| Author |
 Topic  |
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - January 11 2004 : 01:07:05 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Well, yeah, but to frame the argument in those terms is to unintentionally demean it. There would be a lot riding on it if Gray were found to be smoking alternative reality weed and his numbers don't actually add up. Not just for LBH, but he raised the bar several notches for this sort of thing, emphasizing the very hard and lonely work it is.
I admit that one of the reasons I get annoyed (hell, really angry) when I see men playing soldier in uniform or sobbing over a found artifact on television and everybody comments on the profound importance of the moment, is that these guys get written up and on tv and the virtually nobody knows or cares about the brilliant old fussbudget who actually did something important. There were others now forgot as well.
He was in full descent of history's great amateurs, but only in a sense was he amateur. He was a scientist and a doctor and knew math and data control and the history.
You have to read this book, or the second half anyway, to understand how elevated Gray is above all that went before, and how every book since has had to deal with it, and how badly they generally do. He draws odd conclusions, in my opinion, and he may be wrong about Weir Point and Sharpshooter Hill (my lone more-or-less original and not-that-important thesis) references, and he dislikes Reno and Benteen where I'm more compassionate (and all in all, a more terrific guy)towards them. Lord, I'm tired.
You can't understand Sklenar's frustrations in trying to nail Benteen till you compare his work to Gray's. It really is formidable and you'll understand my contention that it is Gray, not archaelogy, that is the gorilla in the ring.
Well, I know what Gray did, I just haven't read what he concluded from it. But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate or understand what he did for the LBH community.
People who have more than a passing interest in the battle don't really listen to the guys playing soldier anyway, do they? I think that's more important. It pisses me off how many very basic and known facts they get wrong in an hour's TV program about the "truth", and how they summarize certain things to simplistically. But not so much as, say, revisionist "history" in the form of Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman's Custer, who apparently skipped out on the Civil War to run the Colorado Territory, fresh out of West Point, mind you. But even then, who is going to really give this schlock more than a brief once-over and move on to the next show that offers "the story that hasn't been told" about a different event.
I think what Wrangler is after is a continuance of Gray's work. Surely his methods didn't produce the exact explanation. And even if they did, how would we know? So therefore, its imperative to seek out alternatives, by, say, adjusting the average speeds and seeing what that does. It doesn't demean Gray or his work, anymore than the next book would, in my opinion. I've read Sklenar and Michno's Lakota Noon, and while their methods and agendas are different, they could be right. All are plausible, even if you feel Sklenar is after Benteen's head or Michno just wants to prove Fox wrong (which I believe he does pretty well).
I care about the brilliant old fussbudget, and I think its important to find out who is influenced by what, and that's why I've asked you what you believe, and what books people have and/or read and which they like the best. Honestly, I've read a bunch of everyone's posts and I still struggle to see what they're after, and what they are getting at sometimes.
It is a shame that Gray (and in my opinion again, Michno) is ignored and Fox is held in such regard, at least as far as the recent television programs have made it appear. I also doubt the archaeology as proof, its potential proof, it does give possible and sometimes plausible ideas their shape, but they aren't the tell-all of the field. Neither are the markers, for obvious reasons.
I don't think Wrangler is really after the result you think he is. He isn't trying to prove Gray to be an idiot, he is just expanding the concept Gray used, it seems. Gray was a pioneer, time-motion was something I barely grasped but thought of in a very basic term when I first read about the fight (along with a book compiling the many accounts by the Sioux/Cheyenne). Little did I know it had already been done (on both counts, eventually). But to expand on it is not a slight to Gray, but a rather large bow to his work and his innovative thinking on how to resolve the course of the fight. And its not to say it is to be improved upon, just that variances should be explored and the very concept needs to be explored further. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
  |
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 11 2004 : 01:25:33 AM
|
As for the horses being fatigued, I have no doubt. But how many horses cropped grass during other fights? I'm sure its happened before. And I think more has been made of their running to the river upon release or breaking free than should be. A tired horse will probably run downhill rather than up, and since many of the horses were on the western slope of Custer Ridge, where would they head? Even a healthy, non-fatigued horse would also head for water. Animal instinct seems to dictate when and where they drink and eat. Even if they shouldn't be hungry or thirsty, sometimes they do still eat or drink. Probably because they instinctively know the next meal or sip of water may not be anytime soon.
