| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - December 17 2005 : 3:17:41 PM
Because we've moved from carbine to other issues, thought it should have a more meaningful title. This, in anticipation to others getting Where Custer Fell. |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - February 10 2006 : 11:26:33 AM
The more of this sort of info that turns up, iffy as it is, the less faith I have in any conclusions based on LBH archaeology. It was never high. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - February 09 2006 : 3:36:33 PM
" Because kicking the biodegrading equine is fun, hasn't it previously been posted that the Springfields had NO brass cases for the battle, and that this was a change made after because of "defective" cases then used that supposedly jammed a few carbines? So if a small cannon could be made from brass casings found on the battlefield.......
Haw!"
I think the .50-70 like Custer carried were brass cases. Someone will use the cannon to prove a last stand theory. Maybe the Colt's were brass. I don't know. That would explain to Vern what happened to the revolver cases. They made a cannon out of them. Or maybe the cannon has more copper than brass. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - February 08 2006 : 10:14:43 AM
Because kicking the biodegrading equine is fun, hasn't it previously been posted that the Springfields had NO brass cases for the battle, and that this was a change made after because of "defective" cases then used that supposedly jammed a few carbines? So if a small cannon could be made from brass casings found on the battlefield.......
Haw! |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - February 07 2006 : 09:03:07 AM
"Although it could be true. Doesn't say it came from the battle, now, does it? Just cases found on the field, who knows where they came from. Or when.
Unlikely, of course, from every point of view, but........" It could have been saddle parts or other accroutrements maybe even 50-70 cartridges or Henry's just goes to show that doing archaeological studies in a heavily scavenged area may produce results other than what really happened on June 25th 1876. Even a General claims to have picked up a few souvenirs. I understand the theory of the lead not being as valuable a treasure as brass but a bullet(s) fired into a dead or dying trooper while standing over him isn't the same as lead from a distant location. Yet when discovered years later, it would be hard to distinguish from where it was fired. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - February 06 2006 : 11:33:48 PM
Although it could be true. Doesn't say it came from the battle, now, does it? Just cases found on the field, who knows where they came from. Or when.
Unlikely, of course, from every point of view, but........ |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - February 06 2006 : 11:02:23 PM
http://www.nytstore.com/ProdDetail.aspx?prodId=1199
Makes you wonder which skirmish line or Indian placement the cannon in came from? |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - January 11 2006 : 12:09:38 PM
quote:
There have been hundreds of posts arguing the pros and cons of the Springfield carbine. Compaired to the lack of any defensive drill or system to counter a scenario such as the LBH [with all due respects to the posters]they are irrelevant.Just compair the loss of firepower due to troopers holding horses to that resulting from jams.If the command had lost 25% of its firepower due to jams we could suggest that the carbine was to blame for the disaster.
Wild- agreed -Some of us just like to do irrelevant things for recreation. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - January 11 2006 : 12:06:20 PM
After viewing the markers in some of the pictures it resembles a race to me to LSH. It is strung out like a marathon. If you lose the race you died quicker or suffered longer before being killed. The feeling is quit disturbing. |
| wILD I |
Posted - January 11 2006 : 09:43:30 AM
The main focus of our examination of the markers has been to discern possible skirmish lines among the wreckage as if the skirmish line could have been the command's salvation.
The skirmish line is exactly that.A formation the purpose of which is to announce one's presence to the opposition or to bid them farewell.Skirmishing is no more that a precursor to a more serious confrontation.It is the least confrontational formation in the military's repertoire.It is not to be reccommended as a defence against massacreists.
One of the best [and possible the last]examples of the cavalry skirmish line in action was Durnford's fighting retreat with the Edendale and Zikhali Horse at Isandlwana.
There have been hundreds of posts argueing the pros and cons of the Springfield carbine. Compaired to the lack of any defensive drill or system to counter a scenario such as the LBH [with all due respects to the posters]they are irrelevant.Just compair the loss of firepower due to troopers holding horses to that resulting from jams.If the command had lost 25% of its firepower due to jams we could suggest that the carbine was to blame for the disaster.
