|
|
Post by herosrest on May 4, 2023 5:52:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on May 4, 2023 7:02:55 GMT -6
Sweet! Is that from MS Flight Simulator?  |
|
logan
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by logan on May 4, 2023 8:42:16 GMT -6
I recall watching a couple of fascinating documentaries on other subjects, that used LiDar technology to acquire detailed imagery of terrain, which I think could even ‘see through’ later trees and vegetation to the ground below to get the true lay of the land, as more usual aerial footage/photographs, couldn’t emphasise just how uneven the ground was, unless actually standing on it and walking over the battleground area, to understand the dips, hollows, dead ground, etc. www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XdqGNu9bhkI’m sure this tech has been used for the LBH battleground and surrounding areas by now, but this topic just reminded me of this 3D mapping facility. |
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 5, 2023 14:57:15 GMT -6
Sweet! Is that from MS Flight Simulator? No. From an F-100D tasked to nuke Sitting Bull. He wasn't home. 😭 |
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 5, 2023 15:04:12 GMT -6
There was a LIDAR survey done which focused mainly the National Cemetery. I bumped into a web page on it way back. There have been GIS projects from time to time and if'n I remember, CBHMA advertised for interns to run a project a few years ago. I think that idea co-incided with the pandemic outbreaks.
Hell of a place to fight without artillery. A mortarman's dream. Drop 150. Hang two.
There was an FO involved with discussions way back. Interesting guy and insights.
|
|
logan
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by logan on May 5, 2023 17:35:24 GMT -6
Herosrest
Combine Lidar imagery with a crowd dynamics simulation using estimated figures of those present on the battlefield in 1876.
Calculate speed, mounted/dismounted and the deployment of both sides and let the programme play out, I reckon several variations would bring interesting results.
|
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 6, 2023 0:00:30 GMT -6
LBH is somewhat a different kettle of kippers in being uncivilised during millenia and with interests focused upon one hour, 146 years back. So, no old dwellings and the 'ancient' animal trails long known and mapped. It might help tracing ancient and more recent river flows but they are truly chaotic because of weather extremes and the man made record is broadly understood as railway, then irrigation and permanent settlement began as the land was plotted and settled after the Crow Tribe moved in from 1878 and the current Agency was established during the 1880's.
The survey i'm aware of plotted national cemetery grave stones to millimeter accuracy besides models of the terrain but isn't going to identify battle artifacts or interpret those already found.
If you are suggesting simulation can provide answers as to the tactical fight then I suggest considering a piece of string problem and how many simulations until there are enough to negate probability - which is what number crunching tries but is only as good as its mindset. Map the moon for a landing mission - brilliant. Figure out LBH...... Falls off a log laughing at the impossibilities.
The battle is a cultural phenomenon of social interests and influences and no different in essence to the Norman subjugation of Scotland. Of course such data has a thousand million uses and is of interest to anyone interested in modern warfare or ancient civilisation but very little took place in Montana. Climate change? It is one of the most inhospitable places on Earth which is how the native population ended up there until gols and silver and oil and coal were discovered.
It might well be science for science's sake. The technology is fascinating - immense data manipulation and no doubt AI will get its turn but when a simple battle is as confused and confusing as this one is, it's the realm of psychology and its study of the historians which is relevant. It was a simple battle.
Reno did a shoot and scoot. Custer, Keogh and Yates were cut off and handed their backsides.
|
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 6, 2023 2:36:51 GMT -6
Hit your picks. THIS paper presents the geospatial analysis conducted for the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument (LiBi), site of "Custer's Last Stand," by the Geospatial Information & Service Center (GI&SC) at the United States Air Force Academy. The LiBi GIS is intended to support a wide range of staff operations, including facility management, archaeological efforts, and visitor information. Recent effort has focused on the use of Esri's 3D and Tracking Analyst to shed light on some of the mysteries that still surround the battle and to present clearly current that understanding to visitors. This project is a research effort by the US Air Force Academy to provide senior-level cadets with a "hands-on" application of the GIS theory. The lethality, ferocity and speed of the Battle of the Little Bighorn has burned that event into the collective American psyche in the 120-odd years since the battle. Those same elements combine to challenge historians in their attempts to accurately interpret and adequately describe the events of the conflict between Sitting Bull's combined Sioux/Cheyenne Nations and General George Armstrong Custer's 7th Cavalry, where in little more than two hours on a hot June afternoon in 1876 hundreds of warriors destroyed five companies (210 soldiers) of the 7th Cavalry. The GI&SC approached the LiBi staff to propose a combined effort to bring geospatial tools to bear in this challenge. The resulting work provides insight into the use of GIS to support historical reconstruction, as well as outlining the challenges of implementing GIS in small governmental agencies........  MANGO. An Instance where GIS analyses will assist greatly to narrow where to search for remains. Looks like they'll arrive about 24:00 hours.
