|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 29, 2015 2:38:09 GMT -6
i would think that at 300 yards (or 270m) a mounted cavalry trooper (or mounted warrior) would be easier to hit, obviously because of the size of man and beast, don't forget there is no animal rights here and it the horse cops the shot instead of the rider then you have done half your job, the trouble you would face is speed, as a horse can obviously move faster that a man.
That's probably why the soldiers missed with so many of their shots, as most of the Indian attacks came in open skirmish form with warriors on foot, if these warriors were cleaver enough they would know that if the soldiers fired then they would take cover, once the shot has passed overhead then they knew the soldiers had to reload, so this meant that they had a short window of time in which to move to a new position or return fire.
The Indians were probably just as bad at shooting as the soldiers, but they kept low and never presented a clear target, the soldiers on the other hand would be stood stationary which would present a better target.
Oh and lets not forget the black powder smoke and dust, these would play a major role in masking any movement at ranges over 300 yards.
Ian.
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 29, 2015 3:54:37 GMT -6
Quincannon: I will let you use my Spencer Carbine put you on a horse and have you charge a fence with my .69 cal Springfield strung to it with its bayonet adjusted to the horse's eye level and see which kills you first the horse or bayonet. I have $50 on the horse. On a serious note are you trying to prove that you could hit a target at 300 yards or the average infantry man in the CW did? There are reports of sniper hits at more than 1000 yards but this misses the point. Please let me know what model Springfield we are talking about so I can figure out how you would "zero" the musket, we are talking Civil War Weaponry on this thread correct? Let's use fixed Iron sights .58 cal rifled musket at 100 yards one shot.
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 29, 2015 4:01:16 GMT -6
Van Taylor:Let me refer you to the book The Rifled Musket in Civil War Combat Reality and Myth. A detailed and exhaustive research on the subject with so much data and contemporary info on the subject it will make your head spin, but well written and easy reading.
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 29, 2015 4:20:39 GMT -6
Jaguar may I suggest that watch a series of videos done by CusterApollo link I don't necessarily agree with his views of how the battle went but the video gives you a really good idea on what the battlefield is like and how the different sites relate to each other. I know I have to go back and refer to different sections regularly. Beth: Thank you for the recommendation I will look for it. There is also a good archeological video I think was aired on PBS and may be available.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 29, 2015 4:26:23 GMT -6
Van Taylor:Let me refer you to the book The Rifled Musket in Civil War Combat Reality and Myth. A detailed and exhaustive research on the subject with so much data and contemporary info on the subject it will make your head spin, but well written and easy reading. You can refer any books you like "Jugular" as long as you get my name right. Ian.
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 29, 2015 4:35:08 GMT -6
Colt45: I meant no disrespect by attributing your proposal to Fred but I read the thread on my phone and his appeared and took up the full screen. Now I have read that Custer early on was aware that there were about 1,500 warriors. The dust kicked up by 20k ponies and his scouts would have alerted him to the fact that this was a large group even though it's actual size may have been unknown. I have one question. Your proposal is a good plan but could it have achieved its offensive objective? Perhaps I am mistaken but your plan would roll the Indians up from the South but not prevented their retreat. Are you relying on Terry coming from the North to interdict them?
