|
Post by mcaryf on Jul 15, 2006 0:15:24 GMT -6
This is really a question aimed at those who have actually visited the battlefield.
My question is where was the nearest good ground for defense that Custer might have used after he has gone North from Weir?
The big problem with the actual ground he occupied was that there was no timber cover, the high ground did not have sufficient depressions so was exposed to fire from at least some directions, the ground generally was sufficiently cut with ravines etc so that attackers could get close whilst under cover and apply indirect fire via plunging arrows.
It seems it was ideal offensive ground for a larger force with cover available from any specific point but not all round cover so the offensive side would always have suitable avenues of approach to wherever the defender located themselves with ample opportunities via dead ground to assemble bodies of men to launch sudden mass attacks.
So what we are looking for is a nice clump of timber on an otherwise barren hilltop or a hilltop with a depressed area on its summit or a ravine with lots of flat land around it. Where might there be something like this to which Custer could have retreated from the Battle Ridge area?
Regards
Mike
|
|
jjm
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by jjm on Jul 15, 2006 1:57:46 GMT -6
Fort Lincoln!
|
|
|
Post by PhillyBlair on Jul 15, 2006 7:29:19 GMT -6
The riverbank near the village seemed to have plenty of trees in those early photos. Now if Custer could just have gotten rid of those darned 3,000 warriors he could have set up a defensive position there.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jul 15, 2006 10:11:54 GMT -6
Weir Point and other higher elevations are tree-less buttes. Looking at a topographic map, Nye-Cartwright may have been defensible in a similar manner as Reno-Benteen, but they would have had no access to water. A day or so in that hot sun would have made them all delirious if not dead.
Custer thought in terms of offense, not defense. He would not have been looking for a defensive spot until it was too late, probably at the point he realized MTC led to the middle of the village, not the north end.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 15, 2006 10:30:29 GMT -6
Ah. Is it the new "new" theory that MTC is the middle of the village again? I thought that day it was the northern border, according to the recent suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jul 15, 2006 20:07:42 GMT -6
I have always thought that MTC was in the middle and have stayed out of the what-was-Custer-thinking discussions because I don't pretend to read the minds of dead men. (I talk to some occasionally, but that's a discussion for another day. )
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jul 16, 2006 8:47:20 GMT -6
I'm not quite certain if this fits into this thread, but I found Fred's article in this month's LBHA Newsletter quite interesting. It does touch upon the "good ground" question, but instead of discussing the defensive position, it questions whether Custer and all would have been more successful had they attacked from the west, leaving the NAs to head to the hills, so to speak. Though I hate the fact that Fred no longer posts here, I do applaud a guy who'll turn a situation around and ponder those other possibilities.
Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Jul 17, 2006 1:21:38 GMT -6
I have not seen the article but if it advocates an attack from the West then I guess it is in line with suggestions I have been making in recent posts that Custer could have gone more strongly for the pony herd.
He already knew that the majority of the scouts were not enthusiastic about the prospects and yet he left the pony herd to them. Surely dispersing the herd represented a far better hope for bringing the hostiles to heel than the recently popular noncom strategy.
Attacking from the West also avoids the need to mount an opposed river crossing and is over terrain he can already see.
The only possible explanation as to why Custer did not follow that course is that he had deployed Benteen to cover an Indian dispersal to the West and so himself needed to cover the East. However, if he had deprived the Indians of their means of transport they cannot go anywhere.
As they used to say the answer was "Go West young man!!"
Regards
Mike
|
|
dcary
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by dcary on Jul 31, 2006 20:51:19 GMT -6
In Viola's Little Bighorn Remembered there is a very nice aerial photo on p. 166 that covers the ground all the way from Reno-Benteen to the visitor center.
I have always thought from what I have read that the E-F advance toward the LBH went down MTC and the retreat up a different Coulee, the two more or less forming a V at the river.
In the photo, directly to the east, more or less in the center of this V, but further East than the troops that paused and evidently fired from Luce and NCR (according to some) is what appears to be a more or less circular pattern of ridges and gullies. It would seem to me that this would have been much better defensive ground than Battle Ridge as it offered at least a prospect of 360-degree defense, with possibly decent cover for the horses.
I doubt, however, that Custer was thinking much of defense until it was too late and the best that could be done was the weird alignment that, to me, is very poor if you're surrounded. I think he had to make do with whatever ground he reached.
Nice to see an LBH site with actual discussion on it.
|
|
|
Post by George Mabry on Jul 31, 2006 21:13:58 GMT -6
I don't see any good ground on the east side of the river. He would have been better off crossing the river and getting into the flats where he could have circled up put the long range effectiveness of those Springfields to use. Better yet would be if he could have gotten to the flats, and found a gully or depression to get in.
|
|
|
Post by blaque on Aug 1, 2006 4:31:00 GMT -6
We have two authoritative opinions on the question raised by Mike. On 1910, WM Camp wrote to General Woodruff as follows: Just north of Ford B, on the east side of the river, is a flat, and just north of this flat is a cut bank and a high bluff. This is the bluff where you and I think Custer should have made his stand and fought his battle. For convenience of reference, let us call this bluff, at its south end, where it comes out to the river over the cut bank, Greasy Grasss Hill. The distance from Ford B, across the flat to Greasy Grass Hill, is 1800 or 1900 feet… (Hardorff, On the LBH with W. Camp. p. 104). Like many of us, however, Camp was of the opinion that when Custer reached the Ford B area he was not looking for any good defensive ground –yet.
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Aug 1, 2006 4:53:45 GMT -6
Thank you to all who have made suggestions.
My McElfresh map is really very handsomely produced but I might have preferred more contours etc to show the lie of the land. Am I right that this piece of ground that Camp mentions is SW of where McElfresh has Sgt Butler marked?
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by George Mabry on Aug 1, 2006 10:08:36 GMT -6
Mike, I don't know what flat area Camp is talking about that is just north of Ford B and on the east side but any flat area would be much easier to defend than those ravine cut ridges. A knoll surrounded by flats would be even better. But like Blaque stated, by the time GAC started thinking defense, he had to settle for what was handy.
|
|
|
Post by blaque on Aug 1, 2006 12:31:50 GMT -6
Mike, I think it is the height marked 3180 adjacent to the river, just west of the Butler marker. It lies about 1500-2000 feet from the mouth of MTC, as described by Camp (1’5 inches in the map). It was on top of this hill that Thompson saw dismounted troopers in skirmish line. I think this must be Camp’s Greasy Grass/Cutbank Hill, as in a modified version of his 1907 battlefield map, he added a hand-drawn hill at right angles to Greasy Grass Ridge, putting its southern terminus in the riverbank, just 1800 feet from the mouth of MTC. It nicely fits hill 3180 in the McElfresh map.
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Aug 1, 2006 16:55:15 GMT -6
Hi Blaque
Thanks, I think I have it now.
Interesting to speculate what success Custer and his whole command might have enjoyed if he "forted up" there. With Reno/Benteen/McDougall in position to the South and Custer to the East the Indians either hang around or head off North and meet up with Terry. Possibly not good for Terry unless Custer is able to shadow them and maintain a threat.
Regards
Mike
|
|