|
Post by montrose on May 6, 2016 10:25:42 GMT -6
1. Purpose. Start a thread to develop topics for discussion.
2. Potential topics. I will state various hypotheses, deferring discussion based on response. Topics I propose may be mutually exclusive. (meaning one theory may, by definition, prove another theory false).
a. Tactics matter. Tactical decisions at LBH were decisive in outcome. This means the battle was winnable (or could have had better outcome). There are counter arguments that no other officer or unit in the US Army could have had a better outcome at LBH. My theory is that no other officer or unit in the US Army could have performed as badly as LTC Custer or the badly trained and badly led 7th Cav. By the way, this is one of my most serious disagreements with my friend from Georgetown.
b. Use of indigenous forces. LTC Custer was among the worst users of indig elements to support tactical, operational, and strategic levels of war. The contrast between Crook and Custer n this area is mind boggling.
c. Logistic support. The 7th Cav logistic support plan is one of the worst ever used by the US Army, in any era. Custer should have been relieved for cause for his plan, before leaving FAL. No other commander of this era, (out of 150ish) showed this level of incompetence. SInce Terry approved this plan, he also reveals himself as grossly incompetent. This means Feb 76, not his incompetence sharply revealed when he worked with Crook summer 76.
d. Decision tree. The reason this battle was lost was the decision by LTC Custer to not support his advance guard in the valley. The battle was lost by this decision, and by no other cause.
LTC Custer could have mitigated this incompetent decision by informing his subordinates that he would not follow his own orders, but he did not. I have been waiting for several years for someone to explain LTC Custer's decision tree. No one has, because they can not.
e. Offensive. LTC Custer committed 3 companies to attack the enemy, out of 12. Until the moment he died, that was his maximum offensive effort. Anyone want to explain why? {Come on Rinni, try me}. (By the way, I do not agree with Bill, but I like his efforts to work the discussion; we do not have to agree}.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 6, 2016 13:38:29 GMT -6
Ducemus
LBH was lost because 7th Cavalry did not concentrate strength on the taget. The method of attack was irrelevant.
So, your point is? What! Reno ran. Benteen was late. Custer did not engage.
Gall has raised his hatchet above your head. Please explain the decision tree. You are in a mess - how should a cavalry regiment respond.
The basic argument, et al, is this. I had a drink - so what?
Those qualified to answer, sat on an Afghan hill with jamming rifles and being over-run by some of the nastiest pos on the planet. What was the outcome?
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on May 6, 2016 15:17:39 GMT -6
Will,
The one who does not understand the tree can be forgiven, for he is much like moss, that only needs acidic soil and shade to grow. The thing that bothers him is the sweet lime of the truth, and the trimming back of the shade.
Miles also used the NA forces to his advantage.
Proper usage of scouts/intelligence functions could have well helped to change the day. Updating Terry and Gibbon via Tullock's, with the designated messenger, might also have been wise, as Terry spent an amount of time waiting for that update. However as you say the only way to win was to support the initial attack in the valley with the firepower required. That was the time for GAC to send a note for additional support in the valley for both he and Reno.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 6, 2016 15:44:54 GMT -6
Ducemus
Trees are just big bushes. LBH was entirely and properly scouted. Custer looked down upon a sleeping village which was not running. The horse herds and their herders were..... from Reno. The Rees were to take out the centre of gravity. Damn shame about the weapons.
|
|
|
Post by dave on May 6, 2016 18:50:54 GMT -6
montrose I look forward to reading more posts on this thread as it has long been confusing to me why Custer divided his forces in the face of the enemy. I have read a little (I will wait for the laughter to die down) including Art of War by Sun Tzu which I have found to be very informative for a civilian who often struggles with military terms. One of the maxims he stated was:
"By discovering the enemy's dispositions and remaining invisible ourselves, we can keep our forces concentrated, while the enemy's must be divided."
I admit to being baffled by the continual assertions that "Reno was drunk; Reno was a coward; Reno left too soon without proof as the cause of the 7th's defeat. No other points are presented and certainly no one is to defame Custer. Marcus Reno is the Boogeyman!
Custer's Decision Tree 1) Failure to scout the enemy's position 2) Ambivalence as to what tactics, if any, to be employed 3) Failure to communicate with subordinates as his plan 4) His expectation that the hostiles would flee coupled with lack of scouting 5) Attacking with 3 companies only 6) Continually dividing his force into smaller and smaller units 7) Not placing his units within supporting distance of each other
I am getting close or just "at sea?" Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 6, 2016 19:43:28 GMT -6
It baffles me why Custer did not follow Reno. If the Indians were fleeing the terrain and closing time is more favorable in the valley. If the Indians came out to fight as they did then Custer could have given them one with the whole regiment.
