| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - June 02 2004 : 01:23:39 AM
|
It was Andrew Johnson who was president, and still the courtmartial would not have thrilled Grant about Custer. Wasn't Grant still head honcho in the Army with five stars?
Why was the campaign a waste anyway? The battle could have been won, perhaps, or (some said)the Indians talked back in. At the least, it surely didn't have to end the way it did, and until Custer left MTC, nothing guaranteed it. There were many options to the point of ordering Reno to attack and beyond recall.
We've not been overwhelmed with the 'correct' responses that Reno and Benteen should have followed that would have most benefitted the 7th and assured a more favorable outcome to the day. Let's hear it, tell us what they should have done that would have been better. Or perhaps we should stop blaming them and snarkily insinuating it was all their fault, given nobody can suggest a better set of moves. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
  |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 02 2004 : 05:12:08 AM
|
Good Morning Dark Cloud
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.
Ok first correction to-day I'm not Australian.
Wild, I am uncomfortable,
Well if you did the research first before accusing people of posting untruths you might just avoid this condition.
They were, not good but bad marksmen
And again
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.
You are using conflicting arguements.On the one hand you are trying to prove that their marksmanship was poor and then you are indicating that they "knew how to use" their Mauser bolt-action rifles.What is it to be?
Britishers found they were essentially in a pocket rimmed by Boer Maxim guns and artillery.
Rimmed ????? By what? 6 artillery pieces[the Brits employed 10 times this number]and 2 pom poms[The Boers did not employ maxims at the Spion Kop]
The Times History-----The abandonment of swords,badges,and all other marks of rank,in order to avoid drawing the Boer fire on officers
Google----InfantryMagazine Marshal Petain understood it all:firepower
From their superior perch, the Boers delivered such accurate rifle fire that British soldiers could not rise above the shallow trenches they had dug without fear of a bullet in the head. Hundreds of British bodies littered the top of Spion Kop at the end of the battle. At Magersfontein, the Highland Brigade attempt to use a massed infantry attack against Boers dug in with rifle pits and spent the entire day under the blazing sun because they were too exposed to accurate rifle fire.
Now don't tell me that 6 artillery pieces and 2 pom poms defeated the Brits at the Spion Kop.I'm sure the several hundred Mausers had something to do with it.
Long range controlled volley fire was in the early part of the 20th centuary an effective military tactic and nothing you have posted has refuted this fact.
Okay. Never, never, never, never give up.........
Only when you are digging yourself into a hole.
Meanwhile back at the LBH.
The defenders of Rourke's Drift expended 20000 rounds of rifle ammo inflicting approx 1000 casulties on the Zulu.This is a hit rate of 1 per 20 rounds.Apply this to Custer's Troopers and their 6 shot pistols.Realistically they could fire 1320 rounds of pistol ammo [220 troopers]and at the same hit rate as the defenders of Rourke's Drift they could hope to inflict 66 casulties on the 1500 Indians.Need anymore be said.
Regards
|
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 02 2004 : 06:21:54 AM
|
| The math seems ok, but it would suprise me to learn that the 7th troopers hit anything with their pistols. |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 02 2004 : 06:32:56 AM
|
| --and I forgot to add that the Brits at Roukes Drift were in a prepared defensive position, with some shelter and cover. Custer's troopers were running for their lives, in most cases. That in itself wouldn't allow for much in the way of accurate shooting, even if they were good pistol shots. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 02 2004 : 09:45:48 AM
|
Irish, Australian, Scot, same thing.....I'm old, whadya want?
No Wild, that's an inaccurate assessment. I'm not trying to prove the Boers were bad shots. I'm providing evidence they were not the great shots - nearly superhuman - you've contended, by American observers who were there and various histories written when facts were known, AFTER the Times tongue bath (I've not read it, of course, but if it was written before WWI, it's a slam dunk compendium of myth and fable).
I know how to use rifles and few would call me a great shot. No time to practice.
The Boer artillery was already clocked in on Spion Kop. The Brits' artillery was a joke and apparently couldn't hit anything that day. If you read the second offerings I put up, there's handwritten accounts of the battle from the Brits who fought it. Pom-poms and exploding shells overhead and their shrapnel get the nod as the horror, not rifle fire. That's not to say that rifle fire was not effective, and more effective than I initially thought. But it isn't testament to great shooting, something honed by hunting or killing Zulu.
