|
Post by herosrest on Jan 15, 2017 11:37:36 GMT -6
Ducemus ADA424983.pdf (862.39 KB) Ambrose observed that “In military affairs it is exceedingly difficult to outflank a flanking force, but when achieved it is usually spectacularly successful” (Ambrose, 1975, p. 445). A June 2004 study by Charlebois and Pecha, advised by McCormick and Mansager; examined plausibility of established battle theory utilizing the Joint Conflict and Tactical Simulation (JCATS) program developed by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. What is a fascinating study, builded upon earlier work by Burns in 2000 which looked also at plausibility of the theory given by Fox, Gray and Ambrose. The three authors' Custer fights at LBH estimated that part of the battle lasted approximately one hour. Ambrose states less than an hour, Fox states about an hour, and Gray, with his detailed time analysis, estimated one hour and seven minutes. Each theory was run ten times and the output files produced by JCATS analyzed to determine how close the results of each simulation were to the known outcome of the actual. This was pretty cool bleed for 2004 (JCATS) and priorly Army’s FM 101-5 assessment (gaming) tools. With a benchmark set at one hour it was posited that expectating the Indians would suffer more casualties due to the inability of a computer program to properly compensate for all human factors that degrade marksmanship in combat, one should reasonably expect the duration of the engagement to be shorter in simulation than actual battle. All iterations concluded in less than benchmark hour. Duration of the Ambrose scenario was extremely consistent. Converting the decimal figures to minutes and seconds, one sees that all ten iterations ended at between 27:11 and 27:30, a span of only 19 seconds. Gray was slightly less consistent with a range across all ten iterations of only 1 minute and 43 seconds ranging from 36:16 to 37:59 when converted. Fox has a range 1 minute and 48 seconds for nine of the iterations ranging from 27:52 to 29:40 when converted to minutes and seconds. Run number six was an outlier where the battle lasted 44 minutes and 17 seconds. Time wise, that outlier came closest to benchmark. What makes this even more remarkable is the fact that number of Indian casualties in this iteration was 36. Only one other iteration was closer to our benchmark of 40, run number three of Fox with an Indian casualty count of 37. What is an interesting work using computational assessment of (then) leading battle theory includes tantalising hard core gun data in endless table form over which salacious salivation should certainly be absolutely possible. Quite remarkable technical data sets. Enjoy. $0 minutes is still an awfully long lunch time for a hungry man. Of course, had Benteen and Reno gone immediately to Weir's Pointy peak with their guidons, when they united forces then Custer's companies would not have retreated away from them (Reno & Benteen) and would not have been slaughtered and survived as did the companies on Reno Hill.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Jan 16, 2017 21:45:59 GMT -6
Hero,
I believe your heart is in the right place, and you make meaningful contributions.
Where you lose me is your frequent links to student theses in Naval Post Graduate School. I have linked my own thesis before. Look, we do not study history at NPS/CGSC/War college. We are trying to teach how to think, not what to think.
I have known Keith for 15 years, Gordon for 32. Gordon worked as a bartender in grad school, when I was undergrad. He slept on my couch for a summer, to save money. I lived two doors down from a Philly bar called Murphy's where he worked. He also slept with a student I chased all 4 years in college, and I still have a grudge.
So you link a thesis. SO what? Does it have anything meaningful to say on this battle?
It doesn't, and you knew that when you linked it.
I mean no disrespect.
Respectfully,
William
Ambrose is a plagiarist, he has some 50000 documented cases where he stole other peoples work. SO cite the original source. Citing Ambrose means you have no idea what you are talking about. Ummm, Ambrose has had his degrees overturned at college, grad school, and PHD for his stolen work. This jackass was stealing work from high school to death. Citing him proves you do not know this battle, this era, any framework of analysis.
You know better, friend.
