|
Post by benteen on Oct 6, 2012 14:12:18 GMT -6
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. . Yes.....And its the second mouse that gets the cheese Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by wild on Oct 6, 2012 14:42:26 GMT -6
The most likely reason was a means of signaling. The greatest number of carbines under the control of Custer was about 40 on LSH about 100 miles distant from Benteen.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 6, 2012 14:57:19 GMT -6
And who said it was Custer, only you who is making one hell of a big assumption. More than likely Keogh very early on from Luce-Nye-Cartright, which is a heck of a lot closer to where they would think Benteen would be. Keogh had a lot more than 40 carbines at his disposal, but what if it was only forty, or twenty, or ten. The purpose of signaling is to signal. Why would it be necessary for more than a relative few to fire?
Somewhere I read, and I cannot provide a reference, that there was a depression in the terrain that would allow in theory Benteen's column or the dust generated from Benteen's column to be seen from Luce-Nye-Cartright. I have never verified this, and my efforts to find such a terrain feature on maps or photos have led me nowhere. But if it is there, and they could be seen, and if the timing was right, I would think it might be very probable to fire off some sort of signal volley to indicate location.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Oct 6, 2012 15:11:19 GMT -6
One would have thought that the combined incoming and outgoing would have been enough to indicate the general location of the action. And I don't think the human ear is of sufficent sophistication to pin point some firing among a mass of firing in an area know for its echo's as evidenced by famous LBH Yodelers.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 6, 2012 15:18:03 GMT -6
Again you are making an assumption that other firing was going on. Assumption is the mother of all f**k up.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Oct 7, 2012 2:43:54 GMT -6
I'm disappointed Colonel.I thought an old soldier such as your good self would know the first rule of combat;don't draw fire. The idea of firing volleys to attract attention in the immediate vicinity of the enemy when your support is miles away could be termed a smigin optimistic.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Oct 7, 2012 6:24:55 GMT -6
I don’t know how true these comments are, the site I seen them on says they are from the RCOI, but I will have to leave it till tomorrow to verify this;
Major Marcus Reno; we heard firing downriver and knew it could only be Custer.
Lieutenant Winfield Edgerly; Shortly after I got to the hill, almost immediately, I heard firing and remarked heavy firing, by volleys, down the creek. Captain Weir came to me and said that General Custer was engaged and we ought to go down. I said I thought so too.
Lieutenant Luther Hare; It was just after Captain Benteen came up with his command. My attention was called to it by Lieutenant Godfrey. He asked if I heard that volley. I said yes, I heard two distinct volleys. That was just before I started for the pack train.
Captain Myles Moylan; I simply called Lieutenant McDougall’s attention to it and asked what he thought it was. He said he supposed it was General Custer firing at the other end of the village.
Lieutenant Thomas McDougall; It was just two volleys. I told Major Reno about it and he said: Captain, I just lost your lieutenant, he is lying down there.
Lieutenant Charles Varnum; About the time, or probably a few minutes after Benteen came up, I heard firing from away downstream and spoke of it to Lieutenant Wallace. I heard the firing and said: “Jesus Christ'', Wallace, hear that! And that!.
That’s six Officers, all claiming to have herd firing or volley firing. Ian.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Oct 7, 2012 7:29:13 GMT -6
While it's been discussed here about what the volley fire meant. And as opinions go, everyone's here is as legit as the next. However in lieu of the outcome of that short battle, I'd suggest that the volley's themselves might have been used as they were trained to do. According to the ancient LBH texts on this and other militaria knowledge banks of the same era... it was common for them to volley fire their first shot and then fire at Will after. It could suggest that at least 4 of the 5 companies were broken down into platoons, 2 each, and that each in turn, these platoons opened up a rolling barrage of 'first' volley fire at the oncoming Indians. It really isn't that difficult to imagine such a scene. It likely explains the reason for the barrage and then the following reports of sporadic fire as was commonly referred to by those who heard it. And I think it stupid-silly and just plain nuts to think it a signal when just plain-a$$ed firing would have done the very same thing... with the added effect of saving their own butts without wasting ammo.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Oct 7, 2012 7:34:26 GMT -6
Hi Ian The opening salvoswill always sound like a volley.And with a number of units commencing fire at the same time then you will get what sounds like controlled firing.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Oct 7, 2012 7:37:15 GMT -6
Fast on the draw Jag ya beat me to it
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 7, 2012 9:05:51 GMT -6
No it will not. Tell that to someone who has never been to a military funeral, and to someone that does not live within a few miles of a military rifle range.
Ian's six statements, and I believe them to be accurate, contain only two that indicate two volleys. The rest heard firing.
Once again, and for the fourth or fifth time, volleys are not the issue, for any purpose signaling or otherwise, my argument is not about firing volleys. It is about the statement that we have archeaological evidence of volley firing. Unless someone can point out how archeaological evidence of volley firing differs from plain old firing, then I argue there is none.
I think Fred mis-spoke. He believes that volleys were fired. Further he believes them to be, I think, fired from Luce-Nye-Cartright ridge. There is evidence of firing at that location. He concludes that there is evidence of firing, coupled with the conclusion, that from what we know of the battle there is no other apparent reason for cartridge casings to be found there, in the quantity and configuration they were found. I think Fred has made an excellent conclusion based upon the context and flow of battle. Given that I largely agree with him, my argument comes down to eliminating the positive "acrheaological evidence" from any book he writes, and inserting that Luce-Nye-Cartright is the probable location of volley firing.