I don't think its debatable that the horses were tired. What would you expect? But horses running downhill (the easiest course of action from just below a ridgeline) and/or headed to water (hey, what else do horses do?) or horses cropping grass (which was never elaborated upon, were they held horses or loose horses just standing by their lonesome?) isn't exactly shocking or theory-altering stuff. Especially when "horses cropped grass during the battle" could have been one warrior seeing three horses doing so. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
matthew_ridgeway
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - January 11 2004 : 10:15:39 AM
|
Great posts El Crab and Wrangler. I enjoyed reading them while sipping on my morning coffee.
DC:
Thanks for your replies. However, I was hoping that my question would elicit from you something more tangible than a reiteration of “the 7th Cav horses were slow because of improper diet and alkaline wasser”. You’ve already said this several times. My question is how you would quantify this decrease in horse speed as a function of diet and not so tasty water.
You’ve offered us one data point thus far that is tied to a long distant march. This is the average speed of 3.03-mph you have cited. This is great information for sure. This presumably represents a walking speed for a horse encumbered by trooper, and a trooper's equipment, rations, etc. when the horse is tromping along in a large formation over a long distance. And by your most resent post, implies that this speed is exclusive of break times/rest periods.
Since I keep reading that you teach physics, you have surely been exposed to statistics at some point in your life. Should we believe that your presentation of one data point – i.e. a speed of 3.03-mph – represents the only possible walking speed for a cavalry formation? Is it representative of the same sorts of speeds a cavalry formation might achieve over short distances during a crisis? Is the case now closed for any further study of Gray’s time and distance assessments because we now have “a” data point?
Digging through my references here at the house and combining these with a quick Google search on horse gaits (walking), I come up with 17-data points ranging anywhere from 2.8-mph to 4.5-mph. Average is ~3.5-mph. Standard deviation is ~0.5. So 3.03-mph doesn’t look to bad as a potential speed. But than statistically speaking, neither does 2.9-mph or 3.75-mph. And we haven’t jumped into the potential of the 7th Cav trotting for some distance along its final path to Custer’s Hill. If 7th Cav speed is something other than whatever speed Gray has assumed -- either too high, or too low – how might this influence the time and distance relationships developed by Gray? Of course we’ll never know for sure exactly how events transpired between Medicine Tail Coulee and Custer Hill -- just like we’ll never know exactly how many guys helped Lee Harvey. I certainly don’t think this should discourage us from trying to better understand what may have occurred.
|
Edited by - matthew_ridgeway on January 11 2004 10:38:18 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 11 2004 : 2:04:10 PM
|
Ridgeway:
Where have you ever read I taught physics? Where have you ever read I taught at all? What are you talking about? Please list the posts where I say I taught.
Second, physics in any form - nor lists of gaits absent direct relevance to the 7th that day - will not add or subtract from the issues at hand.
Further yet, we are only talking thus far about the day of the battle from the divide to the lone teepee, which some find annoying because of Gray's insistence on the 3mph pack train speed. It corresponds to the speed for the days preceding according to Godfrey and others. What evidence is being offered that this time for the pack train is bogus and should be faster? Other than wishful thinking, I mean. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 11 2004 : 2:34:10 PM
|
| Other than wishful thinking, what evidence have you provided that the pack trains went 3 mph? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 11 2004 : 4:08:12 PM
|
Evidence on the ground isn't wishful but fact. True, the evidence provided by the 7th from the preceding days suggest the train actually moved somewhat slower than 3mph but perhaps the downhill from the divide gave it oomph.
In any case,what I've pointed to is evidence on the ground in history with the military unit at issue. What you've pointed to is a manual. Since your thesis revolves around the pack train having to move faster to free up time at the other end, you have to disprove these times.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
matthew_ridgeway
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - January 11 2004 : 4:10:25 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Ridgeway:
Where have you ever read I taught physics? Where have you ever read I taught at all? What are you talking about? Please list the posts where I say I taught.
Sorry, my bad ;) I guess you really only said you had some physics in High School.
quote:
Second, physics in any form - nor lists of gaits absent direct relevance to the 7th that day - will not add or subtract from the issues at hand.
You brought up Dr. DeWolf's timed marches a couple of pages back on this thread. Can you post DeWolf’s logs for the period? Presumably movement gait, times, distances traveled and time spent on break periods were recorded in detail. I would be curious to see if daily speeds break down to precisely X-mph for every march…or if the velocity over a number of days includes some daily variation in walking speeds. Thanks a bunch.
|
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 11 2004 : 4:22:12 PM
|
Given that a village or evidence thereof had been sighted, I doubt you can say the pack train would travel at the same speed as the day before. Granted, they knew they were getting close, and the train probably traveled faster than it had at previous times in the march.
