| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Horse
Private
Ireland
Status: offline |
 Posted - January 16 2006 : 9:20:18 PM
|
| The main tactical error Custer made that day , was to engage the village. To split his regiment, just compounded this error but hindsight is great |
  |
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2006 : 11:55:19 PM
|
quote:
The main tactical error Custer made that day , was to engage the village. To split his regiment, just compounded this error but hindsight is great
If he didn't engage it what should he have done? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Horse
Private
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 19 2006 : 9:32:46 PM
|
| Custer should have withdrawn his troops once the actually size of the village was known to him. At the point when he was on the bluffs and could see Reno had engaged but could also see the village below (Big Village come quick), he should have made the decision to withdraw. He should have gone to Reno's aid, helped in a tactical withdrawal and waited for Benteen. Many people argue that Benteen should have gone to Custers aid but he made the correct military decision, to set-up a defensive position and wait. Benteen clearly saw , what he would face if he tried to go to Custers aid, any private would have known that they were way out of their depth, Custer however was an exception |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2006 : 2:16:50 PM
|
| Custer wasn't on a scouting trip to see if there was a big village. If he withdraws and the Indians leave then what? Reno withdrew and the Indians followed him. Somehow I believe you and others think that if they were all in one large group they would be better off than 3 Batallions with all companies engaged in the battle at the same time. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Horse
Private
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2006 : 2:00:42 PM
|
| No Custer was not on a scouting trip, Correct. However he was not on a suicide mission either. There is an expression, where by one says its better to live and fight another day. Reno did retreat and the Indians did follow Correct, but did Reno live to fight another day, yes. When Custer discovered the size of the village, he should have retreated and waited for Terry |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2006 : 12:39:29 AM
|
When Custer discovered the size of the village, he should have retreated and waited for Terry
Where do see it in Terry's orders that if you see a big village retreat. they were all ready discovered so waiting was not an option. Again Custer never got the 7th fully engaged at one time which allowed the indians to attack a smaller portion without having to defend against the rest of the 7th. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Horse
Private
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2006 : 06:25:20 AM
|
Quote:- Where do you see it in Terry's orders that if you see a big village retreat
Listen its common sense, you dont have to be told. Custer was an officer and had responsibilty for his command. Its wasnt like Stalingrad, he wasnt under orders not to retreat, it was his call and he screwed up. Custers actions that day led to the annilation of those troops he commanded. Benteen and Reno also had choices to make and they succeeded in saving most of their commands.
You are harping back to the point, that it was Custers mission to capture the Indians and not to let them go. What happened the Indians up and left after destroying the 7th but their demise was only round the corner. If Custer had choosen to retreat and the Indians had run so be it, the end was near and as they say patience is a virtue , one that would have saved the 7th
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2006 : 07:51:32 AM
|
"Listen its common sense, you dont have to be told. Custer was an officer and had responsibility for his command. Its wasnt like Stalingrad, he wasnt under orders not to retreat, it was his call and he screwed up. Custers actions that day led to the annilation of those troops he commanded. Benteen and Reno also had choices to make and they succeeded in saving most of their commands."
Custer answered to a higher authority, himself. If anyone was to exercise common sense it would been Terry. He didn't. He turned Custer loose. Custer had always demonstrated a lack of fear and some say common sense. Those two characteristics seem to go together. If you succeed you get medals and you are a hero. There was no way Custer was going to suffer a defeat and live to go back east where everyone would know. As far as the others making choices to save their command that was the Indians choice to make not theirs . The most they could do is put enough resistance that the Indians would have to consider the costs. The Indians could have easily overrun them if they chose to do so. Notice there wasn't any medals given for saving the commands. Only individuals for demonstrating a lack of fear and getting water for wounded etc. Some might have thought they didn't have common sense. If they had all died trying to get water then they would have been labeled as not having common sense.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 10 2006 : 5:20:23 PM
|
The disaster at the the LBH was the result of a litany of blunders streching from LSH all the way back to Washington.
When I began debating this issue I was convinced that Custer alone was totally responsible.Now I believe he was just the unfortunate at the culmination of this ill-conceived venture.Politics,greed,neglect,incompetance to which all the main characters contributed handsomely, placed a poorly trained , equipted and outnumbered unit in a situation for which their leader was inadequate.
Is the last blunder in a series of blunders any worse than the first?
