|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 24, 2016 6:38:06 GMT -6
Maybe Robb can point us to the forum where he has shared his vast knowledge. I doubt it. Only in his dreams is more likely. The trouble with someone who lies is that there is no depth to their story.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Jul 24, 2016 7:06:43 GMT -6
Maybe Robb can point us to the forum where he has shared his vast knowledge. I doubt it. Only in his dreams is more likely. The trouble with someone who lies is that there is no depth to their story. Steve, True. But we have allowed this braying Old Barnum to train wreck this board. So how about we go back to discussing the battle, and do not allow this pompous person to further disrupt the board. His knowledge of this battle is shallow and meaningless, about as useful as a wiki article. He has been given numerous opportunities to discuss the battle as a rational, mature adult, and is not able to operate on that level. Stop feeding the troll. Respectfully, Montrose
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 24, 2016 8:16:35 GMT -6
Maybe Robb can point us to the forum where he has shared his vast knowledge. I doubt it. Only in his dreams is more likely. The trouble with someone who lies is that there is no depth to their story. Steve, True. But we have allowed this braying Old Barnum to train wreck this board. So how about we go back to discussing the battle, and do not allow this pompous person to further disrupt the board. His knowledge of this battle is shallow and meaningless, about as useful as a wiki article. He has been given numerous opportunities to discuss the battle as a rational, mature adult, and is not able to operate on that level. Stop feeding the troll. Respectfully, Montrose You're right Regards Steve
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 24, 2016 8:41:32 GMT -6
So back to soldiers firing in air. I am about to finish reading the 1874 Invasion of Montana by Don Weibert. The group of persons that was put together for this expedition was composed of men willing to fight and could shoot like Special Forces. One shot was made on a moving Indian about to pull the sentry off his horse. The distance was 1/4 miles at a galloping Indian. One shot one kill. Another shot was made at one miles with a .50 caliber rifle .
The frontiersmen told some of the others about what the Indians considered good or bad medicine and the effect on their willingness to fight. These men were shooters and hits made for bad medicine for the Indians. Indians on a ridge were shot and hit. So they hid behind the ridge raising their firearm with one arm to fire in the general direction. Their arms were shot. One Indian raised a feather on a coupe stick and a shooter shot the feather.
Herendeen was along with the group of men along with Muggins. His opinion of what could be done with shooters that can make hits should be far different than soldiers that did not make hits. The Indians knew the soldiers were not good shots long before LBH. They learned that this group of 153 men could shoot and maneuver. It also described some of the tactics used by the Indians where some we close to an Indian victory.
At one point 5 individuals charged on foot 300 Indians that had gathered behind a ridge. They shot their toward the Indians and the casualties inflicted caused the Indians to flee.
One of the sites with rifle pits is on SFRC within walking distance of the 7th Ranch. We have been to the site on the divide but I hope to find this one next year.
I had suspicions of what was know about SFRC as travel corridor. That Herendeen was in battles with the Indians at several locations between the Rosebud and Reno Creek area confirms some of what I believe. SFRC was a travel corridor for the Indians and used as wagon trail in 1874. Depending on where some of the Indians were camped it needed to have some attention. I think sending Benteen was part of the solution. That it turned up to be nothing is hindsight. But I know that at least Herendeen knew a lot about SFRC.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Jul 24, 2016 9:13:11 GMT -6
Dave, It isn't the first time you've been wrong and it won't be the last. As for contributing my knowledge of the LBH, this is not the forum to wax erudite or jump through hoops for the entertainment of the uninformed on this board. But, this forum is entertaining for the opinions and occasional tidbits of "history". Pequod Ugh! I am proud to have made a minor contribution to this discussion even if just 3 letters and an exclamation mark. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jul 24, 2016 13:21:12 GMT -6
It is contributions like yours that make my life worth living. You shined a wee bit of joy, into a rather mundane day. thank you, David.
