The view from and to:

[Mike Powell]

Been watching the images of 3411 posted in Battle Theories - Tactical Applications. Obviously there are many locations at or related to the battlefield that hold great interest, particularly by those who have been unable to visit the area,such as; 3411, Crow Nest, The Morass, Ford B, Sharpshooters Ridge, on and on.

I enjoy looking at such pictures when and wherever on the Board they appear. But when I want to look again at a particular place I am back to using the Search feature, often in several categories; Photo Gallery, Battle Basics, etc., and always through a long list of returns, most of which are discussion rather than image.

I suggest a new category be established on this Board, much like Battle Chronology, with discrete thread topics for important locations. For example:

3411 - View From

3411 - View To

Ideally, in my opinion, pictures posted under these headings would include; location picture taken (hopefully with GPS coordinates), date and time of day, direction of view and comments.
Small maps illustrating the photo location and view, such as those posted by Alfakilo, are also great aids to comprehension.

For permanency, I wish that there was a way these images could be retained on the Board rather than having to rely on off-site hosting which too often fails over time.

I see this as a way to build both a valuable tool for those on the Board as well as an attractant of new visitors.

Thoughts and comments?

[tubman13]

I think it is a great idea, I have no maps to put up and would wager we would play hell getting all here or some other locations, from where they currently reside. Time charting would also be helpful, as well if it could be rut in one place for ease of reference. I have a timeline study, but it does not jive with some I have seen on board. Not far off but different.

[Dark Cloud]

Very good idea. I'd like it if there was an affordable way for the site to host graphics on its own, certainly for the reason listed but primarily because there are ownership issues when you wing it through certain other sites. Once up on the web, it's open season. Of course, it'll cost somebody. Somebody named Diane.

[AZ Ranger]

Not sure where my pictures are stored. I think the attachments are stored here. The only hosted pictue I have is the avatar.

Regards

AZ Ranger

[AZ Ranger]

Looking a little futher toward Weir from 3411

[Dark Cloud]

Long ago I realized that the whole battlefield and adjacent area is much bigger than I hold in memory. I visit and repeat the same cliche, but every time I see high rez photos I realize my memory shrinks the battlefield even more than I realize when emoting for the ages.

Fred and I are discussing in a roundabout way what Custer might see from 3411 looking north ish. Fred thinks the descending Cedar coulee would hold his attention and draw him north. It may have, but I still see all that blocked land by bluffs from 3411 and the twin peaks of Weir. When I read the map, I see Weir at 3413 with one 20 foot rise within it and within that rise two separate 20 foot rises, which suggests the peaks are 3453 to me, not a huge dif, but 40 feet is notably higher than 3411 and I'd think a magnet for an officer heading north. Also, recall that 35 feet was lost between the peaks and loaf to build the road, and the inclusion of that would add bulk - not overall height - to the initial impression of height and make it a Must See area.

Clearly, AZ's photo shows you cannot see MTC or any crossing long before Weir, and MTC is a mile after that. I think Weir Pt. is the magnet, and I have to think Custer, who went to see for himself at the Crow's Nest, would see for himself on Weir. He can't see that far north on the west and not at all on the east bank. This puts me in the traditional tale group that doesn't vary much from Benteen's summation.

What think others?

In any case, 3411 is decidedly lower than Weir Pt. peaks.

[alfakilo]

Good idea!

There's nothing like a picture when it comes to visualizing a point or view of interest. I have spent quite a bit of time with Google Earth but have concluded that its value is somewhat lessened because of what I think is an exaggerated sense of terrain differences.

Also, I have downloaded quite a bunch of LBH 'stuff' from the 'net. I'm willing to help out however I can in creating a new forum visuals area.

AK

[quincannon]

I believe DC correct. There is another bench mark quite near Weir Point, BM 3413. Between that Bench Mark and the top of Weir Point there are two contour lines and the contour interval on the USGS Crow Agency 1:24,000 sheet is 20 feet. Using those two contour lines and applying the rule of thumb - add 10 - the top of Weir Point would be approximately 3450 feet in elevation or 39 feet in elevation above Bench Mark 3411, and 37 feet in elevation above Bench Mark 3413. The rule of thumb is to add one half of the contour interval (whatever that interval is as listed on the bottom center of the map sheet) to determine the elevation above the last contour interval.

[Mike Powell]

I'd take a touch lower estimate of the elevation of the south prominence on Weir. BM 3413 appears to lie just off the 3420 contour, which it should, and then beyond 3420 is the final 3440 contour. If I then apply QC's rule of thumb +10, I'm at 3450. All that said, the bluffs immediately SE of MTC Ford, said bluffs being nearly midway between MTC Ford and Weir, appear to range upward to 3260 and better so I'm not sure if the Ford, sitting down at some 3070, is visible even from Weir. I may play with the geometry tomorrow but I'd far prefer if someone might step forward with a photo from Weir in the direction of the Ford.

[quincannon]

Glad you caught that Mike my mistake. I have adjusted accordingly

[Mike Powell]

Alfakilo,

Thanks for the offer of help. Hopefully Diane will give her thoughts. Listening to AZ's comment, I'm curious if the existing photo insert feature of the board isn't what's needed for use here to avoid loss of third-party hosted pictures.

