| Author |
 Topic  |
|
terri
Private
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - August 07 2005 : 6:05:19 PM
|
Hello, I'm brand spanking new to the GAC and LBH discussion and am sure glad I found you guys. Hope that we engage in many energentic discussions.
In the book Little Big Horn Rembered, by Herman Viola (1999 Rivilo Books), a chapter is devoted to Edward S. Curtis and the Crow scouts: Goes Ahead, Hairy Moccasin, Curly and White Man Runs Him.
For this particular discussion I have a couple of questions as to what the scout White Man Runs Him supposedly informed Curtis regarding Reno's initial attack on the village, his fall back to the timber, and Custer's response.
According to Curtis, White Man Runs Him was disgusted with Custer after seeing Reno in trouble. Custer sat and did nothing. According to Curtis, the scout stated to Custer, "Why don't you cross the river and fight too?" Custer is reported to reply, "It is early yet and plenty of time. Let them fight. Out turn will come."
My questions:
1. If White Man Runs Him was truthful, and I believe he was, in that case was Custer utilizing battle techniques learned from the Civil War? Was Custer expecting Reno to recover and charge the village thus hanging back till further evidence warranted intervention?
2. Logistical speaking, was it feasible for Custer and his scouts to see if Reno was in fact in dire straights? If so, what would be the correct military procedure?
This question I'm sure has probably been disected and examined by members of the board already; however, I'm hoping to renew and invigorate opinions and let the facts fall where they may.
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 07 2005 : 9:50:19 PM
|
Terri, allow me to welcome you the forum and, I hope that you will experience as many entertaining exchanges of information as have I.
I,too, have purchased the Viola book and, I must say , the pictures are of an excellent quality. I recall the statements of the Crow scouts regarding the apparent dispassionate demeanor of Custer who allegedly sat calmly upon Weir's Point while Reno engaged the hostiles in the valley below. According to Viola, the explanation of "what really happened" so shocked and disturbed Curtis that he never published his findings. They were, subsequently given to the Smithsonian Institute by his son.
I recall a slightly different version. I remember reading that Curtis was understandably dismayed upon receiving this information from White Man Runs Him. If I am not mistaken, Curtis had the ear of President Theodore Roosevelt and asked him for advice regarding this new and startling information. It was suggested, by the President, that Curtis not reveal this testimony to the public. The Curtis investigation occurred between 1905 and 1908, 29 to 32 years after the event.
According to the meticulous and methodical "time motion patterns" of John Gray (I hope you are familiar with him)Custer entered the head of Cedar Coulée at 3:18, at the same moment Reno halted his charge to deploy into skirmish. The Crow scouts confirmed this posture.
Goes Ahead: "We were in sight of the Sioux camp. As we stood looking, we saw Reno take his battle position."
Hairy Moccasin: "Custer told us to go to the high hill ahead (Sharpshooter Ridge) the high point just north of where Reno later entrenched. From here we could see the village and could see Reno fighting. We four scouts turned and charged north to where Custer was heading. we went with the command down into a dry gulch (Cedar Coulée)where we could not see the village."
Thus far no mention has been made reference a private conversation between Custer and his four scouts.
Entering the coulée at 3:18, the command halted at the bend in the Coulée at 3:24. Custer, and a small party, climbed Weir's Peak at 3:28 and made observations for about three minutes. AT NO TIME WERE THE CROW SCOUTS PART OF THIS FORAY. Upon descending Weir's Point, Custer ordered the release of all FIVE crow scouts. Boyer and Curley refused to go. At the base of the ridge south of Medicine Trail Coulée, Hairy Moccasin, White Man Runs Him, and Goes Ahead departed.
Viola's allegation that the three scouts "rode back to Weir Point" is unsubstantiated. Evidence implies that the scouts did not ascend Weir's Point with Custer's small party. How then did this revealing and damning conversation take place between White Man Runs Him and Custer. Also, while Custer was somewhat proficient in sign-languages, he did not speak the Crow language. Under these circumstances, the allegation that an Indian scout who could not speak English "scolded" the haughty Custer, who spoke no Crow, is beyond my limited imagination.