The markers suggest that some of the troops when attacked carried out the drill required for the skirmish line which was totally inadequate for what they were about to recieve.The markers don't indicate any sort of attempt to rally together.Removing spurious markers result in Custer's and Keogh's positions resembling nothing more than the Skirmish line collasping in on itself. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - January 11 2006 : 08:52:08 AM
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0811727262/qid=1136987376/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-4435131-4936755?n=507846&s=books&v=glance
Another INTERNET bookstore. |
| Smcf |
Posted - January 11 2006 : 04:38:07 AM
Many thanks for the link Mr Markland - I'll have to think about this on-line shopping.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 10 2006 : 6:09:39 PM
Okay, but if you're doing Scott, new thread.
By the time Reno was under fire, in battle at the Gary Owen loop's western arc, Custer was far more than six minutes away. You're looking at straight lines of traverse by dutiful crows that do not exist in reality. There were, however, Sioux on the east bank, and that would have been helpful to remove them.
No, descending down by the retreat ford would have been awful, and 'long range' fire by the 7th is not likely to have been noticed. The retreat out of the timber featured Sioux in soldier's laps, so I don't know what would have happened. |
| wILD I |
Posted - January 10 2006 : 4:34:28 PM
Please start a new thread if you're going off on this, though.Sorry officer but what I'm doing is looking at Custer's main decisions.There is a lunacy running through them which is consistant with the crazy final position of his command as depicted by the markers.Nothing that man did made sense.
Custer was never closer to Reno than a mile after Reno hit the pavement in battle,
6 minutes away.
Custer'd have to backtrack to Ford A rather than risk a descent on a steep incline and form a practice gallery for the Sioux.Retreat ford would have done fine but just a demonstration on the bluffs and some long range firing would have covered a retreat of Reno through the timber
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 10 2006 : 2:50:29 PM
I'm not arguing the point, but you're pulling numbers out of the air.
Custer was never closer to Reno than a mile after Reno hit the pavement in battle, and by the time he was at MTC and Reno was retreating, they were two miles apart, and of course ended up four miles apart. Also? As the fixated raven flies is not particularly helpful. Custer'd have to backtrack to Ford A rather than risk a descent on a steep incline and form a practice gallery for the Sioux.
Nobody has more than a theory that Scott wanted to die rather than come in second. I thought Scott and all that romatic truck needed to be taken down a peg and The Last Place on Earth did that in spades, but there's no possible evidence for Scott having a death wish absent that particular author. It's wildly contested, in fact. Typical. If he can't be the Cid, he must be the Devil.
Please start a new thread if you're going off on this, though. |
| wILD I |
Posted - January 10 2006 : 1:52:52 PM
If Custer was going for the Civvies, he'd go all out for the civvies,
This is a no brainer DC.200 Going after 4000 civvies while 1500 loving daddies looked on? And of course the 4000 civvies would have congregated in a docile terrified convient group.Listen the only non combats in that village were nursing mothers,the rest were apprentice warriors or veterans all of whom could give a master class in battlefield surgery.
One of the great myths which we have perpetuated here is the great "Custer's battalions were out of supporting range of each other".This does not stand up to examination.Custer was never more than one mile from Reno.He sees him in skirmish line from the vicinity of Weir point.Knows he had promised him support but he takes a cold blooded decision to disreguard Reno's predicament and continues on down Cedar Coulee not only away from Reno but also from Benteen This makes no military sense whatsoever.
Now add to the above decision the one he made further back to follow the Indian trail against Terry's advice.Leaving aside this advice this is still a tactically bad decision and makes no sense.[in spite of Gray's feeble attempt to justify it.]