Rich
Who was the most responsible for the 7th Cavalry's defeat at Little Bighorn?
Uncle Sam.
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 10 2006 : 6:32:12 PM
|
The disaster at the the LBH was the result of a litany of blunders stretching from LSH all the way back to Washington.
When I began debating this issue I was convinced that Custer alone was totally responsible.Now I believe he was just the unfortunate at the culmination of this ill-conceived venture.Politics,greed,neglect,incompetance to which all the main characters contributed handsomely, placed a poorly trained , equipted and outnumbered unit in a situation for which their leader was inadequate.
Is the last blunder in a series of blunders any worse than the first?
Rich
Who was the most responsible for the 7th Cavalry's defeat at Little Bighorn?
Uncle Sam.
Well said Wild. Custer could only be successful with a crack 7th Regiment which it wasn't. He failed to recognize it until to late on the 25th of June. He would do the same thing over again in the the same circumstance. He was predictable. He was in a situation as you listed sorely lacking everything needed to do the job. He was the wrong choice for the command of the 7th given the condition of the Regiment for being battle ready. Since his was the last blunder he bears the most responsibility but not all as you pointed out. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 12 2006 : 2:22:38 PM
|
Well said Wild
Most gallant of you AZ.
Just to put the defeat in context,the 3 columns engaged in the series of actions at the LBH and Rosebud represented 10% of the fighting strenght of the army at that time.The enterprise was put together by the dream team of Grant,Sherman,Sheridan Terry and Custer.The boys of the old brigade who had accounted for Lee & Co.
Sheridans strategic plan had a major fault.It required 3 independent Columns to operate against a major concentration of hostiles with no thought of mutual cooperation in an area of approx 5000 sq miles.In fact Terry and Crook met purely by chance on the Rosebud it could just have easly been the Powder River with their foe 300 miles off on the LBH.
Defeats with 400 dead and wounded and not an inquiry in sight.Now I wonder why? |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2006 : 6:44:13 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Well said Wild
Sheridans strategic plan had a major fault.It required 3 independent Columns to operate against a major concentration of hostiles with no thought of mutual cooperation in an area of approx 5000 sq miles.
Wild, you bring up a good point. Did the Army know that all the Indians they were seeking were in one massive village or was the assumption that they were going to behave as normal, group together for hunts but split up into bands as forage and game became less?
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2006 : 10:25:51 AM
|
Wild, you bring up a good point. Did the Army know that all the Indians they were seeking were in one massive village or was the assumption that they were going to behave as normal, group together for hunts but split up into bands as forage and game became less?Hi BJ nice to see you are still in the land of the living.
Maybe someone else can help us with this.I believe the huge village Custer encountered was due to Sitting Bull's influence and this Sun Dance the tribes would gather for.Sitting Bull had also ignored the order to return to the reservation so I imagine this also had some baring on the coming together of such a large number.
How many the army thought they would face is manifested in the strenghts of the individual columns.They were expected to handle any Indian force independently.Also there had been prior to this expedition a significant number of clashes with the Indians involving hundreds of warriors.Brisban pleaded with Terry to send the gatlings and the 2nd cavalry with Custer so there must have been a suspicion that there were considerable Indian forces in the field.
But to return to the point I was making to send colums independently into an area of at least 13 rivers was a total waste of resources. |
Edited by - wILD I on February 14 2006 10:28:41 AM |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2006 : 7:35:50 PM
|
This plan by the dream Team[love it]was meant to be a winter campaign but only one Command was ready,that of Crook.
The weather conditions further North where Terry was assembling his forces was one of the excuses why they wouldn't be ready.
The hostiles or free people as I would call them under Sitting Bull & Crazy Horse would be fewer in number,and movement would be restricted by conditions.
Come springtime to Summer many reservation Lakota/Cheyenne would join the hostiles slowly at first building up to many due to conditions on the reservations and the promise of one last Sun Dance/plenty hunting.
