| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
 Posted - October 20 2006 : 12:16:56 PM
|
| Yes - GE does flatten some features somewhat at the eye-level view - the area north of Deep Coulee looks as if it needs more input (perhaps you need to buy the product to get more terrain layers, I don't know). Overall, this freebee is a real eye-opener for me. Want to see if Custer had kept "feeling to the left" before crossing over to the LBH valley? - and then what would have been his route over, and how long would it have taken him to get there? - no answers, but absorbing stuff. |
  |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 23 2006 : 2:35:23 PM
|
| The companies not engaged in the valley ie Benteen's battalion and pack train guard suffered 13 dead and 22 wounded.Reno's troops who had already lost heavely in the valley probably suffered more casualties in the hill top fight to add to this total.Examining this part of the field on GE I find that if there was any terrain advantage then Reno had it.Reno's men were also partially dug in and must have had a system of fire control.Therefore it is surprising that there is no real evidence that the Indians were bloodied here and had at least as many casaulties as Reno.Reno's troops must have had at least 700 warriors out in front of them with no more cover than Reno's men.We know that some of the Indians got so close that Benteen had to lead a charge to dislodge them.Either the 7th were brutal shots or the Indians very good at concealing their dead. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 23 2006 : 3:49:39 PM
|
wILD--
Reno had *it* when it came to any attacks from the west, or the northwest--from the valley floor. The advantage quickly wore off when you start examining the geography to the east and south. Of course, it might have been best to see who was sniping at you, but I could be wrong.
Personally, I think Reno's position was lucky over advantageous and the Indians were more interested in high-tailing it out of town than to sit around and wait for the Montana column.
Hokahey. |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 24 2006 : 09:06:48 AM
|
MRW
I'm probably still in awe of this GE thingy and placing too much reliance on it.It is of course not the be all and end all and in no way the definative geographical answer but it is still very good none the less.
You are right about the East and particularly the South where Benteen's troop was stationed they suffered far more casualties then the other units.
When are you going to let us see those photos of the field? |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - October 24 2006 : 10:36:56 AM
|
| MRW - a little off-thread, but since you've been at the battlefield, would you know if the "marked spring" referred to by Godfrey (I believe somewhere between NC ridge and Calhoun Hill) is mentioned anywhere? - I know its a bit of a long shot. |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - October 24 2006 : 12:47:21 PM
|
| Smcf: I have never seen the spring, but in Custer's Last Campaign, in the section decribing Curly's escape, it is decribed as being on a small branch to the left of upper Deep Coulee. Hope this helps. |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - October 25 2006 : 04:17:16 AM
|
| Many thanks, Prolar. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 26 2006 : 3:41:51 PM
|
No, DC--
They've started about fifty discussions regarding GE over there--and each thread mimics the other, it seems.
I do think the Crow's Nest discussions could be interesting--Vern Smalley certainly holds some creative ideas--but it takes a while to find the "right" one.
Hokahey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - October 27 2006 : 07:14:03 AM
|
| Thanks for the link and an interesting article. He could've plotted eye-level or near eye-level lines of sight wihin GE to make his point though. |
|
|
|
mcaryf
Private
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - October 27 2006 : 8:49:29 PM
|
Hi
I am pleased you liked the article but I hope you noticed that the link DC posted was the companion piece to another article I also wrote in that board's Battle Basic section. This is a link to the article and broadly what I said in the post on the other board.[url=http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adam.fox57/MikeFox/LBH/LBH]Google paper[/url]
The article is in html format which I hope will enable everybody to read it. The original is in WORD which gives better formatting (partly because I am less proficient in HTML!). If you would prefer the WORD version, please send a PM and mail address to me.
The paper is eventually intended to be posted on the GE Community forum and so assumes no prior knowledge of LBH. If you are already familiar with the battle then you might care to skim through the paper just reading the bold sentences as these summarise the key theories. A more detailed companion paper (not for beginners) with detailed document references is available above as per DC's post.
The paper includes a further link to enable you to download some GE placemarks that illustrate the discussion (after the list of placemarks in the index). You do not actually have to have access to GE to read the paper as key images are reproduced within it. However, it would help if you do. I have to confess to being a newcomer to GE and I am not 100% sure that my placemark file will work if you are a MAC user. Please let me know if it does not.
For me the placemark file works by giving me an option to download or open it (it is in a compressed zip format). If you choose to open it then that should trigger your system to start GE with the placemarks in the temporary area. When you subsequently close GE it gives you the choice as to whether you keep them or not. I have noticed a slightly strange effect that sometimes these downloaded placemarks appear to have moved slightly from where I put them (Davis Creek being a common example). Please let me know on this thread if you think any of the placemarks are in obviously wrong positions.