I am not suggesting that Gray is infallible, no one is. However, Viola's book appears to be extremely biased and offers an excruciating one sided perspective of this event. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on August 07 2005 9:58:45 PM |
  |
|
|
terri
Private
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 08 2005 : 10:19:35 AM
|
Thanks Joe for the welcome and information. I have the Gray book and am beginning to read it. The time motion studies are intriging; however, I'm not sure I like Gray's writing style - a bit too dry.
I mentioned the Viola book (scouts and Custer interchange) because I also saw this referenced on a television documentary and wondered if Custer did in fact see Reno in trouble, and therefore, what proper military protocol would dictate.
I will say this, I began my study into LBH as no fan of George A. Custer. I found him to be a glory seeking jerk. But I'm beginning to change my mind. As of this point in time, I still believe him to have been a vain, irritating individual, but I don't think it got him wiped out at LBH. I think what happened at LBH was an enemy who out numbered the 7th and was determined for once to fight and not flee. |
|
|
|
alfuso
Corporal
Status: offline |
Posted - August 08 2005 : 10:51:55 AM
|
They not only couldn't speak English at the time of the battle, but when they were interviewed some 40 years later, they still couldn't speak English and went through an interpreter.
But we're expected to believe that they heard Custer talking to his officers about not going to help Reno... and they hadn't told anyone else in all those 40 years...
alfuso |
Deny Everything
Prepare to Panic |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - August 08 2005 : 10:54:06 AM
|
Hi Terri
2. Logistical speaking, was it feasible for Custer and his scouts to see if Reno was in fact in dire straights? If so, what would be the correct military procedure?
A good start would be to carry out his promise to Reno to support him with the "whole outfit".
But I'm beginning to change my mind.
Why?
I think what happened at LBH was an enemy who out numbered the 7th and was determined for once to fight and not flee.
Well Custer did not want them to flee.So I guess they played into Custer's hands.[we caught them napping]
Regards |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - August 08 2005 : 10:56:53 AM
|
PS
Don't read Gray use it as a reference only. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 08 2005 : 12:15:18 PM
|
Gray is dry, and that's good. He was also, I think, dying when this book was being finished. It's by far the most important book on the battle, and although he was a Custerphile he tries to be fair. The boring work of putting together the time frame elevates him above all, and he's damned for it. Till Gray, people were allowed must have's and coulda's as they played in the sandbox of Custerland. Gray prevents a lot of that, and it's really annoying to those trying to construct these melodramatic scenarios, exposes, and nonsense. They have to ignore him, which mostly propels them into the remainders bin right off. Good on ya, Dr. Gray.
He only betrays his prejudices starting on 257, where he suddenly appears in the mind of Custer, who we're told has been growing more anxious every minute over Benteen's failure to have joined him at the lone tepee. This makes no sense, and there is zero evidence, but let it be.
It's heartening that people are getting more cynical and asking right off about language barriers, but they also need to be cynical about translators as well, I think. Still, it's not hard to imagine a scout by laymen's sign language indicating Reno in combat and suggesting "we're going to save him, right?" and Custer waving down that possibility and by the same method suggesting 'in time'. It's at this point, looking at the land up north, that I think the irrevocably bad decision was made. But if he thought he'd cross at MTC ford, then the land up north was not relevant. It's another reason I think he was hurt and the command was forced against its will north and away.
I'm no soldier, but I'd think the best military procedure is what'll work to win. Procedure is often an issue and tool for simply maintaining discipline. The most dramatic victories are often those in which procedure was perhaps a fond but certainly distant memory. It may have been correct procedure to dismount, lose firepower to horseholders, and engage Sioux on a skirmish line, but it was certainly a bad idea. It does make historians' job easier, though. If a commander breaks procedure and wins (Nelson at Trafalgar, Copenhagen, elsewhere) the man is a clear genius and how could he ever be doubted? If, however, he breaks procedure and gets wiped out (take your pick...) he's a fool and idiot, even if mere good fortune won and lost the battles in question. If he follows procedure and loses, it's the fault of the procedure, which is someone else's fault. This is one of the fueling motivations to show Custer following accepted military procedure and to show Reno as irrational and a drunk. This damns Reno, whose actions were profitable, and protects Custer, whose actions, if his, were not.
