|
Post by Colt45 on Oct 22, 2015 18:08:15 GMT -6
No problem, Dan.
|
|
phil
New Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by phil on Oct 23, 2015 5:23:24 GMT -6
Phil, From Calhoun hill, you can see MTCF and you can see down Calhoun Coulee, toward Greasy Grass Ridge. From there, the troops could see the hostiles coming across at ford B, and those that crossed at ford C and were coming up Calhoun Coulee. As you move over to battle ridge, you lose sight of the ford B crossing and as you go further into the Keogh sector you lose sight of Calhoun Coulee, but pick up site of the Deep Ravine area. You lose sight of Calhoun Coulee fairly soon after leaving the Calhoun hill area as you have a ridge line that will block your view. Getting past the ridge line is where you can begin to see down Deep Ravine. All of the coulees have rolling terrain that provides a lot of cover for Indians approaching on foot and moving in a way to avoid being seen easily. Try watching the videos that Custer Apollo posted on youtube. He has some good views of the various areas of the battlefield that will help you visualize the area. Hi Colt,
I've watched the Custer Apollo videos a few times over the years, and re-watched last night. Custer Apollo stays on the road and footpaths for the most part presumably because parts of the Battle area are of limits. I'm thinking that no matter where Keogh was, he would have had snippets of information in which to build a more complete (but by no means totally accurate) picture.
There's a lot of value in the videos though. Watching Custer Apollo walking down the SSL gave me goose bumps especially in highlighting the distance from LSH to Deep Ravine. One senses the desperation, and it is only a sense, the reality must've been unimaginably awful.
|
|
|
Post by dan25 on Oct 23, 2015 5:32:11 GMT -6
Phil, I'am not sure if I welcomed you. As a new person myself, welcome. I do have to ask a personal question, I hope you don't mind. With all the centuries and centuries of fascinating history your country has, why the Little Bighorn?
Just a crazy tidbit. Over 50 years ago when I first started re-enacting to get a closer feel for history I served between the 4th Battalion Royal Artillery, and the 64th Regiment of Foot. The regiment was formed in 1758 during the 7 years war, or as we called it over here, the French and Indian War. I do believe the regiment is still in existence today, known as the North Staffordshire Regiment. It has a long and interesting history.
Also, what did you do with the 9th Legion, I wont tell anyone? Just joking of course.
Best Wishes dan25
|
|
phil
New Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by phil on Oct 23, 2015 7:32:40 GMT -6
Phil, I'am not sure if I welcomed you. As a new person myself, welcome. I do have to ask a personal question, I hope you don't mind. With all the centuries and centuries of fascinating history your country has, why the Little Bighorn? Just a crazy tidbit. Over 50 years ago when I first started re-enacting to get a closer feel for history I served between the 4th Battalion Royal Artillery, and the 64th Regiment of Foot. The regiment was formed in 1758 during the 7 years war, or as we called it over here, the French and Indian War. I do believe the regiment is still in existence today, known as the North Staffordshire Regiment. It has a long and interesting history. Also, what did you do with the 9th Legion, I wont tell anyone? Just joking of course. Best Wishes dan25 Hi Dan,
Thank you for the welcome. I certainly don't mind the question, you might have to prepare yourself for a long rambling answer though.
I was probably around 5 or 6 when my parents bought me an illustrated book about the BLBH. I was fascinated and also developed a life long passion for Western Movies at the same time, possibly because the wide open landscapes were in complete contrast to the urban Birmingham jungle where I was raised.
I loved They Died With Their Boots on. That film was gospel, BLBH was certainly a most gallant and noble adventure. I had to grow up before I realised it was immature, inaccurate dreck.
I discovered this forum about ten years or so ago whilst Googling. It opened my eyes, not only was the battle far more complex than I initially realised, but hotly debated and contentious. I sensed very strongly that most members sought the truth and approached the Battle with rationality, intelligence and reason. That appealed to me and was far more interesting than mythology and romanticism. I became a member recently because fortunately I have the opportunity to devote far more time to reading and studying the 1876 Campaign.