There were many sightings by army patrols during the lead up to the LBH of reservation Indians heading westward to join up with SB & These were reported to Sherman & co and I would presume they would be relayed to Terry[that's probably why they thought they would face 1500 warriors]
Of course the task was more difficult now the Lakota/Cheyenne had built up great numbers and they could move in any direction they wanted making it impossible for the three pronged attack to work in conjunction with each other[not that there was any attempt made]and as Wild stated 5,000 sq miles is a lot to cover and was doomed from the start.
|
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2006 : 9:09:49 PM
|
It wasn't doomed from the start. In fact, the strategy couldn't have worked better. The two northern groups joined and bifurcated again under different structure as foreseen. They moved nearly directly towards where the village was. That's pretty good for the amount of land under consideration, and it's hard to see how it could have reasonably gone better. Crook hit the Indians, Custer hit the Indians, Terry's group had contact but was physically unable to do anything. That's close to three out of three, but two, anyway, and is hardly indicative of strategic failure or stupidity. That part worked great.
The failure was losing the battles. The Army is so picky in that regard. In the first case Crook was unprepared but recovered and held the field (of overpowering unimportance to the Sioux), the second featured Custer's unnecessary early attack badly done. Neither reflects whatsoever upon Sheridan, Sherman, or Grant. These were failures of field command solamente, and it's as bizarro to try and spread the blame upward as it is down. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 15 2006 : 09:49:42 AM
|
These were failures of field command solamente, and it's as bizarro to try and spread the blame upward as it is down.
I'm sure there is many a football team manager who would agree with you DC but unfortunately if the team fails it the manager's responsibility.Sheridan had no strategic plan other than sending 3 uncoordinated columns into an area half the size of Scotland.Crook and Terry ran into each other by chance and that in strategic terms is laughable.
The military is nothing more than a delivery system,field command is only one segment of that system.If the despatcher acquisces in the delivery boy's dodgy scheme then he must bear as much responsibility.
Terry's group had contact but was physically unable to do anything. That's close to three out of three, but two, anyway, and is hardly indicative of strategic failure or stupidity.Of course things can favour you by chance as much as discommode you.The whole purpose of planning is to give yourself a better than 50/50 chance of success.
In the first case Crook was unprepared but recovered and held the field (of overpowering unimportance to the Sioux),
The only influence Crook had over "fields"was that portion of real estate his forces occupied at any one time.In fact Custer's rotting corpse held LSH more securely in its putrid embrace than any occupation by Crook.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 15 2006 : 10:56:58 AM
|
1. Nobody ducked responsibility. But you've been making fun of strategy ignoring the fact it worked rather well. There was nothing 'dodgy' about it. Quite simple and, as it happened, well done. The battle/fighting part was rather dodgy.......
2. Right. And their plan worked pretty well, far from a failure of planning.
3. Whatever that means. There was a battle and one side fled and the other held the field for a day, and now awake and functioning, would make an ill advised target for future attack. That you feel this inferior to Custer's "putrid embrace" explains how centuries of military fiascos are explained as victories in Ireland, given the plethora of putrid Irish corpses littering the fields of battle they lost. Like the Devonshires in their trench in France it's a little twee and self serving to essentially claim 'they held it once, they hold it still.' Uh-huh. Not outside the poetic delusions of the loser, they don't. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
kenny
Recruit
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 15 2006 : 2:17:32 PM
|
| Reno had the responsibility to regroup and when Benteen had arrive.They should had launched another attack against the Indian camp.He could easily left one or two companies behind to protect the wounded.Regardless the packtrain had arrive or not.That would had drew indians off of Custer. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 15 2006 : 4:30:59 PM
|
He did regroup. As was proven later, one or two companies was not likely to be enough if the attention of the Indians was directed at those protecting the train after fighting and defeating the rest of the 7th in small groups.
More important, how many of Reno's unwounded men still had functioning mounts, what percentage? During the retreat from Weir, Wallace could claim two (2) men under his command there from Company G. At what point conducive to its presence there did the 7th's mission become Saving General Custer and why, given the risk and the point of the campaign? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 16 2006 : 07:59:55 AM
|
Nobody ducked responsibility.
Don't kid yourself DC the whole military establishment went missing.
Nobody wanted to open this can of worms.400 Dead and wounded and no inquiry?
Right. And their plan worked pretty well, far from a failure of planning.
If there was a plan it was a two part plan.1 First find the enemy.
2 Bring sufficent forces against him as to defeat him.
Part 1 is successful as Reno did a good job of scouting but Terry failed to deploy sufficent forces.As for Crook the Indians found him and defeated him.So if there was a plan they got 25% of it right and 25% success is 75% failure.
There was a battle and one side fled and the other held the field for a day,You make much of this and it is meaningless unless applied to European battles where the field being held had some strategic significance.
