A Whole Bunch of Dead Indians! Wow!

[Dark Cloud]

In the heat of battle, there was probably small ability to do either. Afterwards, though. The belts apparentely weren't all that prized if they were left when empty. In any case, who are the Indians referenced - the "many" Indians - who claim so many empty belts? How would it prove the soldiers fired them?

[Melani]

I will try to check on whether they kept the belts or not. My impression is that afterwards, both warriors and women took everything that wasn't nailed down, except their socks--I doubt anybody would want those, after six weeks on the trail! (Michno does sort of a neat little fictional thing with Hohmeyer's socks in the beginning of The Mystery of E Troop.) And the boot soles--they used the uppers for moccasin soles, but left the soles behind.

[yankee]

First, as a new member I find this fascinating. I have read many of the replies and find that I have learned much from the different posts. That said I must agree with DC that you cann't go much beyond the RICO for accurate testimony. I look forward to reading more.
(hope I have did this right)

[Diane Merkel]

You are doing fine, Yankee! I'm glad you found us.

Feel free to add to the current threads or dig up some old ones. We've been posting here since August 2004, so there are lots of hidden gems with a little silliness mixed in. If you want to search for something specific, scroll down to the google search bar and click the button next to lbha.proboards12.com to see if your person or topic has been discussed here.

Diane

[crzhrs]

I read it somewhere, but can't give you the reference right now.

It's one of those things you read, sticks in your mind, then you can't remember where without going through numerous books.

The 13,000 may have been not 100%, but I did remember that the ratio of expended bullets to Indian KIA was extremely low.

[conz]

darkcloud said:

I'm annoyed that conz will now have to excuse his crappy math and thereby have an excuse to fail to provide some names of the "many" Indians who found empty ammo belts. The pride of West Point, Ladies and Gentlemen.

You sound like my instructors at West Point! <G> I was a terrible math student, yet they gave me an engineering degree (well, everyone at West Point got an engineering degree at that time)...I was a history/psychology major.

I agree with all who say that statistics won't give you much accurate information about casualties in this battle...it will only paint a background picture. And as an avid watcher of politics, one would also know that stats can be made to show anything you would like them to.

We certainly aren't going to settle this, except to indicate that it is POSSIBLE that 200+ Natives died from the LBH battle. It is also possible that perhaps only 60 died. Pick your number, and then explain what leads you to think it more probable than others.

Clair

[conz]

yankee said:

First, as a new member I find this fascinating. I have read many of the replies and find that I have learned much from the different posts. That said I must agree with DC that you cann't go much beyond the RICO for accurate testimony. I look forward to reading more.
(hope I have did this right)

LOL...welcome, and be wary of any implication that the RCOI contains much "accurate testimony." <g>

Some think that it may be more accurate than other evidence. Others think that information given within a few days of the battle is likely to be more accurate than RCOI, and sometimes it may be that testimony given years later is more truthful than either.

As a Soldier, I have a deep mistrust of anything said in a court of law, or in testimony before Congress. WAY too much "spotlight" for truth to be revealed, I think.

Clair

[crzhrs]

Possibilities abound at the LBH.

If 200+ warriors were killed one would think their scaffolds and/or burial sites would be noticeable.

Edgardly stated he found 2 tepees with 5-6 dead Indians in each.

A trumpeter with the 1877 reburial details said he saw the remains of 6 scaffolds with the same number of dead Indian remains.

One Reno survivor said he saw a tepee stacked like cordwood of dead Indians. He said he saw it as he rode by but did not go in.

Kanipe said he saw 75 dead Indians in THREE tepees! (How the heck could 75 Indians be packed into only 3 tepees?

Herendeen said he had "no doubt" Custer killed a lot of Indians. No doubt doesn't prove anything.

If we go by Indian accounts at the LBH, most fired from cover and only risked charges when the opportunity presented itself.

The warriors Reno charged milled around and only countered when Reno stopped. And at that they tried to flank him rather than a head-on charge.

The Indians who fought the Reno/Benteen survivors fought from long distance rather than making risk lives.

Gotta think the number of Indians were far less than 200--but as you say: we certainly aren't going to settle this.

