have
> > been a LCol...we sure did not have many Armour Generals..at least in
> command
> > positions...
> >
> > All this being said, the Armoured component in Canada today and through
> the
> > past thirty odd years that I‘ve had personal knowledge of them, are fit
to
> > be judged on a par with any in the world.  Their equipment is expensive
> and
> > maintenance heavy, and as a result they tend not to be showcased so
much,
> > but they have a pretty solid idea of the job.
> >
> > John
> >
> > Okay, now the rest of you can jump on my head...
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: 
> > To: 
> > Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 9:32 PM
> > Subject: Re: Custer
> >
> >
> > > I have to admit that I‘m very impressed by the depth of knowledge my
> > brethren
> > > on the list possess about GA Custer. I‘m comfortable using the term
> > > "brethren" because Joan hasn‘t commented on this topic!  In so many
> ways,
> > > Custer defines what was good and flawed about the U.S. Cavalry during
> its
> > > adulthood.
> > > Now, I‘d love to improve my meager grasp of Canadian military
> history...Is
> > > there a legendary cavalryman in Canada‘s past that John Ford
overlooked,
> > and
> > > is therefore anonymous to us Yanks?
> > > Dave Hall
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> > > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> > > message body.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> > message body.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Gow" <jgow@home.com>* on *Sat, 9 Dec 2000 02:08:17 -0500*
Yeah, Dave, the "Leo-Tard" is not a bad gun platform...
And the Canadian Armoured soldier kicks butt...individually, and
collectively...
Readings may be difficult to access in the US of A, feel free to contact us
canucks on explicit books..
Best Regards
John
----- Original Message -----
From: 
To: 
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 1:55 AM
Subject: Re: Custer
> John,
> Thank you for the history lesson, and a good springboard for future
reading!
> By the way, we competed against Canadian armored units for the annual
gunnery
> trophy at Lahr, and your Leopards frequently kicked our collective butts.
> Dave H.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *Thomas A Bisping <tbisping1@Juno.com>* on *Sat, 9 Dec 2000 01:55:30 -0600*
John:
     The "Leo" was king until he first M-1 Abrahms rolled off the cargo
ship in Bremerhaven.  In fact the US Army Europe Commander,  In 1985, a
tanker by the name of Gen. Glen C. Otis, made it a priority to win the
Canadian Army Trophy.  We did eventually, but not without a ****  of a
fight from your guys!!!  Tom Bisping
On Sat, 9 Dec 2000 02:08:17 -0500 "Gow"  writes:
> Yeah, Dave, the "Leo-Tard" is not a bad gun platform...
> 
> And the Canadian Armoured soldier kicks butt...individually, and
> collectively...
> 
> Readings may be difficult to access in the US of A, feel free to 
> contact us
> canucks on explicit books..
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> John
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: 
> To: 
> Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 1:55 AM
> Subject: Re: Custer
> 
> 
> > John,
> > Thank you for the history lesson, and a good springboard for 
> future
> reading!
> > By the way, we competed against Canadian armored units for the 
> annual
> gunnery
> > trophy at Lahr, and your Leopards frequently kicked our collective 
> butts.
> > Dave H.
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> > message body.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
 http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------

