|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 21, 2009 11:13:03 GMT -6
DC:
I couldn't have said it any better . . . except in less words!
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 21, 2009 16:34:35 GMT -6
no one can write like DC, it is my english lesson of the day, I hope he writes books if not a waste of his plume d'encre.
well are we done : I think Conz is knock-out isn't he?
congratualtions to tricia for 20 pages of topic on dead indians!
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 21, 2009 20:15:22 GMT -6
If we say 30-50 died at the LBH, undoubtedly others who may have been wounded severely may have died. We will never know the numbers. As for finding dead bodies along the way, they may have been the original 30-50 who died at the battle and were later left in scaffolds, "buried," etec. My understanding is that all of these were buried in the hills in the vicinity of LBH...certainly within a couple day's village march. The bodies would not have held up well in the heat for longer than that, I would think. So those locations would be to the southwest along the Big Horn mountains...those 30-50 dead Warriors. This was not along the pursuing cavalry columns' routes at all...they saw all these bodies to the east of Wolf Mountains, where the tribes traveled many days after the battle. So I think we can safely say that the trail of scaffolds the Soldiers found were wounded that died many days after the battle. I have no purpose to target any specific numbers...it matters not to me if they were 30 or 300 for any "agenda" I might have. Neither number changes my model for what probably happened that day. I just want the most LOGICAL number. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 21, 2009 20:21:03 GMT -6
Trying to specify precise numbers of dead and wounded Indians for the LBH when the information normally used to inform both opinion and formula in such matters does not exist is silly. Still, it is yet fully illustrative of the Custerphile and his Fan Fiction inclinations. He doesn't want to be recognized as no more concerned with reality than Trekkies at Star Trek gatherings arguing the merits of fictional star ships and Klingon ships engaged in fantasy battle, but it's pretty much the same thing. I guess the study of history is "silly" to you, then, since ALL evidence is more or less ephemeral. Perhaps 70% of everything in our textbooks is merely lies and conjecture...I wouldn't be surprised. So you give up trying to derive a logical explanation of causes and effects because you can't be "sure enough?" I'd much rather be silly, than a bore, eh? We completely agree here, dc...what we disagree upon is the value of pretend games. As Einstein said, "imagination is more important than knowledge." Obviously you do not believe that. But I do. Your entire assumption that marksmanship has ANYTHING to do with casualties produced is the sand under your castle for your argument here. You can have units with GREAT marksmanship that produce very few casualties in a battle, because they never get to use that skill, and you get units with NO marksmanship ability (maybe even no guns!) that produce catastrophic casualties on another force. So where does that leave your argument? Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 21, 2009 20:22:37 GMT -6
no one can write like DC, it is my english lesson of the day, I hope he writes books if not a waste of his plume d'encre. well are we done : I think Conz is knock-out isn't he? congratualtions to tricia for 20 pages of topic on dead indians! You guys are way too easily amused...time to raise your standards for logic and purpose! And think for yourselves, people...rather than being blinded by an agenda... Clair |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 22, 2009 9:52:12 GMT -6
Gooey reviews of posts generally indicate they weren't actually read.
