| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - May 30 2004 : 12:20:08 PM
|
Thanks Bob. Your references are better than my memory.
R. Larsen
|
  |
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - May 30 2004 : 1:58:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
Thanks Bob. Your references are better than my memory.
R. Larsen
Well, Larsen, your memory is much better than mine. I had to go look for the information. I edited Pohanka’s paper, but forgot about its content. Thanks for the trip down memory lane -- that was a fun symposium. |
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 30 2004 : 3:57:44 PM
|
I don't know what you are using Dark Cloud but it's not doing you any good.
Any way you wanted a source so you're going to get a source.
Conflict-----Boer War
Battle-------Spion Cop
Source-------The Boer War by Thomas Pakenham.Published 1978
Page 289-----And on Spion Kop itself there were three excellent positions still unoccupied by the British:at Conical Hill 800yards north of the British position,at the aloe-covered knoll,400 yards to the east;and on the nearer of the twin eastern peaks-a mile beyond,but still within long-range rifle fire.Such were the oppertunities,if the burgers,scattered over 10 milesof the Tugela ramparts,could only seize them in time.
Thanks lads for the info on the war in New Guinea.
Regards |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 31 2004 : 8:56:29 PM
|
| The question, "Did Custer do anything right?" combined with the fatal outcome of this battle rings with an unspoken assumption, he did everything wrong. This assumption begs the question: What kind of man would set out to destroy the entire Sioux and Cheyenne Nation with a little over 600 men (some of which were actually young boys). Was this action a ploy by him to achieve fame and celebrity status ? Then I remember what kind of man he was. He was a soldier! Ordered by his superior's to respond to the Big Horn, he did so with complete allegiance to the government that sent him. That is the critcal point, of the entire affair, that needs to be understood in order to understand why it happened. Moral issues aside, Custer had no choice but to go or be subjected to charges. He did one thing right, he obeyed his orders. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 31 2004 : 9:33:57 PM
|
Custer was given free reign by Terry, because Terry believed Custer could find and destroy a village. And he found the village, and he was trying to capture and destroy it. He did a lot of things right to get to that point. I believe Brisbin or someone else under Terry, if not Terry himself, commented that he believed Custer would get there first when the 7th was cut loose, and they'd miss out on the battle. It was assumed and/or expected that Custer would get there first, and drive them north, where the Terry/Gibbon column would close the northern door.
It wasn't the entire Sioux and Cheyenne nation. It was a rather large gathering of those people, though. It wasn't a ploy to achieve fame or celebrity status, as Custer already had fame and celebrity status. Maybe a ploy to achieve more? Perhaps. But I think its time to set aside the myths of Custer wanting all the glory for himself, making decisions to assure this, risking his command for personal gains, etc. All officers risk their commands in battle, that's why they're officers. Its their job to command, and this comes with all of that. About 265 soldiers were killed because of Custer's decisions, and that's his fault, regardless of whether those decisions were bad or good. Its part of being in command.
After LBH, there was blame to be placed, and eventually it found its way to Custer. Like the saying goes (and it was appropriate for a book on Custer to use it as a title) its easy to kick a dead lion. So the story changed. He didn't wait like he was supposed to, he disobeyed orders, he had his own agenda and his moves reflect that. Blah blah blah. Reno's battle report said they heard fire downstream, and "knew it could only be Custer." Yet at the Reno Court of Inquiry, this story changed. Everyone was covering their asses. Everyone who was left alive, that is.
http://www.learning4fun.org/PLAINS%20RENO.htm
|
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 31 2004 : 10:25:02 PM
|
I'm not sure the 'we heard' at one end and 'I heard nothing' at the other is really a conflict. Not knowing there'd be an inquest, Reno said 'we' meaning 'members of my command' without having to say he did not, possibly to excuse Weir riding off, which he covers up, given there was no permission granted, and it was foolish, and what difference did it make at that time. I don't necessarily believe that, but these are easily suggestible events that can be read either way. If he had written 'some guys heard but I and others did not' and Weir ran off without permission, and Reno had done nothing to control Weir, that was an issue nobody wanted to deal with after the battle. Possible, anyway, at the time of writing the report.
