| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Frank Spencer |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 3:41:18 PM
Could the 7th Cavalry, under different leadership, have won at the LBH?
**Same number of soldiers, equip etc. |
| 11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 20 2005 : 1:59:31 PM
The carbines are not an issue.
If the 7th went into battle knowing their primary weapons fouled after three firings, they deserved what they got. Morons. Issue not the weapons, but people in charge.
If the 7th went into battle NOT knowing their primary weapons fouled after three firings, they deserved what they got for their lazy incompetence. Nature's way.
If the carbines actually fouled after three firings in anything approaching a chronic manner as Custer hysterics pretend, or if at all above and beyond a frontier weapon failure rate, then Crook and others would have similar tales. Not of periodic problems, but wide scale failure. These tales don't exist. The only unit for whom this is claimed is one that apparently didn't practice, and the fouling is not for sure due to the weapon over the soldier's competence with it.
Bad workmen blame their tools, and this approach designed to exculpate Custer condemns him with far worse than mere defeat and slaughter. |
| hunkpapa7 |
Posted - May 20 2005 : 09:44:02 AM
Welcome aj
another from this side of the pond,hope Dc notes,under aj name,UK not GB
|
| aj |
Posted - May 20 2005 : 07:56:27 AM
The 7th could not have won with different leadership, if they had done what Custer had done.
They would have had the same carbines which jammed after three shots and they woulf have been outnumbered the same and the companies would have lost all co-ordination with each other. |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - April 22 2005 : 4:25:27 PM
Somebody got a copy of the Tactical Manual? |
| Heavyrunner |
Posted - April 22 2005 : 2:37:34 PM
Little White Dove,
I'm no historian, just a student of history. You might read about and compare Custer's tactics at the Battle of the Wa****a in Oklahoma. He split his force there and attacked from two sides. That was the only prior experience he'd had attacking a village.
To his everlasting surprise, the defenders at LBH were 10 or 20 times the number of Black Kettle's village.
Also, there has not been a great deal of discussion regarding Custer and why he didn't wait for Gibbon...and hook up on the 26th. I reckon when he saw the target, he wouldn't or couldn't wait to strike it.
May you have the very best of luck with your project.
RSB |
| Little White Dove |
Posted - April 22 2005 : 2:01:48 PM
I guess the real issue here then, is the splitting of his soldiers? Why would he do that? Was he pressured by some event to do this? |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - April 17 2005 : 11:19:03 PM
I voted no, but with one caveat. Given the accepted tactics of the period, I don't think a different CO would have gotten any different results (given the same time of attack, same weather, same reconnoissance, etc.,)--unless they chose NOT to break their battalion up, say at MTC--or beyond. Generally, most folk don't make an issue out of Reno attacking the village or Benteen pitching from the left (west), but almost everybody gripes about how Custer further separated the men in his battalion into two other ones--one led by Keogh, the other, commanded by him.
Don't know if that helps.
Hoka hey! |
| Little White Dove |
Posted - April 17 2005 : 9:56:40 PM
Thankyou Joseph, I was beginning to wonder if anyone was still here.
I'm not sure but didn't Custer disobey his orders? From my understanding, which isn't that much. But what from what i've heard, he did. His commander gave him orders to keep on going after finding a trail? I guess it was a trail left by the indians, that someone else had already found. Anyway he was ordered not to follow that trail and keep going. Instead he disobeyed orders and followed it, at least that's what I've been told. If that's the case, then I feel it would make alot of difference who the commander was. Someone else may not disobey the orders given him. Don't you think so too? |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - April 16 2005 : 10:01:28 PM
To assume that other "leadership" in this battle would have resulted in a different conclusion is to presume that others, giving the same set of circumstances that faced Custer, would have reacted differently to the same stimuli. This is impossible to determine.
Custer and every member of his command, to include his superiors, were convinced that the Warriors would flee at the approach of the 7th. When the warriors refused to do so, the best laid plans of "Mice and Men" unraveled. My specific point is this, the majority of military leaders of that era were of the same mind-set as Custer. Therefore, with slight variations, the outcome of this battle would have been similar regardless of leadership. Only the commander who realized that any attack against such superior numbers would have been questionable,at best,could have made a significant difference. |
| lorenzo G. |
Posted - April 09 2005 : 12:22:14 AM
ummm with the same commander and the wolverines yes. |
| Little White Dove |
Posted - April 05 2005 : 2:03:18 PM
ummmm... keh. Please forgive me, but I have to ask. And this may seem really lame, but are you assuming from the beginning? I mean like he was really never there? And that some other commander was in charge?
|
|
|