Nor can we be sure that the Boers hit anything from 800 yards or more. For all that can be known, THAT could have come from the 400 yard position. If concvincing evidence, what is it? What, in fact, could it be? Wishful thinking?
During WWI, Brits were also convinced that German gunners were lucky because Belgian farmers arranged cattle to point out their positions to the Germans, suddenly reversed windmill direction to somehow do the same, pumped water into their trenches, and even more bizarre stuff all short of having to admit the German artillery was excellent and their own battery concealment bovine. That the officers panicked and removed insignia at Spion Kop because they thought they were being singled out is testament to the same sort of panic. Understandable.
That the Highland Brigade used a mass infantry attack against the Boers and failed under fire is proof of my position: the Brits were terrible, not that the Boers were great shots, or that firing into a mass attack required it.
Well, I provided quotes that say they DID use Maxims at Spion Kop. Where is the contrary quote and from who? I don't know. Like you, dependent upon written sources.
I don't have to post anything saying that long range rifle fire wasn't an effective tactic, and I haven't. I only need to point out that 3000 soldiers lying pointlessly inert on three acres of land and left there by officers' indecision were mostly torn apart by artillery and overhead explosions, with testimony from soldiers there and observers as good as Conan Doyle later. Churchill's descriptions of bodies reduced to gruel is evidence of artillery, not the clean bullet.
Even though you had the info, you never mentioned artillery in your initial postings on this subject, just like the Palestine cavalry charge posts didn't mention it. That's not fair, to leave out info contrary to point. |
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 : 10:19:27 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
It was Andrew Johnson who was president, and still the courtmartial would not have thrilled Grant about Custer. Wasn't Grant still head honcho in the Army with five stars?
Why was the campaign a waste anyway? The battle could have been won, perhaps, or (some said)the Indians talked back in. At the least, it surely didn't have to end the way it did, and until Custer left MTC, nothing guaranteed it. There were many options to the point of ordering Reno to attack and beyond recall.
We've not been overwhelmed with the 'correct' responses that Reno and Benteen should have followed that would have most benefitted the 7th and assured a more favorable outcome to the day. Let's hear it, tell us what they should have done that would have been better. Or perhaps we should stop blaming them and snarkily insinuating it was all their fault, given nobody can suggest a better set of moves.
Crook botched his battle (though he was attacked, but he outnumbered his foe and committed his cavalry to finding a village that wasn't nearby, then pulled them back when they thought they were within striking distance), Gibbon never even mentioned being within 20 miles of a village, and the information on the nearby encampment could have been valuable to Terry column. But before all of that, Grant removed the Montana column's commander because he said some bad things about his brother and his administration. The column was a month late in departing, Crook never tried to contact Terry about the Sioux and Cheyenne being rather feisty, Terry never tried to keep in touch with Crook. Crook, after using 25,000 rounds to kill 25 warriors, took himself out of the campaign, and made little effort to resupply in an expedient fashion. They basically hunted and fished for several months, while the other columns moved against the Sioux. Horses were supposed to be available at the Powder River Depot for the 70 or so soldiers without mounts in the 7th (they had an extra month, and still could not obtain enough horses for the soldiers?). Custer's regiment was missing a fair amount of its officers, and all attempts by Custer to get them back for the campaign were denied. Not to mention, despite the recruits, the companies were all understrength, usually by about 15 or more troopers.
Other than those minor details, the campaign went off without a hitch. Even the victories, Slim Buttes and Reynold's Fight(?) were almost blown or aspects were screwed up. I can imagine no campaign is perfect, and there's always unknown issues, but from what I've read, the whole thing was botched. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 02 2004 : 10:22:55 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
It was Andrew Johnson who was president, and still the courtmartial would not have thrilled Grant about Custer.