With respect to British history I am fascinated with the Zulu war specifically Isandlwana and Rorkes Drift. Actually as a Warwickshire lad the film Zulu does irk me with the portrayal of a Welsh regiment defending Rorkes Drift. I know at the time there was a recruiting depot in Brecon and in 1881 2/24th Warwickshire Regiment became The South Wales Borderers, but in 1879 the Company of 2/24th were part of a Warwickshire Regiment.
Staffordshire is a neighbouring county to Warwickshire. South Staffs is Yam Yam land, for they have a tendency to replace the word you with yam, as in "how are yam doing?" North Staffs is the Potteries, affectionately (in some circles) known as Clayheads.
There is a film about the 9th Legion that is probably as inaccurate as They Died With Their Boots On.
Where does your passion for LBH stem from Dan?
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Oct 23, 2015 7:33:45 GMT -6
Instead Keogh did the deer in the headlights tactic. He commanded a classis DIP fight, which means Die In Place. Keogh scattered his 3 companies all far out if support of each other, allowing them to be easily overrun, while inflicted minimal Indian casualtiesCuster's command was organised into 7 units ,2 battalions incorporating 5 companies .Not a single unit battalion or company show either cohesion or organisation .Other than two points of resistance ie LSH and Keogh's position, no organised resistance can be discerned on that bloody field . Custer took his command down MTC into a position where he was outflanked fore and aft and within minutes of hundreds of aggressive combative "savages". There are two possibilities open to him ; fight and die in place or run for the high ground . I see him running for the high ground and nearly getting there . This probable scenario does not allow for ford hunting , single troop actions or tactical maneuverings akin to the proverbial Titanic deckchairs and does not involve incompetance on the part of honest soldiers allowing them to rest in peace. Custer could have forced his way onto the high ground between LBH River and Deep Coulee by using your beloved tactic of disciplined massed effort ( blue teams strength ) Once on top easily held {according to Phil Sheridan who recognized and examined the position but he was one of the greats of his age}. Phil said 25 men could control the whole area from that position. The position is a narrow wedge of stair steps or benches conveniently cut from river to coulee making it a citadel . But the counter attack was swift and the key position unrecognized by team blue or already occupied by team red (but with your tactics early in the fight team blue could take from team red with ease).
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Oct 23, 2015 8:24:44 GMT -6
I reviewed for a few hours, probably not enough review, The leap frog tactic or bounding over watch. As for Weir and Edgerly their withdrawal was not in good order. I recall Benteen boasting in corespondance that he was the only one using tactical movements in the 7th Calvary. He is the one who set 2 skirmish lines as spurs to present some depth. I found two witnesses at RCOI that said Godfry was not able to fire until Weir and Edgerly retreated through his skirmish line so the bounding overwatch was not the movement of the first 1/2 mile of retreat. Weir and Edgerly abandoned a wounded man in the last 1/2 mile and they did not turn and offer Godfry the same courtesy. As far as the mentioned details (200 yard bounds with over watch): I was unable to find. Scanning the latest tactical manuals of the day {probabley not really in use by the regular army that's training predated the publication} I found two lines on an every other man basis. Line A. turns kneels fires while B. moves and loads. Line B. then kneel and fires while A. runs and loads but A. and B. never pass each other. The interval of stops is 20 (?) yards. Spacing your typical 5 yards. The not passing was probably a measure to preserve fire lane formation. With passing the lanes would degrade and soon you'd have friendly casualties.This movement was the advanced one of it's day and is not a bounding overwatch and I have yet find a witness to it's use in Custer's time. Remember Custer, at least with his journalists hat on, describes a bronze age box defense moving across the prairie in 1873 as a means of withdrawal under fire. The basic problem is without a machine gun you have to provide small fire lanes so you don't hit your own. I do not think bounding overwatch was possible without at least a semiauto.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Oct 23, 2015 11:11:37 GMT -6
magpie You posted:
"I recall Benteen boasting in corespondance that he was the only one using tactical movements in the 7th Calvary. He is the one who set 2 skirmish lines as spurs to present some depth. "