Again, we need to find out how fast a mule can move when encumbered with a typical load required of a campaign-equipped cavalry regiment. Then we can go from there.
If the day before they traveled at 3 MPH, then its highly doubtful they were maxed out. They probably could travel at 3.4 MPH if prompted, but we need to take a look at the accounts again. How far was the train lagging? But what does the train's speed determine? Benteen was ahead of the train. Is it relevant because the combined Reno/Benteen contingent waited for it before moving north?
And I'll contend that the best course of action with the train was to separate the ammunition from the rest of the equipment, and tie up the rest of the mules. If the warriors captured the train, that would be unfortunate, but being only a day or so from hooking up with Terry and the Far West, and considering the direction the village was heading, it was doubtful the train would be found and ransacked. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 11 2004 : 4:28:21 PM
|
This is all on page 205 for the march up the Rosebud. DeWolfe's times for the Reno scout are on 185. Either scanning columns into text and reformatting or typing it out is more energy than I'd want to spend right now. Surely you can get a copy of the book, which you need anyway.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 11 2004 : 5:39:00 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
This is all on page 205 for the march up the Rosebud. DeWolfe's times for the Reno scout are on 185. Either scanning columns into text and reformatting or typing it out is more energy than I'd want to spend right now. Surely you can get a copy of the book, which you need anyway.
DC -- Do you get a commission on Gray's book?
Ridgeway--
Here's the data you requested. 5 minutes work--I'm exhausted...uh no...let me rephrase that. Lord, I'm tired...
Date/Start time - Stop Time/Miles/Hours/mph
10-Jun 3:30 pm - 6:30 pm/8/3/2.67
11-Jun 5:00 am - 1:30 pm/26/8.5/3.06
12-Jun 5:00 am - 2:00 pm/24/9/2.67
13-Jun 5:00 am - 1:00 pm/24.5/8/3.06
14-Jun 5:00 am - 1:00 pm/22.5/8/2.81
15-Jun 6:00 am - 1:00 pm/25/7/3.57
16-Jun 5:00 am - 2:00 pm/27/9/3.00
16-Jun 8:30 pm - 11:30 pm/8/3/2.67
17-Jun 8:00 am - 10:00 am/7.5/2/3.75
17-Jun 4:00 pm - 8:00 pm/15/4/3.75
18-Jun 5:30 am - 12:00 noon/20/6.5/3.08
19-Jun 4:30 am - 4:00 pm/33/11.5/2.87
Totals: Miles 240.5; Hours 79.5; mph 3.03
|
|
|
|
matthew_ridgeway
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - January 11 2004 : 7:22:03 PM
|
Thnx Wrangler ;o) Sorry to have put you through the trouble, but the numbers are very instructive to me. An interesting range of daily speeds. I think it is far more useful to look at the data broken down into daily increments than simply averaging 12-days of marching into one average velocity.
Wrangler: From leafing through this thread I reckon you have your finger tips on a fair amount of relatively obscure source information associated with the campaign. Is there anyway of knowing what sort of ration allotments were available to the critters involved with the march sequence between 10-Jun and 19-Jun? If I am buying stock options in the "low speed relative to poor rations and bad tasting water" school of thought, than it looks like Jun 10th – 14th, and possibly the days preceding this time period, represent low chow days for our quadrupeds. Speeds are only between 2.67-mph to 3.06-mph.
But than our critters must be stuffing carbs and drinking Gatorade power drinks on the 15th – 17th. Our beasts of burden actually begin achieving the unheard of speeds 3.57-mph on the 15th and 3.75-mph on the 17th!
|
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 11 2004 : 7:27:47 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
Again, we need to find out how fast a mule can move when encumbered with a typical load required of a campaign-equipped cavalry regiment. Then we can go from there.
Agree. Still researching this. Found this on the internet:
http://www.qmmuseum.lee.army.mil/WWII/mules_of_mars.htm
This is an article discussing U.S. Army pack mules in Burma during WWII. At least two entries are relevant to this discussion:
For example, there was no need to assign a stocky. solid, well-gaited mule to hauling grain, when gun and ammunition mules were needed. A pack troop is authorized nearly 300 animals, while the personnel totals about 75. Pack troopers are mounted on mules and herd their loaded animals, normally by platoons. That is the most efficient manner of working pack animals, because the mule can pick his own way and, to some extent, his gait; he can make things easy for himself. That method of operation is best for situations where packers must move supplies a comparatively short distance and do not have to operate with foot troops in the same column.