True, I will give you that. Grant was the top Army general after the war, and Sherman succeeded him when he gained the Presidency. Sheridan was Custer's biggest supporter among his higher-ups, and it seemed Sherman and Grant respected Sheridan's judgement for quite awhile, and perhaps Custer's Civil War career. If not, Custer would not have been reinstated a year early for the 1868 campaign. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
Edited by - El Crab on June 02 2004 10:31:15 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 02 2004 : 12:19:20 PM
|
None of the issues with the other campaign prongs had anything to do with Custer's decisions, based on visual info before him. If the Sioux only outnumbered the 7th by a minimal amount (current theory), a better plan could have been formulated. They weren't running. He didn't give support for Reno's attack, ever (he was still walking his troops knowing Reno was in combat), but started a new engagement entirely over an hour later.
In any case, what was the actual point of the mission? Kill Indians or get them back on the reservation or both or what?
At some point, the fascination with whether 21 or 14 people jumped up at 5:38.009 and ran 14.67 feet to the right of gullywump ridge when 4.67% of them received a bullet in the thorax of calibre .45 or greater, and whether this traumatized warrior from his vantage point through the dust had better sightlines than another, has to start being viewed for what it is: Really, really weird.
Given that there is no actual 'evidence'*, no Indian testimony but only recitations by whites on what they say Indians said later, sometimes through others by assumed translators and sometimes WAY later, and the general pointlessness of it. In this general area, 210 men of the 7th were killed in battle. Unless some escaped; or the rosters weren't found or accurate; or people had deserted enroute.
This is extremely strange.
*Calling it evidence doesn't make it evidence and betrays the wish that archaeology was a police forensic investigation. It's fun to pretend, but you have to admit it for what it is. Pretend.
First: prove that artifacts appeared during the battle and haven't moved. Impossible. Draw conclusions based upon informed opinion and inspired guess: dodgy,iffy, given that the field was pillaged, never virgin, may have been salted, and the term 'incomplete record keeping and ignorance of events' on the field subsequent to the battle is an understatement. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 02 2004 : 2:42:47 PM
|
Dark Cloud me awl flower
Irish, Australian, Scot, same thing.....I'm old, whadya want?
Naw, I'm not going to beat up on an old Canadian.
That's not to say that rifle fire was not effective, and more effective than I initially thought.
I guess I'm going to have to settle for that, it's about as near to a word of contrition we're ever likley to see from you.
A little story.Your beloved Times History was edited by an Englishman by the name of Erskine Childers.He got involved in the Irish fight for freedom and ran Mausers through the Brit blockade into the rebels.These mausers were used in one particular action where 7 rebels barracaded in a house inflicted more casualities on the Brits than Custer suffered at the LBH.Anyway after the Brits were kicked out Erskine got involved in the civil war and ended up in front of an Irish Firing squad.His son later became president of Ireland.
Regards |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 02 2004 : 9:10:46 PM
|
So, it WAS written before the Easter Rebellion, if Childers was killed during that period, and therefore before WWI. Nothing in it was NOT approved by the War Office, then, and should be held suspect.
Eh? Not bad for an aging Canadian, what? Mind like a trap. Here's your hat, what's your hurry?
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 03 2004 : 12:23:30 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
So, it WAS written before the Easter Rebellion, if Childers was killed during that period, and therefore before WWI. Nothing in it was NOT approved by the War Office, then, and should be held suspect.
Eh? Not bad for an aging Canadian, what? Mind like a trap. Here's your hat, what's your hurry?
I think he was doing to you what you did to him, which is to just guess at his nationality. Essentially, if the Irish are just the same as the Aussies, than you wouldn't be offended by being called a Canadian, instead of an American. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 03 2004 : 03:01:37 AM
|
Childers was executed in 1921.
But what is so special about ww1?The only two books that ever changed anything were written before ww1.
Nothing in it was NOT approved by the War Office, then, and should be held suspect.
Isn't that not a double negative?
For the record, The Times History was highly critical of the War Office and the Brit military establishment.
Eh? Not bad for an aging Canadian, what? Mind like a trap. Here's your hat, what's your hurry?
A veritable Fred Astaire of the verbals.
Slan
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 03 2004 : 07:47:53 AM
|
NO! Really? Honestly, Crab, I grasped it, and I'm sure he understood the old man response.
Wild. We're still devoid of those quotes. What's special about WWI is that the public outcry against the lies and stupidity of the War Ministry precluded the same amount of tolerance again. If to that point the Ministry, and therefore the Crown, 'suggested' things be left out, they were, at least to anything available to the public. If things were critical, only as a diversion from what the real horrors were. And I'm not in possession of anything critical from that source yet.