I too have reservations about Google Earth. Strikes me that the height above ground level of the view shown can't be gotten below a couple of hundred feet. It's fine for an impression but it's a far cry from what those of us with eyes at 5 feet AGL can actually see.

[Dark Cloud]

Just for the record: even if it turns out that Weir doesn't provide everything needed to be seen, Custer wouldn't know that and it sure LOOKS significantly higher and the go to place for info. Certainly more that high ground to the east. And further, the cheers and guidons and waves to Reno are a ship that has sailed insofar as keeping themselves hid. Hit 'em NOW ASAP. I doubt Custer was thrilled tallying up the time Reno had been in action when he started estimating when he could actually provide the promised support oh, any time now.

But I apparently don't know how to read the map. I don't get the 10 foot deal, and do you mean divide by 2 or wha? If the heavyish red line says 100 feet and there are two more, thinner lines, within, wouldn't that make the it 140 feet, absent precision to the foot? But even if it were dead even with 3411, it sure LOOKS taller and better sited for sighting destination. It's the momentum I feel and increasing anxiety as they go further north and knowing Reno will be attracting the attention of one huge assemblage unaffected by Custer for a while. If Custer lived and Reno got hammered or worse, there's no patting that into shape. I just cannot see him passing MTC and not hitting them. Dividing the command further at that point violates even civvy common sense. I don't think he did.

Google Earth has yet to produce anything that resembles the LBH ground to my memory and mind. The ground is really deceptive.

[quincannon]

DC: If the interval between contour lines is determined to be twenty feet, the rule of thumb to determine the approximate height from the last contour line to the top of the hill says use half of the contour interval, in the instance of twenty, use ten. It is only an approximation as that height had never been surveyed. So what the rule of thumb tells you in this instance that the hill top is more than 3440 and less than 3460, so an approximation of 3450 is about as good as it's going to get without a survey.

Next time you go to Weir Point, ask yourself if you would want to deploy forces from that point. I would not. The route through Cedar Coulee takes longer, the going is much harder, but the reward is the ability to deploy five companies in some semblance of a tactical formation, and continue on with business. I do not disagree that Weir Point has certain advantages.

[Dark Cloud]

Well, I don't know about deploying forces, and with the road not having lowered the loaf, it would perhaps not be an ideal place for that function. BUT, as far as what draws Custer north, I cannot believe those peaks wouldn't be the magnet, both to see where Cedar coulee or any of them led, and most important: what was on the east bank and how far down river the lodges extended on the west. I've long agreed with Gray that Custer descended, in main, anyway, down Cedar to MTC. But I surely think he'd check out the view and process the info himself. In a sense, 3411 is just a tease.

[fred]

Let me try to clarify this business with 3,411 and Weir Point.

A topo map is divided by contour lines that symbolize height. In this case the map shows contour intervals at 20 feet. If you follow the darker line indicating 3,400 feet along the bluffs, you come to an elevation marker that reads, 3,411. It is marked because at that point the ground rises significantly from the 3,400 line—in this case, eleven feet—yet not enough to warrant another line indicating 3,420 feet. The same holds true at Weir Point where the 3,400-foot contour line outlines the peaks. At some point there, that 3,400 rises enough to warrant an elevation marker of 3,413.

Initially—before DC and I discussed it privately—I mistook that 3,413 marker for the peaks’ actual height.

Now, beyond the 3,400-foot contour line outlining Weir, we have two more contour lines indicating the two peaks’ height… 3,440 feet. Since the 3,440-line is the peak, we can assume the actual height is a few feet higher at the peak of the rise, i. e., say 3,445… but not above 3,409, otherwise it would require another elevation “marker.”

So, yes, Weir is higher than 3,411 by probably some 30+ feet.

Now… did Custer go there as DC suggests. My answer is an emphatic, NO!

Why?

First of all, the peaks are some 500 yards off Cedar Coulee. Five hundred rising, undulating, tough yards. Each way! What we do know is Custer, when he arrived in the vicinity of 3,411 to view the valley action, he sent his scouts forward to Weir. These were Hairy Moccasin, Goes Ahead, White Man Runs Him… and Mitch Boyer. Contrary to what writers and historians believe and say, Boyer did not then travel along the bluffs to “Boyer’s Bluff,” nor did he go into and re-join Custer in MTC. If you read carefully what the Crow scouts had to say, you will discover that Boyer left them at Weir, but instead of traveling along the bluffs—what sense would that make?—he re-joined Custer in Cedar Coulee and probably told Custer what he could see and what he could not see farther downstream. You cannot see Ford B, but you can see MTC and Boyer undoubtedly told Custer that particular coulee would lead to a ford, and, by the way, there were higher ridges and hills farther downstream that could afford Custer a closer and better look at what was going on down there. This obviated any need to slow his movement and waste time at Weir, something I doubt he would do anyway, especially considering Custer’s temperament. I am not making this up, but if you place the accounts of the Crows—difficult to understand—in their proper context and fit those accounts and that context into surrounding and following events, it all becomes much clearer.

The whole adventure with these Crows and what they had to say involves several other incidents: arrival on Reno Hill; what was going on there; when they arrived; Benteen’s trek near the LBH River; Benteen’s arrival, and probably even more.

To me, this is a perfect example of how writers and historians isolate events without paying attention to what followed and how one event led to another.

Best wishes,
Fred.