Now that conz has settled on 'professional' as a describer he can logically share with actual combat vets, it will eventually become capitalized if he's hopeful the unwary reader might eventually mistake him for a combat vet. That people laugh at him and his pretensions (it's not just me) does not mean any other soldier or institution is under attack. Just him. But he hides behind that absurdity as if he - of all people - represents either the Army, or the nation, or his hysterical category of "legal" history, a discipline he'll expand to include any number of goober hacks if they tongue bathe that which he thinks makes him look good. Truth, or desire for it, be damned.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 22, 2009 11:23:50 GMT -6
Now that conz has settled on 'professional' as a describer he can logically share with actual combat vets, ... You don't have to have been in combat to be a military professional. I'm a professional military man, not a "professional combat veteran." I think everyone is plenty aware that I haven't been shot at, nor shot at anyone. Only a couple people here have had that happen, and I would defer to them on subjects pertaining to what it is like to be shot at, or to shoot somebody. A silly comment no one will understand, nor is meant to be understood, I think. It is just mean. I expect no more from you...it is who you are. We all realize this, and some people put up with it out of affection for your long standing here. At any rate, it is YOU who claim any pretentions for me, and you 'doth protest too much,' I think. It would be better for your agenda, I think, if you don't call so much attention to my work...it only enhances my reputation. A reputation which I don't need, nor bother about. I just say what I think, and welcome others to decide if it helps them understand things, or not. Why should I care? What's more important...why do YOU care? Clair |
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 22, 2009 14:03:54 GMT -6
 I have no purpose to target any specific numbers...it matters not to me if they were 30 or 300 for any "agenda" I might have. Neither number changes my model for what probably happened that day. I just want the most LOGICAL number. Clair OK HERE THEN FOR THE LOGICAL NUMBER : How many soldiers died of their wounds in the next month after fighting with benteen reno, and let's throw in crook at the rosebud for the custer "wounded" that could not survive. Wounded then dying soldiers versus lethallly wounded warriors, seems fair? There is no reason indians would have higher after combat casualties of bad wounds as the army. You probably have the figures of the army (i don't! read only NDN!) but did not think of it. Wounded indians had women, experienced medecine men and good places to rest : the army had 1 and a half doctor on the field and ugly guys to take care of em far from mommy. Dc and conz mellow down, we're here for the animation  Conz as you always want to have the last word and quote between ALL lines to be right on everything, you are not just an opinion among others as I pretend to be, but appear always as the guy who thinks he has the absolute truth. Let's keep on pretending can we?
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 22, 2009 14:29:12 GMT -6
Lame White Man Warrior Chief of the Southern Cheyenne, age ca 38, one of 7 Cheyenne killed in fighting with Custer's troops (2, 25); he was in the sweat lodge of Tall Sioux when Reno attacked, and first helped his wife Twin Woman, his son Red Hat and his daughter Crane Woman escape the village (26); did not wear his warbonnet in this battle (13); but was wearing a blue coat he found tied behind the cantle of a captured saddle when he was shot and scalped by a Sioux who mistook him for an army scout in hand to hand fighting on the gunsmoke-shrouded battlefield (28, 3, 26); his Sioux name was Bearded Man and he is also identified as Mad Hearted Wolf (see Mad Wolf) (26) if we add the deadly wounded we should however minus the NDN fools who wore army jackets that day killed by friendly fire for the casualties.they don't count!   |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 22, 2009 15:03:55 GMT -6
OK HERE THEN FOR THE LOGICAL NUMBER : How many soldiers died of their wounds in the next month after fighting with benteen reno, and let's throw in crook at the rosebud for the custer "wounded" that could not survive. Wounded then dying soldiers versus lethallly wounded warriors, seems fair? No, because civilized medicine was FAR better than Indian medicine was, in the treatment of wounds and the wounded. Several Soldiers did die of their wounds in the days following the battle, and the percentage would be lower than for the Warriors. But you are right that the principle is the same. That still doesn't make up for the much better medical science that the Americans had at the time, I believe. I think dc and I are here for the entertainment. <g> I desire a very specific discussion, on each point. I don't have the last word, ever...in fact, I never want the words to end. Hopefully, for every word I have on each little point, somebody(s) has/have an intelligent addition to consider. That is rather my purpose. I give a point...you give a point...I give a point...you give a point...it is a debate/discussion, see? And each stage we should learn something, and get closer to the truth...I don't want ANY of my points to be the end of any discussion... Clair |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 23, 2009 7:32:13 GMT -6
I'll send this to the Commandant of the Marine Corps as a bright idea. They could save lots of time and money in training, weapons and ammunition. Is this truly what you meant to say? "ANYTHING" That would mean there is no need for training at all. I am sure there are a few snipers that would argue with that statement. One shot one casualty sounds like a direct correlation to marksmanship skills to me.
I would be inclined to agree with a statement that causalities may not be correlated with skills of troops with minimum training. Sometimes you you get lucky with no skills. Marksmanship is only one of the skills needed to inflict casualties, but you can not produce enough casualties with small arms against overwhelming odds without marksmanship skills.
