|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 5, 2015 6:16:39 GMT -6
What is disappointing is that Custer must not have observed a large number of animals at a distance. You got to know what you are looking at right Beth. In 1979 I saw my first large herd of elk after the wildlife manager told me what I was looking at. It was around 2,000 head of elk and the whole hillside was moving. At first all I saw was a color and then after explaining what to look for I observed it moving. The worms make perfect sense to me.
The same goes at the other end of observability. You look for a part of animal or different color. If you look for a whole animal you will miss a lot.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Feb 5, 2015 7:15:04 GMT -6
Custer wasn't tired. Being the narcissist he was, I believe that he didn't really worry too much about whether his men were tired or not. Custer was only too happy to move ahead and attack. He wanted this to be a 7th Cavalry show. Waiting for Terry and Gibbon would not be something he preferred. Every day of delay brought Terry's command closer to the village. In a way Custer had two enemies. The NA's and the chance that he would have to share the victory with Terry and Gibbon. So when the chance came he moved ahead. Please, recognize that this is my opinion. I've stood up on the Crow's Nest at dawn and at noon. You look down at the line of trees where the village was and you can't see much. I believe the scouts saw what they needed to, but Custer couldn't see it nor could Varnum. A simple advanced scout would have been in order. A man like Custer didn't seem to want to or take the time. Shaw,
(1) I sometimes think the "GAC glory" is overplayed. GAC would have spun that the 7th won this battle, especially to the press, even if the blocking force had been present at the engagement. Try getting CNN and Fox to focus on a blocking force commander even in the 21st century. The glamour goes with the strike force. (2) I think Varnum trusted the scouts and their expertise, and it was really GAC seeking his own confirmation.
The catalyst for the events of the 25th was the main body of the regiment being far too close rather than back at Busby.
WO
|
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Feb 5, 2015 7:37:58 GMT -6
I was in a snooker room yesterday, and I just got out five red balls and spread them on the surface, now if you don’t know then the dimensions of a snooker table are nearly 12 ft x 6 ft, and if I placed three balls on one half of the table and the other two on the other, it shows how isolated these balls looked, imagine if each one of these balls were around 37-44 men scattered around such a large area, I bet they felt very isolated indeed.
Ian.
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 5, 2015 8:15:51 GMT -6
The box was left behind at Halt 1 and reported missing by Curtiss some 20 minutes after the command left Halt 1 in the direction on the Crows Nest. The pack was found at Halt 1 with Indians rifling through it. Mark, Don't get this confused. It was not a box of hardtack... or anything else. It was some of SGT Curtiss' personal belongings. Best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Feb 5, 2015 9:22:33 GMT -6
Looking back on my military experience, the thing I enjoyed doing most was scouting. I have conducted numerous scouting missions, as a conventional mechanized scout, and later motorized SF.
Scouting is an art, vice science. You have to read signs. Reading dust clouds was kinda my specialty. Dust clouds can tell you size of enemy force, direction of movement, and intent. And terrain and climate matter. I have experience examining dust in Graf/Hohenfels, JRTC Chafee and Polk, NTC and numerous other places.
Also understand scouting equals not fighting. My tactics to find information for the fighting force are vastly different than if my job were to defeat the enemy.
As a scout, the worst possible mission is the classic hybrid: Scout and fight. Mission loads, planning, and tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP) vary significantly based on the mission.
And whatever I think I know about scouting, my noncommissioned officers knew more. The art of scouting means knowing to listen to others.
|
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Feb 5, 2015 9:27:18 GMT -6
What is disappointing is that Custer must not have observed a large number of animals at a distance. You got to know what you are looking at right Beth. In 1979 I saw my first large herd of elk after the wildlife manager told me what I was looking at. It was around 2,000 head of elk and the whole hillside was moving. At first all I saw was a color and then after explaining what to look for I observed it moving. The worms make perfect sense to me. The same goes at the other end of observability. You look for a part of animal or different color. If you look for whole animal you will miss a lot. Regards AZ Ranger I think that is possible that the scouts also just had better vision. I did a Google search just now and couldn't find anything about it, but I recall seeing an article/study or two in the past that concluded that "illiterate" people and societies have better vision than literate ones, since they have not spent a lifetime of straining their eyes in reading, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 5, 2015 9:45:22 GMT -6
I think that is possible that the scouts also just had better vision. I did a Google search just now and couldn't find anything about it, but I recall seeing an article/study or two in the past that concluded that "illiterate" people and societies have better vision than literate ones, since they have not spent a lifetime of straining their eyes in reading, etc. I do not know how true this is regarding "illiterate" people, but I certainly believe the basic premise of your post. I believe you to be correct. Nice job. And welcome here. I hope your tenure on these boards is informative, civil, enjoyable, and I hope you make some new friends. Best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 5, 2015 9:50:18 GMT -6
Looking back on my military experience, the thing I enjoyed doing most was scouting. I have conducted numerous scouting missions, as a conventional mechanized scout, and later motorized SF. That is really interesting. I think for me, the thing I enjoyed most was patrolling. First of all, I was good at it (which always helps), especially with a map, compass, distance estimates, etc. Plus, it sort of gave me a certain element of freedom which I really enjoyed. Other jobs I was not so good at: staff work, for example. I was probably a terrible staff officer; not just bad... terrible. It appears I do not have a lot of patience and detail work tends to bore me... unless, of course, it was S-3 work. I enjoyed that. Best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 5, 2015 10:40:05 GMT -6
The job I enjoyed the most was Rifle Platoon Leader. Nothing like it in my estimation.