Naturally, when pack mules become part of a moving column, this system is impractical. The herd of mules, moving some five to six miles an hour, would constantly over-run the foot soldier, and doughs don't like that. On the other hand, the animals cannot be started out before the foot troops because there is the question of security for the animals, and there is also the quite important factor that the foot troops want their machine guns, ammunition and mortars along with them just in case. The same objections hold regarding advisability of running the mules up to the foot soldiers later in the day. A mule, like a man, is most efficient if he can be worked from dawn to noon or about 1300, rather than from. say, 1000 till 1700.
On what they can carry:
A mule can carry about one third of his weight. The Army cargo pack saddle, with trappings, weighs in the neighborhood of 100 pounds, and the average mule we worked would weigh from 1,000 to 1,200 pounds. Stouter mules are kept for the artillery, which has the heaviest, most awkward loads.
Thus, you can figure that a mule payload should not go much over 200 pounds. For a long campaign, such as ours, we tried to keep each burden down to 180 pounds, and succeeded pretty well on the whole.
Our heaviest loads normally would be machine-gun ammunition, one animal’s share consisting of ten 21-pound cans, for a total of 210 pounds. The load, however, was evenly balanced-most important factor in animal packing-and so was not too much.
I caution that this article is only one data point; much more research is required in this area.
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
If the day before they traveled at 3 MPH, then its highly doubtful they were maxed out. They probably could travel at 3.4 MPH if prompted, but we need to take a look at the accounts again. How far was the train lagging? But what does the train's speed determine? Benteen was ahead of the train. Is it relevant because the combined Reno/Benteen contingent waited for it before moving north?
Back away from those questions for a second. The evidence has spoken once through Gray's time-motion analysis. The determining factor for screening "good" evidence from "bad" is a rate of march that I personally can't find justification for--I've looked. Gray gives no clue as to its source. A significant set of data points have to be found other than what I've discovered to justify an observation that 3-6-9 mph are the speeds by which we say we have it about right in the sequencing and timing of events indicated by the evidence. I've presented Boston Custer as an example of the sensitivity of speed and its implications on how folks interpret the battle. I've presented the watering times of Benteen's battalion at the morass to show how speed causes us to select one piece of contradicting evidence over another. My thesis is that if we can introduce march rates and speeds that can be justified, then we may have a new, more defendable data set for interpreting the flow of the battle.
Now, back to your questions…
How far was the train lagging? I think that lagging has at least two meanings relevant to time-speed-space analysis--as in "lagging behind" Benteen's battalion and "lagging within the gaggle" known as the pack trains. Both need to be considered in analyzing evidence.
But what does the train's speed determine? As Gray pointed out, change one variable and all others have to be adjusted when using time-motion analysis. It is not the train's speed alone. It is one set of data points that has to be reconciled to the extent possible with the other variables. Isolating for the moment Benteen's Scout-to-the-Left, Gray and Darling eliminate Benteen's and Godfrey's testimonial estimates of the miles traveled given rates of march of for the cavalry of 3.3 and 3.4, and rate of march of the trains as 3.0 and 3.0 respectively. It is logical for them to do so based on the mph they chose to fill these variables. If the trains moved slower than 3 mph and/or departed the division halt later than McDougall testified, and if Benteen traveled at a faster speed, then perhaps the testimony of Benteen and Godfrey can be reconciled. My goal is not to reconcile this particular example or the two previously given (BC & watering halt); I'd like to see "the surround" more firmly based all around.
v/r
Wrangler |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 11 2004 : 7:58:36 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by matthew_ridgeway
Is there anyway of knowing what sort of ration allotments were available to the critters involved with the march sequence between 10-Jun and 19-Jun? If I am buying stock options in the "low speed relative to poor rations and bad tasting water" school of thought, than it looks like Jun 10th – 14th, and possibly the days preceding this time period, represent low chow days for our quadrupeds. Speeds are only between 2.67-mph to 3.06-mph.
Let me dig around to see if I have any data. Unfortunately, five of the six companies that went on the Reno scout ended up on Custer Battlefield so, as you can imagine, there is of dearth of testimony with regard to the scout. Dr. DeWolf was killed in the retreat from the valley to Reno Hill but his journal was recovered--and thus begat the data set I provided.
|
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 11 2004 : 10:10:06 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wrangler
I caution that this article is only one data point; much more research is required in this area.