The trooper at LBH can only exercise his marksmanship under stress most other tactics are made by the NCO and Officer. The reverse is also true. Doesn't matter how good the fields of fire, the direction of skirmish line, etc. are established by the NCO/Officer without the marksmanship to make hits it is useless. Especially when an Indian rides in front of a skirmish line to demonstrate these troopers' marksmanship sucks. It gives the others courage to engage.
When you only have 3 half filled companies engaged in any one location marksmanship matters if you expect to be alive at the end of the engagement.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 23, 2009 7:42:58 GMT -6
My Rifle: The Creed of a US Marine
by Major General William H. Rupertus (USMC, Ret.)
(written following the attack on Pearl Harbor) This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. My rifle, without me, is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will...My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit...My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will ever guard it against the ravages of weather and damage as I will ever guard my legs, my arms, my eyes and my heart against damage. I will keep my rifle clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will... Before God, I swear this creed. My rifle and myself are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life. So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace! |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 23, 2009 12:29:08 GMT -6
The trooper at LBH can only exercise his marksmanship under stress most other tactics are made by the NCO and Officer. The reverse is also true. Doesn't matter how good the fields of fire, the direction of skirmish line, etc. are established by the NCO/Officer without the marksmanship to make hits it is useless. Especially when an Indian rides in front of a skirmish line to demonstrate these troopers' marksmanship sucks. It gives the others courage to engage. So have you found any evidence that a mass of Warriors could ever get close to an Army skirmish line? Note that you are arguing that Army skirmish lines were ineffective at preventing their destruction because their marksmanship was so poor that the Warriors could just come in and overrun them. Yet we have never found a case where this has happened, and we have dozens and dozens of examples where Warriors were rebuffed from overruning even the smallest skirmish lines. When skirmish lines were defeated, I have never found it to be due to poor fires to their front, have you? So if they are defeated by the Warriors getting into close combat with them because the Warriors went around them, not through any place the Marksmen could fire into, how can you say that poor marksmanship is to blame? To go further, if the Warriors are getting close by means that the Soldiers can't fire on them, how would you expect better marksmen to create more casualties?! Clair |
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 23, 2009 15:44:54 GMT -6
<So have you found any evidence that a mass of Warriors could ever get close to an Army skirmish line?>
Why would they want to? Any opponent regardless of culture is going to look for weak spots. The Zulus did it at Iswandalanda (I can never know if I'm spelling that right!) by going around the British lines (who by the way mistakenly put too much distance between themselves and their base camp so when the Zulus went around them there was no one to stop them).
The warriors did it to Reno by flanking the skirmishers.
No one in their right mind is going to rush head-long into gunfire.
Yes, skirmish lines can be a deterrant but if not held properly and with sufficient firing can be breeched by going around them.
PS: I believe the Germans did this at the Margineau (spelling again!) Lines against the French, swept around them.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 23, 2009 16:04:47 GMT -6
Yes, that is right for all armies when faced with effective firepower...you go around them to get close enough for your numbers to make the difference. If you are outnumbered, you generally want to stay out of close combat.
There are MANY examples of Warriors trying to get through skirmish lines, though...we've mentioned many of them: Beecher's Island, Wagon Box and Hayfield fights. The Warriors charged in mass, point-blank, but couldn't get to the Troopers before their casualties caused them to fall back. It mattered not that they outnumbered their foe 10:1 in each case...effective firepower forced them back again and again.
I think this demonstrates that the Warriors didn't go around skirmish lines because they wanted to...they did it because they HAD to. Cavalry skirmish lines were simply too deadly for them to approach from the front, regardless of what some may believe to be their "poor" marksmanship. It was good enough in every case.
There is no reason to believe that LBH was any different than every other Indian fight in this regard, seems to me.
Yet some want to maintain that poor marksmanship had anything to do with the outcome at LBH? That would be an easy and popular thing to say, and I wish I could agree, but I can't see how.
If you show me where a mounted Warrior attack overrode an Army skirmish line in the open, where the shooting was so poor that not enough Warriors were hit to make them stop their charge, then I could believe it. So far, I haven't found any such case, rather, just the opposite.
Doesn't that make sense?
Clair
|
|
