|
Post by crzhrs on May 26, 2005 16:36:17 GMT -6
Re: Custer's Tactical Ability
Apparently Custer learned nothing from the Washita Battle. He attacked Black Kettle's camp with no idea of the size of the village or the possibility of other villages camped nearby.
His only advantage was a dawn attack during early winter. He divided his command and they all responded correctly. However, BK's village consisted of only 51 lodges, approximately 350 people, with more than half being non-coms. His command consisted of 12 companies, the same he had at the LBH.
The village at the LBH contained over a thousand lodges, approximately 7,500 people with possibly 2,000 warriors.
He attacked the LBH village with the same number of companies as the Washita . . . believing the same results would occur.
Hard to believe that after all the info on the size of the village that he would use the same tactics as the Washita, even with the same number of companies . . . but this time the command was so separated in distance that none of them could do much for the other, especially for Custer.
|
|
Son of A Cavalryman
Guest
|
Post by Son of A Cavalryman on May 26, 2005 17:25:56 GMT -6
CRZHRS; Haven't I read this post before? You recycling? We were discussing the Yellowstone fight, not Washita. YELLOWSTONE!
SOACM
|
|
|
Post by Steve Wilk on May 26, 2005 23:36:55 GMT -6
Custer did learn from Washita....which is why he sent Benteen to scout for possible smaller villages to the south. Crzhrs, you seem to think that attacking when outnumbered without knowing what lied ahead was somehow unique to Custer. Phobes like to point out his supposed recklessness and glory seeking, and that only a fool would attack without knowing the size of the enemy force.
On the contrary, this happened rather often on the frontier. One example cited in discussed in Bourke's _On the Border With Crook_; one of the Apache battles in Arizona either Skull Cave or Turret Butte. The soldiers attacked and had withdraw when more Apaches from nearby villages, which the troops were unaware of, began to appear.
Custer's actions at LBH were not out of doctrine concerning warfare with "irregulars". Check out the summer 1998 issue of Research Review. There is an article entitled "Small Wars and the Little Big Horn" by Bruce Trinque. In the late 1880s British Lt. Charles Callwell, a Woolwich grad, wrote an essay on "Small wars", based on what the British army learned fighting the various aboriginal or irregular forces they encountered across the globe. What Custer did on 25 June is mostly in line with what the prevailing doctrine that European armies followed when fighting these types of foes.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Wilk on May 27, 2005 9:05:37 GMT -6
I would also point out this same thing happened to the venerable Kit Carson at Adobe Walls in 1864, where he attacked a Kiowa village only to find his troops outnumbered when warriors from nearby villages appeared on scene. Apparently Carson didn't bother to reconnoiter either. He was able to extricate his command with the help of artillery. If a seasoned Indian fighter like Carson could be guilty of this ...maybe HE didn't "listen to his scouts" either.
BTW, the role of the scouts were to track and find the enemy, not proffer tactical advice to military commanders.
|
|