But if Custer had had a Voice of the Theater sound system, and the men on Reno Hill could hear Custer's command clearly screaming 'help, help, for God's sake!' what precisely could they have done? "Ride to the sound of firing" is a wonderful phrase, and probably got more people killed needlessly than not. In Iraq, you end up at a wedding, or a child's birthday, or it's Tuesday, or something.
Reno's troopers were useless at that point, and there was wounded. They couldn't get it together to get to Weir Point in anything like an organized fashion. Given the ground and the distance on top of that, let's hear - possibly from the exalted War College where everyone has agreed with Custer to this point.....- exactly what should have been done, given the material Benteen had to work with? Factor in what happens when the Sioux see an essentially unprotected baggage train, how to retrieve Custer's wounded, and at what point an intervention would be known to have failed, and retreat back to the other wounded on Reno Hill is the only recourse.
Anyone who says it's better to die with honor than retreat with point to fight again can go stand in the corner and read Song of Roland silently.
Do you really divide the troops again? How much is enough to protect the wounded and train? Lay it out. Explain why that makes more sense than Custer heading south, and what is accomplished sacrificing the command for 'honor' - the touchstone of lawless society - over 'dignitas' and responsibility for the commonweal's interest in the preservation of the command. That is the acorn of much conflict on this board, never expressed, and it probably should be.
And if you cannot decidedly improve upon things, what's the point of all this animosity towards Reno and Benteen?
Look at what happened to Tillman, the NFL player in Afghanistan. He was killed by his own (or those Afghans under control of his own; they'll get the blame, I'm assuming) - and these are Rangers - in an incident reported as a firefight where Tillman's voice was heard encourgaging...yadayada. He was granted a promotion and all of the bells and whistles. And then, the truth. Friendly fire, no enemy in the vicinity. Apparently a mine, someone fired at something, the other group fired back. Pretty common type stuff in war. Nobody's screaming incompetence, jealousy of Tillman, conspiracy. It was a screwup by emotionally exhausted men who'd been in the field a long time. I don't hear anyone comparing the initial report given to the press to the truth and calling for censor and punishment or courtmartial.
Subject this or any one of a million similar incidents to what the poor blokes at LBH have had done to them for a century and a half. See what you come up with. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 31 2004 : 10:51:52 PM
|
Wild, I could have sworn I answered you yesterday. Sorry.
I wanted the rare seven volume source. But....
In the battle at question, I'd suspect the most damage was done by those at 400 yards, but who knows? I'm assuming the Boers got all three high points, but the quote doesn't reveal it, so I don't know how to reply.
My contention remains, though, that it isn't sharpshooting or reflective of shooting at animals or Zulu. If you're above and firing at an area of tightly packed people with no cover you will hit them with lots of friends doing the same in volleys. It's not like they're aiming at individuals, they're firing at an area. Shooting down at people with no cover from even up to a mile away will surely bring results in unknown percentages, but it sounds like the pisces in the barrel again. In any case, we're not talking about shooting at individuals, or great individual shooting skill. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 31 2004 : 11:37:04 PM
|
While I understand the "we" versus "I" point, it doesn't change anything for me. From what I've read, Reno changed a lot of his story. I believe later on Reno claimed that Custer went north and he had no clue where he could be. If they heard heavy firing, and it was enough to know what direction it came from. Same goes for Benteen. He claimed to have no idea where Custer went, coming to a fork at one point and wasn't sure which trail to follow. Did he ask Martini? Even if he wasn't much of a cavalryman, and even if he didn't speak much English, he probably could have pointed the way. Martini had been with Custer's battalion up until upper MTC, and Kanipe/Knipe had been with the battalion for almost as long, yet Reno and Benteen claimed they had no clue where Custer could be.