|
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 6, 2023 2:42:32 GMT -6
Free GISNiCE - QL1 lidar acquired over approximately 5 square miles of the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument in Montana  THIS project earned a 2015 MAPPS Geospatial Excellence Award and was historic for Woolpert. This viewlink comes up dark at the moment (09:55 UKTime) but should brighten when the sun comes up, which helps somewhat with the whens of what happened, happened. You can watch the sun rise but i'm not sure the app time is correct. Perhaps like Maguire, their chronometers fell off a wagon in Davis Creek. Montana sunrise. Silly me.......... the view is west of south.  Custer Catastrophe< TEXT DESIGNED BY AI
|
|
|
|
Post by noggy on May 6, 2023 7:49:54 GMT -6
Herosrest Calculate speed, mounted/dismounted and the deployment of both sides and let the programme play out, I reckon several variations would bring interesting results. Combat is a hell of a thing. Rough terrain is a hell of a thing. Animals are animals. Humans are...well, animals with cool thumbs... How precisely can we expect a calculation of the speed of either man or horse to be? Many have tried to present the movements down to the minute. I respect their work but I feel it often doesn't "take height" (this is my using a Norwegian term, can't find the proper English substitute for it) all the numerous small things that could have happened. Maybe GAC had to go number two at one point, haulting up the command, maybe Smith's horse ran of because of a snake, maybe etc etc. I do like Michno's "10 minute window", they aren't too bombastic at least. All the best, Noggy |
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 6, 2023 8:44:41 GMT -6
The timing should be relatively simple with so much data available but it has been drowned by partisan thinkings and this infernal but entirely correct blame gaming. There is reason to learn what happened and why, to prevent others repeating although cutting out pork & beans can do it.
The expression you are seeking, is 'fly' in English. It doesn't seem to fly. It won't fly. Fly in the face of.....
The three actions, Valley and below and above MTC, are all governed by Martin's ride. It's that simple with timing from Varnum in the valley spotting grey horse troop, to Martin arriving with Benteen to Reno on the bluffs. It isn't a difficult puzzle or broken Rubic Cube.
I'll add an insight. There two inventories of battle time. That of Wallace with &th Cavalry; and that of Maguire in his July 1876 report. Both were referenced by Wallace at the Chicago Inquiry and that of Maguire, was used in his absentia by Wallace. Hence he could state they arrived near the village at 2pm. Just my take on it but I see no flaw in it by meeting the differences in timing. It was Benteen near the village at 2pm and Wallace did not make that clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce Robert on May 6, 2023 10:55:12 GMT -6
Herosrest Calculate speed, mounted/dismounted and the deployment of both sides and let the programme play out, I reckon several variations would bring interesting results. "Combat is a hell of a thing. Rough terrain is a hell of a thing. Animals are animals. Humans are...well, animals with cool thumbs... How precisely can we expect a calculation of the speed of either man or horse to be? Many have tried to present the movements down to the minute. I respect their work but I feel it often doesn't "take height" (this is my using a Norwegian term, can't find the proper English substitute for it) all the numerous small things that could have happened. Maybe GAC had to go number two at one point, haulting up the command, maybe Smith's horse ran of because of a snake, maybe etc etc. I do like Michno's "10 minute window", they aren't too bombastic at least. All the best, Noggy"Sorry if I didn't do the quote thing correctly. Well said. The human element we often forget when analysing a battle. As a historical miniatures gamer, we ask questions like, Why didn't Longstreet do x,y, or z? Because Longstreet wasn't hovering above Gettysburg with direct communication to his subordinates, who knew exactly what he wanted, and had to follow orders no matter what. Sometimes humans say, "nope, we're not making that charge." If only machines fought battles...I second Michno. |
|
logan
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by logan on May 6, 2023 17:52:05 GMT -6
Although the human aspect is excluded, as we weren’t there, it isn’t possible to understand the feelings of the men present in both sides, but as has been slightly alluded to, is the concept of wargaming rules, incorporating such things as morale or when an officer is or isn’t present with his company. Points gained, points lost, etc.
Only way in my opinion is to include this human element into the lidar and crowd dynamics simulation, plus, if possible, identify locations where gunfire from both sides would have been opened against visible targets, whether in the open or randomly (as per hiding behind cover). These points are likely more directed towards war gamers, who through my limited knowledge introduce most of these random events into games.
|
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 6, 2023 20:32:34 GMT -6
At least one thesis I have read took a modelling approach to three significant published theories which were compared. The early GIS data was used to map artifact finds but obviously postbellum the 20th Century excavations. It's interesting that modern archaeology seems to have dropped that term - excavation; where it remains rampant across the broader field. A psychological study of practice of battlefield archaeology at LBH would be innovative. The underlying interest in the work done at LBH is the technology and working practice. In theory there remains a lot to be found still, if the mathematics of sampling are good and reliable but I don't feel this has been validated. There has been work on viewshed and artifact location combination by a Cambridge grad but the presentation wasn't so hot although the research was and focused the Finley Calhoun area. I said a decade ago, and decade before that. battlefield archaeology is in infancy and this has not altered. LBH is virtually unique in being so well researched and excavated already, but beyond broad conclusions nothing concrete about the Custer fight exists. That is probably how it will remain and probably haw it should, as well. A stage of fairy stories. A series of simulations will almost certainly show that, for example, Kuhlman's theory is viable. That does not mean it is the fact of what happened. Simulated analyses will prove nothing by themselves beyond honing practical theoretical modelling skills. There may be a handful of grads who tend into the field - literally, but it is more fascinations or obsessions drawing those of historical and ancestoral bents to this battle. There are papers by Winkler at BYU which take a technical literary approach, ala John Grey and many others into Fred Wagner III, but their convictions resolve nothing. Fox solved nothing telling what any student should basically know and understand besides the modern twist of fascination with the western fords on the land which Custer scout Curley used to own. 2 and two do not make four at LBH and principally because of the Military-Legal jurisprudence of 1879 which wrapped the battle in a cocoon of spiders webs far more complicated and unreliable than the native participants accounts, although Bede and Libby run a close second and third. It is almost impossible to avoid nailing jelly to a wall with this battle and that, I will add, is immense fun. Hockney should try it. Donahue as well. ,,, ,, Smiley. Grin. Cheese on toast with bourbon?  ? Stupid keyboard..... Billy billy billy, whatcha Buck... Bzttttt,......... Regards. |
|
? Stupid keyboard..... Billy billy billy, whatcha Buck...