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 29, 2015 4:54:05 GMT -6
quincanno. Do you disagree with this statement by the author concerning the troops of the 7th? Any implied dishonor toward these brave men who rode under the colors of the United States of America has been misdirected and should be considered a grievous insult to anyone who has ever served in the military— as well as any true American. Do you take issue with this statement: These soldiers marched off under orders from their government with the blessing and admiration of the country’s population, which, along with their elected leaders had determined that the Sioux and Cheyenne, were a threat that must be dealt with harshly. Any blame for fighting a particular enemy should never be directed at those citizens who stepped forward to proudly wear the uniform representing their country and sacrificed so much to protect the national interests— including at times the ultimate sacrifice, their lives. I don't think you dispute these statements by the author but when you trash a whole book without specification who knows what you think you haven't said. Jaguar, I mean no disrespect. But I am deeply insulted by your post. Good men died at LBH, so did bad men. We know some men suicided out, some ran, some tried to surrender. But the issue is not what individuals did in these last minute or so of life. The issue is the horrible leadership and decisions of the officers who doomed them. The death toll at LBH is unique. Out of 1,000ish engagements in the Indian wars, this is the outlier. Something happened here that occurred no where else. I made a bad decision in combat that killed 2 men. They were Iraqis, and I don't even know there names. The Iraqi Captain and an NCO (not 1SG, SFC) objected, I over rode them, and I was wrong. Getting soldiers killed in combat is part of doing business, but it helps a lot if your decision was justified in rational analysis. Many deaths at LBH are not justified, men died for no tactical gain. The problem is that desperate fights get excessive attention. in the Global War on Terror (GWOT) there are some high profile fights that get disproportionate attention because of high casualties. There have been some very high ranking valor awards awarded to officers who should have been court martialed. (For the record, the highest valor award I have is an ARCOM< the lowest ranking valor award possible). Your post implies that because soldiers died, therefore we should ask no questions. My belief is because folks died, we damn well better ask questions. Again, I mean no offense, many emotional posts last two days. Sorry to cause you pain but there are some that seek to dishonor the men who served in the 7th because of the horrible policies from DC concerning Native Americans. This criticism is also directed against Custer not for his command decisions but his mission. The author is correct to point this out so that prejudice is removed when his actions are examined. My point was that you can not simply dismiss what an author writes unless you specify the portions you disagree with.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on May 29, 2015 5:34:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 29, 2015 6:10:33 GMT -6
What I am trying to prove Jaguar is the you need to look at what lies beneath, what is not said in anyone's writing. I thought you were superficial, and you did not disappoint.
My rifle is a Springfield 1903 A3, partially modified to A4 standards, does that give you a clue why I might be willing to up that bet to, well you name it. Where do you get the silly notion that life is fair, and that playing fields are even.
You failed to address my examples of Cedar Mountain, Gettysburg, and Gaines Mill, or are those three examples not convenient in the discussion of your dogmatic statements.
You have shown some potential. Your research is superficial. You believe everything you read without applying the smell test. You rely on one size fits all answers. Your grasp of tactics runs from poor to nonexistent. and you don't know how to spell Ian's screen name which does not speak well for your powers of observation or attention to detail. To gain respect, a commodity not given here, but earned by performance, you must first perform.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on May 29, 2015 6:28:32 GMT -6
Colt45: I meant no disrespect by attributing your proposal to Fred but I read the thread on my phone and his appeared and took up the full screen. Now I have read that Custer early on was aware that there were about 1,500 warriors. The dust kicked up by 20k ponies and his scouts would have alerted him to the fact that this was a large group even though it's actual size may have been unknown. I have one question. Your proposal is a good plan but could it have achieved its offensive objective? Perhaps I am mistaken but your plan would roll the Indians up from the South but not prevented their retreat. Are you relying on Terry coming from the North to interdict them? Jaguar,
With respect, you are trying to run before you have learnt to crawl. Rewind a little, please.
What did GAC know about the numbers, their concentration and the terrain from his own reconnaissance when he crossed the divide and started down towards the LBH valley? How did his state of knowledge develop throughout the 25th until his demise later that day?
WO
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 29, 2015 6:42:37 GMT -6
My point was that you can not simply dismiss what an author writes unless you specify the portions you disagree with. I am not sure I fully agree with this, though there is some truth in it. I have a personal rule that once I start a book, I finish it, period, no matter what, no matter how bad, no matter how long it takes. I broke that rule (the exception proves the rule, right?) with the Philbrick book. I also broke my rule-- with that book-- of buying the book, rather than going to the library. My initial inclination with Philbrick was to leave it alone, especially when all these glad-handing clowns who run the various LBH-Custer organizations fawned all over him, simply because of the Philbrick name. What gave him the CV to write about the LBH? I do not believe I finished the first chapter... then returned the book. Sheer and utter garbage. I have reached the point in all this where I am no longer interested in reading what I call "opinion" books. I also dislike intensely, lopsided writing that clearly has an agenda, that clearly seeks to condemn or blame, rather than seeks the truth. I do not think it is necessary to point out specifically those portions one disagrees with: to me, that indicates "opinion" rather than fact. If, on the other hand, there is sufficient evidence for disagreement, that is fine; that is a basis for discussion, debate, and argument. Reno's drinking is a case in point. My own opinion is that he was drinking-- as were others-- but was not drunk. There is sufficient evidence for a debate, and I accept that as valid. I reject the claim of his drunkenness as fact and therefore basis for his actions and I treat that as "opinion"-- ignorant opinion-- unless it is fully discussed in a "book." I try very hard-- in Strategy-- to present all sides of a debatable issue prior to rendering my own "opinion." Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by callmeconrad on May 29, 2015 6:56:01 GMT -6
Now, what he should have done, is cross at Ford A, trailing behind Reno. Once Reno had to halt and go into skirmish line, Custer should have been just behind, ready to swing around Reno's left flank and engage the force that was in process of encircling Reno. Benteen should have been given orders to cross as well and come up from behind to be a further element to either maneuver or reinforce. Company B should also have been removed from the pack train and committed to battle. Yes, this! With a river and steep bluff line on the east side it would be difficult to carry many possesions and supplies away from the village and up the bluffs, except for Ford B which would become a bottle-neck. The non-combatants could either leave most of their goods behind or go north towards Terry and Gibbon. I'd add one wrinkle though; I would put the scouts and a small trooper detachment with an officer up on the bluffs. The scouts to harass anyone that chose to cross, and the officer (Cooke?) to get a better overview of everything going on and pass on the information to those in the valley. Cheers, conrad
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 29, 2015 7:10:09 GMT -6
Any action starting at the south end of the valley removes the option of moving southwestward toward the Big Horns. To the direct west is Crow country. Not a bright move. Eastward is very slow going, so the possibility of any jump start is problematic. So an assault on a south-north axis is a very good choice if one seeks to remove options.
