|
Post by conz on Aug 26, 2008 11:51:19 GMT -6
So the high desertion rate was based upon not enough Indian fighting? Using a false name indicates apprehension of staying on the job to long. To be sure, although were there ANY desertions that summer of '76 from the 7th Cavalry? Not that I have seen...anybody? But even in earlier years when desertion was much worse, does anyone get the sense that ANYBODY deserted because they didn't want to fight Indians? Just the opposite...they probably thought that they would have to fight more Indians, and worse, out on their own as a deserter than as a Trooper, eh? These guys just loved to fight, and the deserters as much or more than any! That's my impression looking at accounts. Right...nobody is saying living in the field is a picnic...many of us have been there. <g> Just ask the 5th Cavalry "horse eaters" that fall. Getting out of garrison raises moral, and so does getting back to garrison, for a while. Point is, most of those Troopers were eager to fight the Sioux, for whatever reasons, are all the indications. You'd be hard pressed to find evidence that many Soldiers did not want to fight the Indians in any of those frontier regiments. Anybody have any? And the fact that they WANTED to fight the Indians is a small indication that they are good fighters. The opposite would probably be an indication that they were not good fighters, but not necessarily either. But given no other evidence, the fact that they were looking to fight is probably an indication that at least THEY thought they were good at it, and were confident going in. If nothing else, I doubt you could make a case that these Soldiers were not confident that they were going to whip the Warriors in battle that day. Why is that? What do numbers matter to Custer's thinking, do you think? Clair The only thing harder than being the wife of a Soldier is being the child of one.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 26, 2008 22:39:42 GMT -6
If nothing else, I doubt you could make a case that these Soldiers were not confident that they were going to whip the Warriors in battle that day.
Depends on the time of day when you make that case I would think? At some time I would think even Custer was no longer confident that he was going to whip the Indians.
Quote:And to point raised by Brokensword. Custer had to believe a smaller number then say 2,500 warriors. I believe his tactic were more in line to 800- 1200 warriors at tops.
Why is that? What do numbers matter to Custer's thinking, do you think?
Clair
If numbers didn't matter then why send Benteen off at all. Take whatever you find and fight. Custer wanted them all but did not realize how many that was until to late. I don't know what he thought but I would be concerned in dividing into small groups that would keep the whole regiment from being engaged at the same time. Why give the Indians small groups at time to fight? Even with his own 5 companies it would appear that all 5 were not engaged at the same time in supporting distance of each other.
I believe he thought that Reno could engage and hold the Indians. If only a 100 came out to meet that would most likely be true. Given the large reserves (those getting ready) a timely attack would be necessary I would think. Why let them get ready unless you have no clue on how many are getting ready.
If Custer believed there were 2500 warriors in the large village ready to fight then his tactics surprise me. The outcome does not.
AZ Ranger
|
|
tatanka
Full Member
Live for today like there was no tomorrow
Posts: 125
|
Post by tatanka on Aug 27, 2008 5:49:40 GMT -6
"These guys just loved to fight" conz. Not to sure about that statement. Not for all the troopers anyway. The Army was an ideal hiding place for those on the run and wanted to disappear for a while, for whatever reason. They were there to hide not to fight. Their credo was if it got too hot they could always skip out.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 27, 2008 7:02:40 GMT -6
If numbers didn't matter then why send Benteen off at all. Take whatever you find and fight. Since he did send Benteen off, didn't that mean that numbers didn't matter to him? Again, this assumes that numbers mattered. Even after it was "too late," numbers still didn't matter...to him or to me. His outfit should have been able to at least hold its own, if not outright defeat, the 2,000 or so hostiles there. Exactly...here you have the crux of the disaster. It was not the overall numbers, per se, but rather the distribution of numbers at hand that doomed Custer. That's tactics. I'm not sure what you mean here...if your model has Custer waiting and watching the Reno fight, this is just what he would be doing. My model doesn't have any Custer battalion wait, though...I think he rode straight for Ford D intending to cross there, regardless of what Reno was doing. But I think you are exactly right in what Custer would assume Reno was doing. The outcome surprises me even if there were 5,000 Warriors in that village. Reno's battalion should not have been routed as it was, and Custer's battalion should not have been overrun. Only leader decision errors in both cases could have allowed this to happen, regardless of any numbers. I do think that having Benteen too far away for immediate support was an error, but that alone didn't cause the disaster. Reno's abortion of his mission also contributed, but alone couldn't have killed Custer's men. Custer's battalion's mistakes alone would not have destroyed it had there not been so many Warriors against him alone...probably if only half the Warriors were there (the other half on Reno and Benteen), the Natives couldn't have taken advantage of the mistakes made by Custer and/or Keogh. Probably if any one of these things did not happen, Custer would have survived that day. It all had to come together to create the tactical rarity of Custer/Keogh making a tactical mistake (i.e., they didn't have good fields of fire all around them) in the face of fully 2,000 aggressive Warriors to cause that battalion's destruction. It is actually a very rare and unusual thing that happened to Custer. It should never be assumed that this could happen to 600+ Cavalrymen facing 2-3,000 Warriors. That simply isn't enough Warriors to do the job, given each force's capabilities. The only way this happened was a "perfect storm" occurance, and you couldn't recreate that in a 1,000 more battles. Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 27, 2008 7:06:27 GMT -6
"These guys just loved to fight" conz. Not to sure about that statement. Not for all the troopers anyway. The Army was an ideal hiding place for those on the run and wanted to disappear for a while, for whatever reason. They were there to hide not to fight. Their credo was if it got too hot they could always skip out. And you don't think these guys were "ruffians," or could handle their own in a fist or knife fight? If nothing else, once they got into the barracks, they'd learn to fight. <g> If you don't get Troopers out to fight Indians, they'll fight each other - old leadership rule of thumb. Clair
|
|
|
Post by runaheap on Aug 27, 2008 8:31:36 GMT -6
All 12 companies are together, this hadn't happened in awhile. This alone would lift individual and company moral. Yes, I believe they were ready for a fight, but there were enough one year and under men to concern me.