Like the US, in WWI the Brits discovered that less than half their male citizens were physically qualified for the Army, and the requirements for height dropped something like six inches in four years, such were the casualties. All through the 'empire building' wars, they could cover up inadequacies and stupidities for the most part. Face it, the initial British generals against the Boers should have been shot. Custer was Napoleon compared to whoever left those guys in the open under fire at Spion Kop all bloody day. What a fiasco. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 03 2004 : 10:10:25 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
NO! Really? Honestly, Crab, I grasped it, and I'm sure he understood the old man response.
Well, it happens. I guess your response didn't make sense to me, so I figured I'd help ya out. ;) |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
benteens brother
Corporal
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - June 03 2004 : 9:27:41 PM
|
I think the problem with British generals was that they were still using the tactics of the Napoleonic wars and Wellington was still their idol. The science of war had outpaced the tactics they were using and it took 4 years of slaughter in France and Belgium to realise that things had to change. At the cost of millions of lives. The Brits hadn't fought a European enemy for what-50 years?
And ease up on the Aussies, we've been with you 6 or 8 wars ya know! |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 04 2004 : 03:44:32 AM
|
Dark Cloud
Wild. We're still devoid of those quotes.
I gave you quotes what more do you want?
Are we still discussing the effectiveness of long range mass volley firing by riflemen or have you conceded that you were in error?
[Has anyone got a wooden stake or even better a silver bullet I have a feeling I'm going to need it]
Face it, the initial British generals against the Boers should have been shot.
Yes just like you they failed to grasp that rifles using smokeless power could be fired accurately at ranges over 1000 yards.
They went into war and found their military system rendered obsolete by "farmers"who according to you could not shoot straight.
Custer was Napoleon compared to whoever left those guys in the open under fire at Spion Kop all bloody day. What a fiasco
On the contrary Custer was exactly like those Brit officers using an obsolete system against an enemy he had no respect for.
Hi Benteen Brother
I think the problem with British generals was that they were still using the tactics of the Napoleonic wars and Wellington was still their idol.
And Yank generals.Even after Marye's heights.Picketts charge and Cold Harbour they failed to realise that volley [now assisted by machine guns]firing had put an end to mass infantry attacks and employed the same tactics as the Brits,French and Germans in WW1.
And yeh, lay off the Aussies.They gave us Kiley Minogue so they can't be all bad.
Slan
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 04 2004 : 08:21:25 AM
|
There you go again. AT BEST the Boers used long range rifle fire in AREA firing. However, in each case there seem to have been artillery and other arms at work that alone could explain the casualties and mutilations. In each case you choose to lay in ALL at the feet of long range rifle fire, since you mention not the other, far more plausible alternatives that don't require Natty Bumpo.
Since the British rifles had that longrange, area sight, it's likely British Generals did believe it possible. They just didn't think Boers could do it, but mostly they didn't know Krupp had had such a good year selling artillery to the Boers. Why they just didn't get OFF Spion Kop and move against the Boers is rather odd.
We're awaiting quotes from the 7 volume monster, not 'some' quotes.
Who's dumping on the Aussies? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 04 2004 : 10:22:51 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
On the contrary Custer was exactly like those Brit officers using an obsolete system against an enemy he had no respect for.
What was obsolete about Custer's maneuvers? They were ill-timed and out of sync, but they were pretty basic. I would imagine the concept, frontal assault with a flanking maneuver is still taught. The tactics of 1876 were about as good as they were gonna get for the time against the Sioux. Find them and engage them, hope they don't/can't run away.
And I don't think Custer didn't respect his enemy. He did, along with everyone else did not think they'd even fight unless forced to. And everyone was proven wrong. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 07 2004 : 4:13:14 PM
|
However, in each case there seem to have been artillery and other arms at work that alone could explain the casualties and mutilations.
The Mauser fired a soft nosed round which had the same effect as a dumdum round and caused horrific wounds.At the Spion Kop the bodies of the dead were used as sandbags resulting in the unfortunates being torn to shreds.