.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 17, 2017 7:23:48 GMT -6
DucemusIt's there to be considered and pulled apart, down, dissected and builded up. It is thinking about thinking and i'll do the same a different way. I applaud your criticism as love gone wrong and obviously can learn from it and your approach to it, which is I believe neither respectful or disrespectful. Each author posited duration and this was tested by modeling which should be improved i understanding results generated by the exercise. Multiple acceptable battle theories were compared and reviewed and results reviewed. You do not believe that that learning was worthwhile, I guess, but I found it entertaining - which study of the battle can be - and whilst not enlightening in other than introduction to a modelling tool I found the thinking which it produced to be worthwhile. The exercise producing the theory was innovative and very well structured thinking with what is an entirely speculative maths output. The weapon data may prove useful if I get to grips with it. Stepping outside the bubble for a moment, I involved in interesting discussion with AZR about the developing fad for the Ford D theories which interest me because of the way they have evolved over time and never being realistic proposition whilst participants were alive. The Northern (Western) fords are the product of innovations since 1956 when Cheyenne History gained political standing. John Stands in Timber got his relatives kill sites marked and presaged an immense change in public attitude and recognition. His theory of the battle is baloney! Using artifact patterning the discussion argued the Fox et al ideas of cavalry progressing to western fords and returning to 'attack' Custer's Hill. Brilliant stuff. I am very seriously sceptical of the western fords idea because it actually took place in 1926 and not 1876. Using some visual record of the artifact patterning, I was advised this showed the northern fords sortie but I can only see avenues of approach from the west towards Custer's Hill which were peppered with Springfield rounds out to 900-1000 yards. The interesting aspect of the thesis was and is that it tried to prove nothing and very effectively imbued the idea that the Custer fight was of short duration. The one rather loose area was giving that real life action would naturally take longer than what the mathematics offered. That is a significant leap by intuition which I would have enjoyed being rationalised. Criticism is always welcome as long as it does not patronise. How would you feel as Expedition Commander arriving to Reno on the 27th June 1876, being told that the Reno Hill siege began at 2:30pm of the 25th? We don't have to agree, do we? Within both contexts 1, moving north makes sense but had it been known the seven companies were gathering east of Weir's pointy peak then the five companies would have gone to them and fought their way through the five hundred hostiles who attacked them from the Weir's Peak locale. They could simply have charged through to Reno and Benteen although of course they were not in command and there is a train of thought that Custer was suicidal. A suicidal Lt. Col...... Oh yeah! 1 Not knowing of retreat from the valley or not knowing where the retreat went; and the balance of the regiment attacking across Ford A.For General Consumption (he was a drunken bum) beyond this response, i'm sniffing around JCATS in curiosity and found this..... thesis. link Enjoy. Now, HERE is a 2010 assessment of archaeology, over which at page 80 my discussion with AZR evolved and which shows what I see. Out to 900-1000 yards west from LSH, the evidence indicates heavy firing from cavalry on LSH which peppered western approaches to the hill. Rounds would go under and over ridgelines used by hostiles for cover and simple pepper the area. I do not believe that these routes towards the F and E companys from the west played any significat part in fighting or movement and hitting anything out at 900 yards is ridiculous unless volley fired but theory is theory and theory is the game. Here's a part of the discoruse - ND The attached hash lays 1,000 yard range from the monument, over BRE and entrance road junction with 212 to indicate carbine range. Michno on Black PowderHere is an improved 1,000 yard radius on Last Stand Hill within which bullets from that point could be expected to be discovered. Targets would be avenues of approach to LSH and hostiles concealed to pop up from cover under ridge lines. Rounds would fall short and bury in the ground and fly over to tumble out anywhere within maximum range depending upon elevation. We know from the 1930 Big Beaver sketch that Cheyennes moving out from the village against Custer, moved across Realbird Ford and along the river over Greasy Grass Ridge before swinging north onto Battle Ridge and fixing cavalry movement to where the companies perished. Whilst the account of the fighting given by Big Beaver and published by Blummer gace the impression of movement down the valley towards western fords beyond LSH, the sketch and related account make sure that what really took place is record and understood. Big Beaver map Big Beaver brought in ponies, painted up and rode to battle with the Cheyennes who moved onto Battle Ridge over GGR and prevented cavalry movement further west. The Cheyennes fixed Custer to Battle Ridge and it was over quickly. When Weir reached his pointy peak, Sgt. Flanagan stopped him riding over towards the five companies by advising that the riders galloping about with guidons were in fact hostiles. Custer fight over by the time Weir viewed the terrain downriver from Weir's Peak.
|
|
dgfred
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Mo 42
Jan 17, 2017 10:16:00 GMT -6
Post by dgfred on Jan 17, 2017 10:16:00 GMT -6
Dang... I have been trying to get that 'uncovering history' link on my work computer. Thanks!
|
|
|
Mo 42
Jan 19, 2017 12:35:18 GMT -6
Post by montrose on Jan 19, 2017 12:35:18 GMT -6
My Stephen Ambrose issues are not that he is a liar and thief, but the bugger fooled me.
This was before Gore invented the internet, had some phone and face to face contacts, as a naïve college student. My connection was a Penn English teacher,. who was an early SEAL, though I didn't know that for decades.
Modern analysis of Ambrose shows that he is an early precursor of poster Keough, He has agendas. He steals without attribution. He deletes testimony, that he cites to fit his views. He deletes testimony, that he cites, that does not agree with his views.
Again, analysis of Ambrose shows over 50,000 cases where he stole others work.
This is LBH forum, so in general, who cares.
Yet LBH attracts enormous emotional. I am a knuckle dragger, joined Army as a private, following 4 generations before me.
This battle confuses me. The most prominent ideas and theories are based on lies and fabrications. The people who follow this battle show great hero worship for press releases, and absolute contempt for NCOS and enlisted men doing their jobs.