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 5, 2015 10:45:15 GMT -6
Scarface: In the likely event I am confused as to sequence, would you be good enough to lay out events as you understand them in regard to the loss of both box and Curtiss' personal equipment, the recovery attempt, and how those events fit into the various movements of the 7th Cavalry, and just when and at what point did Tom Custer bring forward the regiment? You might include in there what T. Custer's motivation was, if you conclude it was not news of possible/probable discovery.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colt45 on Feb 5, 2015 13:23:29 GMT -6
The job I enjoyed the most was Rifle Platoon Leader. Nothing like it in my estimation. The job I liked best was when I was in the combat support company, as the AVLB platoon leader and the redeye section platoon leader. Second best job was tank platoon leader. Worst job ever was XO of the headquarters company. |
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 5, 2015 13:56:20 GMT -6
What is disappointing is that Custer must not have observed a large number of animals at a distance. You got to know what you are looking at right Beth. In 1979 I saw my first large herd of elk after the wildlife manager told me what I was looking at. It was around 2,000 head of elk and the whole hillside was moving. At first all I saw was a color and then after explaining what to look for I observed it moving. The worms make perfect sense to me. The same goes at the other end of observability. You look for a part of animal or different color. If you look for whole animal you will miss a lot. Regards AZ Ranger I think that is possible that the scouts also just had better vision. I did a Google search just now and couldn't find anything about it, but I recall seeing an article/study or two in the past that concluded that "illiterate" people and societies have better vision than literate ones, since they have not spent a lifetime of straining their eyes in reading, etc. Welcome to the group! I won't comment about the illierate versus literate because I'm not even sure if one could even call Native American's illiterate. Granted they couldn't read books from the 'civilized' world but we couldn't read their pictographs either. I do tend to believe before the Industrial age and/or the development of corrective eyeglasses that people used to sort of chose jobs or professions. Near sighted people were drawn towards things like watchmaking or any other close detailed work because it was easy for them to see the details. On the other hand people who were far sighted would have excelled at things like scouting. I know in my own family hubby is extremely nearsighted and I am farsighted. I am always handing him things like pill bottles to read while he relies on me to read what is on exit signs long before he can read them. Beth |
|
|
|
Post by mac on Feb 5, 2015 15:15:39 GMT -6
jodak
Welcome!
Interesting point. Lifestyle does matter!
Custer seems to always have to see for himself which is problematic for him in my view.
Cheers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2015 15:28:12 GMT -6
Scarface: In the likely event I am confused as to sequence, would you be good enough to lay out events as you understand them in regard to the loss of both box and Curtiss' personal equipment, the recovery attempt, and how those events fit into the various movements of the 7th Cavalry, and just when and at what point did Tom Custer bring forward the regiment? You might include in there what T. Custer's motivation was, if you conclude it was not news of possible/probable discovery. QC, My only knowledge on the Curtiss incident is from what I have read in Fred's book, "The Strategy of Defeat at the Little Big Horn". The command is camped at Halt One. Scout returns from the CN and informs GAC of their findings. At 7:50am, GAC departs for the CN. No evidence of leaving orders for the command to follow him. At 8:15am the entire command leaves Halt One and heads towards CN. There is conflicting information as to who ordered what; some suggest GAC gave instruction to hold camp until further ordered, others suggest GAC told officers to be ready to move. Seems a little hazy. Shortly after leaving Halt One, Curtiss reports missing pack/personal belongings to Keogh. Fred has this happening at 8:35am. Curtiss and four others return to Halt One to find the pack and a number of Indians. After running the Indians off, they return to the command at about 9:15am. At 10:00am the command reaches Halt Two and join Custer. At 10:15 GAC gives Tom an earful. Was the move a simple breakdown in communication or something else? If the command had stayed at Halt One, GAC would have returned in or around 11:00am. If he then moved the command forward, they would not have reached the CN until close to 1pm. Too far back and too late to consider an attack on the 25th? Camp for the afternoon and further recon with intent to attack on the 26th? As to Tom's motivation, I don't know. Maybe you or others have some ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by Colt45 on Feb 5, 2015 15:36:58 GMT -6
Seems to me if the command had stayed at halt one, the Indians that wound up discovering the lost pack would have been discovered and shot, or they would have had to go around the column to avoid being shot. Allowing time for Custer to return and start the command moving again, should place an additional 2.5 to 3.0 hours into the timings, meaning if things progressed as they did with no changes, Reno's time to cross Ford A moves out 2.5 to 3.0 hours, Benteen's time on the scout moves out the same amount, Custer being wiped out between 4pm and 5pm moves out to around 7pm to 8pm, etc. Now, would Custer have continued as he did given the addition of a couple hours delay in the timings, or would he have held up near Busby? Most likely there would have been no pressure to act due to "discovery by hostiles". He might very well have laid up on the 25th, planning a morning attack on the 26th. That would certainly given him time to get scouts out and do a proper recon of the terrain, village, avenues of approach, etc.
|
|
