| Author |
 Topic  |
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - June 30 2005 : 03:55:36 AM
|
| Did I read that correctly? Larsen and DC don't post here anymore? |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
  |
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 30 2005 : 10:16:50 AM
|
Funny. An average first book contract is for less than $5000.00, with royalties of mebbe, .24 cents a book. Average that over the years it takes to put a book together, and you've just lost your shirt!
And I thought I could get rich? Oy ....
hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - June 30 2005 : 11:31:40 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by BJMarkland
Paul, simply amazing.
Strangely enough, I do agree with a previous post you had made that repeating rifles would have been of use. Once the Indians had overcome the long-range advantage of the Springfield carbine by infiltration, only pure firepower would have stopped them. I disagree about the Gatling guns being of much use. By the way, did you find out what model they were so we can fix whether they had the modification to allow traversing?
Billy, I managed to chase down what I thought was a fairly reputable source which stated that they were a modified Model 1871, chambered in .50-70 (ie. not compatible with the carbine ammunition), 400 round Broadwell drum (which consisted of 20, 20 round stick magazines) and lacked the traverse mechanism. Someone, Alfuso? I think, who seemed more knowledgeable on the subject than I am said that information was correct at any rate.
I guess the only person who could have really benefitted from a Gatling was Reno. At least he seemed to be operating on fairly level ground and had a nice bit fat target in the village. Or at least thats how it seems to me.
quote:
I do think that one or two mountain howitzers would have saved Custer though.
Ahh, I think I've lead you astray. My fault, sometimes I should think things through before I post. Mountain howitzers weren't going to be much use in a running fight. Their best employment might have been with Reno in the valley or as you pointed out, used from Reno Hill, either as giant shotguns during the siege or with solid shot to harass the village (if the village was in range that is). |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 30 2005 : 1:52:00 PM
|
| Once again, when it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 30 2005 : 2:33:38 PM
|
| The crosses you are burdened with. Honestly, they're going to beautify JPII and overlook this horror of yours? There is no justice in a world where you can't have things your way on a public forum. Another visit to the laundry fence and hug it out with your fellow sufferers. Of course, there's always Bodden and those real important forums he's mentioned. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 30 2005 : 5:07:56 PM
|
Several quick points before I leave for Ft. Leavenworth to do some pseudo-research.
Dave, my apologies for being unclear. I was hypothesizing that if Reno had the mountain howitzers and lobbed a few shells into the Indian village that it would have gotten the Indian's attention enough for them to break off from doing in Custer's battalion to either go after Reno again or to hurry their families to safety. In short, a diversion.
Crab, sorry for building your hopes up and then having them cruelly deflated.
Trish, we don't get rich?
Paulie, Upton and Sons is not a vanity publisher nor is Harforff the author to need one. Grinnell's Fighting Cheyennes has been a recognized classic for years.
I have been promoted to ringleader? Whoopee! Glad to hear that as I wasn't on the board when the majority of the posters were really active. Crab, Wrangler, Frank and Loren are the principle ones I recall. And as you can see, I haven't done an excellent job whatsoever in running off Crab - of course, I have no reason to want him to depart so that may explain why the failure occurred. Speaking of Frank, I owe him an email and an apology for not getting some Ft. Phil Kearny pictures posted which he graciously sent me.
Damned, another failure.
Paulie, at this rate my failure rate should soon be half the size of yours.
For some reason, the word Absolution comes to mind.
Billy
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 30 2005 : 5:45:34 PM
|
Let's not establish fictional martyrs in a Pantheon of Former Immortals. Nobody was ever "run off", nor is it possible to do so. Some usernames ceased to appear, and that might mean the individuals behind them ceased to participate. It might not. They might use different names now.
That's why much of this tempest in a petri dish would go away if the site captain flicked the switch so that the ID number appeared. People forget under which name they said stuff, and people's actual identities might easily be evident to those used to word parse sequencing and general linguistic rythms, but it's difficult to prove to others without that number. One wonders why this isn't done. Not wonder much, but one does wonder.
Larsen said he was in law school, and given his reward for his postings here was Warlord's hand down his pants (those postings are still up, I'd bet, for any fictional psychologists to evaluate....), it isn't difficult to understand why he might be involved elsewhere.
It's pretty ridiculous that a site devoted to all this supposed manly stoicism has so many delicate flowers unable to survive. Why anyone would particularly care what others think on such a board is beyond me. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 30 2005 : 6:00:04 PM
|
Cloud--
They're gonna "beautify JPII?" Crikey, didn't know the Vatican held that much power over the dead. I did hear something in passing the other day that there was something afoot to officially put John Paul II on the fast track to sainthood, and from my studies in art history, there is a certain beauty in the truly religious, that CAN be of a physical nature ...