More on Army mules...
Data Points #2 & #3:
One interesting experiment in transportation in jungle warfare was the use of mules. The 97th Field Artillery Battalion (75-mm. pack howitzers) which supported the advance up the north coast had mules. The presence of the animals complicated rather than simplified the logistical problem. Mules could not traverse all the types of terrain that a man on foot could negotiate. They could not get over boggy ground or cross muddy banks and stream beds. Although able to cover from four to five miles per hour over favorable terrain, the mules could cover only one mile per hour over Guadalcanal's roads and trails. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-P-Guadalcanal/USA-P-Guadalcanal-13.html
General info on mules compared to horses:
During the early years of the fort many donkeys and mules were used to haul supplies, pull carriages, transport soldiers and assist with construction projects. The mules, being very adaptive and much stronger than horses, were very useful during the long winters of the Sault. http://www.lssu.edu/tour/brady/wwii.php
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 12 2004 : 11:25:32 AM
|
Burma? We're in Burma?
Somehow you neglect to mention this about Stilwell's mules: "Each mule was allotted ten pounds of grain a day and the usual mixture included barley, peas or beans, and salt." And the two hours of grazing grass is also mentioned. And of course, being in a jungle/rain forest there is moisture. Just like the American West, well nigh a mirror image.
If the 7th were to do this, let's see: 240 mules (I think) equals 2400 pounds a day x 15 days equals 36k pounds of grain for the mules alone.
Then the horses. Suppose the horses only rated enough grain for a mule. Say 700 horses. That's 105k of grain for horses.
So in order for this fascinating info from WWII Burma to be relevant, and not counting the improved packing and care the mules have received all their lives, Custer's train would have to lug 141k pounds (70.5 tons) of grain.
At 200 pounds carried per mule, this would require additional hundreds of mules, which offsets the calculations and allows nothing else to be carried. But in order for these perky rates to be relevant - forgetting seventy years, continent, biosphere, and granting an assumption that they're true - so does the fuel.
They aren't, and it isn't. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 12 2004 : 12:39:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Burma? We're in Burma?
I'm not in Burma. But if you type in your address in MapQuest, it'll tell you where you are. Add it to your favorites. Check it often. You'll never have that "lost" feeling again.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Somehow you neglect to mention this about Stilwell's mules: "Each mule was allotted ten pounds of grain a day and the usual mixture included barley, peas or beans, and salt." And the two hours of grazing grass is also mentioned. And of course, being in a jungle/rain forest there is moisture. Just like the American West, well nigh a mirror image.
Thanks for the data point. Any others? Somehow I wouldn't want any others to be neglected. Yes, forgot to calculate that American mules would typically double their speed of 3 mph when transplanted from their native land to the jungle/rain forests of Burma where there is moisture.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
If the 7th were to do this, let's see: 240 mules (I think) equals 2400 pounds a day x 15 days equals 36k pounds of grain for the mules alone.
Then the horses. Suppose the horses only rated enough grain for a mule. Say 700 horses. That's 105k of grain for horses.
So you are saying Terry over did it by 6 tons when he had "75 tons of forage and 15 days subsistence stores for 1200 men, hospital stores, private packages for the officers" sent to meet his column at the mouth of the Powder River on the Far West? (Gray, Centennial Campaign, 104-105) Let's see: 75 tons x 2,000 lbs = 150K. Perhaps these extra 6 tons could have been left behind so private packages could have been brought for the men.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
So in order for this fascinating info from WWII Burma to be relevant, and not counting the improved packing and care the mules have received all their lives, Custer's train would have to lug 141k pounds (70.5 tons) of grain.
But they didn't lug 141k. Why do you suppose that was?
|
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 12 2004 : 1:09:54 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud Gray was a doctor and director of medical research and was, at least, knowledgeable about this sort of thing.