Thanks to keogh for having me look at McClellan's rules and instructions in regards to what Reno should do as an advance guard facing overwhelming numbers. You can read it and see he did what it states. That should mean that Custer at least had to have that as one of the results of sending three companies and not following them.
I think Reno moved to far down the valley.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by edavids on May 7, 2016 6:59:22 GMT -6
montrose I look forward to reading more posts on this thread as it has long been confusing to me why Custer divided his forces in the face of the enemy. I have read a little (I will wait for the laughter to die down) including Art of War by Sun Tzu which I have found to be very informative for a civilian who often struggles with military terms. One of the maxims he stated was: "By discovering the enemy's dispositions and remaining invisible ourselves, we can keep our forces concentrated, while the enemy's must be divided." I admit to being baffled by the continual assertions that "Reno was drunk; Reno was a coward; Reno left too soon without proof as the cause of the 7th's defeat. No other points are presented and certainly no one is to defame Custer. Marcus Reno is the Boogeyman! Custer's Decision Tree 1) Failure to scout the enemy's position 2) Ambivalence as to what tactics, if any, to be employed 3) Failure to communicate with subordinates as his plan 4) His expectation that the hostiles would flee coupled with lack of scouting 5) Attacking with 3 companies only 6) Continually dividing his force into smaller and smaller units 7) Not placing his units within supporting distance of each other I am getting close or just "at sea?" Regards Dave It is called making excuses in order to deflect blame. Also called "hero worship".
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 7, 2016 9:03:02 GMT -6
DucemusPlus Ça Change Heckmondwick: SupercordYou'll absolutely love or hate this linkAfter the Battle of the Little Bighorn, Marcus was often trashed by historians and even some of his fellow soldiers. Miffed at the increasingly bad publicity, in 1878 he asked for an inquiry - which was not a court-martial - and the board met in Chicago on January 13, 1879. After almost a month and much testimony, the court concluded that although Marcus had scarcely distinguished himself, nothing he did was improper or showed evidence of cowardice. Gaming theory..............
|
|
|
Post by dave on May 7, 2016 9:31:44 GMT -6
With the exception the Hilltop Fight, did Custer ever assault the Indians with more than the 3 company battalion of Reno? Did he not attack in a piecemeal fashion of 1 company at a time?
If Custer does not properly deploy and use his force, than how can Reno be the cause of defeat? Marcus Reno was the scapegoat for the 7th Cavalry and George Custer at the Little Big Horn. Regards Dave
Scapegoat "a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, especially for reasons of expediency." "synonyms: whipping boy"
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 7, 2016 9:57:53 GMT -6
d. Decision tree. The reason this battle was lost was the decision by LTC Custer to not support his advance guard in the valley. The battle was lost by this decision, and by no other cause. LTC Custer could have mitigated this incompetent decision by informing his subordinates that he would not follow his own orders, but he did not. I have been waiting for several years for someone to explain LTC Custer's decision tree. No one has, because they can not.quote] DucemusWe have in image, Custer's Lookout, from where, according to Fred Benteen, Custer and Trumpeter Martin surveyed LBH valley before three companies led by Marcus Reno began their advance towards the summer camp of the Buffalo Hunters. Given below the image of Custer's perch, is the relevant data provided by Fred Benteen from his communication of July 4th, 1876. We can deduce, and find support in the study and analysis conducted by Ed Curtis that Custer recon'd the valley prior to Reno making his advance and could at any time have halted that movement. Simply by waving his hat, no less. Of course, as is very well known but little acknowledged - Marcus Reno was blind stupid drunk at the time Custer was first on the bluffs and subsequently waving his hat. Of course we know from Trumpeter Martin that George Custer was not waving at Marcus but rather saluting his own command. It is perfectly correct that George Custer's command did not launch an attack into LBH valley but sat in the area of the mouth of MTC and Deep Coulee until the unauthorised retreat from battle by Marcus Reno, allowed the Buffalo Hunting hostiles to cut off the five companies from returning across MTC to join the advancing pack train. Fred Benteen had been ordered to advance quickly and join Marcus in the valley but in fact moved so slowly that the retreat was under way when Companies H, D, and K, arrived near Ford A. Benteen then disobeyed his written orders to go quickly to the Big Village. George Custer of course was shot several times and killed. Before this however, he had summoned the pack train and countermanded that by ordering Benteen and the pack train to go to the valley and support the drunken Reno. Thus, it is predictably logical to assume that Custer waited for his regiment to concentrate in the valley as ordered, before launching a charge across the river with the five companies he led. We know the following from the Ree hero Red Bear, As he rode up to the end of the ridge, he saw many soldiers retreating. Then at their head he saw Reno, with a white handkerchief tied about his head, his mouth and beard white with foam, which dripped down, and his eyes were wild and rolling.'' The soldiers with Reno took Red Bear for a Dakota and aimed their guns at him, but he rode in close to Reno and struck him on the chest with his open hand, crying *' Scout, scout !' Reno called out to him in reply: "The Sioux, the Sioux, where ?" Red Bear pointed down over the ridge where the Dakotas were. Just then an officer with three stripes gave him some cartridges for his gun, this officer had cartridges in boxes on his arm and as he opened a box the cartridges tumbled out. As the officer gave Red Bear the cartridges, he called to him, " John, John." They then all fired at the Dakotas higher up on the ridge without taking any aim, merely holding the guns up on a slant and firing.' Looks like Marcus lost his breakfast. It had obviously been to busy for anything other than liquid lunch.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 7, 2016 10:29:00 GMT -6