I don't have the RCOI in front of me, so I can't say exactly what Reno said about not hearing firing. But I know he said he never heard any. Yet he said "we heard firing..." in his battle report. I believe he claimed he heard no firing at the RCOI, as a way of saying "I had no idea Custer was in trouble or even fighting. It seemed to me the soldiers who said they heard no firing, when others described volley firing, with Varnum (I believe) using such words as a "crash!", were doing so to disprove that they knew Custer was engaged or even still alive. I guess everyone here would do the same to cover their ass. So I can understand why they changed their stories to cover Reno, since he was alive and Custer was dead. But now that everyone is dead, we can go back and cross-check their stories at different times. And there are discrepancies. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 01 2004 : 12:58:23 AM
|
Well, I'm only saying that different and less evil and - while often remarkably self serving, perhaps not falsely so - reasons might be behind some of the discrepancies. When everyone started realizing that offhand remarks, rumors, venting complaints, and stories were being chiseled into granite, they did go into cya mode, most reasonably.
Nobody ran up to Terry or Crook or anyone and filed charges. They all agreed with Reno and Benteen at the time and were glad those two had to shoulder the blame. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 01 2004 : 04:42:29 AM
|
Any army that could count on any arguable sort of accurate mass rifle fire at 800 yards has never remotely existed. That's ludicrous, and in the cases mentioned, not true.
That is the contention you started out with and it contains the accusation that I posted information which was untrue.Which is perhaps a little unjust.
Your contention has now changed to this
My contention remains, though, that it isn't sharpshooting or reflective of shooting at animals or Zulu. If you're above and firing at an area of tightly packed people with no cover you will hit them with lots of friends doing the same in volleys.
If the British military system played into the hands of the Boers why rubbish the Boers.They could only fight what was put in front of them and if the British insisted in attacking as if they were on a parade ground it just presented excellent targets to very competent riflemen.
We are talkng about armies here,fire control,volley fire and area targets not individual sharpshooting.You have shifted from ridiculing the Boers as an army to ridiculing them as sharpshooters and that Dark Cloud is just not cricket.
I win! (Let's stay on message, here...) I win AGAIN! (Too much? Dial it down...) ARhahahahahah....cough.....haha...
I have to say I had no idea what you were on about there,I thought it was the tablets you were taking. So that a victory dance??You might have even proclaimed "mission accomplished"and the Fat Lady hasn't even started to sing yet.
I wanted the rare seven volume source.
To follow ,but why ? as you have alleged it was vetted by the British War Office.
Slan
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 01 2004 : 06:26:26 AM
|
He did one thing right, he obeyed his orders.
Joe you of all people should know that you cannot use English like that.The term "right" or "wrong" cannot be applied to an order.Custer either obeyed or disobeyed.
My question "did he do anything right" refered to manner in which he carried out that order and so far no-one has offered as much as a single example in Custer's favour.
Sure Custer was a soldier but he was also a leader with responsibility for the lives of his men.Nothing he did that day would indicate that he took that responsibility seriously.
Regards |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 01 2004 : 07:05:28 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
He did one thing right, he obeyed his orders.
Joe you of all people should know that you cannot use English like that.The term "right" or "wrong" cannot be applied to an order.Custer either obeyed or disobeyed.
My question "did he do anything right" refered to manner in which he carried out that order and so far no-one has offered as much as a single example in Custer's favour.
Sure Custer was a soldier but he was also a leader with responsibility for the lives of his men.Nothing he did that day would indicate that he took that responsibility seriously.