Yes Richard, I am against drawing fire. You have assumed again, that firing at that time and place would draw fire. LBH is not densely wooded or a jungle you know. People can be seen for some distance. Under those conditions would it be drawing fire? It seems that you have or are building a vision of this battle in a bucket full of assumptions that has sprung several leaks. The battle was not a They Died With Their Boots On affair, and I think sometimes that is how you envision it. You can't account for anything outside your personal narrative that says a zillion hostiles came over the hill and did Custer and company in within a few moments. That is not so. You know it is not so, yet you argue your point to the extreme, on anything that mitigates against your view. I might have once thought that way also, but my visit to the battlefield, viewing the great expanse of terrain, convinced me that the complete battle took much longer than the few moments you give it if for no other reason than maneuvering. That does not change my views of how quickly the various elements were overcome. I don't dispute one word of that. What I dispute is that it all happened simultaniously as I think you do. It happened in overlapping sequence. Everything points to that.
Please someone, walk that battlefield and tell me 1) Where on that entire field firing a volley, a simultanious discharge of weapons, could be tactically employed at advantage? 2) Tell me how the firing of volleys fits in with the "instantanious downfall theory" promulgated by Wild and others? 3) Tell me which of you facing an oncoming hoard of hostiles would wait to get your soldiers in line and deliberately wait to open fire until that has been accomplished? 4) There were either volleys fired, most probably for some other purpose or there were not. There were either volleys fired or the word volley was used interchangably with firing of any sort. Godfrey hearing two volleys does not say they came from the same direction. He says two volleys, and we assume he meant volleys from the same general area. Hare says he heard two distinct volleys, and again is not specific as to if they came from the same place or direction. Edgerly says he heard heavy firing in volleys. Would not the two terms be mutually exclusive? 5) The only thing that is known is that six people heard something. It says nothing about when they heard it. It says nothing about if it was at the same time. It says nothing about the length of what they heard. Was it prolonged? Was it an isolated event? We can assume what we wish from testimony, but I will stand fast on what I said above about assumptions, and that word's relationship with fornicating with Fido. Assume, assume, assume.
The only one making sense here is Montrose, and I include myself for getting down in the weeds for no valuable purpose. He correctly realizes that the only real reason to study a battle for the military professional is to determine what went right and what went wrong. What was the tipping point of victory. What were the underlying causes of defeat. The rest, and again I include myself, remind me of the paint maven and rivet counters of my other hobby, those that say that the shade is just a tich off so your model has no value, or that there should be twenty rivets and only nineteen are shown, therefore equally of no value. Just the other day some fellow dissed an entire kit because the number two five inch mount was one millimeter further aft than it should be. One millimeter at a scale of one foot equals 144 feet, what stupidity. Is it important to understand the flow of battle, or is it important to know who Tom Custer's tailor was and if someone pressed his pants that morning?
|
|
|
Post by wild on Oct 7, 2012 13:30:02 GMT -6
Nice post Cathal. I often flick through a magazine with the title WARSHIP in our local newsagent and I cannot but think that the Civil War style battle wagons are making a comeback.No superstructure,a total enclosed detail clean monstrosity.Whatcha tink?
As regards volley firing his Dark Eminence does some of his most colourful work on this. Suffice to say Where Custer Fell has a photo of a cavalry unit of the period demonstrating volley firing on the battlefield.I wonder did they pick up their empties.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Oct 7, 2012 14:01:01 GMT -6
You can't account for anything outside your personal narrative that says a zillion hostiles came over the hill and did Custer and company in within a few moments. Colonel The nature of the 7th was that of a follow my leader configuration;the tail being at least half a mile behind the head. The individual units were incapable of responding independently. The mess on Battle Ridge conforms to no known defensive formation.The last positions of the companys answer no tactical questions.All last positions appear to be random with the exception of LSH.[and with the number of hills in the area some unit was going to terminate on it's summit.] Within a two minute ride of this single headed cavalry caterpiller there are a zillion raging LBH residents. If a zillion Indians hit this slow devil take the hindmost formation the result will be exactly what Benteen described as a formless rout. Unless this simplist of explanations can be refuted then your complex explanations are suspect. Regards
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 7, 2012 14:05:53 GMT -6
Unfortunately that's how admirals think also, seeing themselves on the bridge of Enterprise awaiting a other Midway, or on the Iron Duke sailing for Jutland to the tune of Britania Rules the Waves. Reality is quite different.
DC is spot on, a cartridge case found on that battlefield although it may be a period casing, does not automaticly equate to having been discharged on the afternoon of 25 June 1876. We know the date of Pompey being covered in ash. When someone digs the site and discovers an artifact covered with ash remnants we can reasonably say that this item was in this place on the day the mountain blew up. That cannot always be said about LBH.
As to your second part, that is just so much Bushwa that exists only in you mind. You are setting yourself up for an attack from so many directions from so many people that it boggles the mind. That is exactly what I mean about you arguing your point to the extreme. Extremes in discussion of LBH, as in politics, as in religion, as in sex, as in eating, as in drinking, as in anything you can name make no sense, they never have and they never will. You may impress yourself, but impressing others with this absolute rubbish is just not in the cards.
Take just one: "Independent units are incapable of responding independently" Who is going to buy that Richard?
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Oct 7, 2012 17:36:09 GMT -6
I believe when it comes to archaeological finds there are 2 distinct schools of thought, both have in my opinion merit.
1...An artifact such as a shell casing from the period is not believed to have been fired at that location during the battle unless there is proof that it was.
2...That same artifact IS believed to have been fired at that location during the battle unless there is proof that it WASNT
I subscribe to the second school of thought but believe they both have merit
Be Well Dan
PS.. Sorry Dark Cloud, they just made too many mistakes at the wrong time. Would have been nice to see if Manning could have pulled it off.
|
|