Beatifically yours, |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 30 2005 : 6:09:44 PM
|
Billy--
No. I won't get rich.
Regards,
|
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 01 2005 : 03:29:22 AM
|
DC wrote:
"Let's not establish fictional martyrs in a Pantheon of Former Immortals. Nobody was ever "run off", nor is it possible to do so. Some usernames ceased to appear, and that might mean the individuals behind them ceased to participate. It might not. They might use different names now.
Good point, however one small detail, from my dealings with Larsen, the only reason he doesn't post here is he hasn't seen any intelligent posts since the "veteran" who only deals with "... interests of higher levels of discussion and better research..." took control started posting opinion as fact and any contrary opinion was an invitation for personal attacks as well as outlandish attacks about "vanity publishers."
Oh well, time to await the next humorous post from Nonesuch...
Billy |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - July 01 2005 : 04:36:30 AM
|
I'm reading Max Hasting's ARMAGEDDON [The battle for Germany 1944 -45].In it he states that the US army found that in any given unit no more than 20% of the troops actually did the fighting.The other 80% did play a minor role in acting as decoys and sandbags.
Now if those figures can be applied to the LBH perhaps no more that 40 of Custer's men actually engaged the Indians.Thus the very low casualty rate among the Indians.
DC I thought you had shaken off this mortal coil.Glad to see you alive and as cantankerous as ever. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 01 2005 : 10:51:16 AM
|
Wild,
That Hasting tale is based, I'd wager, on SLA Marshall's research which remains under heavy fire, I've learned. Although I recall he thought only 15% of American conscripts fired their weapons. He felt they were afraid to kill and live with that knowledge, rather than being killed themselves. Nobody really knows how or if he actually researched this, but the Army bought it.
Although the percentages are certainly questionable - as is Marshall - the general acceptance of this can be shown by the military's dedication to a volunteer force and to Special Forces, which essentially is that core 15% with no deadwood. Further, research that now seemingly mandates speed and caffeine and high sugar intake as well as meaningful sleep and rest is showing that most Western armies, at least, are assisting their forces in being good soldiers on our behalf rather than daring them to be good on our behalf. Knowing what we do now, Custer's forces - after waterless marches in heavy clothing with tired horses on hot days - wasn't precisely a finely tuned machine even had they been trained well. And they had not.
I remain amazed and sort of annoyed that the training level of the soldiers isn't under more cancerous scrutiny. Saying they didn't need training with swords to use them or that repeaters are the ticket makes no sense to me (or the Army). Untrained soldiers would just fire off more ammo quicker and still not hit anything. There is no example from the Indian Wars where soldier marksmanship compiled the Mt. LBH of corpses that has been laughingly contended here. Even surrounding the Sioux with carbines and artillery at Wounded Knee fourteen years later, the accuracy of the 7th soldiers bit, given that most of their own wounded was likely friendly fire. This was the bad joke about the surround firing squad in spades. What greater advantage did the 7th need than this school of dark dressed fish in a white barrel?
This is why we have to inflate the potency of the Sioux and other tribes: it makes us look good.
At the Bulge, which Hastings might have mentioned, the SS attacked a known crapheap of lousy American soldiers, a Pennsylvania National Guard unit that was nepotistic, incompetent, and awful. These guys utterly cratered under attack. (To be fair, it's not like they had lots of training, but they weren't good by any standards, apparently.) Reports all verified this, but read how the historians of that unit have fabricated their woes and inflated their heroism and the enemy's competence. "Blunting Hitler's arrow!" type of stuff. The SS units barely noted their existence as they rushed through.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 01 2005 : 9:30:45 PM
|
quote:
Just another of blow jo's little conspiricies that come and go!
Paulie, is the above another example of dealing with ""... interests of higher levels of discussion and better research..."
In the case DC mentioned referencing the regiment at the Bulge, that regiment was ill-trained and inexperienced. No getting around the facts however many red herrings you throw out Paulie.
Somewhere, I have some pseudo-research showing that troops were allocated only 90 rounds of ammunition per year for target practice. Perhaps I will actively look for it and display it or do a Paulie and continue to express opinion (if his) as fact.
quote:
He waves his little penis around and wants you to believe he is a man, "see I told you it was big", when he is just a little ignorant Colorado left wing troll!
