|
Post by edavids on Mar 13, 2017 16:08:25 GMT -6
Hi EDave I'm sorry don't follow, are we in disagreement? My opinion is that the 7th had lost the fire fight on Reno hill losing nigh on the equivalent of a company in casualities. They were besieged ,surrounded with an unsecured supply of water. Without Terry they were in dire straits. The reason for the Indians leaving was other than any action taken by the garrison. They were aware of Terry and needed a day to clear the neigbourhood. Cheers Richard We are in some disagreement here. You are stating that the lone factor was Terry's approach. I am stating that other reasons, possibly of even more significance, should be factored in. I do not agree with the absolute and singular concept that Terry's approach saved Reno & Benteen's fruit. Best, David
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Mar 13, 2017 16:12:12 GMT -6
I also never mentioned anything about the NAs bugging out due to the actions of the Reno Hill defenders. If it was any factor it mayhavebeenthat the NAs were not gettimg the quick and easy victoriesthey enjoyed at the Reno Valley Fight or Custer's obliteration.
Kind of a "cost-benefit" analysis thing.
Best,
David
|
|
|
Post by wild on Mar 13, 2017 16:30:36 GMT -6
Interesting EDave Yes a combination of factors maybe also a reluctance to take losses at a time when the battle was won. But I think that it was possible for the 7th to win the fire fight and ensure that they were not dependent for factors outside their own control for survival. Cheer Richard
|
|
|
Post by dave on Mar 13, 2017 17:01:23 GMT -6
Wild me bucko let it go. Brother David, montrose, horse and AZ have all explained, politely I might add, how far off the beam you are flying. Choosing one's ditch is always an option available to each of us and you are not choosing wisely on this subject. Need to find another topic to focus on and bring to the moot court table. I am sure there are many other topics that are of interest which would allow you to bring your contrasting perception for discussion. Regards Dave
PS Brother David and Will I am so pleased to y'all being so active again. Proud to have y'all playing with us again.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Mar 13, 2017 18:01:16 GMT -6
Hi Dave The title of the thread is mythbusters . An invitation to discuss and explore aspects of the battle which have given rise to myths. This I have done and have given my reasons.If you disagree you also are free to give your reasons, thus far you have not. If I have infringed some board rule bring it to the attention of the moderator.
Benteen had 400 carbines at his disposal ,a disciplined force, Civil war experienced officers and yet he lost the fire fight. Those are reasons to question the myth of the defence of Reno Hill. If the case I'm making is so off the beam then you will have no problem demonstrating this. I look forward to reading your counter arguements.
Best Wishes Richard
|
|
|
Post by dave on Mar 13, 2017 21:06:55 GMT -6
Richard, I never said nor implied you had done something wrong or violated any laws, rules procedures or regulations. I merely pointed out your position, in my opinion, has been dis-proven by David, montrose and AZ and others mentioned. My attempt at a goodhearted expression has been misconstrued and inadvertently perceived as offensive for which I offer my apology.
Your post: "The purpose of this dispatch is to show that Benteen's suggested "valley hunting" was a myth.", set the frame for the discussion and as I have mentioned others have answered your post and proven to my satisfaction that Benteen's scout was not a myth. AZ has ridden the route and has testified how difficult it was for both men and horse and montrose along with AZ have stated this jaunt was a sound military maneuver
You next proposed: "The myth of Benteen's defence of Reno Hill" as you allowed that Terry's arrival on the 27th saved the remnants of the 7th Cavalry. I maintain the Indians were attacking Reno's command to insure the safe with drawl of the village and its occupants. The fact that any part of Reno's command was alive on the morning of the 27th to great General Terry proves they won the firefight. Survival was the goal of Reno's command as the original mission of the 7th Cavalry to return the Indians to the reservation flew out the window when Custer split his command and went North. His failure to give clear and understandable orders and maintain unit integrity lost the battle at the onset and and no one knew where Custer went nor when Terry would arrive. You have this unreasonable expectation that Reno's command should continue an aggressive action instead of hunkering down and surviving.
As we know I have no military experience or training so I am agreeing with Steve and William. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by wild on Mar 14, 2017 2:10:37 GMT -6
Hi Dave Surely there is room for all opinions here? Everyone should be able to contribute to the discussion without fear or favour . You contributed nothing and yet took it upon yourself to attempt to bully me into silence. There are few enough scientific facts here to allow for definative solutions . If opinion is to be forbidden we might as well pack up our tents and go home.