With the exception the Hilltop Fight, did Custer ever assault the Indians with more than the 3 company battalion of Reno? Did he not attack in a piecemeal fashion of 1 company at a time? If Custer does not properly deploy and use his force, than how can Reno be the cause of defeat? Marcus Reno was the scapegoat for the 7th Cavalry and George Custer at the Little Big Horn. Regards Dave Scapegoat "a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, especially for reasons of expediency." "synonyms: whipping boy" DucemusI believe it is correct to state that George Custer was Reno's scapegoat for the disaster and this was evidenced in his testimony to the Inquiry into his actions. Other's who investigated these matters were damning of both Reno and Benteen. Yet others were critical of Sitting Bull and in honesty there was and remains sufficient blame for everyone involved to share. Whilst immense emphasis dwells upon various ineptitudes with the following of orders and of which both Reno and Benteen were blatantly guilty, the little sympathy afforded the balance of killed and those surviving, speaks entire volumes. The national monument is an evolving tribute to those who do and die, defending their way of life. Reno and Benteen subsequently disgraced themselves and there are those only too happy to so attribute a noted, capable and in truth outstanding cavalry commander. Reno had no orders to retreat, no leeway to so do without permission and was to await his support, which had arrived when he fled out of battle.
|
|
|
Post by dave on May 7, 2016 13:40:45 GMT -6
HR Quite simply George Custer was the commanding officer of the 7th Cavalry while in the field. Custer is responsible for the outcome of the battle on June 25, 1876 and the subsequent disaster lies in his lap alone. Custer failed to follow and support Reno as promised, and proceeded north with only 5 companies under his direct command. Along the way north he dropped his companies, one by one alone and out of range of mutual support. Custer ended up on Last Stand Hill with a hodgepodge soldiers from various companies, defending a poor opened position under attack from all directions.
Yet, you and others insist that the fiasco at the Little Big Horn was any and everybody's fault except Custer. Custer is and was many things but an innocent victim or scapegoat he is not. You are attempting to recreate history to your vision despite all facts and evidence being against your project. You are persistent if nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by edavids on May 7, 2016 13:55:55 GMT -6
With the exception the Hilltop Fight, did Custer ever assault the Indians with more than the 3 company battalion of Reno? Did he not attack in a piecemeal fashion of 1 company at a time? If Custer does not properly deploy and use his force, than how can Reno be the cause of defeat? Marcus Reno was the scapegoat for the 7th Cavalry and George Custer at the Little Big Horn. Regards Dave Scapegoat "a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, especially for reasons of expediency." "synonyms: whipping boy" I do not bother reading HR's posts. I gather they are more nonsensical than usual due to: -- I noticed on the LBHA board that "keogh" recently corrected Herosrest twice. Both were polite and brief which is highly unusual . It is extremely rare that I agree with the way keogh handles anything or any of his agenda-driven views. For keogh to openly correct someone who backs his views tells me the level of Herosrest's nonsense has gone beyond extreme. For the record I believe keogh tends to ignore HR's rants. Now HR makes fun of the views of a special forces officer who has actually served his country and faced enemy bullets (yes, I did read that post). These forums welcome anyone. We individually have the right to ignore individuals who add little or nothing to the conversation which, speaking for myself, I will go continue to do. Best, David
|
|
|
Post by benteen on May 7, 2016 14:52:14 GMT -6
. Reno had no orders to retreat, no leeway to so do without permission and was to await his support, which had arrived when he fled out of battle.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 7, 2016 15:50:07 GMT -6
Ducemus Obviously Custer made some very serious mistakes and was killed in consequence. That left Marcus Reno in command and responsibility and his little tail should be nailed to a tree and scalped. He ran before Custer's command could involve in the fight and before Benteen could toodle on down at his leisure to join in.... let me see... a regimental attack by .... oh yes, cavalry. Cavalry making a regimental attack, by the book. That Custer attacked was foolish but that does not excuse the idiots he put his faith in. They got him killed.
Anyone who imagines that Terry, Gibbon and Brisbin with 380 men would have made a blind bit of difference should research sunflower oil.
It was all Reno's fault and he began lying the minute Terry arrived.
|
|