|
Post by Mike Powell on Oct 28, 2016 17:52:24 GMT -6
Dan,
no need to apologize, been there myself with the IRS.
Bill,
for the moment I've plugged in 400 for the warriors at Palo Duro but I'll take anything you can offer on just how many there were.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Nov 2, 2016 15:25:23 GMT -6
Here are 19 engagements between US and Plains Indians in the last half of the 19th Century showing number of combatants and the Red or Blue winning side or a draw: Data are principally Wiki, so feel free to critique. The LBH is broken into the three engagements. Palo Duro Canyon numbers for Red are a guess on my part, based on numbers for lodges and captured horses and mules. Wins, losses and draws are my perceptions and certainly arguable. Why I rate Beecher Island a Blue victory and Reno/Benteen a draw; only my perceptions. Guess I could easily call Reno/Benteen a Red win since they get to withdraw unmolested This chart focuses on the ratio between the sides. Winning side in red or blue. Draws are shown yellow: This chart displays number of combatants, Red vertical axis, Blue horizontal: What do I make of this? Well, 19 fights 7 Red winds, 7 blue wins, 5 draws. Red losses when they have the advantage of numbers are only Beecher and Palo Duro (where they may not have had the advantage). More draws occur where Blue has the advantage. I need to think more on it but, overall, except for Beecher it's way better to have a lot bigger side than the other guy has.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Nov 2, 2016 21:37:13 GMT -6
1. Are the 8 and 11 Aug 73 fights in this list? The first was a draw, the second a defeat.
Definitions matter. Why was 11 Aug 73 a defeat. The mission of LTC Custer's task force was to attack a fleeing village. The Indians fought a delaying action. They not only completely defeated Custer's attack, they forced the early cancellation of the entire expedition. US forces retreated from the theater entirely.
I am drawing a distinction between tactical outcomes, and operational and strategic outcomes.
2. Tactical evolution. This was an era of changing technology. As tech changes, so do tactics.
a. Modern stagnation. Infantry weapons have been stable for decades. We still use machine guns and mortars consistent with WWI. (The M1919 MG ring a bell, entered the force in 1919, copy of WWI prototype) RPG is a copy of WW2 weapon. Assault rifles are also from WW2 weapons.
b. USA. Civil War started with tactics still based on the Brown Bess musket. This was a smoothbore weapon accurate to 50 meters, that required soldiers shoulder to shoulder firing in mass t provide effective fire. The change to smoothbore rifles accurate to 300 meters led to no change in tactics, until massive losses led to change. The further evolution of breech loading rifles, with multi shot ability, was still being sorted out. Upton's 1872 and 1874 manuals were an effort to keep up.
c. Plains Indians. Plains Indians started out as infantry in forests. The addition of the horse and lost wars pushed them into the plains in the 1700s. They were still evolving tactics in the 1800s. Beecher Island tells us a lot about Indian ability to understand tactics. At Beecher island Indians used their traditional tactic of using the horse to close with the enemy, and then using arrows at very close range, or melee weapons. AT Beecher island they ran into multishot breechloaders, and were beaten. Note they dropped their tactics after Beecher island, never again. They changed their tactics and aggressively sought better weapons.
d. My point is that the Indians showed a greater ability to learn from battles than the USA. 7th Cav was out thought and out fought.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Nov 3, 2016 6:41:41 GMT -6
Mike, your work is well done. I only wonder about the numbers of warriors you apply. The questions for me are did you apply the average of 4 warriors per tepee? Did anyone account for wikiups, as they were generally occupied by single males(warriors). If I recall correctly some with the 7th thought the wikiups were used for dogs, until corrected?
Thank you for your work.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Nov 5, 2016 11:19:46 GMT -6
I apologize for the tardy reply. I've been busy with pre-Thanksgiving window washing and am much chewed up by oak tree mites as a result.
montrose,
No, the 1873 fights are not included. Nor are the smallish Hay Field or Wagon Box fights or probably some others. What you see in the list of nineteen is what you get. The two you mention are probably worth adding; we'll see.
From what I can read of Beecher Island, Indian tactics changed during the course of the fight, shifting to sniping from concealment after the initial repulses.
You raise an interesting point on the adaptability of the Native Americans vice that of the US Army. I tend to see that in terms of the relative rapid pace of distributed decision making versus the slower pace of a strongly hierarchical and doctrinal organization. Drifting afield, the latter mode is best illustrated in my mind by SAC-Omaha's guidance of the successful but costly Linebacker II raids on Hanoi (a chance to plug Marshal Michel's "Eleven Days of Christmas: America's Last Vietnam Battle")
Tom,
For some time my opinion of the number of warriors overall at LBH has settled at "around 2,500" I don't think it could be off by more than a 1,000 either way and I'd bet small money it's within 500....or maybe 750, again either way. I don't recall how I got to that number, the process was rather organic - I suppose I could reconstruct it but since I like 2,500 I'm already biased. I do like numbers, especially those that are based on something, numbers have an objective quality that words lack. But some words are immortal; Chico Marx, "Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" Some subordinate or employee may have preempted Chico by speaking those very words to Custer?
Regards to both you fellows,
Mike
|
|