|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 31, 2006 12:16:32 GMT -6
Yes, he really seizes the "disobeying orders" bull by the horns. And believes Reno and Benteen totally on the lack of communication/lack of battle plan issue. (He's very definite on timings, too.)
Is the date significant, I wonder? At last, Mrs Custer's six feet under. Is this the first opportunity anyone's had (since Terry/Sherman/Grant) to lay into Custer in public without Mrs C. gunning for them?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 31, 2006 14:55:45 GMT -6
It's also about the time GLORY HUNTER (van de Water) was released. Both after Libbie's death . . . I guess the wolves were starting to howl after her death.
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Feb 1, 2006 10:19:20 GMT -6
Elisabeth
dang I wish I could remember the source. But somewhere in the depth of my collection there is some mention of Reno instituting daily target practice while GAC was in DC.
alfuso
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Feb 1, 2006 11:45:22 GMT -6
Yes, that rings a bell -- but I can't remember the source either.
Maybe Coughlan's correct in the sense that it wasn't army-wide, but depended on individual commanding officers' whims?
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 11, 2006 18:30:03 GMT -6
I had this thought while reading An Obituary For Major Reno. During the Reno Hill scenes, the author depicts Reno as recognizing the "distinctive" sound of the .45-55 from Custer's fallen. With all the talk about that weapon's extractor problems and the tearing of the head from the cartridge body I began wondering whether post-battle, if on 6/26-6/27 or at any other subsequent time, mangled .45-55 cartridges or jammed Springfields were found in the Indian's lines surrounding Reno Hill.
It seems to reason that if the problem was as prevalent as some would suggest, the Indians with their new carbines and plenty of ammunition and bountiful targets would have experienced it to a large degree. During the archaeological digs, was any work ever done on the hills bordering Reno Hill?
Just an idle thought but observations would be welcome.
Best of wishes,
Billy Hello Billy
I wondered the same thing. Reno only brought back 6 rifles with malfunctions that couldn't be repaired in th field. I believe the carbine was certainly up to the task at LBH. The ammunition could have been better. In the the entirety neither contributed significantly to the outcome of LBH.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 11, 2006 18:38:54 GMT -6
Going back to your earlier posts about target practice, I was just re-reading tihis: www.rootsweb.com/~nalakota/wotw/military/tacticalstudy_wotw033034.htmIt's Col. T. M. Coughlan's Tactical Study of LBH, from The Cavalry Jouirnal, Jan-Feb 1934, and reprinted in Winners of the West March 26 1934. Many interesting points, some of them controversial. He finishes by listing contributory factors attributable to higher authority, and his final para states:
"Lack of target practice. There had been no systematic instruction. General Schuyler told me that Crook first instituted target practice in the Army after the bitter experience of the battles of the Rosebud and the Little Big Horn."Hello Elisabeth The last statement is right on as far as I have been able to ascertain in regards to firearms training and training in general. His statements regards to Terry's orders have a timing component that I find hard to accept considering it would require a exact location of the village to have this timing element.
|
|