According to Dr. Gray—Medicine Woman, Gorillus Emeritus—in Centennial Campaign he writes:
Custer had arrived at the Busby bend exactly on schedule as worked out at the steamboat conference. In two and a half days he had covered 73 miles. This last day’s march had been exceptionally slow and easy, for it was interrupted by several short and one long, four-hour halt. It had taxed neither men nor horses of his command, although it had made hard work for the ever moving scouts. Yet Captain Benteen, who knew the facts as well as anyone, later saw fit to tell Terry that Custer had driven his men 92 miles at this point! This laid the foundation for the conviction that Custer had deliberately violated Terry’s plan by breaking down his men and animals to get there first, and thereby brought righteous disaster upon himself! On the contrary, the evidence proves that Custer faithfully observed his orders in both word and spirit. (Gray, 161)
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud In any case, I'll go out on a limb and heroically contend, as maybe others could as well, that animals ridden hard for weeks, off their normal feed and with insufficient and bad water, will move slower than under refreshed conditions, especially on extremely hot days over rugged ground.
Gray continues...
It is often claimed that this “all night” march so exhausted the command that it was not fit for battle the next afternoon. But the record clearly refutes this charge. The men marched that night for two and a half hours only, and the resumption of the advance the next morning was delayed nearly four hours beyond the standard 5:00 departure. The distance left to be marched the next day did not exceed twenty miles and was spread over about fourteen hours. A midnight interruption is, of course, no way to guarantee a good night’s sleep, but if such an interruption rendered the 7th Cavalry unfit for duty, it should have been medically discharged to a man! (Gray, 166-167)
quote:
Originally posted by Dark CloudIt could be the liquor talking, but I'm a damn hero, I am.
How about you and the big gorilla in the ring? Three rounds. I think you can take him. Just, "Be the ball".
|
Edited by - Wrangler on January 12 2004 1:12:42 PM |
|
|
|
matthew_ridgeway
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - January 12 2004 : 1:43:16 PM
|
The total amount of water needed increases dramatically when horses/mules sweat due to high temperatures and humidity, especially when combined with hard work.
Actually the humid environs of Burma would be much more a detriment to mule/horse speed then the dreaded environs of Montana and the Dakotas. The total amount of water our quadrupedal friends need increases dramatically when they sweat due to high temperatures and humidity, especially when combined with hard work. These water losses obviously must be replaced or the critter fatigues and either moves at a slower gait, or quits out right. Electrolytes – ala sodium and potassium -- are also lost when our pack critters sweat profusely. Read high temperature – high humidity environs common to those steamy jungles of Burma. Some horses become non-sweaters in areas with very high environmental temperatures and humidity. Obviously a bad thing, as special care is required in these areas to furnish adequate water and electrolytes. This is where our gatorade power drink comes in handy.
So the biosphere thingie is indeed a valid point. But the impact on the Burma Mule March Rates relative to North American Plains Mule March Rates is that mules prolly moved slower in Burma. It’s a humidity + heavy lifting thing.
|
Edited by - matthew_ridgeway on January 12 2004 2:02:24 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 12 2004 : 6:25:32 PM
|
We're talking about establishing the rate of the pack train from the divide to the lone teepee, by Wrangler's choice. I've pointed to evidence that the pack train of this expedition would be having a good day making 3 mph, as Gray says it did. It is through Gray, but based on times from 7th officers. If wrong, not way wrong.
I suppose it shouldn't be surprising in a discussion of a book half the participants haven't read, but to prove Gray wrong, Wrangler and Ridgeway enthusiastically buy a railpass to the East where we thrill to the splendid times of officer's horses on a track, as compiled by St. George Cook, JEB Stuart's Everlast bag, before he went back West where his handling of the Powder River War still prompts gasps of admiration from the Sioux. Then, previous to quick glances at coulda/shoulda/woulda's from General Terry's quartermaster, we fly through miles and ages to 1944 Burma in order to ascertain the speeds of mules, a different animal, in 1876 Montana, and then, not content with this killer evidence, we switch books altogether to argue about themes in a tome the author himself has said included impossibilities and, in any case, isn't what we're discussing.
Yet, from the old book it seems the 7th made 1.43 mph rate (20 miles in 14 hours)by the offered evidence. After hundreds of miles, this sort of march wouldn't be taxing, no. But that supports my point, not yours. I'm not arguing about Benteen. I'm arguing that Gray's speed rate is perfectly logical and likely given what we know.
If there is ANY evidence that a cavalry mule train not Crook's made a rate of much over 3 mph in the American West under conditions remotely like the 7th's, let's hear it. If there is any evidence that horses in the US Cavalry of that period in the West averaged significantly more speed than Gray says, let's hear it. I fear the next evidence offered will involve Robert Falcon Scott and his ponies in the dash for the Pole based on conclusions drawn from a complicated formula of percentage of DNA distinctions between mule and pony. Or criteria from a flea circus.