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Jul 24, 2016 16:35:54 GMT -6
It is contributions like yours that make my life worth living. You shined a wee bit of joy, into a rather mundane day. thank you, David. I am honored. Now onto a good discussion instead of the mundane polysyllabic utterances of ....... I will refrain from the offensive but likely accurate description of the questionable individual who has been fool enough to besmirch this board. Best, David
|
|
|
Post by dave on Jul 25, 2016 15:09:50 GMT -6
Steve The mentioning of former fights by experienced scouts and hunters against Indians does not carry over to the fight at the LBH does it? The majority of soldiers were not experienced frontier men or skilled hunters but rather untrained troops who had little practice firing their weapons if I have read and studied correctly.
I can only imagine the terror most of these men experienced facing the large number of hostiles they faced. I have read where the men bunched together instead of keeping their intervals during the fights between Calhoun Hill and Last Stand Hill.
You and montrose among others as well as Dan have been in combat and can relate to how the 7th soldiers would have reacted in such desperate circumstances. Shooting into the air, not aiming or failing to shoot would be typical reactions of men without combat experience, would it not? I know during the War 1861 to 1865 many rifles were recovered on battlefields that had not been fired but had several charges loaded into weapon.
So using a combat eye, did the soldiers fire recklessly or is it a false charge? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jul 25, 2016 16:10:09 GMT -6
edavids, I'll leave you deputy-dog types to your own devices and wish you all luck in your circular firing squad configuration... Pequod In your case that would be a circle Jerk. You acting like this in a thread titled " Soldiers Firing in the Air", is, I guess, appropriate in that all you have done on these boards is pop-off.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Jul 27, 2016 12:08:02 GMT -6
I started a thread "1876 Facts about Custer and the Little Big Horn" and was going to put this fact there but decided this may be a better place for it.
Fact # 692...As Custer rode toward his last battle, he was supported by a regiment not at its best, whos ranks were filled with men who were headed for their first battle. Indeed 30-40% of the enlisted men were in their first enlistment. Sgt Ferdinand Culbertson (Co A) later testified " ( The new men ) had very little training. They were poor horsemen, and would fire at random. They were brave enough, but they had not the time nor the opportunity to make soldiers. Some of them were not fit to take into action,"
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jul 27, 2016 12:42:43 GMT -6
Dan, Thank you for a real contribution. Fred's 1st book, "Participants" helps to detail this, listing enlistment dates. Many of the troops had also been in the south keeping the peace and not engaged on the plains. Reno himself had not been a part of Indian action since the late 1850's, on the west coast, as a very junior officer.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jul 27, 2016 13:34:56 GMT -6
Hi Dan While agreeing with fact 692 nowhere during the battle did the behavior of the men limit the options of the officers. Regards Richard
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Jul 27, 2016 15:08:13 GMT -6
Hi Dan While agreeing with fact 692 nowhere during the battle did the behavior of the men limit the options of the officers. Regards Richard Richard, You make a valid point. But the flip side of that is that an officers options can be limited to the ability of the troops he is commanding. According to Sgt Culbertson the ability of the 7th Cavalry troopers wasnt very good. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by dave on Jul 27, 2016 16:00:05 GMT -6
Dan/Richard As y'all know I have no military experience and certainly can add nothing to a battle thread. But if I may, in any team activity, military or sports, the training and experience of the soldiers/players certainly affects the performance of the commander/coach. In American football, a team needs plays for both offense and defense and practice time to learn and perform. Why would be any different for military leaders?
Custer had little if any command time of all 12 companies in place and failed to issue clear precise training agendas for company officers to establish and follow. I am somewhat puzzled as to the laxity of the company officers in training and preparing their unit for combat. The Indian Wars had been going on for over a decade so they could not have been surprised that trouble could arise in any moment. I am I completely wrong in thinking this way? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jul 28, 2016 4:27:26 GMT -6
I am in full agreement guys but to confirm the point some examples from the battlefild is necessary and I find none. Is there an example anywhere of the men failing to hold their ground ? Does the RCOI contain any evidence from officers suggesting that actions were not carried out because it was feared the men were not up to it? One of the most difficult maneuvers on the battlefield is changing front in the face of the enemy and this the men achieved when taking post in the timber. Best Regards Richard
|
|