"The purpose of this dispatch is to show that Benteen's suggested "valley hunting" was a myth.", set the frame for the discussion and as I have mentioned others have answered your post and proven to my satisfaction that Benteen's scout was not a myth Benteen used the term valley hunting to rubbish Custer's orders. That a scout to the left took place is not in doubt but rather it's purpose. In short.... Benteen questioned the oblique,was slapped down by Custer.He describes these orders as valley hunting and states at the RCOI that he disobeyed them. Not a neutral witness?
You have this unreasonable expectation that Reno's command should continue an aggressive action instead of hunkering down and surviving.I expected Benteen to employ his superior fire power,the one advantage he had to better effect and win the fire fight.Custer used a sharpshooter company at the Washita . Could this tactic not also have been used on Reno hill?
I encourage you to post and to encourage others to post so that we can have a lively friendly debate exploring and developing our understanding of a fascinating chapter in the history of the West. Best Wishes Richard
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 14, 2017 6:11:43 GMT -6
Dave
I think you have it diagnosed correctly. Most of us believe in or have a conviction in our opinions. Those opinions are subject to change with new facts coming to light. There is not a debate if you can not win a change of opinion when presenting overwhelming evidence.
So a myth to me is that Benteen should have been moving quicker. I would like to see the facts that support that myth. Just saying something doesn't make it fact. First most of us don't know the distance actually traveled so how could you estimate speed. Second terrain features such as gradients and defiles slow the movement of troopers in formations. A defile for example doesn't slow a single rider as much as company of soldiers have to stop and wait thier turn the move out in single file. Since it is such an area there should be an increased awareness of ambush. Finally after moving through a defile the company must reform. In this case you may have 3 companies moving through a defile.
What we know as fact is that Benteen arrived in Reno Creek near the junction with Noname. Benteen was behind the main body and ahead of the pack train. If you use Fred's overall speed which is faster than Gray's then Benteen also move faster.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Mar 14, 2017 8:02:22 GMT -6
The myth of Benteen's defence of Reno Hill Without the arrival of Terry the reno hill garrison was toast. This is due to Benteen and Reno's failure to adequately deploy their fire power to win the fire fight . The one advantage the 7th had was their ability to concentrate and direct their fire power. Instead B&R deployed and used their units as skirmishers. In a static fire fight the carbine was superior having a hard hitting round and outdistancing most of the weaponry the Indians had. A fire team, company strenght could have been organised of sharpshooters and vets . These are the shooters not the terrified recruits . With control and direction serious fire could have been returned on individual Indian shooters. Every round of incoming gets 40 accurately aimed rounds back. The fire team at a rough guess could be supplied with 500 rounds each. Instead the troopers just lay there and took a beating. This was where the real defeat happened .This was a professionally led body of regular troops fighting a defensive action and losing. The performance of the 7ths officer corps was so bad that just surviving has assumed the status of an Alamo , a Bastogne fit to rank among the Thermopylaes . It is a Myth.
This thread is to bust myths, not create them. 1. Firepower is a function of the capability of the weapon, the training of the shooter, and the tactics and training of collective entities. a. The 1873 carbine was suitable for this battle, as you point out. b. The training of the shooters was unacceptably bad. The 7th, but not other units, still used ACW volley fire training. This means company lined up in one rank and fired at a cloth target 5 feet high and 100 feet wide. That is designed for muskets, where company mass fire against a template enemy mass. Other units were experimenting with KD ranges and individual marksmanship, but this was not yet doctrine. It became common after LBH, but not doctrine til 1880s. Remember the carbine was new to the 7th, fielded in 1874/5. c. Training on skirmish lines was conducted. The problem is they didn't do any live fire training. This led to doing things for the first time in combat, never a good thing to do. Specific problems skirmish lines encountered at LBH: leaders failed to prioritize and control fire, shooting at excessive range, wasting ammunition, lack of training in ammunition resupply. 100 rounds a man is great, but when cartridge box holds 20, you have 80 rounds on your horse a few hundred yards away. d. Skirmish line tactics and the 1873 carbine places a premium on individual training. When the shooters lack this training, you adjust your procedures. The 7th failure was at individual, NCO and officer level. the 7th fired excessively at targets 800-900 yards away. From Indian accounts we know this fire was ineffective, one KIA. 2. You mention forming a special detachment of the best shooters. This was done by the 7th back in 1869. But this was done in a period when 7th was a new unit, and was doing extensive weapons training. Then this detachment received officers and NCOs and trained extensively in the pre deployment phase. You can't just whip out such a unit in the middle of a battle. 3. "The one advantage the 7th had was their ability to concentrate and direct their fire power." DO you read what you write? CPT Benteen and MAJ Reno concentrated and directed firepower. They directed multiple companies. LTC Custer scattered 5 companies all out of mutual support of one another, where each died a lonely death. The answer to enemy numbers was to concentrate multiple companies in mutual support. The Indians had no organization comparable to a company, and no ability to fight multi company actions. At Reno Hill the critical task was to reassemble the Regiment rear, meaning the Reno, Benteen and McDougal detachments. So for timing, no movement should have occurred before McDougal closed up. You have properly blamed Reno and Benteen for being too aggressive at LBH. They allowed/ordered companies to move forward before trail elements had closed, risking annihilation and defeat in detail. LBH saw too much aggression from Reno and Benteen in the south, and too much passivity from Custer in the north.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Mar 14, 2017 9:06:41 GMT -6
Well thank you for that, an honest, fair and interesting reply.