Robb, You despise EM, right behind poster Keough, based on about 200 posts. Ummm, you were EM, what caused you to despise the ability of soldiers/airmen?
What, you did not think the members here read your posts? We do, and you owe us, and the US Air Force, an apology.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Jan 20, 2017 13:45:33 GMT -6
Robb,
Glad to see you still here on this board. I have no doubt this board has doubled your knowledge of LBH and the military.
Of course, two times zero remains zero.
Respectfully,
Montrose
|
|
|
Mo 42
Jan 20, 2017 18:31:49 GMT -6
Post by herosrest on Jan 20, 2017 18:31:49 GMT -6
3 Quote - 'This battle confuses me. The most prominent ideas and theories are based on lies and fabrications. Entirely original and very valid. Hurrah!
|
|
|
Mo 42
Jan 21, 2017 3:55:51 GMT -6
Post by herosrest on Jan 21, 2017 3:55:51 GMT -6
Ducemus THIRD VERSION OF CUSTER'S LAST BATTLE. Winfield Courier, August 24, 1876. Custer's Last Trail.
The first Cheyenne account of the fighting.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jan 21, 2017 7:49:45 GMT -6
Montrose, ..have forgotten more LBH history than you're capable of learning in several lifetimes, but keep pushing that rock up that never-ending hill. We'll watch... Robb Really, why don't you share it, instead of being a smart a$$, clueless troll.
|
|
|
Mo 42
Jan 21, 2017 19:32:34 GMT -6
Post by tubman13 on Jan 21, 2017 19:32:34 GMT -6
Robb,
Or should I say "Nowhere Man Don't Worry, Nowhere Man Making All Your Plans For Nobody." So far the thumbs up are 3 for me and non for you. Go call some friends to vote for you, if you have any, or better yet review another book you have not read.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 22, 2017 9:33:20 GMT -6
Montrose, ..have forgotten more LBH history than you're capable of learning in several lifetimes, but keep pushing that rock up that never-ending hill. We'll watch... Robb Robb Apparently you have forgotten everything or refuse to share your knowledge which is my complaint. What is the difference between not ever knowing and having forgotten everything you know? One thing I know is never assume what someone else knows. Just how much knowledge do you have of what Will has read, experienced, and officer training? Regards Steve
|
|
|
Mo 42
Jan 22, 2017 9:55:13 GMT -6
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 22, 2017 9:55:13 GMT -6
Stepping outside the bubble for a moment, I involved in interesting discussion with AZR about the developing fad for the Ford D theories which interest me because of the way they have evolved over time and never being realistic proposition whilst participants were alive. The Northern (Western) fords are the product of innovations since 1956 when Cheyenne History gained political standing. John Stands in Timber got his relatives kill sites marked and presaged an immense change in public attitude and recognition. His theory of the battle is baloney!
Using artifact patterning the discussion argued the Fox et al ideas of cavalry progressing to western fords and returning to 'attack' Custer's Hill. Brilliant stuff. I am very seriously sceptical of the western fords idea because it actually took place in 1926 and not 1876. Using some visual record of the artifact patterning, I was advised this showed the northern fords sortie but I can only see avenues of approach from the west towards Custer's Hill which were peppered with Springfield rounds out to 900-1000 yards.
HR It was cartridge cases found not bullets that indicate movement to the north. The bullets found close to the current entrance road are out of range of LSH. I think Fred agrees there was movement north of LSH with a desire to cross the river north of the village. How far they made it is open to discussion but the evidence is sufficient to suggest Ford Ds were the goal. Kellogg's marker at old entrance would suggest a movement to Ford Ds. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Mo 42
Jan 22, 2017 11:07:37 GMT -6
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 22, 2017 11:07:37 GMT -6
HR
Look at the map you posted and you will see that on the left is where the almost 15 year old Big Beaver was located. Notice the horse herd is north of LSH. BB helps drive the horses into camp then is told to go watch what the battle and count coupe on dead soldiers.
So it only represents what one 15 year old Cheyenne boy did 50 years prior to making his drawing.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 22, 2017 11:12:33 GMT -6
Ranger, Clueless is your middle name, enjoy...! Robb You think you're funny but it really shows how non-factual your statements are to me. The fact is my middle name is Gilbert. That is my father's name who served in WWII. Thanks for proving my point that you are clueless when it comes to making statements based upon facts. Regards Steven Gilbert Andrews
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 23, 2017 8:41:47 GMT -6
Dang... I have been trying to get that 'uncovering history' link on my work computer. Thanks! You will find the HR is a valuable asset when attempting to find things on the Internet. He also has a sense of humor that you should tolerate because of his contributions. On the other hand Robb (Pequod)fancies himself a grammar and spelling expert and he is but he contributes nothing. He alleges a wealth of LBH knowledge but we can't tell from his contributions here. Regards AZ Ranger Steve
|
|