|
Post by bc on Oct 5, 2012 21:08:24 GMT -6
Not to worry, I check in often enough to see the skinny dippers. Everyone missed the rack I saw one last month. I'm sitting here at the Denver waiting on a flight to Reno that had been delayed four hours. Have a family reunion in Carson City. Looks like it might snow here. What a god forsaken place.
bc
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 5, 2012 21:39:04 GMT -6
So then... based on all this doubt and the cavalier tossing aside of archaeological findings and the accounts of participants being doubtful or uninterpretable, we should simply regress into the idiocy of the fools on other sites. The fact that on-the-field findings are suddenly meaningless, and someone might have been too busy to pay attention to downstream firing and therefore it raises the question of the veracity of others, we can now allow asinine theory-making to be accepted as just as viable as all the circumstantial evidence you all bellyache about.
Somehow I think this drill is going nowhere and some are more interested in reading their own posts than they are in putting a reasonable interpretation on these events. Or coming up with even the most ludicrous arguments just to for the exercise of flexing. That is fine with me for it levels the playing field, making even Strange an expert. No more criticism of hussars, please. I certainly accept DC's constant howl that none of this is definitive, but I cannot accept the throw-it-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks technique. Argument is not worthwhile just for its own sake and I see nothing intelligent coming out of any of this... just more punctured, meaningless theory with no support other than ego.
Maybe it is time to step aside.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 5, 2012 22:26:34 GMT -6
Fred: This has nothing to do with ego, throwing anything aside and should be nothing to hurt anyones feelings. At least I for one set out not to prove oir disporve thories like your own that have substance, You have set out what you believe to be true. I believe at least 90 percent as well,
Your statement that we have archaeological evidence that volley fire from Luce-Nye-Cartwright is unsupoported by sufficient facts, to the exclusion of all other possabilities, Until all those other possabilities are eliminated then it should be read that it is speculated that Luce-Nye-Carttwrige is the most likely place for the volley fire to have taken place4, A review of the evidence at that location I believe states that piles of cartridges indicating firing was done in that location. Further the firing seemed to have been done in some sort of a skirmish line formation in that each pile was alighed along a sort of straight line, We may also conclude it was one group of firers in that each of the smaller piles of cartridges came from the same weapon. That is what we have I assume there is ballistic evidence indicated all these guns were of the proper type and the ammunition had the appropriate marking s of the time indicating with some high percentage of assurance that these weapons were of the type issued to the 7th Cavalry and leading to the conclusion that these cartridges were expended by elements of the 7th Cavalry on or about the afternoon of Sunday 25 June 1876. None of that is in dispute. What is in dispute by me is if that is a collation of the evidence available it is not conclusive archaeological proof that this was the location that the volley firing took place,. It is that last leap from probability to that of archaeological certitude I object to.
Some men in all probability used that location as a firing platform. Volley fire is an orderly process where each round fired is fired by direct command. It is done that way to produce maximum effect. It is the word volley that is in question not that rounds were fired. Volleys have a distinct sound, volleys are a control measure. There is nothing about the archaeological evidence that indicates such , and unless there is a living witness that could attest to the fact that two-three -four or more volleys were fired from that location then we have no way of concluding that the event took place as you stated.
You and I will probably be guest of honor at a funeral some day where seven men with rifles will stand near our graves and loose off 21 rounds. When they walk away there will be twenty one cartridge cases left in the dust. You could walk up an hour later see the 21 cases and conclude that they are in seven little piles of three each and say that someone had three volleys fired over their grave. You would have a 99 percent probablity that it would be correct. But what if you walked up to mine where I requested one round be fired singly for each of my twenty one mortal sins. You would have no way of knowing from the evidence left in the dust, would you.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Oct 6, 2012 7:40:59 GMT -6
Let me add a thought here.
Obviously, US forces fired thousands of rounds from LCN.