The notion that the Sioux didn't run for the first time at LBH is false. Kildeer Mountain in 1864, involving many of the same people, showed they didn't move easily when they had a large village and manpower on their side and they moved to the attack easily enough. That a huge village could and would move as quickly as a small one is a repeated myth bogus on its face. Indians had no command structure, and it took a lot to get this stegosaur of a nomadic city to energize at all. Despite all their advantages, the village was so incompetent that most of the people were surprised by the attack, civvies got killed, and they didn't attack Custer in the drainage of Reno Creek hours earlier, miles from the village and where the 7th could have been hammered even worse in march line and the packs taken. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 08 2005 : 12:44:38 PM
|
DC--
OMG! Gray gets involved in author intrusion, kinda like all those other writers whose work you consistently decry? Throw him on the trash heap!
Actually, I do agree with you that it isn't beyond the realm of possibility for White Man Runs Him (or Curly) to decipher a conversation
about Reno's attack ... The term "Major Reno" would kind of give it away. Or maybe not.
Hoka hey |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 08 2005 : 1:19:37 PM
|
| Gray does it seldom, and he was, as I think, dying. Most of the other authors to which I guess you refer are bad writers, apologists at best, and, at worst, juvenile hero worshippers, clinically obsessed, or actually insane. I lightly include Michno but refer more to guys like the skull idiot who's proving Harrington the Bravest Man the Sioux Ever Fought with no evidence but bells and whistles. Take his skull superimpositon with a photo. As convincing as a gorilla noggin with a sagittal crest to the photo. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on August 08 2005 1:25:32 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - August 08 2005 : 2:12:57 PM
|
Nelson at Trafalgar, Copenhagen, elsewhere)
Terri
It might be well to remember that DC one of our most eloquent contributers is somewhat all at sea when it comes to Napoleonic wars.Nelson did not disobey orders at Trafalgar he was in fact the supreme commander. |
Edited by - wILD I on August 08 2005 2:17:13 PM |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 08 2005 : 2:26:43 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Gray does it seldom, and he was, as I think, dying. Most of the other authors to which I guess you refer are bad writers, apologists at best, and, at worst, juvenile hero worshippers, clinically obsessed, or actually insane. I lightly include Michno but refer more to guys like the skull idiot who's proving Harrington the Bravest Man the Sioux Ever Fought with no evidence but bells and whistles. Take his skull superimpositon with a photo. As convincing as a gorilla noggin with a sagittal crest to the photo.
Well, it looks like U. of Nebraska is gonna publish "Custer's Lost Officer." Not sure I believe the head photograph thing (then again, wasn't Bouyer 'identified' the same way), but Cross makes Custer's movements on the battlefield quite understandable, and--omg!--logical, at least through his many postings and private emails. I'll hold out on any author intrusion accusations against Walt until I actually read his m/s.
But then again, "creative" non-fiction is all the rage, it seems. Ugh.
Hoka hey-- |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 08 2005 : 3:36:09 PM
|
I acknowledge Nelson as commander, Wild, as reflected in the sentence "If a commander breaks procedure and wins (Nelson at Trafalgar, Copenhagen, elsewhere) the man is a clear genius and how could he ever be doubted?" The issue isn't about orders but accepted procedure in their respective services. Nelson's orders dismissed accepted procedure in his. The accepted procedure in place at Trafalger was to form a battle line next to the enemy. Nelson instead broke up the battle lines to instigate, one gathers, a melee in which he thought the better trained navy would win. Apparently he was correct, but it was a very near thing, and if he'd lost he'd be History's Idiot, the Moron Who Thought He Could Break the Battleline and Win.
Custer was in total command at LBH as Nelson was his battles. Hence the word "commander" with no need for the word "supreme."
You can refrain, MRW; I sense no need. I've said most Custer books can be pre-reviewed with a certainty in most cases, and Cross' postings in LBHA's forums do not encourage an alternative need. Boyeur's id was bolstered by partial skull resemblance plus genetics plus dental pipe evidence. Cross apparently has no genetic evidence, just a desire to find the Most Wonderfullest Warrior Ever, although the alleged Sioux quote is obviously silly (how could the speaker know, after all), and had been applied to others over the years. Apparently, someone has to have been the Best, and it can't be proven NOT to have been Harrington. Silly on its face and a construct to seduce the easily seduced Custerphiles who aren't, as a rule, too bright. They are, after all, the target market for "Thoughts of Libby."