Benteen also failed to have his company dig any defensive position on the first night which may have caused unnecessary casualties. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Oct 23, 2015 11:56:47 GMT -6
I reviewed for a few hours, probably not enough review, The leap frog tactic or bounding over watch. As for Weir and Edgerly their withdrawal was not in good order. I recall Benteen boasting in corespondance that he was the only one using tactical movements in the 7th Calvary. He is the one who set 2 skirmish lines as spurs to present some depth. I found two witnesses at RCOI that said Godfry was not able to fire until Weir and Edgerly retreated through his skirmish line so the bounding overwatch was not the movement of the first 1/2 mile of retreat. Weir and Edgerly abandoned a wounded man in the last 1/2 mile and they did not turn and offer Godfry the same courtesy. As far as the mentioned details (200 yard bounds with over watch): I was unable to find. Scanning the latest tactical manuals of the day {probabley not really in use by the regular army that's training predated the publication} I found two lines on an every other man basis. Line A. turns kneels fires while B. moves and loads. Line B. then kneel and fires while A. runs and loads but A. and B. never pass each other. The interval of stops is 20 (?) yards. Spacing your typical 5 yards. The not passing was probably a measure to preserve fire lane formation. With passing the lanes would degrade and soon you'd have friendly casualties.This movement was the advanced one of it's day and is not a bounding overwatch and I have yet find a witness to it's use in Custer's time. Remember Custer, at least with his journalists hat on, describes a bronze age box defense moving across the prairie in 1873 as a means of withdrawal under fire. The basic problem is without a machine gun you have to provide small fire lanes so you don't hit your own. I do not think bounding overwatch was possible without at least a semiauto. Magpie, I am a little confused by your statement on leap frogging or the proper term "Bounding over watch" Doesnt A fire then retreat behind B then when A is behind B then B fires, another words one line does not fire until the first line is behind them. So how can lines A and B never pass each other. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Oct 23, 2015 12:29:19 GMT -6
Didn't the defenders at Rorkes Drift do something similar in reverse, ie, done as an offensive maneuver. Saw it in the 1964 film "Zulu" but not sure of the historical accuracy.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Oct 23, 2015 12:56:36 GMT -6
Didn't the defenders at Rorkes Drift do something similar in reverse, ie, done as an offensive maneuver. Saw it in the 1964 film "Zulu" but not sure of the historical accuracy. David, Not sure about the movie, but Col Montrose pointed out that yes it could be used both on offense and defense. It would be done as you say in reverse. Line A would fire and rather than go behind line B, Line B would advance in front of line A and fire etc. But I dont believe in either case any line would fire with their own men in front of them. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Oct 23, 2015 13:48:42 GMT -6
Didn't the defenders at Rorkes Drift do something similar in reverse, ie, done as an offensive maneuver. Saw it in the 1964 film "Zulu" but not sure of the historical accuracy. David, Not sure about the movie, but Col Montrose pointed out that yes it could be used both on offense and defense. It would be done as you say in reverse. Line A would fire and rather than go behind line B, Line B would advance in front of line A and fire etc. But I dont believe in either case any line would fire with their own men in front of them. Be Well Dan The unfortunate thing was no illustration in book but no it said very specifically no passing because all I could think about is the poor saps in front taking all the casualties. Maybe they mean or implied and I missed it that the kneeling shooter holds fire till line B men arrive shoulder to shoulder fire turn run your 20 yards loading while line B are kneeling aiming and firing. No that would not be equal, one side would be at grave disadvantage and real saps but it would clear your fire lanes. Definitely no leap frog a different beast but cover and step wise but baby steps. There is no description I have seen yet in the Indian wars but that's not saying it's not out there. Utley's grand dad's book I couldn't find to read , just someone else's paraphrasing Utley who was paraphrasing an Englishman (?). Tactics designed for breach loaders. So no not the continous cover fire from squad A. , while squad B. passes sets up to provide continous cover fire for squad A to pass with big steps like they show on Utube.