If your assault has sufficient violence, it is very possible that, that which sustains life will be left behind, and that is particularly true for the southernmost circles.
I am not sure how Cooke could communicate Conrad, perhaps by some prearranged, and very simple signals, but a battlefield OP is a first rate idea. Completely unsure of the distances involved though.
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 29, 2015 7:19:41 GMT -6
Accuracy of observation Jaguar is a military virtue. Now if you want to stay here put aside the eternal debate on which weapon, the saber or pistol, is better to charge with (no one has given a damn in a 150 years), understand that a rifled weapon at 300 meters can be very lethal in the hands of a man trained to use it, most combat takes place within the 200 meter line, Murat was a tinker belle... You may argue any point above, save Carmen, but you better put on your big boy pants in this crowd before you do. There is a price of admission charged here, and that price is never bring a lollypop stick to a gun fight. quincannon: You wonder why I posed the question of saber or pistol so let me explain as you see no relevancy here. In his first command where he led a charge in the CW Custer wrote a piece explaining how he made the decision to use sword or pistol in the charge against cannon on a hill. He equivocated for a while made a choice changed it then went to the sword, his first choice. I will not explain here his reasoning and you may try and dismiss his thoughts as irrelevant. Let me tell you however the issue he was faced with was of sufficient importance that the US government conducted a study of this very issue. Now if we are to reach conclusions about Custer we must have some understanding of whether he was simply impetuous, lucky, or thoughtful in his analysis. You must agree with this line of inquiry because you employ his moral character as a factor to be weighed. Any proper inquiry however cannot ignore some of the evidence and concentrate on only those facts which favor your conclusion. I provide this as one example of deliberate insight on his part. We could also use his very first action at 1st Bull Run where he removed a cannon blocking a bridge used to retreat and organized an orderly evacuation across it with covering fire to organize an orderly retreat. Your comment about Murat reveals that you have no real knowledge about him. To call him a tinker belle would be like calling Stuart a cross dressing dandy because he wore an ostrich plume on his hat.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 29, 2015 7:36:37 GMT -6
A very nice little vignette, but what can it possibly have to do with LBH? You are failing to see the forest because you are concentrating on the knot on the third limb down on the right of the first tree in the tree line.
I do not think I ever said that demonstrated bravery under fire, makes it a given that you are not a moral coward in other aspects of your military and civil life. Custer was a demonstrated moral coward. I believe Montrose might be providing us a complete list of examples in a new thread he has started. They are legion and the list is quite long. You have not lived among us and have no earthly idea the values we place on actions. Not your fault, but attempting to judge one set of standards, when you do not know what those standards are is.
Get your mind out of the gutter. Murat was a tinker belle. What kind of a tinker belle? You did not bother to ask me before you made the assumption.
Stuart was a fop. He was a competent fop, and while I have admiration for him (not fan boy crap mind you) I am fully aware of his failings, his need for adoration, and his tactical failures (Ox Hill/Chantilly), his failure to communicate adequately on occasion (Viedersville), and often reckless battlefield personal behavior, he was a sound tactician, and excellent outpost officer, and he had Sweeney.
|
|