This is the Cid redux, but nobody recognizes it.
And remember: when you Custerphiles respond use only Dark Cloud Brand Bracing Liquor to infuriate your mind and palsy your typing finger. No other brand makes you quite so over the top! That's Dark Cloud Brand Bracing Liquor at your favorite convenience store! You'll buy it. You can't help yourselves. There's a picture of Autie on it: "Thinking of Fiscal Solvency." |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - August 08 2005 : 4:32:26 PM
|
Nelson's orders dismissed accepted procedure in his.
Accepted procedure DC was to cross the "T".It ment that you could rake your opponent with broadsides while he could not bring his guns to bear on you.This is what Nelson succeeded in doing at Trafalgar.
Genius is getting standard procedure right.Custer applied the kind of genius you suggest and caused desaster.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 08 2005 : 4:49:41 PM
|
You confuse Togo with Nelson, one hundred years apart. Crossing the T in the age of sailing ships with their gun ranges has no meaning, Wild. The wind rules, and it would require a compliant moron in the other fleet. If, in the eleven hour visible approach with no wind shifts, after which time the target fleet would be in range, he'd have tacked to return broadside and you'd be in parallel battlelines.
Good application of handy naval jargon, though. Like bunching. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 08 2005 : 5:02:48 PM
|
Yep, there's no use, DC. But, hell, anyone who can make Custer's movements come MTC and beyond *somewhat* logical (assuming that the Sainted Boy General was still in charge) and methodical wins a star in my book. Cause they still don't make much sense, unless GAC was trying to take hostages. Frankly, my only interest in Harrington is his connection with C troop and its so-called captain. Besides, I thought that the GFE had already been awarded years ago.
So I guess, when I start engaging in author intrusion, I'll know the end can't be far off. Encouraging! I must have years to go!
Hoka hey!
(edited for egregious grammar usage) |
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on August 08 2005 5:23:37 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - August 10 2005 : 07:25:06 AM
|
I think DC we have exchanged a few posts over the last year or so.I have always found your's to be insightful and witty even when I myself was at the sharp end of that wit.Problem is DC you give priority to style rather than accuracy.In your counciling of our new friend Terri you have made two major historical errors and one observation of military nonsense.Just to set the record straight.
Nelson did not dispense with procedures at Trafalgar.
Troops did not manoeuver in tight formations so their officers could hear them.
And genius is not defined by rejection of procedures.[Your definition of a military genius has always been the fluffed up opposing leader who whacked us] |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 10 2005 : 11:02:23 AM
|
Wild,
That's incorrect, in part and whole.
The accepted naval procedure for fleet battle in the early 19th century and for the previous two was by battleline. Contrary to your claim, Nelson proposed to pierce the Spanish/French battleline by - shocked gasp! - in essence allowing his own T to be crossed at Trafalgar as he approached, which gives a good kick to your statement that crossing the T was the accepted procedure. This was a surprise to the enemy as Nelson foresaw. This means the enemy didn't expect it, and having fought Nelson several times, why do you supposed it did?
I didn't say, without caveat, that troop manuvered in tight formations solely so officers could hear them, did I? I said "It's one of the reasons close order formations survived into the Civil War, because soldiers could hear their officers" See the difference? To imply that I said or implied, and this in another thread which you hope nobody will look up, that it was the ONLY reason is a fabrication. I don't do that sort of deception, you do, and it's dishonest.
I've never, ever said military genius is defined by rejection of procedures, and you can provide no quote - they're all still up - where I say that. I HAVE said that we, you, everyone inflates themselves and their military by fluffing up a defeated enemy. 'He was a genius, a God' and we beat him. So that makes us better than....... I offered specific examples: Lee and Yamamoto, Rommel and Sitting Bull. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on August 10 2005 11:03:21 AM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - August 10 2005 : 1:03:32 PM
|
The accepted naval procedure for fleet battle in the early 19th century and for the previous two was by battleline. Contrary to your claim, Nelson proposed to pierce the Spanish/French battleline by - shocked gasp! - in essence allowing his own T to be crossed at Trafalgar as he approached,
Wrong again DC.Nelson approached the French/Spanish fleet in line abreast[somewhat ragged]so there was no danger of his "T" being crossed.He also followed the dogma of the time "close contact" which a short time later in 1812 was to lead to their undoing.