Regards
Losses are expected, that's how the military works. Custer's orders were to keep the Indians from escaping to certain directions. The only thing he disobeyed was scouting Tullock's Creek, but he cut his mapped route (it was articulated on a field map with string, I believe, before he was cut loose) by 20 miles. And he did so because a very large trail cut over the divide, so it wasn't really needed to scout Tullock's Creek. Yes, he lost and in this, 265 soldiers died. But he did do a fair amount of things right. I think what he did wrong was proceed without Benteen's battalion rejoining them. The village probably would not have taken flight within an hour or so, if they had remained miles away and sent a few scouts forward to keep track of it. But hindsight is always 20/20, and Custer (and everyone in the campaign above him) believed the village would run, so he seemed to be trying to hit it quickly and before the Sioux could escape. Was this Custer's fault? This, I believe, was an intelligence failure from high above his position in the campaign. I'm not even sure Custer saw it any differently, even as he went north of MTC. The non-combatants were fleeing to the north, and even if he knew Reno was routed (which he probably did and more likely chalked up to Reno's character), his quarry's escape was probably in his mind. Or even capturing non-combatants was even more important, to salvage the rest of this engagement.
Officers bear the burden of sending men to their death. Unfortunately for Custer, his entire battalion was killed. But he died with them. He always shared the risks he asked of his men. I think this is why Reno gets so much blame, even if its unfair. He fell apart, and led his charge so he'd be the first one out. He was thinking of himself, and not the command under him when he ordered that charge. No bugle call to make sure those out of earshot knew what was going on. No rearguard. No plan once the bluffs were reached, as soldiers seemed to keep on going, until other officers pleaded for them to stop. Granted, I think those that blame Reno do so because they've never been in combat, yet think they could do better. I know Dark Cloud has touched upon this, how this battle seems to draw those types out of the woodwork. I don't think Reno was wrong in retreating, I just think he should have done things differently. I do think he abandoned his skirmish line way too soon, but then again, I wasn't there and I've never been in combat. Who knows how I'd do in his shoes, er, boots. But I think that's where it comes from. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 01 2004 : 10:00:10 AM
|
I do know something about shooting and hunting and how far 800 yards is without a scope, and I still claim that, in the vast majority of cases, individual soldiers/hunters/farmers firing at that distance with sights not amplified would be wasting ammo shooting at specific human targets. Firing at pachyderm herds or two acres of exposed troops packed together below you from 800 yards is another thing. And there were those only 400 yards away. And we don't actually know how good the shooting was absent percentages of expended ammo, of course.
So while I'm not willing to concede that this is an example of great shooting I do have to concede that some of them apparently were firing from up to a mile away and I have no evidence that some of those bullets did not contribute to the slaughter of the Brits. Still, it's the sort of shooting not honed hunting Zulu or anything else.
I'm not rubbishing the Boers; you're right, they took advantage of the Brits' stupidity. But I'm not given to explanations that hang on extraordinary skills, and this shooting isn't an example of great skill, really. Adjust the sights and fire into the unbroken mass of uniforms... on three. The Brits were terrible. Roberts and Kitchener said as much. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 01 2004 : 10:28:44 AM
|
I do know something about shooting and hunting and how far 800 yards is without a scope, and I still claim that, in the vast majority of cases, individual soldiers/hunters/farmers firing at that distance with sights not amplified would be wasting ammo shooting at specific human targets.
Sorry Dark Cloud but I must bring you back to your original contention
Any army that could count on any arguable sort of accurate mass rifle fire at 800 yards has never remotely existed. That's ludicrous, and in the cases mentioned, not true.
Armies are delivery systems.They deliver ordnance onto a target.In order for that system to be effective, fire control is necessary.Individual sharpshooting is pointless in main engagements.In some cases you don't even have to inflict casualties for controlled volley firing to achieve some tactical advantage.
Now you can wriggle all you like but you are hooked on that origional and may I say unfair post.
Regards
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 01 2004 : 11:44:07 AM
|
Wild, I am uncomfortable, but I still think I'm right. The advantage of age. I don't see how this example is of great shooting, or how the percentage of hits from 400 yards, 800 yards, or the mile mark were established to make the claim, or how it can - or could - be proved. After the fiasco, the Brits had to claim great, spectacular shooting to excuse it, but if you lie there long enough you'd probably get hit eventually.