Paulie, thank you for enlightening us your meaning of "... interests of higher levels of discussion and better research..." I am sure you had a good time in peering through the hole looking in the men's room to observe that "fact".
quote:
Anyone who has followed my postings has the army regulations concerning this.
Paulie, you have been asserting since you have been on this board yet have never posted a corroborating fact - except from vanity publishers and enthusiasts.
quote:
I have pointed out one of the civilians at the Hayfield fight killed 300 warriors.
Actually, in your initial post regarding the Hayfield fight, you stated that one civilian with a repeater (hint, it was a Henry) accounted for 300 dead warriors. Great research Paulie.
quote:
At the Wagon Box fight, over 1000 warriors were killed!
Strangely enough, Capt. Powell, the commander at the Wagon Box Fight, a veteran of numerous Civil War battles, only claimed something like 60 Indians killed. While Powell had problems, they are nothing compared to yours, plus he had the advantage of being there.
quote:
He was an old desk jockey Colonel in his 50's who volunteered for combat.
You talking about Fredericks and the 1st Special Services? Of course, Darby and his Ranger's ghosts may be paying visits to you; not counting the men of the line regiments or the Marine Corps or the Army Air Force. Oh, that is right, I spoke to a relative who actually served so I know nothing about WWII.
*sigh* Paulie, you are so full of it that you make a Christmas goose seem a starvation victim.
Just for you Paulie,
*smooch*
Billy
|
Edited by - BJMarkland on July 01 2005 9:31:48 PM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 01 2005 : 11:46:37 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Blow Job: With that nasty mouth of yours, do you charge by the inch or the minute?
Yep, another example of the understanding of Paulie of his avowal to only post in the "... interests of higher levels of discussion and better research..."
Paulie, you are the type of person who, in a gun fight, would ask; "Does anyone have a wand?" In other words, when confronted by fact, you revert back to fairy tale ad hominem attacks, without coherence nor substance. Should I try to do a context search on the web to find out where you pilfered the shorthand instructions for "analysis"?
Kid (since no adult could be as uneducated as you), I only hope you grow up before you run into something that hurts you.
*smooch*
Billy |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 02 2005 : 06:02:09 AM
|
Warlord: While I appreciate your sympathy, the stuff you post is ludicrous. The best count I've seen of warriors killed at LBH is 54. That's 54 names mentioned. I'm sure there are a few more, as I don't know if this list accounts for unnamed killed. That is, warriors who were seen killed but not named, like the warrior with the warbonnet on Wooden Leg Hill. And I also don't know if that accounts for those that died of their wounds at a later date.
Either way, if the over/under was 100, I'd bet everything I have on the under. The warriors just didn't provide great targets for the soldiers.
The rest of the stuff you post is just as silly. Why couldn't Custer turn his battalion around at MTC? Whatever direction they went, they were able to do so. The warriors backed down whenever the soldiers advanced. Only when they stopped did the warriors regroup and attack.
Your disdain for a certain person is understandable. But going after Billy? Why? You no longer seem to be the enemy of the person who deserves one, you seem to go after just about everyone.
Unfortunately, this subject attracts all kinds. I've limited my correspondence mainly to a small group via email. DC loves to bring this up in a negative light. Personally, I don't give a flying **** what he thinks about it. Because of this little group, I spent 3 days with Richard Fox. Because of this group, I've been able to email Greg Michno. And because of this group, I've been able to discuss things without the downsides that people like DC bring to the table? Did I say people like DC? Might as well not mince words here. DC brings all manner of bull**** to this forum. I don't have time for such things. I used to think he could be defeated, but I was just wasting my own time. There's just no winning with people of his ilk. So rather than continuing to put up with his garbage, I conceded. Let him have his fun over on this forum.
Dammit, here I go again. Wasting time explaining what you all already know.
Dark Cloud: You are 100% right in anything you say about those of us who stopped posting here because of you. Be happy in that. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 02 2005 : 10:03:36 AM
|
Yes, Crab, your horror at anything to do with sex and Custers has been noted. That topic is not, however, irrelevant nor an unusual concern to historians. Even military historians. Even those who like to sob over shell casings, at least on camera, while dressed in ensembles by Fire Island Cavalry Haberdashers, which I find far more disturbing, although not as deeply chronic bin material as Warlord.
If you don't give a hoot about my opinions, ignore them. Adults can do that. Your problem is that you don't like negative retorts to your shimmering repeats of Fox theories or simple adulation for Custer to be read in conjunction. People might simply laugh: at you, at me, at this frothy nonsense called "Custer Studies." God forbid.