I didn't say, without caveat, that troop manuvered in tight formations solely so officers could hear them, did I?
I never suggested you did.My point is that troops being able to hear their officers was never a consideration in troop formations.
I've never, ever said military genius is defined by rejection of procedures,
And
If a commander breaks procedure and wins (Nelson at Trafalgar, Copenhagen, elsewhere) the man is a clear genius
Well from the above it appears you did.
|
|
|
|
terri
Private
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 10 2005 : 3:00:01 PM
|
Been doing some more reading, Gosh gotta get somewhere very quiet to get into Gray's time tables. Talk about intense... Gray obviously pays scant credence to Curtis's claim of what the scouts stated to him. Interesting.
BTW, was in London last May and St. Pauls is remodeling Lord Nelson's crypt. Should be highly impressive when complete. :)
Thanks to everyone for responding to my question so far. Now I'm off to get a diet Dr. Pepper and away from Gray for awhile. Think I'll sit down with Larry Sklenar's, To Hell With Honor.
Oh, one more thing. When I was a kid I remember walking the battle field at LBH with my dad. Why is it that you can't walk the field any longer? Just curious. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 10 2005 : 3:06:06 PM
|
Terri--
I'm having issues with Gray as well. Very, very tedious. Sklenar is a much easier read, his writing style more "novelistic." But he really looooves Custer!
hoka hey |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 10 2005 : 3:55:36 PM
|
No, Wild.
First, here are two urls about Trafalgar. Nelson divided his fleet into two vertical lines to the French/Spanish horizontal that punctured their battle line. Here are two urls with evidence, easily found.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/T/Trafalbat.asp
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552553/Battle_of_Trafalgar.html#461524571
Note that Nelson's ships are an example of Nelson's T being crossed. And just a posting ago you were saying battleline wasn't the procedure but crossing the T was. Close contact was dogma, yes, because without it you didn't hit anything. There was no other form of sea combat. In 1812, the Americans had bigger and newer frigates, is all.
Now, you provide your evidence that says crossing the T was the accepted standard procedure in the years leading to Trafalgar as you said it was despite it's near impossibility and irrelevance at the ranges available (it was a dream of Nelson's, who admitted it was a dream). http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3682/nelsonsea.html
Or provide evidence that the battleline was NOT the accepted theory in 1805.
Now, you said "you have made two major historical errors and one observation of military nonsense.Just to set the record straight.
Nelson did not dispense with procedures at Trafalgar."
Nelson did dispense with accepted naval procedure at Trafalgar. Current procedure was to form a battleline against your enemy and slug it out. He's famous for this battle because of it. And the 22 to 0 sunk ship ratio. That's why it's studied.
"Troops did not manoeuver in tight formations so their officers could hear them."
Agreed. Troops were kept in tight formations through the Civil War in part so they could hear their officers. Like Wiggs, you don't even know what you've written half the time, Wild. And, despite this error, you're still wrong. It was one of the reasons for tight formations. Like I said. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on August 10 2005 4:01:28 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - August 10 2005 : 5:40:39 PM
|
First, here are two urls about Trafalgar. Nelson divided his fleet into two vertical lines to the French/Spanish horizontal that punctured their battle line.
Sorry DC but when the Brits hit the French they were in line abreast.
Secondly Nelson knew that the French/Spanish fleet were incapable of manoeuver and could only maintain the battle line so there was no riskof the French turning the tables on him.
In 1812, the Americans had bigger and newer frigates, is all.No DC the Brits stuck with Nelson's procedures of close contact gunnery while the Yanks used long range cannon.
Now, you provide your evidence that says crossing the T was the accepted standard procedure in the years leading to TrafalgarHappened at the Nile
Or provide evidence that the battleline was NOT the accepted theory in 1805.
Of course it was.It was just that crossing the "T" trumped it.
"Troops did not manoeuver in tight formations so their officers could hear them."
That must be about the funniest line posted here.
Agreed. Troops were kept in tight formations through the Civil War in part so they could hear their officers.
Now that must be about the sillyist line posted here.
Troops manoeuvered in tight formations because this was the best way to deliver a bayonet charge.The musket of the day could not provide a decisive firefight.[even in the first world war troops going in with the bayonet were not allowed to load their rifles.]