Okay? From the divide to the lone teepee......... |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
matthew_ridgeway
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - January 12 2004 : 7:10:41 PM
|
| uhh Dark Cloud; You brought up the whole “biosphere thing”…not me. Horses and mules aren’t known for their – how did you put it – “perky rates” -- in hot humid environments. I was simply putting you straight on this odd idea of yours that somehow mules should be expected to go real fast in Burma. |
|
|
|
matthew_ridgeway
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - January 12 2004 : 8:10:58 PM
|
“DC Said: I fear the next evidence offered will involve Robert Falcon Scott and his ponies in the dash for the Pole based on conclusions drawn from a complicated formula of percentage of DNA distinctions between mule and pony.”
I agree. God forbid we should bring science into this discussion. It only complicates things. It’s much better to focus our discussions on fussy eastern army officers at racetracks that sip whisky sours while pontificating about thoroughbred army horses that prance about at the mind-boggling speed of 3.75mph. Discussions based upon the former are quite dry and typically make our heads hurt, while the later makes for a good hearty read.
|
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 12 2004 : 8:29:54 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
We're talking about establishing the rate of the pack train from the divide to the lone teepee, by Wrangler's choice. I've pointed to evidence that the pack train of this expedition would be having a good day making 3 mph, as Gray says it did. It is through Gray, but based on times from 7th officers. If wrong, not way wrong.
State these officers’ names, their testimony with regards to rate of march and/or speed in miles per hour, and the source.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I suppose it shouldn't be surprising in a discussion of a book half the participants haven't read,
You and I have read the book. I can handle myself. Are you trolling for reinforcements? Or just trolling.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
But to prove Gray wrong, Wrangler and Ridgeway enthusiastically buy a railpass to the East where we thrill to the splendid times of officer's horses on a track, as compiled by St. George Cook, JEB Stuart's Everlast bag, before he went back West where his handling of the Powder River War still prompts gasps of admiration from the Sioux.
I think the anchor’s still in yer boat. See if you can cause it to make this sound, “sploosh”.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Then, previous to quick glances at coulda/shoulda/woulda's from General Terry's quartermaster, we fly through miles and ages to 1944 Burma in order to ascertain the speeds of mules, a different animal, in 1876 Montana, and then, not content with this killer evidence, we switch books altogether to argue about themes in a tome the author himself has said included impossibilities and, in any case, isn't what we're discussing.
This sounds like a great adventure film. Will you play a starring role? Is it a problem for you to look at two books? If so, the best advice I can give is to read only one at a time. Use only one hand so you can hold your drink in the other.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Yet, from the old book it seems the 7th made 1.43 mph rate (20 miles in 14 hours)by the offered evidence. After hundreds of miles, this sort of march wouldn't be taxing, no. But that supports my point, not yours. I'm not arguing about Benteen. I'm arguing that Gray's speed rate is perfectly logical and likely given what we know.
Which “speed rate” is perfectly logical? 1.43 mph or 3.00 mph? They seem to have come from the same person. Reconcile this for me as you have done for yourself.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
If there is ANY evidence that a cavalry mule train not Crook's made a rate of much over 3 mph in the American West under conditions remotely like the 7th's, let's hear it.
Why not Crook?
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
If there is any evidence that horses in the US Cavalry of that period in the West averaged significantly more speed than Gray says, let's hear it.
Gray writes, “Early on June 7th, Custer set out in the lead. He rode hard and fast that day, some fifty miles probing for a passable route. He found it—32 miles of rugged trail—and watered his horse in the river, 24 miles above its mouth (near present Locate) at 3:30 that afternoon.” (Centennial Campaign, 104).
Let’s say he left at 5:00 am. That would be 10.5 hours. Let’s say he didn’t even stop to pee or have a cookie for lunch. That would be a rate of march and speed of 4.76 mph. This Custer fella Gray mentions was in the U.S. Cavalry at about the same time in the West, and in a biosphere similar to that found in the vicinity of the Little Bighorn. Of course if you are a flea—it’s a long way off.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud[/i]
I fear the next evidence offered will involve Robert Falcon Scott and his ponies in the dash for the Pole based on conclusions drawn from a complicated formula of percentage of DNA distinctions between mule and pony. Or criteria from a flea circus.
Give me the data and I’ll work the DNA connection if it is important to you. Got a reference?