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Aug 27, 2008 8:57:52 GMT -6
conz:
You might be a military expert, but you definitely are not an expert on criminals, the majority of whom were, and are, not ruffians "who could hold their own...." You're mistaking gang members, who are dangerous, for the large majority of criminals, who are not - at least in the physical sense.
Custer probably did not overly worry about the number of warriors he would be facing, although I would tend to agree with those who say that he might have used different tactics had he known the true number he was up against. He still would have attacked, otherwise he might just as well have sent in his resignation and retired to a horse farm.
Virtually ALL US Army officers of the day, including USMA grads like Custer, thought that a full regiment of cavalry, with all its fire power could defeat any body of warriors it might face. As Custer is said to have said [somebody said they heard it said by whoever said it]: "There aren't enough Indians on the North American continent to defeat the Seventh Cavalry." I would wager that every cavalry regiment commander felt the same about his own regiment. Most of them likely thought that they would not need the entire regiment, except perhaps to pack up or burn the captured goods, and to escort the subdued "hostiles" to the nearest point of incarceration.
All of which illustrates how much those officers truly understood of Indian warfare.
Custer is also said to have said to his officers: "Gentlemen, the largest Indian village on the continent [or maybe ever heard of] lies ahead, and I intend to attack it." None of the officers demurred, which illustrates..........
Custer was not the onl;y officer who thought that alerted warriors must surely flee before 600 troopers [regardless of their training levels], because that is what ALWAYS happened. The warriors might throw up a rearguard and try to delay the troops while the families split up into their various bands and escaped; but that was all the opposition to be expected. Standard Army Doctrine. SAD.
The Army liked to remember its successes and forget its disasters, or maybe it was only the officers who did, who probably thought "I wont make that same mistake," while ruminating on Grattan and Collins and Bustard and Fetterman and etc etc etc., and then proceeded to do exactly that [study the Nez Perce and Apache campaigns, and maybe the Ute wars].
Of course, we all do the same - remember the good and forget the not-so-good and seldom learn from our mistakes.
Like today, like always, the grunts probably thought otherwise. Any cheering or rebel-yelling or singing songs of glory was done to bolster their own courage or to intimidate the enemy - which is why the NDNs gave blood-curdling shrieks - scary as all get out.
Gordie
|
|
tatanka
Full Member
Live for today like there was no tomorrow
Posts: 125
|
Post by tatanka on Aug 27, 2008 9:08:13 GMT -6
conz. I didn.t say they couldn't fight. What I said was they didn't join the army to fight but to get away from whatever problems they were having in civiian life. If they fought amongst each other in garrison when there were no Indians to fight there must have been chaos in the forts.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 27, 2008 9:14:08 GMT -6
Conz - Lets try a different approach
What do you consider the minimum viable numbers of troops that could attack the village and have a chance of success? My thought is 12 companies at the same time.
What is the minimum number of troops on defense in the LBH area that could hold off 2500 warriors willing to fight? Same thought
To the extreme agrument of numbers doesn't matter then Custer could go by himself and at worse sustain 1 casualty. If your saying it didn't matter to Custer that is different than saying numbers don't matter for success and survivability. Maybe Reno and Benteen considered that numbers of enemy do matter.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 27, 2008 9:32:56 GMT -6
When I was in the military there were very few "fights" with my fellow grunts. There were differences, arguments, shouting, but very little physical confrontation . . . I think someone has seen to many John Ford movies.
As for numbers at the LBH:
Crook faced less warriors with more troops and barely held his own. Custer with far less troops faced more Indians and got his immediate command taken out and Reno routed and holed up on a hill.
Crook's superior numbers got him a tie. The Indians' superior numbers at the LBH got them a a decisive victory.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 27, 2008 9:33:49 GMT -6
Not sure how many desertions there were during the summer campaign, but there seems to have been a lot of soldiers from Custer's command who ended up with Reno and the pack train.