|
|
|
Post by dan25 on Oct 23, 2015 16:04:01 GMT -6
Didn't the defenders at Rorkes Drift do something similar in reverse, ie, done as an offensive maneuver. Saw it in the 1964 film "Zulu" but not sure of the historical accuracy. David, Not sure about the movie, but Col Montrose pointed out that yes it could be used both on offense and defense. It would be done as you say in reverse. Line A would fire and rather than go behind line B, Line B would advance in front of line A and fire etc. But I dont believe in either case any line would fire with their own men in front of them. Be Well Dan In standard firing during the CW, was in two ranks. The rear rank placed their muskets between the heads of the two men in the front rank making sure their heads were within the last two bands of the musket. There was no effect on the hearing. When re-enacting I fired from both positions. There were times when the front rank would kneel, and the rear rank stood. There was another firing position although rarely used, only when continues fire was wanted. The first rank was prone, second rank knelt and 3rd and 4th ranks stood. The first rank fired and by the time the 4th rank fired the first rank was loaded and ready to fire again. The two rank firing was used for at least 150 years in almost all armies. To clarify the head being between 2 bands of the musket. Northern Army Springfields and southern English Enfields also Richmond Muskets all had 3 bands holding the barrel to the stock. The 2 bands nearest the trigger was where the head had to be, this kept the end of the barrel far from the ears. Regards dan25
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Oct 23, 2015 16:49:17 GMT -6
In standard firing during the CW, was in two ranks. The rear rank placed their muskets between the heads of the two men in the front rank making sure their heads were within the last two bands of the musket. There was no effect on the hearing. When re-enacting I fired from both positions. There were times when the front rank would kneel, and the rear rank stood. There was another firing position although rarely used, only when continues fire was wanted. The first rank was prone, second rank knelt and 3rd and 4th ranks stood. The first rank fired and by the time the 4th rank fired the first rank was loaded and ready to fire again. The two rank firing was used for at least 150 years in almost all armies. To clarify the head being between 2 bands of the musket. Northern Army Springfields and southern English Enfields also Richmond Muskets all had 3 bands holding the barrel to the stock. The 2 bands nearest the trigger was where the head had to be, this kept the end of the barrel far from the ears. Regards dan25 Dan25, I think that resembles more of what Magpie was describing than leap frogging "Bounding Over watch" It more closely resembles a side of the British Square which was very effective. But I think of it as more of a purely defensive tactic rather than one used to disengage from the enemy. You know more than I about it, can this tactic be used to disengage or advance? Be Well Dan (The other Dan)
|
|
|
Post by dan25 on Oct 23, 2015 16:55:14 GMT -6
Phil, Thank you for your response. That's really incredible for you to be interested in LBH for so long. I am really glad for you that you now have the time to finally learn about it.
I too found the Zulu War extremely interesting. As for Isandlwana versus LBH, I wonder who would win the STUPID of the year award, Custer or Chelmsford. It's incredible when a seasoned officer becomes so arrogant and vain they completely forget a golden rule, "Never Underestimate Your Opponent". Although Chelmsford did manage to get a much larger number of his men killed than Custer. If I remember correctly in the movie there was some soldiers at Rorkes Drift that mentioned something about the Welsh Soldiers
As for me and LBH, I just recently became seriously interested. With so, so much history to investigate just in my so called own backyard, I fortunately live in an area of New York State where I can go in any direction from my home and within one hundred to two hundred miles there's battle sites from some war, be it King Philips War, Queen Ann's War, French and Indian War or the American Revolution. If you ever seen the movie "Last of the Mohegan's", Fort William Henry and the site where the massacre took place is only about 120 miles from me.
Regards dan25
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Oct 23, 2015 17:48:17 GMT -6
Didn't the defenders at Rorkes Drift do something similar in reverse, ie, done as an offensive maneuver. Saw it in the 1964 film "Zulu" but not sure of the historical accuracy. David, Not sure about the movie, but Col Montrose pointed out that yes it could be used both on offense and defense. It would be done as you say in reverse. Line A would fire and rather than go behind line B, Line B would advance in front of line A and fire etc. But I dont believe in either case any line would fire with their own men in front of them. Be Well Dan There was a lot of front row kneeling while back row fired standing. Again , not sure of historical accuracy. You can probably yourube the portion of rhe movie where this occurs, near rhe end.
|
|