Crab, if you're saying we can excuse Custer for some insight of his into an officer's character, how come they aren't excused for insights into his? And what, to this point, would suggest Reno would do what he did?
In any case, what Reno did is exactly what Custer did on the Yellowstone in 73 with many of the same Indians. Dismount, seek cover, wait for relief, which was the support Custer had promised, reasonably assumed to come in less than an hour. It's that sort of remark that reveals the Custerphile, for to that point only Custer had deserted his own men, lied in print, been convicted at courtmartial, and twice relieved of command of his regiment. What does that say about his character? And even after all this, he brought a reporter, a direct violation of the wishes of Sherman.
Further and again: failures of intelligence and weapons from on high excuse Custer only to contact with the village. After that, it's all him: he weighed his command, saw no lack or flaw, and attacked without having sufficient local terrain knowledge. You don't order an attack and say you'll support it without a clue how, but he did. That wasn't Sherman or Sheridan or the War Department's error.
Again: all the talk about capturing the women/children, drawing off the Sioux to save Reno, all the silly manuevers.... they make no sense and exist solely to explain why he didn't cross at MTC, the shortest way to the alleged non-combatants, the quickest way to do everything the retreat east is inexplicably supposedly designed to do, and on the best cavalry ground, the best (and only)cover, the most logical, and the most in keeping with the historical Custer. Why this happened the way in did (whatever it was) falls totally on Custer, functioning or not at that point. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - June 01 2004 : 12:22:49 PM
|
Dark Cloud,
I've been trying to avoid this topic because I'm fascinated by old rifles and long range shooting (not necessarily together though). So if I don't rein myself in, I'm liable to produce a tome on the subject. That said, here goes.
From everything I've read, the combat ranges of the Boer war (for riflemen) were greater than any preceding war or any war since. Which should not be altogether surprising. Smokeless powder, small calibre bullets (8mm and less), open rolling terrain, the comparative lack of heavy artillary and machine guns all seems to have conspired to create a war ideal for the skilled marksman.
Whatever the actual combat ranges, the Boers long distance shooting skills (or perceived skills) seems to had a profound effect on the British military establishment. Numerous gun clubs were formed around Britain and the Commonwealth as part of a government sponsered initiative to improve shooting skills. And seemingly, it must have been a hot topic even beyond military circles with a number of notables, including authors Conan Arthur Doyle and Rudyard Kipling weighing in on the public arena in favour of the scheme.
In the years following the Boer war, improvements where made to .303 round to increase its accuracy (and range). The P13 (Pattern 1913) rifle was introduced in response to demands for a rifle with Mauser style front locking lugs. And critically to this argument, the volley sights were retained (finally being removed during WWI).
Improvements in technology were paralleled by increased training. On the eve of WWI, Commonwealth troops were trained to fire over distances of up to 1200 yards.
Overall I think that theres little doubt that the Boer's weren't shy at engaging from a distance. I'm highly sceptical whether the average Boer could pick out individuals at 800 yards, but I would have little trouble believing that they could provide an accurate hail of fire (in the sense of military accuracy, not hunting or target shooting accuracy) suitable for suppressing advancing troops.
If you are interested DC, I can provide you with a list of links concerning military philosophies, weapons and long range shooting techniques of the 19th century.
As a closing note, and to give this posting some vague relevance to the LBH, you might be interested to read the following
http://www.lonestarrifle.com/Custer.html |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 01 2004 : 2:51:27 PM
|
Dave,
Thank you. Very interesting stuff. While my blanket assertion that no Army was 'accurate' at 800 yards is wobbled by the topic of blanket volley fire, I guess I seek safety in that WildI's examples of Boer hunting and Zulu combat aren't actually relevant. Don't tell him, though. He'll think he won, and Australians are insufferable.