Like the Devonshires in their trench in France it's a little twee and self serving to essentially claim 'they held it once, they hold it still.'
Great stuff though DC does it not make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up?
given the plethora of putrid Irish corpses littering the fields of battle they lost.
All too true DC from Culloden to Fredericksburg.The minstrel boy to the wars has gone in the ranks of death you shall find him
That you feel this inferior to Custer's "putrid embrace"
The living are always inferior to the martyred dead. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 16 2006 : 08:55:22 AM
|
Wild,
1. You accused Grant, Sherman, Sheridan of a disaster. Their portion, insofar as there was one, was done as well as could be. The field guys messed up.
2. Where'd the "if" come from? Your description of the campaign hasn't justified your own bonkers conclusions. It wasn't badly planned or a strategic fiasco.
3. I make nothing of it except that by the standards of the day Crook won, and the conclusion could be forgiven. Reasonable.
4. No.
5. Ireland didn't participate in either of those battles.
6. Right. Keep believing that Ahmad. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 16 2006 : 3:08:39 PM
|
You accused Grant, Sherman, Sheridan of a disaster. Their portion, insofar as there was one, was done as well as could be. The field guys messed up.
Sheridan's plan was flawed and he was proved wrong in that neither column was sufficently strong enough to bring about a favourable outcome.
Where'd the "if" come from? Your description of the campaign hasn't justified your own bonkers conclusions. It wasn't badly planned or a strategic fiasco.
2 Columns defeated,400 dead and wounded,Indians scattered to the four winds and August saw the defeated Crook and Terry on the Powder up to their eyes in mud and no nearer their goal.A Colonel Carr grumbled about continuing a futile campaign simply "because two fools do not know their business".
Ireland didn't participate in either of those battles.
Ireland did not exist as a seperate political entity until 1922
Right. Keep believing that Ahmad.
It's powerful medicine just wait another few months. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 16 2006 : 5:44:37 PM
|
1. Either column, in fact, was probably strong enough properly applied. That they were not wasn't the fault of Grant, Sherman, or Sheridan.
2. The goal after LBH was not related to that before it, so this makes no sense. You are wrong to blame this above Custer and Crook.
3. Which makes you claims even more puzzling. Not only did Ireland not participate in battles used as examples, it didn't exist.
4. No doubt the Irish are selling somebody out as we speak, so I'll bow to that surety. Whatever bomb or disease wreaks havoc, Wild can take pride al Quada trained with the IRA. May still, for all we know. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 16 2006 : 10:22:38 PM
|
| "The failure was losing the battles. The Army is so picky in that regard. In the first case Crook was unprepared but recovered and held the field (of overpowering unimportance to the Sioux), the second featured Custer's unnecessary early attack badly done. Neither reflects whatsoever upon Sheridan, Sherman, or Grant. These were failures of field command solamente, and it's as bizarro to try and spread the blame upward as it is down." I believe it was quite conceivable from the start that either column would have to engage the indians first. So without going into Terry's Order and the obey/disobey argument whom do you believe bears the responsibility within the 7th cavalry for its defeat? Custer for failing to engage all 12 companies, no clear plan? Subordinate Officers and NCOs for having untrained troops, failing to properly apply themselves, etc? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 16 2006 : 10:32:25 PM
|
"Wild, you bring up a good point. Did the Army know that all the Indians they were seeking were in one massive village or was the assumption that they were going to behave as normal, group together for hunts but split up into bands as forage and game became less?Hi BJ nice to see you are still in the land of the living.
Maybe someone else can help us with this.I believe the huge village Custer encountered was due to Sitting Bull's influence and this Sun Dance the tribes would gather for.Sitting Bull had also ignored the order to return to the reservation so I imagine this also had some baring on the coming together of such a large number.
How many the army thought they would face is manifested in the strenghts of the individual columns.They were expected to handle any Indian force independently.Also there had been prior to this expedition a significant number of clashes with the Indians involving hundreds of warriors.Brisban pleaded with Terry to send the gatlings and the 2nd cavalry with Custer so there must have been a suspicion that there were considerable Indian forces in the field.
But to return to the point I was making to send colums independently into an area of at least 13 rivers was a total waste of resources." Billy and Wild -- Wouldn't Terry's plan only work if there is only one large village? Weren't they looking for the Indians that made the trail that Reno had discovered earlier? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Responsibility At Little Bighorn