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Aug 27, 2008 11:10:48 GMT -6
I find myself in line with AZ’s thought. IF numbers were of no concern to Custer, then why not attack with just his HQ and take ALL of the glory?
Terry, Custer and the other top brass spent planning time on the Far West calculating the odds and considering the likely numbers. Somewhere in that process Custer became convinced that there would not be too many for his regiment to handle by its lonesome. I’m still on the soap box shouting that he had false numbers which were provided by official channels. Because of that one fact, I cannot completely fault Custer for miscalculating the odds.
Benteen to the left was not the waste of time nor the useless mission that Benteen characterized it to have been after the battle. At the point in time he was dispatched, it was neither of those things. Custer was still not terribly certain of the exact location of the village. Neither was he certain of the precise configuration of the encampments. Longer than wide? Separate groupings of tee pees, well spread out from each other? He didn’t know.
If the Indians broke and ran at first contact, as expected, they would likely head west rather than across the river and to the east. Benteen would be in the area if they did so. As soon as the situation began to take shape, Custer called Benteen back from the scout, in order to re-add those numbers to his available strength.
BS
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Aug 27, 2008 11:21:38 GMT -6
crzhrs- "...When I was in the military there were very few "fights" with my fellow grunts..."
Pretty much my experience, as well. Arguments but no fisticuffs that I recall. Even mixed in with other brances (Army, Navy, Air Force) while off duty, say in a bar, more comaradie than conflict.
The rock-em sock-em caricatured brawls of such events in films are baloney. Unless rivalry over a girl was involved - of course. But, even that was very limited in numbers of participants involved. Usually two. Taken 'out back' so as not to spill the beer of the rest of us.
BS
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 27, 2008 11:47:33 GMT -6
conz: You might be a military expert, but you definitely are not an expert on criminals, the majority of whom were, and are, not ruffians "who could hold their own...." You're mistaking gang members, who are dangerous, for the large majority of criminals, who are not - at least in the physical sense. Do you really think that the majority of men out on the frontier were NOT dangerous in the physical sense? My impression is that they rather were...a pretty rough crew, not afraid of physical hardship, exertion, or combat. Not many "wimps" in this crowd, don't you think? Aye, I fully agree. You are making a bold assumption here! What makes you think you know better than all the regimental commanders in the U.S.Army that year?! Note that they will say that they CAN defeat the Natives. Nobody ever said that it was impossible for the Natives to defeat them as well. They just didn't expect to make the mistakes necessary for them to be defeated...they had confidence in themselves and their units. As you imply, Custer did not necessarily believe the Natives would just flee. He would expect that they could also come out and fight. I'm not sure what you think it means, "...that was all the opposition to be expected." I think most officers would expect that to be quite a bit of opposition, and some hard fighting. <g> I don't think any of them thought this would be a pushover...they expected hard fighting. Why do you think Custer asked the pacs to hurry, even though he hadn't even attacked with his battalion yet? He could tell from Reno's fight that the fight would be long and hard. And he anticipated that this might be the case...he had fought them long and hard before, eh? Perhaps some, but we had many more successes than failures, and Custer's tactics mimicked those successes. We also destroyed the NeZ Perce and Apaches as well, so I think that overall the officers of the Army knew what they were doing, and learned pretty quickly. If anything, it was the Natives that were incapable of adapting to successful ways to fight the Americans. My impression is just the opposite, to be contrary. <g> I think that people learn from their failures, and fail to learn and evolve from any of their successes. The rule is that armies that lose a battle learn more, and become relatively better over time, than do armies that win battles. Winners fail to learn...losers, if they survive, usually do learn. Now you might make the argument that because the Army had been SO successful destroying Native gatherings, that Custer had failed to learn how dangerous such could be, so wasn't careful enough. I think that argument might hold some water... I do think that is a good part of it. To overcome nervousness, and build up the bravado necessary to go through fire, you want to build up a "head of steam," moral and energy-wise. But my reading of these guys on the frontier from many different sources says that these Army Troopers really did want to kill Indians. They were definitely looking forward to eliminating the "red scourge" as they saw it. They saw themselves as heroes of the frontier, and the "bad asses" of the plains. The Natives had NOTHING on them, would be their attitude. Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 27, 2008 11:50:04 GMT -6
conz. I didn.t say they couldn't fight. What I said was they didn't join the army to fight but to get away from whatever problems they were having in civiian life. If they fought amongst each other in garrison when there were no Indians to fight there must have been chaos in the forts. Oh yes, I certainly agree with you. Not many Soldiers joined the army to fight Indians, specifically, not even the officers or career NCOs. This "Indian fighting" thing was just a blip on their longer, more important careers elsewhere. But having been posted on the plains, most of these men, officers and Soldiers, were more than ready and willing to go out and kill Indians, just "for a good time." It was certainly more exciting and interesting than drilling in garrison, would be their attitude, I think. Clair
|
|