I bet if you posted other links I'd not be the only visitor to them, but I'm booked out at present and wouldn't get to any new volumes for a long while.
It also touches upon SLA Marshall's issues, and seems to support him. I guess, while conceding Marshall lied and exaggerated, I'm not seeing much evidence his ratio of fire theory was wrong to any major degree and a great deal supporting it, based on other's first hand confession and observation.
There is a strong tendency to lie and exaggerate about military experience, even with those who've had a lot. That COS, for example, and others, I guess. Also, age. And apparently he was a jerk.
Thank you, dc |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - June 01 2004 : 9:11:14 PM
|
| Dark Cloud: Of course Kellog chose to go with Custer on the final campaign, but did Custer really bring him on the expedition? After all you have claimed that Custer didn't even have command of the 7th until the 22nd. Certainly Terry commanded the entire column, so maybe he brought the reporter? Crook wasn't shy about having reporters with his command. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 01 2004 : 9:27:29 PM
|
Custer himself had asked for the Bismark Tribune editor, begins with an 'L', not where I can look it up. Loundsbourouh? Remarakably, like JP Morgan skipping off the Titanic, L couldn't make it and sent Kellogg of his employ. So while not the specific journalist, a journalist. Sherman had let it be known no journalists with Custer.
Crook had never been told by a commander not to bring journalists. Given that Custer had been reinstated by the skin of his teeth, and this for the second time, it's rather an imp of the perverse in action to so obviously disregard the wishes of the four star general who was not your biggest fan to start with. Custer did have a sense that ordinary rules and laws didn't apply to him, somehow, past mere arrogance and into a sense of entitlement justified by perpetual victory. Till LBH, that was probably correct. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 01 2004 : 9:39:13 PM
|
| El Crab, I bow to your wisdom and, in the very act of doing do, I beg to differ. General Custer was not a man of this generation, morality, and political correctness. He was a man of the nineteenth century whose social and cultural perspectives were entirely different from ours. He existed in a world were it was not only honorable, but expected of a true man to seek revenge against the aboringinals who dared to defy the "great white father". In his world, his reality, performing the attack against the village was completely warranted. Would it be so today, I think not. Let us not pluck a man from his world and judge him in ours. Custer's Red Badge of Courage was his willingness to obey orders. He has nothing left except this. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 01 2004 : 10:31:45 PM
|
Okay. Never, never, never, never give up.........
These quotes are from: http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Bloch/BLOCH.asp
While Bloch was wrong about much, his quotes from American observers are worth noting.
"It has further been alleged that the Boers were exceptionally good shots and splendid soldiers generally. That is a hollow phrase. They were, not good but bad marksmen, from a military point of view, when shooting from a distance greater than those familiar to huntsmen. Such is the mature judgment of the military representative of the United States, whose verdict is founded upon observation and expressed with impartiality. At any rate they cannot be rightly termed exceptionally good soldiers. They had no discipline whatever, no cohesion. The armies were directed by the Council of War, which was often powerless to enforce obedience when the soldiers really, though not formally, refused to accord it. This topsy-turveydom rendered it impossible for the Boers to utilize their successes over the British to an extent which astounded the observing world. Now and then a company of soldiers would pack up their household goods, leave the field of battle and pilgrimage to their homes."
and from http://www.vectorsite.net/v2004m05.html It now seems that artillery and Maxim guns were at play rather than the volley fire from a mile away.....
The British got more military action than they bargained for. The Boers didn't wait for the British to build up forces and invade: they hit the British first, and by late 1899 had bottled up 12,000 British troops in the town of Ladysmith. The Boers had Maxim guns; German Mauser bolt-action rifles; breech-loading modern artillery including German Krupp "Long Tom" rifled guns -- and knew how to use them.