Just to clarify [if clarification is needed] 3. "The one advantage the 7th had was their ability to concentrate and direct their fire power." DO you read what you write? CPT Benteen and MAJ Reno concentrated and directed firepower. They directed multiple companies. The companies for sure were concentrated but was the firing concentrated? Was there volley firing, were range changes given,were there actual fire missions controlled by fire orders? I think [but no proof] that other than being given a sector or general area target the troopers were left to return fire as individuals and at will.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Mar 14, 2017 9:26:41 GMT -6
The fact that any part of Reno's command was alive on the morning of the 27th to greet General Terry proves they won the firefight. I agree, seems obvious. The other poster sees this as a defeat, but I'm not seeing why other than his persistence in pushing his own narrative. When I visited the battlefield, I was struck by how large the Reno Hill area was. I'm having difficulty visualizing the poster's idea of a group of 'sharpshooters' being moved around that area to oppose enemy fire. While their return fire may have been effective in silencing whomever they were shooting at, in doing so, they seem to have also presented a more finite and larger target for the other NAs to shoot at.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Mar 14, 2017 11:22:35 GMT -6
I agree, seems obvious. The other poster sees this as a defeat, I see it as a failure .The Indians won the fire fight ..check the casualties.
but I'm not seeing why other than his persistence in pushing his own narrative. Absolutely ,the offical one is getting a bit worn and tatty.
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Mar 14, 2017 11:47:55 GMT -6
I agree, seems obvious. The other poster sees this as a defeat,I see it as a failure .The Indians won the fire fight ..check the casualties. but I'm not seeing why other than his persistence in pushing his own narrative.Absolutely ,the offical one is getting a bit worn and tatty. The NA's likely inflicted more casualties than they took which made the Reno Hill battle a tactical NA victory. The cavalry occupied some fairly useless ground which perhaps makes this a strategic cavalry victory. Overall the LBH was the beginning of the end for the NA way of life as within a matter of months most were on the reservations. Best, David
|
|
|
Post by wild on Mar 14, 2017 12:11:34 GMT -6
The NA's likely inflicted more casualties than they took which made the Reno Hill battle a tactical NA victory. The cavalry occupied some fairly useless ground which perhaps makes this a strategic cavalry victory. Overall the LBH was the beginning of the end for the NA way of life as within a matter of months most were on the reservations. The fact that the command survived gives a victory of sorts to the garrison . It is how that victory was achieved that is of interest to the professional and militaria geek. In my opinion 400 carbines should have seen off the Indians I think there was a book written by an officer of Terry's command entitled The Rescue of Custer's command. If someone thought that they had to be rescued well....... Best Wishes Richard
|
|
|
Post by dave on Mar 14, 2017 12:59:47 GMT -6
Wild Your statement: "Hi Dave
Surely there is room for all opinions here? Everyone should be able to contribute to the discussion without fear or favour. You contributed nothing and yet took it upon yourself to attempt to bully me into silence."
How in the world did you come to the erroneous conjecture that you were being coerced by force or shunning to adopt other's beliefs and opinions? I have never attempted to silence anyone at anytime on ant thread! As to the ridiculous charge that I have endeavored to bully you into silence it is a out and out falsehood.
As to the charge that "you contributed nothing" that is certainly open for debate and you are more than welcomed to whale away at the quality if any of my contributions but you can not assert that I have attempted to bully and silence anyone ever! Regards Dave
|
|