Against All Odds Message Board
Against All Odds Message Board
11/22/2024 11:44:36 AM
Home | Old Board Archives | Events | Polls
Photo Album | Classifieds | Downloads
Profile | Register | Members | Private Messages | Search | Posting Tips | FAQ | Web Links | Chat
Bookmarks | Active Topics
Invite A Friend To Face The Odds!
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Battle of the Little Bighorn - 1876
 Custer's Last Stand
 Could the 7th have Won??
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic

Author Previous Topic: opinion Topic Next Topic: Phile or Phobe?  

Frank Spencer
Private

Status: offline

Posted - February 21 2005 :  3:41:18 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Poll Question:
Could the 7th Cavalry, under different leadership, have won at the LBH?

**Same number of soldiers, equip etc.

Choices:

Yes
No


Edited by - Frank Spencer on February 21 2005 4:05:10 PM

Little White Dove
Private

Status: offline

Posted - April 05 2005 :  2:03:18 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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?



Go to Bottom of PageGo to Top of Page

lorenzo G.
Captain


Italy
Status: offline

Posted - April 09 2005 :  12:22:14 AM  Show Profile  Visit lorenzo G.'s Homepage  Reply with Quote
ummm with the same commander and the wolverines yes.

If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer
Go to Bottom of PageGo to Top of Page

joseph wiggs
Brigadier General


Status: offline

Posted - April 16 2005 :  10:01:28 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Bottom of PageGo to Top of Page

Little White Dove
Private

Status: offline

Posted - April 17 2005 :  9:56:40 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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?

Edited by - Little White Dove on April 17 2005 10:04:22 PM
Go to Bottom of PageGo to Top of Page

movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel


USA
Status: offline

Posted - April 17 2005 :  11:19:03 PM  Show Profile  Send movingrobewoman a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
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!

movingrobe
Go to Bottom of PageGo to Top of Page

Little White Dove
Private

Status: offline

Posted - April 22 2005 :  2:01:48 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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?
Go to Bottom of PageGo to Top of Page

Heavyrunner
Captain


USA
Status: offline

Posted - April 22 2005 :  2:37:34 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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

Bob Bostwick
Go to Bottom of PageGo to Top of Page

movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel


USA
Status: offline

Posted - April 22 2005 :  4:25:27 PM  Show Profile  Send movingrobewoman a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Somebody got a copy of the Tactical Manual?

movingrobe
Go to Bottom of PageGo to Top of Page

aj
Recruit

United Kingdom
Status: offline

Posted - May 20 2005 :  07:56:27 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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.

A.J.Holliday
Go to Bottom of PageGo to Top of Page

hunkpapa7
Lieutenant

United Kingdom
Status: offline

Posted - May 20 2005 :  09:44:02 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Welcome aj
another from this side of the pond,hope Dc notes,under aj name,UK not GB

wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right !
Go to Bottom of PageGo to Top of Page

Dark Cloud
Brigadier General


USA
Status: offline

Posted - May 20 2005 :  1:59:31 PM  Show Profile  Visit Dark Cloud's Homepage  Reply with Quote
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.

Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com
Go to Bottom of PageGo to Top of Page
  Previous Topic: opinion Topic Next Topic: Phile or Phobe?  
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:
 
Custom Search

Against All Odds Message Board © 1998-2010 Rich Federici/Mohican Press Go To Top Of Page
This page was raised in 0.11 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03