I would welcome any comments on the paper and particularly if you think it contains errors of fact as I would like to correct these before posting it in the Google community. The paper is of course mainly about theories as to Custer’s intentions so you are perfectly at liberty to disagree with them as to whether they are actually correct but my intention is to make you wonder whether it is possible that they could have been.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 28 2006 : 09:02:43 AM
|
The paper is eventually intended to be posted on the GE Community forum
A word of advice Mike DON'T post it yet.Wait until you read something basic on surveying then take a look at your suggestions again. |
|
|
|
mcaryf
Private
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - October 28 2006 : 11:01:35 AM
|
Hi Wild 1
Are you the same person as the Wild that has posted a strange comment on the LBHA BB about some position in the LB area being at only 270 feet?
With respect to your surveying comment I do not think looking at a straight line and working out broadly where it might go takes any great expertise. In fact Custer was quite an expert on terrain having spent some of his early career in the ACW on observation duty from a balloon. This probably made him one of the most experienced officers in the US army in terms of considering terrain features.
Unfortunately if my theory is right, and I freely admit it is only a theory, on this occasion he was mislead by the sudden swing in the river to flow from the SW. However, if my theory is wrong someone still has to explain why he sent Benteen to the SW and told him the valley was nearby.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - October 30 2006 : 09:30:38 AM
|
Hi mcaryf - the placemarks seem to work ok. You point out bluffs over 3000 feet high supposedly blocking a view of the valley from CN (thanks for putting me straight on the actual location of CN, by the way) which is misleading as I think the valley floor itself is over 3000 feet above sea level. In effect, these bluffs are no higher than a couple of hundred feet relative to the valley.
I once thought that Custer may have initially mistaken the area around the morass->lone tipi region as his take on where the village was, and that perhaps accounted for the Benteen round trip.
Once Custer had advanced beyond the lone tipi and armed with the supposed intelligence that the Indians were on the move, then why didn't he send a courier to Benteen at that point? He was micromanaging Reno then and seemed not to have been bothered about where Benteen was. |
Edited by - Smcf on October 30 2006 09:41:07 AM |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 30 2006 : 4:03:57 PM
|
wILD--
Picking up the prints tomorrow and will see just how much I can jam into my Photobucket account. I seem to be missing a couple of rolls of slide film, however. It had better not be the shots of Ford D!
As I have said--and I don't remember on what board, so I'm sorry if I sound repetious--getting down to the area really convinced me something happened down there. The geography is really quite perfect when looking back at Cemetery Ridge and LSH. Now whether a crossing there was offensive or more desperate at that point, you've got me ...
Hokahey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
mcaryf
Private
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - October 30 2006 : 8:46:41 PM
|
Hi Smcf
In my theory once he is passed Lone Tepee, Custer is assuming that Benteen is some distance away heading SW into the LBH valley so he cannot really expect to get a messenger through to him. Thus I have him riding up onto the bluffs near Reno Hill to get a sight of Benteen so he can send a messenger. Once he sees how the river flows then he knows that Benteen is likely to be on the back trail and he sends Kanipe that way to reach him and the pack train. Again my theory is that he subsequently thinks Benteen could be behind the train so Kanipe may not deliver any message to Benteen and that is why Martini is sent as well.
Hi wILD1
I saw in an earlier post of yours that you reckon you can get Google to tilt to match the elevation of the terrain. In my version I can only tilt it to an observation position several thousand feet above where a human might be. Have you got the "pay for" version or am I missing a trick somewhere.
Regards
Mike |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 31 2006 : 1:08:58 PM
|
Hi Mike
I just tilt the landscape so that the eye alt matches the elevation.
I can set it so that I get a view as if I was standing on the summit of CN.No fancy tricks and no I'v not paid for extras.
Cheers |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 25 2006 : 3:57:21 PM
|
| Having been spoiled as regards the view of the LBH battlefield as per G/E I have to say how disappointed I am that the quality of photography covering other famous battlefields is just awful.Be it Waterloo,Gettysburg,Culloden,Balaklava,Rourkes drift the photography is useless.Hope they improve it soon. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 06 2006 : 12:12:48 AM
|
Wild-Either the 7th were brutal shots or the Indians very good at concealing their dead.Yet you believe they would have inflicted heavy casualties at the charge if the were closer to the village.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Google Earth