But there is no evidence they inflicted any casualties. No enemy WIA/KIA line up with this fire. Whatever they were doing, it was firing at targets far beyond effective fire range. They were not trying to inflict casualties. Goal was to distract enemy from chasing recon elements, or just distract them.
So they threw away rounds with no hope of achieveing any outcome. As a trainer, the LCN casing debris shows a unit badly trained for war. The officers and NCOs clearly did not understand what they were doing. The enlisted soldier did what they were ordered to do.
I think the normal interpretation of Fox and Scott, is that the enlisted men panicked and caused the defeat. However, the officers and NCOs were on the amateur hour at LBH. Their bad calls put their soldiers in hopeless situations.
In my opinion, one of the largest causal factors of the LBH defeat was the weak tactical skills of officers and NCOs.
Fred and QC, you two reallyarenot that far apart. The issue is defining what is a volley.
Respectfully,
William
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Oct 6, 2012 8:12:33 GMT -6
I feel I have to apologize for my last post, I originally wanted to ask Fred about firing at Ford D, but I got carried away, why I did this was; I thought that I would be working this weekend, but the job only lasted till lunch time, so I thought I had to post the theory to Dan concerning the rout of Custer/Keogh now and not leave it till after the weekend, but I should have left that part out till Monday, Sorry.
But what made me post it was, when I saw a map of the markers, it seemed like they were grouped into three main areas, Calhoun Hill/LSH/Deep Ravine, the mistake I made was to assume that Dan thought that the command got drove to LSH as a unit, not in two parts, sort of like a train coming down MTC and turning left up to Calhoun Hill, then without stopping moving on to LSH, with the final show down in Deep Ravine, so again my Apologies to everyone here, and I will be more patient next time and rush any posts just for the sake of it.
Have a nice weekend everyone.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 6, 2012 8:22:59 GMT -6
No Will it's not even that. We both know what a volley is. It is about the statement we have archeaological evidence of a volley. My postion is that such evidence would be identical to any other type of discharge of rounds. Therefore my reasoning goes we have archeaological evidence of the discharge of weapons and it's not evidence that the weapons were fired in volley. Saying then a volley was fired from a given location is not the product of evidence, but rather the product of speculation, absent another type of verification such as an eye witness.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 6, 2012 10:21:48 GMT -6
Yes. Defining a volley. WHERE have we heard that concern before? That is exactly what the issue is as in so many aspects of the battle.
Damn it. Sorry, feel better now.
Now. Who can remember soldiers and officers describing an event where they said they, alone, fired a volley, apparently of one shot?
By which I mean, writing after the event in question and to laymen, would an olde soldier be amiss in writing "I fired a salvo at that rascal" just as a literary variation? Well, what about "I fired a volley at that rascal."
Also, did scouts and Indians and civvies use 'volley' the same way as soldiers? Did translators? Did soldiers poorly trained use the same nomenclature? Did experienced officers who would technically know the difference be wrong in recalling a free fire episode of a lot of shots by his men as "we fired volleys at....."
I still want to know how those who supposedly heard disciplined volleys from Custer's men during the fight - as they were in the river failed to hear Godfrey's much closer and actual volleys later on.
G.O.T., people. We need the Glossary of Terminology as used then to apply to the 'field', 'volleys', cardinal points of the compass, and in the case of Goldin and Thompson, 'saw.'
I have long contended that evidence excluding all but one interpretation is rare, especially here. This is NOT a slam against Fred's or anyone's work when a modest caveat is applied: while here is the evidence that does not conflict with several interpretations, my personal experience in combat suggests the following conclusion. THAT is way valid and important.
Whatever one thinks of Grey, he said repeatedly that ALL he could do was take the evidence we had and eliminate the impossible. He's been dinged up in his conclusions, but he never at any point claimed he was certain and he provided for the first time the time lines and interconnections and allowed military men to attack his conclusions and evidence at a time when nobody else had provided such detail and exposed themselves to harsh attack. I consider that intellectually brave and generous, and given the man was dying (and did die about the time the last book was published), I can forgive him lots, like his opinion of Benteen.