And now for his the piece de Resistance,his decision to bypass MTC Ford.I have tried to put together all the military circumstances to justify this action but perhaps it was not militarily motivated.It is now accepted that Scott on his return journey from his failed venture at the South Poll decided that death was a far better option than facing the British public,his sponsers and his King.When the opportunity arrived to stop struggling he accepted it gratefully.His loyal comrades likewise.Perhaps Custer was no different,saw the inevitable failure and disgrace and likewise simply gave up.
|
| BJMarkland |
Posted - January 10 2006 : 1:06:05 PM
"I don't have Graham's book - I ordered it last year but was told it was "unavailable"."
Barnes & Noble's currently has it:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=sF7ylBsCdg&isbn=0811727262&itm=17
It is also in Hutton's The Custer Reader.
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 10 2006 : 12:16:32 PM
Depends. If the 'charge' was stopped for a reason, and the rear bunched up and that battalion pulled back separately to provide covering fire, it's vaguely possible. None of it makes sense to me. |
| Smcf |
Posted - January 10 2006 : 06:05:04 AM
quote:
Godfrey's piece is also in Graham's Custer Myth, is it not?
I don't have Graham's book - I ordered it last year but was told it was "unavailable".
His reading of Custer's movements make a lot of sense to me. The map in the article also gives pause for thought. The line north above Calhoun looks a little skewed upwards though, but then again, documents detailing shells along with human and horse bones found on NC ridge are difficult to explain in the "whole column charge down MTC" scenario. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 09 2006 : 11:33:37 PM
AZ,
I mostly agree. The Indians may have left Reno because he was running away and/or because of Custer. SOME Indians, maybe most, went north because of a rumored new attack. Some may have gone back to check on the folks and kids when Reno retreated. But some stayed with Reno, and I'd bet a goodly number had not clue one what the hell was going on, and no blame to them.
Benteen didn't accompany the train and did leave it because he was between it and the enemy, but confronted with the size of the village and the realization they had zero chance if the train fell into the wrong hands so near the huge village, he did the right thing confronted by Reno.
If Custer was going for the Civvies, he'd go all out for the civvies, not putter down with a company or two, and leave the bulk of his command invisible to the majority of his regiment unless they made it to Weir Point. The theory being that if they have the civvies, the warriors won't attack them, right? And there they supposedly are, right across this essentially undefended crossing, and Custer doesn't do it.
The feint makes no sense unless there was a counter blow planned; attracting the Sioux to the world's worst cavalry defensive position doesn't strike me as a Custer Master Stroke. None of this rings of Custer or of coherence to me. He KNOWS they can't risk the train, and it would have to be defended in approach, and that negates blistering speed.
I'm not a soldier, but isn't it understood that mission remains priority over vanished units? If you know Terry's coming up river, do you retain yourself as a functioning unit or risk it all looking for/rescuing Custer? With the wounded, they had small selection of choices. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - January 09 2006 : 9:54:50 PM
quote:
Two things happened at roughly the same time. Reno retreated and Custer - doing something or other - made his presence known around MTC. I'm not sure it's fair to say that it was Custer's display that drew the Indians off, because it makes it appear a deliberate act to save Reno, a new cherished theory. It could, for all anyone knows, be true, but it's prejudicial and without evidence. It also stands as an example of the different standards for judging the three top officers. Custer is given every benefit of the doubt.
DC The Indians left Reno because of Custer whether Custer planned it or not, Correct? Is there any doubt that some troopers were observed at MTC by the Indians. I doubt Custer was concerned about Reno other than that Reno had brought them to battle. I don't believe Reno knew anything other than he was to be supported in a timely manner and he felt he was not supported. Therefore he withdrew. Benteen would have been negligent if he didn't bring up the ammo and he couldn't go any faster than the pack train. The question I have is why did Custer continue north? He knew by then there was a big village and he must have known the Indians wanted to fight since he asked to bring up the ammo.