If the Boers did not inflict a single casualty by rifle fire but only pinned the Brits in that grave they had dug themselves while their artillery did the execution then it was effect fire.
Mass infantry/cavalry attacks were rendered obsolete with the development of the magazine rifle.It gave defences a huge advantage over attacking forces.The first world war was reduced to stalemate because there was no way to attack a well dug in army armed with longerange rifles and machine guns.The French in fact gave up the idea of offensive action and built themselves that M----- line.It was only with the advent of the tank the offensive gained any superiority over the defensive.
The armies of the world should have woken up to the potential of the rifle after Gettysburg but even the dismal failure of massed attacks in the Boer war did not alert them.
Do you really want those quotes Black Cloud?
Regards |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 07 2004 : 5:34:01 PM
|
No, I was kidding over the last three weeks and numerous posts that I wanted to see the quotes that proved your point. If you don't post them, then we can assume they don't exist. I will.
To describe Spion Kop without mentioning the artillery and accrediting all the damage to long range rifle fire (now made even more accurate by soft lead) is like describing The Alamo without mentioning the numerical difference of the forces and saying it was the superior tactical manuevers of the Mexicans before (ahem) 'tactical disintegration' of those defending the squalid adobe church and stable.
Rolling artillery barrages allowed advance to the trenchs, except the Brits didn't think their soldiers were smart enough. Germans did it, though. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 07 2004 : 9:18:12 PM
|
| The Maginot Line. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 08 2004 : 12:03:09 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Wrong war.
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
The first world war was reduced to stalemate because there was no way to attack a well dug in army armed with longerange rifles and machine guns.The French in fact gave up the idea of offensive action and built themselves that M----- line.It was only with the advent of the tank the offensive gained any superiority over the defensive.
Well, it wasn't the wrong war. It wasn't any war, but between them, really. I just gave the the name of the line in question, or at least the only line I know of that starts with M that France built as defense. It was built after WW1, since it was around for the Germans to bypass. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 08 2004 : 03:56:31 AM
|
Hi Dark Cloud
But to describe the Boers as a Field Army is ridiculous
Did I not say that the Boer army was field army?Do you want me to list all the elements in a field army?It was you who rubbished the idea of the Boers having the wherewithall to fight a regular battle.
Can you just imagine a Boer commander giving the order to his men to hold their fire till they could see the whites of their eyes?There is such a thing in musketry as rapid fire.Firing rapidely into a mass infantry attack.In this case picking out individuals is not required and is just a waste of time.
Rolling artillery barrages allowed advance to the trenchs,How far in front of the infantry was this barrage and at what point was it lifted ?
Quote to follow
good luck |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 08 2004 : 07:35:15 AM
|
It's of dubious sincerity to reach back to the beginning of our debate and hope everyone's forgotten the thread from nearly a month ago. I did, in the meanwhile, provide several quotes that cast serious doubt on the use of 'field army' for the Boers. History and I don't know what a 'regular' battle is, except that by proportion of occurance they don't involve "field armies."
Among the things the Boers didn't have was the legal authority or ability to retain troopers or a quartermaster system. In any case, having the "wherewithall" to fight a few battles isn't proof of anything. If you're defining 'field army' as a bunch of people fighting for a common cause, I countered with the Zulu example, and you lost there as well. They, too, were farmers.
The examples you initally provided of effective Boer rifle fire in the war to carry their name were 1)hunting and 2)Zulu fighting around the farms. In both cases, the blunderbus tactic of massed rifle fire does not occur. To pretend now that you all along meant massed rifle fire is not supported by the examples you gave. You clearly meant long range aimed fire at individuals ('sharpshooters' is the term I think you used), and I questioned that possibility over 800 yards.
I have no idea how far in front of the barrage the artillery hits were, nor when it was or should be lifted. I'm not a military man, nor do I have aspirations to be mistaken for one in the safe confines of anonymous forums or anywhere. We do know, however, that they often worked and the armchair generalization of 'defense' over 'offense' is merely blather fodder for military baseball card enthusiasts.
The Germans broke through in desperation in 1918, hardly due to tanks, and it was only their own exhaustion and inability to sieze the moment that collapsed them and prevented capture of Paris and ending the war. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Did Custer do anything right?