Orders were repeated along the line so it only required the nearest troops and NCOs to hear the orders.Loading and firing was carried out to the beat of the drum or by the troops shouting out the timing.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 10 2005 : 6:12:19 PM
|
1. I've offered proof. You hold faint hope of misinterpretation. Evidence, Wild.
2. Sorry, the Constitution had nothing more than 24 pounders, called Long Toms, but we closed as quickly as possible and did not engage in long distance shooting as the primary tactic. Our ships were new, larger, better frigates with 44 guns rather than 38 but we fought the same way. Again, proof for your contentions?
3. Proof, Wild. And this url proves you wrong again, this time about the Battle of the Nile. http://www.exn.ca/napoleon/battle.cfm You are, predictably, going to try and find less humiliation in the definition of line abreast.
4. No Wild, you said crossing the T was the accepted practice and NOT battleline. You fibbed about the Nile, and you're doing it again.
5. Yeah, and it's your silliness. Look at your 0725 posting. You're as bad as Wiggs.
6. Blather, Wild. One of the reasons soldiers were kept in tight formations despite the pointlessly high casualties throughout our Civil War was so they - including NCO's and drummers - could hear their officers for whatever activity. What I said.
Evidence, Wild. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on August 10 2005 6:13:49 PM |
|
|
|
benteens brother
Corporal
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - August 10 2005 : 7:09:49 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
First, here are two urls about Trafalgar. Nelson divided his fleet into two vertical lines to the French/Spanish horizontal that punctured their battle line.
Sorry DC but when the Brits hit the French they were in line abreast.
Secondly Nelson knew that the French/Spanish fleet were incapable of manoeuver and could only maintain the battle line so there was no riskof the French turning the tables on him.
In 1812, the Americans had bigger and newer frigates, is all.No DC the Brits stuck with Nelson's procedures of close contact gunnery while the Yanks used long range cannon.
Now, you provide your evidence that says crossing the T was the accepted standard procedure in the years leading to TrafalgarHappened at the Nile
Or provide evidence that the battleline was NOT the accepted theory in 1805.
Of course it was.It was just that crossing the "T" trumped it.
"Troops did not manoeuver in tight formations so their officers could hear them."
That must be about the funniest line posted here.
Agreed. Troops were kept in tight formations through the Civil War in part so they could hear their officers.
Now that must be about the sillyist line posted here.
Troops manoeuvered in tight formations because this was the best way to deliver a bayonet charge.The musket of the day could not provide a decisive firefight.[even in the first world war troops going in with the bayonet were not allowed to load their rifles.]
Orders were repeated along the line so it only required the nearest troops and NCOs to hear the orders.Loading and firing was carried out to the beat of the drum or by the troops shouting out the timing.
|
|
|
|
benteens brother
Corporal
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - August 10 2005 : 7:14:46 PM
|
| Sorry, double posted without saying what I was going to say, heh heh. I thought the reason they didn't load their rifles was so they would keep advancing onto the objective without stopping and delivering a volley. I believe it was a tactic devised by Wellington during the Peninsular War (I could be wrong) but met with disasterous results in WW1. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - August 11 2005 : 05:00:20 AM
|
Again, proof for your contentions?
From Epic Sea Battles by William Koenig [page 37]They [the Brits]proceeded to sacrifice the long range hitting power of their ships to make them more formidable at short range by increasingly arming them with carronades rather than cannon.Thus British ships could only develop their full fighting power in close,a fact which cost the British navy unnecessary losses in the American War of 1812.
Strange tactics DC for the Yanks who outranged and out manoeuvered the Brits to close with them?
The French line had been breached, and it was a disaster beyond all reckoning.
You offer the above as proof that the "T" manoeuvre was not carried out at the Nile??????How do you think the Goliath and following ships got into that position[check the map you offered]
Blather, Wild. One of the reasons soldiers were kept in tight formations despite the pointlessly high casualties throughout our Civil War was so they - including NCO's and drummers - could hear their officers for whatever activity. What I said.
Tatics dictated infantry formations.It was the role of the infantry of the time to close with the enemy and deliver a bayonet charge.Troops in extended formation would have no effect against massed formations in defence.
Think DC and let's not get silly.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Custer & White Man Runs Him