It makes no sense to say you don't care what I think and to prove you don't care you're going to hold your breath/cease to participate under the username Crab/ gaze lovingly at your print of "Thoughts of Libby" till I go away. If you didn't care, it would inspire no reaction in you at all. You're one of several who think it important to their self esteem - in some cases, their financial future - that they be seen as defending Custer, still a hero to the male establishment.
That's a personal issue, not a historical one, but it has proven to be the strongest motivating engine through the years from the time when officers seemed to be hitting on the bereft widow. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - July 02 2005 : 10:25:08 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
Why couldn't Custer turn his battalion around at MTC? Whatever direction they went, they were able to do so. The warriors backed down whenever the soldiers advanced. Only when they stopped did the warriors regroup and attack.
I've just been mulling over why didn't Custer head south back towards general location of Reno Hill. Could it have been because the coulee's leading down into the MTC were too steep and Custer was worried about being caught and pinned down on an exposed hillside? After all his horses were flagging (or some percentage were) and the Indian ponies would have been fresh. |
Edited by - dave on July 02 2005 10:26:51 AM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 02 2005 : 2:10:14 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
If you don't give a hoot about my opinions, ignore them. Adults can do that. Your problem is that you don't like negative retorts to your shimmering repeats of Fox theories or simple adulation for Custer to be read in conjunction. People might simply laugh: at you, at me, at this frothy nonsense called "Custer Studies." God forbid.
I do not propose to speak for Crab, his eloquence and knowledge regarding of this "frothy nonsense called Custer Studies" is well known to the forum members. However, I suspect that being a rational human being, he is sometimes amazed by the idiotic statements (such as the above) that you constantly regurgitate from within the depths of your totally insensitive, anti-establishment thought patterns which are augmented by your enormous lack of intelligence regarding this field. Crab's references to Fox is perfectly understandable to everyone (except you, not surprisingly) as Mr. Fox's academic forays into this field of study are documented and well known to everyone (again, excluding you) who has researched this field of study. Crab's contacts with such a personality is what we humans refer to as establishing credibility. Of course, you would not understand that philosophy either.
Like he,I choose to ignore you also for the most part. Basically your retorts are harmless enough. It's just that sometimes the inexplicable statements you present(crap)is amazing. Why are you here? Your disdain for the subject matter is obvious. Your contempt for the board members is as obvious and, your inability to understand the events that occurred during this battle is evident as witnessed by your continuous flow of inaccurate information regarding the battle. I suspect that you achieve some sense of enjoyment by being "different" from others. A stirring of the pot as it were, to see what aromas(smells) you can stir up. To spend so much personal time in a forum which you, obviously, detest so much speaks volumes regarding the lacking of a "life."
D.c
You're one of several who think it important to their self esteem - in some cases, their financial future - that they be seen as defending Custer, still a hero to the male establishment.
Once again, time after time, you have managed to read threads with jaundiced colored glasses thereby arriving at slanted conclusions that are absolutely groundless and utterly devoid of reality. Unlike myself and you, Crab has managed to post balanced, informative threads, that we all enjoy. He has not written a post that would lead a reasonable individual to presume that he is overwhelmed with a insatiable desire to defend Custer or, anyone else for that matter. It is you and your unsubstantiated, biased, and incomprehensible perspective that assumes that any statement not detrimental towards Custer is indicative of being a "hero to the male establishment." This my friend is an odd statement, are you not a male? I won't go there.
D.c.
That's a personal issue, not a historical one, but it has proved to be the strongest motivating engine through the years from the time when officers seemed to be hitting on the bereft widow.
God in Heaven, what is this thing you have regarding officers hitting on poor Elizabeth. I can't distinguish if you are angry or simply jealous. Finally, I wish to apologize to Crab for utilizing his name to address D.c.'s latest thread of nonsensical meanderings. In conclusion, I would also like to say that there is a place for everything in the great circle of life, even for a classical contrarian who achieves immense pleasure in being so. It is not ours to comprehend the reason for his being so, just to accept that he is or, to not do so. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 02 2005 : 3:53:33 PM
|
Crab wrote:
quote:
Either way, if the over/under was 100, I'd bet everything I have on the under. The warriors just didn't provide great targets for the soldiers.
Crab, I tend to agree as far as your over/under figure. There were veterans with the companies killed with Custer who knew how to shoot as well as Bouyer; Reynolds although killed in the valley fight was considered an expert shot, at least that is what is said in the vanity published books about LBH that I have read.