I can other understand Reno and Benteen but not what Custer did after MTC. Any thoughts?
quote:
successful feint was the last thing he wanted to achieve.What bring all the warriors down on top of himself to save Reno?No the agenda was victory ,nothing else would do,no gallant defense,no draw,no fighting retreat.It was to be victory or death .
Wild - I can't offer a better explanation though one would question that decision making process at MTC. Victory or death to me means a chance even if small to succeed. I don't see the chance when Custer heads north. How would Benteen ever catch up if Custer keeps moving north? |
| wILD I |
Posted - January 09 2006 : 1:57:15 PM
And Wild, suppose you're correct and Custer decided not to charge but, er, feint and wait. Even SO, you don't retire to THAT bad ground.
A successful feint was the last thing he wanted to achieve.What bring all the warriors down on top of himself to save Reno?No the agenda was victory ,nothing else would do,no gallant defence,no draw,no fighting retreat.It was to be victory or death .
For cavalry all the East side was god awful terrain but as we have seen with Benteen it could be defended.
At 4.00 or there abouts Custer was snookered.Crossing at MTC was out,going back he could not contemplate,digging in and waiting to be rescued what a joke.One shot left ---continue North and pray that that bugger Benteen moves his arse.
There is a very good photo of MTC in the LBH Remembered.Taken in 1907 it shows White Man Runs Him getting a drink.The book is worth getting for the aerial photo of the Battlefield if for nothing else.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 09 2006 : 11:57:06 AM
Two things happened at roughly the same time. Reno retreated and Custer - doing something or other - made his presence known around MTC. I'm not sure it's fair to say that it was Custer's display that drew the Indians off, because it makes it appear a deliberate act to save Reno, a new cherished theory. It could, for all anyone knows, be true, but it's prejudicial and without evidence. It also stands as an example of the different standards for judging the three top officers. Custer is given every benefit of the doubt.
Godfrey's piece is also in Graham's Custer Myth, is it not?
And Wild, suppose you're correct and Custer decided not to charge but, er, feint and wait. Even SO, you don't retire to THAT bad ground. |
| dave |
Posted - January 09 2006 : 11:04:07 AM
Thanks Smcf, thats great.
|
| Smcf |
Posted - January 09 2006 : 09:51:43 AM
For those who haven't seen it, check out Godfrey's account in the 1892 "Century Magazine" article, available on-line at http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/moa-cgi?notisid=ABP2287-0043-105
Some nice photos there too. Check out the search engine for Custer related articles and books. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - January 09 2006 : 09:30:43 AM
quote:
The river was barely an impediment at all, much less a serious one
Perhaps it wasn't one reason that fatally delayed Custer's crossing at MTC but a series of accumulating factors the last of which was the arrival of Boston with news that Benteen was on his way.Add to that knowing that 1500 plus warriors were within a mile of the ford and inability to charge across regardless of how easy it was to walk across.
I don't think any rational commander would have crossed under the circumstances pertaining at 4.00.
Looking at the picture on page 81 and the picture posted by Benteen, it appears to me that physically crossing the river and forming on the village side for a charge would not be a problem for the cavalry. Wild I concur that "but a series of accumulating factors the last of which was the arrival of Boston with news that Benteen was on his way" is key to sorting this out. If we knew the sum total of these factors that were being considered at the time rather then the hindsight position we have now it might be easier to understand why decisions were made. Whether by luck or design Reno with a small force was given instructions to bring the Indians to battle. From possible observations from above one could see that the Indians were brought to battle and there was lots of them. Since it was obvious they were willing to fight rather than run away then ammunition would be a concern. Whether an attempted crossing or feinted attempt at MTC ford it had the effect of pulling the Indians off of Reno. Ammunition and troopers would be needed. ( My belief more troopers than they had available)
Why they continued north from MTC away from ammunition and more troopers is the mystery to me. The factors that were considered if any that required continuing north rather than reuniting the Regiment are lacking for me? I find it hard to believe it was the "civies" running away that was the driving factor.
|