There is an HBO show called The Newsroom. The last episode dealt with the concept of The Greater Fool. As an economic term, the GF is the guy who buys long and sells short <Because I'm an idiot, reverse that....> because of ego and the delusion he can succeed where others have failed, and the vultures wait for that failure and often grow fat. The thing is, this country was made by Greater Fools, often lauded after the fact but who never themselves profit. Think Tesla. Think Grey. For that matter, think Moses.
The GF can stand up to the dictator, motivate the masses, expose the truth, but who will screw up and die poor, be slaughtered. There is a business theory that it's the second guy (Edison, say) who profits.
It is, at base, the attraction to Custer, who may have been the big time GF. But, he was one of the ones that was given rein in this country as they were hounded out of other nations. We WERE made by GF's, granting hyperbole status.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 6, 2012 10:34:03 GMT -6
According to the American Heretage Dictionary a volley is : A simultanious discharge of a number of missiles. Simultanious is the operative word. I would argue that evidence of simultanious discharge is not anywhere near conclusive if one only looks at spent cartridge cases scattered upon the ground.
Now, I would suspect if volley fire was heard that Luce-Nye-Cartwright is a probable location, but as long as I can legitimately attach the word probable we have no degree of certitude, provided by archeaology or anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 6, 2012 10:47:44 GMT -6
To which I agree. But people did say "I fired a volley" when there is nobody else to join them in various tales of the army in the west.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 6, 2012 10:54:10 GMT -6
That it quite true. What I would expect though is that those reporting volley fire would use the word volley to differentiate it from reporting firing, simply to differentiate.
If memory serves what was reported were three volleys (just memory, no source at hand). That to me would mean they heard three simultanious discharges of weapons. I can't account for any other logical explanation of the use of the word in this context.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 6, 2012 11:15:38 GMT -6
Some did say that. One, Varnum I think, said he heard groups of firing sorta like but not a volley.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Oct 6, 2012 12:13:35 GMT -6
Volley firing is controlled firing under the direction of an officer [but an NCO could do the job] The officer will give a fire order indicating the target,range.number of rounds to be fired and rate of fire. The officer will if necessary order a cease fire and then order a change of range or target or order independent firing. It is unlikely that this firing was employed at the LBH,because of the number and proximity [closing]of the enemy and because the regiment never trained in such fire tactics.[guessing]
|
|
|
Post by wild on Oct 6, 2012 13:01:42 GMT -6
Ooops Sorry got my drills mixed up. Actually the command volley fire will be given.This is a single round firing sequence by a unit.Range and target is given then each firing is ordered by the officer. I would add that the purpose of volley firing is to hit a specific target with as much weight of shot as can be mustered, The manner in which Custers units were scattered militated against volley firing.The fire of a skirmish line of 30 troopers would be so light as to be useless.Even raw troopers standing in such an extenderd line knew they hadn't got a snowball's chance in hell of stopping anything. All of which drives me demented when I hear of units being dropped off to halt chasing Indians.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 6, 2012 13:14:15 GMT -6
Please let me try to make this as clear as possible. I am not saying that a volley or volleys were not fired. I think it is very possible that they were, and not to swat flys or trying to duplicate a scene in Zulu. The most likely reason was a means of signaling. In other words firing one or two or three volleys saying I am over here. My argument is with two words - archeaological evidence. Nothing more. Nothing less.
|
|
walsh
Full Member
Posts: 108
|
Post by walsh on Oct 6, 2012 13:25:31 GMT -6
As I have noted before, volleys would not have been useful in this fight for anything other than signaling. The way the Indians fought made it obsolete. I always read how they would lay on the ground and than quickly pop up to fire at the soldiers. What could volley's do against this strategy? If there was volley firing, my bet is it was signaling for help. There is no concrete evidence for volley firing. Just because you find shell casings in a line doesn't mean they were discharged from a firearm simultaneously although the possibility remains. It could have been a skirmish line of troopers who were firing at will.
|
|