Dave, Prolar or Paul-I am going by memory here but I think the .45-55 carbine was accurate to something like 1000 yards. What range were the sights normally set at? 45-50 yards, 100 yards greater or less? If they were set for the maximum distance, that be bad news, especially since the troops were for the most part shooting at warriors who were downhill of them. And not to mention that they were bobbing and weaving and using every bit of cover that they could find to get closer to the troops.
Later folks,
Billy |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 02 2005 : 4:48:49 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Yes, Crab, your horror at anything to do with sex and Custers has been noted. That topic is not, however, irrelevant nor an unusual concern to historians. Even military historians. Even those who like to sob over shell casings, at least on camera, while dressed in ensembles by Fire Island Cavalry Haberdashers, which I find far more disturbing, although not as deeply chronic bin material as Warlord.
If you don't give a hoot about my opinions, ignore them. Adults can do that. Your problem is that you don't like negative retorts to your shimmering repeats of Fox theories or simple adulation for Custer to be read in conjunction. People might simply laugh: at you, at me, at this frothy nonsense called "Custer Studies." God forbid.
It makes no sense to say you don't care what I think and to prove you don't care you're going to hold your breath/cease to participate under the username Crab/ gaze lovingly at your print of "Thoughts of Libby" till I go away. If you didn't care, it would inspire no reaction in you at all. You're one of several who think it important to their self esteem - in some cases, their financial future - that they be seen as defending Custer, still a hero to the male establishment.
That's a personal issue, not a historical one, but it has proven to be the strongest motivating engine through the years from the time when officers seemed to be hitting on the bereft widow.
I'd listen to you, but you have no clue what you're talking about. Apparently you really haven't read anything I've posted on this board, because you've basically lumped a bunch of nonsense together and presented it as what I'm about.
I thought it was silly that guy sobbed over a cartridge casing. I never cared or got all emotional over anything to do with sex and Custer on this board or any other. I own not one of Custer's books, nor his wife's.
You just have no ****ing clue. If you're going to label people and try to seem like an amateur therapist, you should at least get the right information on the patient. Idiot. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 02 2005 : 4:52:37 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by BJMarkland
Crab wrote:
quote:
Either way, if the over/under was 100, I'd bet everything I have on the under. The warriors just didn't provide great targets for the soldiers.
Crab, I tend to agree as far as your over/under figure. There were veterans with the companies killed with Custer who knew how to shoot as well as Bouyer; Reynolds although killed in the valley fight was considered an expert shot, at least that is what is said in the vanity published books about LBH that I have read.
Dave, Prolar or Paul-I am going by memory here but I think the .45-55 carbine was accurate to something like 1000 yards. What range were the sights normally set at? 45-50 yards, 100 yards greater or less? If they were set for the maximum distance, that be bad news, especially since the troops were for the most part shooting at warriors who were downhill of them. And not to mention that they were bobbing and weaving and using every bit of cover that they could find to get closer to the troops.
Later folks,
Billy
The Springfield carbine was sighted up to 1200 yards. I'm sure that's about the limit of the weapon, and the charge fired likely isn't even good for that distance. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - July 02 2005 : 6:20:51 PM
|
Crab,Dave
Custer could not perform a U turn in MTC because such a manoeuvre would have resulted in the column passing through the same point over a number of minutes.A manoeuvre which would have been suicidal while under attack.
Warlord
To hit a barn door at 1200 yards you would have to hold two barnes over the target!!!
A brigade of 3000 men presents a far bigger target than a barn and can be engaged very effectively at ranges in excess of 1200. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 02 2005 : 10:34:43 PM
|
| Warlord, I am constantly impressed with your knowledge regarding integral aspects of this battle such as the type of ammunition used and, the specific weaponry utilized. These areas have never been my forte although I realize the significance of such information. Your contributions go far to wards rendering a balanced perspective of the interaction between the U.S. military and the Indians. For this I am grateful. While there a few who may resent your contributions, I must publicly acknowledge the advent of the "Warlord" as the instigation of the termination of the "old Guard" and the birth of the new. After all, anyone capable of dousing the ignominious warbling of D.c must be honored as a true champion. You may not agree with me regarding the following (I know that its O.K. that you don't) but, I wish to publicly apologize to Larsen. I believed that he and D.c. were the same individual. I was wrong! Larsen actually knew his subject. While I disagree with him most of the times, he truly had information to impart. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Responsibility At Little Bighorn