Just how well they knew how to use them was demonstrated at a hill named Spion Kop on 24 January 1900. The British commander in the region, General Sir Redvers Buller, ordered a force under Lieutenant General Sir Charles Warren to take his troops and crack Afrikaaner defenses there. The Britishers crawled up the hill in the fog and dim morning night to drive away Boer sentries without much fuss. It all seemed easy -- too easy in fact: when the fog burned off the Britishers found they were essentially in a pocket rimmed by Boer Maxim guns and artillery. The British were slaughtered. Winston Churchill was there in his capacity as a war correspondent, writing later that the "dead and injured, smashed and broken by shells, littered the summit till it was a bloody reeking shambles." Now the bundles of cloth and meat were wearing British uniforms.
Spion Kop was a staggering upset defeat for Britain, one of the biggest since Burgoyne's surrender at Saratoga, and there was no way to pretend otherwise. However, it was possible to divert attention from the fiasco, and the papers eagerly grabbed on to the Boer siege of British troops in a dusty little town of Mafeking to demonstrate the British stiff upper lip in the face of adversity. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 01 2004 : 11:05:48 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Custer himself had asked for the Bismark Tribune editor, begins with an 'L', not where I can look it up. Loundsbourouh? Remarakably, like JP Morgan skipping off the Titanic, L couldn't make it and sent Kellogg of his employ. So while not the specific journalist, a journalist. Sherman had let it be known no journalists with Custer.
Crook had never been told by a commander not to bring journalists. Given that Custer had been reinstated by the skin of his teeth, and this for the second time, it's rather an imp of the perverse in action to so obviously disregard the wishes of the four star general who was not your biggest fan to start with. Custer did have a sense that ordinary rules and laws didn't apply to him, somehow, past mere arrogance and into a sense of entitlement justified by perpetual victory. Till LBH, that was probably correct.
Perhaps Custer brought along a reporter despite being told not to because his "removal" was unfair and unjust? He wasn't removed due to performance, but due to Grant's disapproval of him, that seems to have stemmed from the Civil War. Its possible Custer felt that he wasn't in danger of losing his job, since he lost it due to politics, and it didn't stick anyway. And why did Terry allow it? He was in command, after all.
Its odd that they didn't get along, because except their dramatically different styles, they got the same results. They both won, and the both did it, losses be damned. The only difference is Custer was flamboyant, Grant was remarkably drab. Anyone know more about why Grant despised Custer? |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 01 2004 : 11:43:37 PM
|
Grant didn't hate Custer, did he? Custer was at Appomatox, and was allowed to receive major unit surrenders. He'd been an ass with Longstreet, and that might have rubbed Grant wrong because they had been and were friends, and he 'lost control' of his horse at the Grand Review, and he was a showboat, something neither Grant, Sherman, nor even Sheridan really were. Grant didn't 'love' war the way Lee and Custer and their ilk did. It was a damned job.
No doubt the courtmartial didn't thrill Grant, and Custer's pointless testimony in the Belknap affair seemed like piling on for media coverage(which it was), and it's an open question how unfair his removal was, given the soft handling he'd received all his life from above. Grant valued loyalty, or at least reserved respect, and Custer didn't exactly show that.
With Merrit and MacKenzie and Miles and Crook and others, it wasn't like there was a lack of talented commanders who also won and didn't badmouth the old man or provided annoyances beyond the norm. It was a top heavy military with people who hadn't gotten a raise in a decade or more. No doubt word of discord in the 7th, and Custer's frequent absences, were muttered about as well. Custer was THE guy you wanted fighting beside or under you, but he wasn't an ideal personality for a commander and he had to have been a genuine pain in the rear during times of peace when he got bored.
Grant's pithy assessment of the battle hasn't been improved upon, really. It was a pointless waste, and Custer was responsible. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 02 2004 : 12:29:53 AM
|
The whole campaign was a pointless waste, then. It was doomed to failure from the beginning.
Was Grant president when Custer was courtmartialed? I thought it was Andrew Johnson still... |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Did Custer do anything right?
