|
|
Post by mcaryf on Mar 29, 2006 12:09:30 GMT -6
Reading Runs the Enemy's account from RA Fox's book describing the sortie of Co C down Calhoun Coulee he says:
"Some of the soldiers made a rush down the ravine towards the river, and a great roll of smoke seemed to go down the ravine."
I presume this means that as soon as the mounted soldiers came into view many surrounding warriors opened fire on them. This might certainly sound like a volley and there may have been a few other instances of targets suddenly presenting themselves to warriors who were otherwising conserving ammo. However, I am still inclined to think that at least some of the volleys would have been cavalry fire either to draw the Indians away from Reno or advise Benteen where Custer was.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 29, 2006 13:04:42 GMT -6
It's those what-ifs again that plague the LBH . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 29, 2006 13:54:08 GMT -6
I don't think there was an Indian giving orders to volley fire once soldiers showed themselves. It was probably every Indian shooting when they had a target, sorta like "fire at will" which may have sounded like volley fire due to the number of weapons being fired.
Did Custer or any of his command have the opportunity or even time to use volley fire? There was separation of command once on Battle Ridge so it may have been difficult for Custer to order volley fire, but it's possible company commanders may have done so. Only speculation . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by Jas. Watson on Mar 29, 2006 14:34:54 GMT -6
I can't believe the volleys were any sort of signal. What would they be signaling? The fire alone told where they were. Volley fire was a pretty standard method of warfare at that time. It is also recorded that there was volley firing by Reno's men too, both on the skirmish line and in the trees...and they weren't signaling anything.
Jas.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Mar 29, 2006 17:27:05 GMT -6
I guess that the logic of a volley being a signal is that if Reno was still engaged and firing was taking place in his vicinity then you might need some extra impact from a volley for the more distant gunfire to be noticed. However, this is very much speculation and perhaps it was just done to intimidate and suppress warriors who had been seen to be infiltrating.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Mar 30, 2006 2:54:45 GMT -6
Hmmm ... It's a pretty poor signal if no-one at the time understood it as such! Seems much more likely that the volleys were aimed at Indians. And certainly more useful.
Do we have any evidence from any other battle of volleys being used as a distress signal, I wonder?
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 30, 2006 9:08:30 GMT -6
Now that the point of Indians firing en masse at soldiers has been brought up it appears that it could have been either side firing at the other in large numbers, volleys if you like, and adds to unknowns. Isn't this fun?
|
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Mar 30, 2006 9:22:14 GMT -6
Did not the possibility of the volleys being signals originate with some of the people who heard them on Reno Hill or was that all post hoc rationalisation?
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 30, 2006 12:28:14 GMT -6
Mike:
It's a lot easier to come up with answers far after an event took place. Time gives you the ability to rationalize all that took place and possibly come up with better answers to what was going on at the time.
While the LBH was taking place no one believed Custer's command was destroyed. At worse he had fallen back and was heading to find Terry. Odd the survivors would think that rather than Custer coming to assist them.
It was only after the fact that survivors could put 2 + 2 together and come up with explanations to what they saw/experienced.
We use hindsight regularly on this forum and we can only assume that survivors did so too.
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 1, 2006 10:07:25 GMT -6
It's a lot easier to come up with answers far after an event took place. Time gives you the ability to rationalize all that took place and possibly come up with better answers to what was going on at the time.
While the LBH was taking place no one believed Custer's command was destroyed. At worse he had fallen back and was heading to find Terry. Odd the survivors would think that rather than Custer coming to assist them.
It was only after the fact that survivors could put 2 + 2 together and come up with explanations to what they saw/experienced.
We use hindsight regularly on this forum and we can only assume that survivors did so too.
Good points. After the fact and depending on the persons viewpoint sometimes the down river sounds can be either be not heard or Custer signaling for help. Any firing heard should have indicated that Custer was engaged or annihilated. It may or may not have indicated whom did the firing or for what purpose. It could be signaling, the heat of battle, or the aftermath celebration.
|
|
|
|
Post by michigander on Apr 2, 2006 12:10:48 GMT -6
I am convinced that the volleys heard was just a battle, no distress signal. Custer was waiting for Benteen, so, this too could have influenced his decisions. What a great amount of witnesses heard, was a strong fire too. One witness, that I don't remember at random, said he heard shootings near than more far, than farther. This give me the impression that a battle in movement was fought, going north.
I don't think volleys were indians shootings, as thay was not usual to regular shooting.
|
|
|
|
Post by shatonska on Apr 2, 2006 14:29:17 GMT -6
2 men sent for packs , no ammunitions to waste
|
|
|
|
Post by q on Apr 2, 2006 19:06:36 GMT -6
The two quick volley was a distress signal. This had been a method used by Sheridan during the Civil War, and documented in his memoirs. Several of the indian scouts said that's what they were. Also several of the 7th's officers made similar remarks... so the practice was known. Whether or not the two quick volleys that were heard that day was a signal or not is unknown.
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 2, 2006 21:49:54 GMT -6
Page 363 of the Court of Inquiry, Benteen states "We got volleys but could not return them" I believe the term volley had more than one meaning at that time. The military definition and a reference to a large volume of fire whether done by command or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Apr 2, 2006 23:40:30 GMT -6
I do not have access to the Court of Inquiry documents (are they on the web?) but I am guessing that Benteen meant the Indians had better targets to aim at. Were not the horses and mules somewhat exposed to Indian file from one direction?
In any event I am inclined to think that the volleys we were previously discussing were not the same thing - probably Benteen could equally have used fusilade or some such other word to mean heavy but not coordinated fire.
My guess is that the volleys Custer's troops fired were not a distress signal but were either a way of keeping warriors' heads down or a direction finder for Benteen or a mixture of both. The important question is whether they should have been interpreted as a distress signal and on balance I think probably not.
Regards
Mike
|
|