I can’t help you with fleas but here’s a link:
www.trainedfleas.com
I suggest you start a new thread when you finally get to it—probably lots of fleas at the battle. Should be fascinating.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud[/i]
Okay? From the divide to the lone teepee.........
I believe we went on this tangent because you wanted to talk about your usual Red Herrings of hungry, tired horsies, mules and men, the unimpeachable authority of Dr. Gray—Medicine Woman, and your inability to construct a coherent syllogism.
As I have stated previously, I've presented Boston Custer as an example of the sensitivity of speed and its implications on how folks interpret the battle. I've presented the watering times of Benteen's battalion at the morass to show how speed causes us to select one piece of contradicting evidence over another. My thesis is that if we can introduce march rates and speeds that can be justified, then we may have a new, more defendable data set for interpreting the flow of the battle.
Towards this end, state the names of the officers’ and their testimony with regards to rate of march and/or speed in miles per hour, and the source. If you need to narrow this because of your busy schedule, please focus on those that justify your claim that the pack trains observed a rate of march and/or speed of 3.00 mph.
|
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 12 2004 : 9:05:46 PM
|
So Gray's numbers are reasonable, but it doesn't mean there couldn't be a different possibility. I think that's the point. Its not to say Gray is wrong, but to expand on his thinking. What if the mules traveled at 3.2 MPH average speed? What does that do to the whole time-motion? That's the question. Don't get mad because others want to further what Gray started.
And you need to simmer down just a tad. Presenting information on mules does not support anyone. I asked for info on mules, and I got one example. Does it prove anything? No. Its a starting point. The answer is a long way off, if its even possible to reach. Mules in Burma do tell us something. But we need more info. But you jump down our throats for learning more. I can tell you right now I am deeply fascinated in this subject and the fight. Moreso than I have been in awhile. Maybe its because I've found a person in Wrangler who has access to a lot of information. Maybe its that I like his line of thinking. But we've got a chance here to expand on a brilliant man's work and see it through to multiple conclusions. My goal is to push back and move forward different pieces of the puzzle, and see what that gets us. We can rule out what is possible and what is not that way, much like Michno disproved the Crazy Horse attack from the north as being impossible considering the accounts.
I think you know just as well as anybody else that answers aren't found the day after the question is asked. But we are on our to finding the answer, even if the first stop is the Burmese jungles of WWII with a bunch of mules. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 12 2004 : 11:55:31 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by matthew_ridgeway
Wrangler: From leafing through this thread I reckon you have your finger tips on a fair amount of relatively obscure source information associated with the campaign. Is there anyway of knowing what sort of ration allotments were available to the critters involved with the march sequence between 10-Jun and 19-Jun? If I am buying stock options in the "low speed relative to poor rations and bad tasting water" school of thought, than it looks like Jun 10th – 14th, and possibly the days preceding this time period, represent low chow days for our quadrupeds. Speeds are only between 2.67-mph to 3.06-mph.
Ridgeway,
As requested, I've looked through some of my papers for an answer to your query. Here's the first find with regards to your question:
Special Field Order No. 11 dated 10 June 1876:
Major Marcus S. Reno, 7th Cavalry, with six companies (right wing) of his regiment and one gun from the Gatling battery, will proceed at the earliest practicable moment to make a reconnaissance of the Powder River from the present camp to the mouth of the Little Powder. From the last-named point he will cross to the headwaters of the Mitzpah Creek and descend that creek to its junction with the Powder River. Thence he will cross to Pumpkin Creek and Tongue River, and descend the Tongue to its junction with the Yellowstone, where he may expect to meet the remaining companies of the 7th Cavalry and supplies of subsistence and forage.
Major Reno’s command will be supplied with subsistence for twelve days and with forage for the same period at the rate of two pounds of grain the [sic] day for each animal.
The guide, Mitch Boyer, and eight Indians to be detailed by Lt. Col. Custer will report to Major Reno for duty with this column.
Acting assistant surgeon H. R. Porter is detailed for duty with Major Reno.
(Gray, Centennial Campaign, 126)
v/r
Wrangler
|
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 13 2004 : 01:04:03 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
So Gray's numbers are reasonable, but it doesn't mean there couldn't be a different possibility. I think that's the point. Its not to say Gray is wrong, but to expand on his thinking.
El Crab,
I'll reserve judgement on the wrong part for the sake of more pleasant discussion. In three sentences, you've captured the essence of the gist and importance of a re-look.
v/r
Wrangler |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
John Gray: The Tail That WagsThe Dog--Still
