|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 13, 2007 8:35:41 GMT -6
<the majority of the soldiers thought that they were bad shooters>
At the time I don't think the soldiers felt very confidant about whether the Indians could shoot straight or not. A number of soldiers were killed/wounded by Indians firing from quite a distance.
|
|
|
Post by blaque on Jun 14, 2007 4:25:23 GMT -6
There is an excellent article in the Spring 1966 issue of Montana Magazine by William G. Rector titles: Fields of Fire - The Reno-Benteen Defense Perimeter, in which the author delineates the positions of the variious companies, and their respective fields of fire. Anyone remotely interested in where the troops were positioned, what they could and could not cover from those firing positions, and why [perhaps] Benteen's H Company took so many casualties should consult this source.Gordie, Rector’s article makes for very interesting and suggestive reading, but don’t you think a bit adventurous his blaming the reverse-slope position of B, D & K for the high casualties of H? May be it did allow warriors to close within 25 yards of the main perimeter, but I suppose that neither in strength nor frequently, bearing in mind the firing pits which, according to Rector himself, were nearer the crest and with better fields of fire than the bulk of the companies deployed farther back. And I presume that it was precisely when warriors could finally mass so close to the line, that charges were ordered to dislodge them from such a threatening position. Anyway it’s a pity that the author could not further substantiate his theory by presenting metal-detected Indian firing positions within 25-50 yards of the B-D-K line. On the other hand, and regarding the stakes marking trooper firing positions, I wonder whether in some instances they could just mark places where cases rolled down the slope after being fired by a carbine farther uphill! I still think that most of the H casualties were a result of very long range fire, but Rector is probably right in his opinion that such a fire went largely undisturbed due to the “extra-cautious” deployment of B, D & K (and M on the 25th).
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Jun 15, 2007 15:06:14 GMT -6
Hi CSS
I am still waiting for your reply as to where Custer might have been when Hare saw the Indians massing on Custer Ridge. It is not likely that he was still alive and firing from Custer Hill if the Indians were happy to expose themselves along the ridge.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Jun 15, 2007 20:46:08 GMT -6
blaque:
I think Rector's observations are food for thought, and I'll try to examine them on the ground next year. I believe that you are right in your opinion that the bulk of Benteen's casualties, particularly the wounded were the victims of long-range firing [probably not aimed except at the position - which is the primary advantage the warriors had - they could simply fire at the mass, while leaving themselves pretty much invulnerable to the troopers' fire]. Due in part, no doubt, to the fact that H Company did not "dig in" during the night's respite on the 25th.
The charges are, I think, hardly worth the designation as such. They appear to me to have been more for morale-boosting purposes than anything else. I don't believe that there is much artifact evidence of warriors getting within 25 yards of the lines, but I'll have to revisit my sources to see what exists in that vein. I'm sure you probably have the same ones I do.
The really nice thing about Rector's article is that it gives another slant, and presents the siege in a somewhat different light than usually seen.
Gordie, I don't want to talk about it - how you broke my heart..........................................................
|
|
|
Post by mwkeogh on Jun 15, 2007 21:25:05 GMT -6
Hi CSS I am still waiting for your reply as to where Custer might have been when Hare saw the Indians massing on Custer Ridge. It is not likely that he was still alive and firing from Custer Hill if the Indians were happy to expose themselves along the ridge. Regards Mike Mike, CSS cannot reply as he has been given a "timeout" by the moderator. I fear the boards will become a much quieter place without the irrepressible CSS to liven things up now and then.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jun 16, 2007 7:11:31 GMT -6
keogh and you could be a big help to him. He looks up to you. It is he insults that need to be toned down not his enthusiasm.
As CSS would say:
Gerryowen
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Jul 28, 2020 11:47:02 GMT -6
Ah, the insanity.
I was thinking about this subject myself. Indian casualties seem to have been very small, with higher terrain and no massed charges of course in usual style reducing this. few soldiers seem to mention them hitting much. I`ve seen/remember to named Indians killed in this sector:
-Long Road, a Sans Arc. -Dog’s Backbone, a Minnenconjou Then, and this is just what I can dig up in my own head right now on vacation, you have descriptions:
-A warrior approaching the soldiers in order to count coup was shot and killed, but this might well be Long Road? -A warrior seemed to be picking of a number of soldiers before a volley at least silenced him. -Benteen claimed to have shot a warrior in the back/spine during one of the pushes against encroaching warriors.
So is there a consensus or more specific information around? I haven`t git the newest addition of Participants, nor have a brought books or notes on the battle with me.
Hope you all have a nice summer.
Noggy
|
|