[conz]

mcaryf said:

I think you will find that 600 x 50 is 30,000 not 300,000. It seems to have taken about 250 shots to get 1 hit for Crook and that ration would mean 120 cavalry hits.

Thanks...for the 7th Cavalry to generate 200 severe casualties they would need to average 150 rounds per hit, and that would be pretty high...it would only happen if most of the casualties were created in close combat, which is still possible. Of course, only Custer's 200-some men were in close combat that day...the rest of the combat was ranged fire except for Reno's "buffalo hunt," which wasn't really a "fight," but just a Native pursuit of fleeing Soldiers.

Reno's 80 man skirmish line might have fired around 4000 rounds at targets who were not under cover so possibly killed and wounded at a higher rate say 16 -20.

Interesting that the Natives, IIRC, state that something like that number (16-20) were killed fighting Reno initially, and we should double that for serious casualties. That would mean Reno's possible 4,000 shots generated 32-40 casualties resulting in a severe casualty for every 100-125 shots by Reno's skirmish line in the valley. Now that is long ranged fire, in the dust, against mostly mounted Indians at over 200 yards away. Should we not expect Custer's ratio of kills per shot to be much higher given the close combats his command was involved in?

At 30,000 round expended for one "hit" per 100 shots, that gives us 300 possible casualties, which I think unlikely, but forms a "highest possible" figure perhaps.

If you want to "swag" it, take 40 dead as the minimum, and 300 dead or maimed as the maximum, the mean is about 170 seriously hit Indians that day. I think this is a much more likely figure than "40 dead" so often repeated, and more likely than the 220 or so dead on the field that some Native families are proposing.

I would guess the casualty rate might be less in the Reno Hill fight where the warriors were more under cover except for bravery runs so possibly 12,000 rounds hitting 30 or so.

That sounds high, but not improbable.

Custer's 215 men probably fired around 10,000 rounds and would possibly hit 40 odd warriors but some more might be killed in close quarter fighting and "blue on blue". So perhaps 60 or so casualties there.

That's very sensible, I think. Could be closer to 100...remember we are talking about all who died from wounds received that day, and should include those so seriously maimed that they could never fight again.

Thus an eventual warrior and noncom death toll of around 60 would not be too far wrong on a statistical basis.

I think any number from 40 to 250 would not be "wrong" on a "statistical basis." <g>

Clair

[Diane Merkel]

conz said:

As a Soldier, I have a deep mistrust of anything said in a court of law, or in testimony before Congress. WAY too much "spotlight" for truth to be revealed, I think.

You're kidding, right? You just managed to wipe out two branches of government. Strange thinking for a capital-S soldier.

[conz]

crzhrs said:

Possibilities abound at the LBH.

If 200+ warriors were killed one would think their scaffolds and/or burial sites would be noticeable.

Didn't several commentators say that for days and weeks afterwards you could follow the trail of the villages by the scaffolds they left behind each day following the battle?

If we go by Indian accounts at the LBH, most fired from cover and only risked charges when the opportunity presented itself.

And don't forget accounts like, "It seemed that almost every Indian was wounded in one way or another," or "Every family lost a loved one at that battle..."

Clair

[conz]

admin said:

conz said:

As a Soldier, I have a deep mistrust of anything said in a court of law, or in testimony before Congress. WAY too much "spotlight" for truth to be revealed, I think.

You're kidding, right? You just managed to wipe out two branches of government. Strange thinking for a capital-S soldier.

I'm surprised that you think so. Soldiers have a GREAT, GREAT, distrust of government in general, and many politicians (and one political party) in particular.

Certainly your studies of the Army during the Plains Wars would validate that attitude, don't you think? <g>

Clair

[gocav76]

ConZ, I would imagine it goes both ways. General George Washington and General George B. McClellan had every right to distrust politicians. In more recent times the Government has had every right to distrust Generals like McArthur in Korea and Curtis Lemay in the Cuban missle crisis.

[crzhrs]

And that's why the military is commanded by a civilian (right or wrong as it may be)

[crzhrs]

I guess we'll never know for sure how many Indian casualties there were.

Still can't see them risking their lives if they can fire from cover. Not to say some warriors were out to make a name for themselves, but most seem to have taken the soldiers' firepower as serious.