|
Post by quincannon on Oct 7, 2012 18:42:41 GMT -6
Dan: I think number two is the correct approach. What finding an artifact does not tell you in many cases is the circumstances surrounding how it got there in the first place. Can you tell who fired a weapon by the cartridge? I don't think so. You can make certain assumptions but that is all. For instance an Army weapon, say a Springfield carbine is fired and the shell casing is deposited on Calhoun Hill. A cartridge from that same weapon is discovered near Last Stand Hill. There are two ways to interpret this. The first is that someone from Company L fired the weapon on Calhoun Hill and escaped the carnage at that location and made his way to LSH. The second is that the weapon was fired on Calhoun Hill by a member of Company L, who was killed at that location. Subsequently the weapon and some ammo was picked up by a hostile, who then made his way to LSH to take part in the fighting there. Which one is correct? Outside some testimony by the warrior that picked up the weapon in question or the body of a Company L soldier being posatively identified on LSH no one knows for sure, and even then we don't know, all we have is a probability.
Now if you multiplied Company L cartridges by a factor of six or seven, under the identical circumstances described above you can start to have more definative probabilities and they may lead to better conclusions. It would not be unusual for a weapon or two to be picked up by a hostile at Calhoun Hill and be used in later fighting at LSH. It becomes more improbable as the numbers increase. The conclusion then is that in all probability several Company L soldiers made their way from Calhoun to LSH, which in turn may tell you something about the flow of battle.
To be valuable the artifact must tell a story. The more complete the story, the more valuable the artifact.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 7, 2012 21:59:12 GMT -6
There are stories about when the train route was completed that picnic parties would stop by the MTCF, I think it was, and people would lunch and the kids would rush to the east bank and go for relics to take home. As this went on through the years and the road to LSH was formalized, kids still would collect items. I recall stories, I think we've all read them, that when getting ready to return to train or wagon, mothers would be less than thrilled with the cartridges or whatever and make the kids dump them and keep one or deposit all of them back to the dirt.
Years later, these could clearly be Indian or soldier positions depending upon type, because look: shell cases so close together.
Regardless of cartridges, there were not a few bodies found and marked by wooden stakes shown in early photos that do not have marble equivalents today between LSH and the Keogh sector.
Is there reason to doubt that the bodies were desecrated by bullets amidst else on the 26th? It would be odd if it did not happen. Also, I think the bunching evidence is just as easily interpreted as sequential cover taken behind a dead horse.
And really. What rancher or Indian or anybody who found themselves alone on the field could resist firing a few to honor or just to do it in the years after? With weapons that could have been and may have been at the battle. Who could tell by a case?
|
|
|
Post by wild on Oct 8, 2012 2:50:38 GMT -6
Colonel Amid the rhetoric you have but one retort and that is misquoted'
Take just one: "Independent units are incapable of responding independently" Who is going to buy that Richard? The correct quote is The individual units were incapable of responding independently If you are going to rubbish a post at least get the quotes correct. We argue everything to the extreme here and not satisified with that we return and do it again.God forbid we come up with a simple explanation that would spoil the fun. Regards
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 8, 2012 3:12:50 GMT -6
Richard: Fair enough. OK, "Individual units are incapable of responding independently" Prove it. Incapable means can't. Didn't means didn't.
Individual soldiers are capable of responding independently. There have been to many Medals of Honor and Victoria Crosses awarded to think otherwise. Individual platoons in the American Army have been awarded Presidential Unit Citations for acting independently. Even more awards of the PUC have been given to companies acting independently of their parent battalion. What you are saying is not born out by the facts. Why do you think armies are echeloned in the first place? One of the reasons is that parts can act independently of the whole.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Oct 8, 2012 3:14:11 GMT -6
Good morning Richard and to everyone else.
A few things concerning ammo/weapons.
Douglas Scott discovered various shell cases in his digs around 1984/85.
The main ones found were; Smith and Wesson Revolvers. Colt Single Revolvers. Sharps Carbines. Springfield carbines. Henry Repeating Rifles. Winchester Repeating Rifles. Spencer Repeating Rifles. And one or two were found from these; Ballard Rifle. Joslyn Carbine.
There were probably more, even muzzle loaders too. He says that up to 25 different fire arms could have been used.
He also mentions about weapons fired after the battle (I cut and pasted this for quickness, sorry);
Post-Battle Ammunition Randomly scattered across the inventory area were cartridges, cases, and bullets not associated with the battle. These ammunition components postdate the battle. They represent later hunting activities, incidental shooting activities, salute firing, battle re-enactments, and movie production. A field decision was made to collect only a sample of these cartridge cases and related materials for retention in the park collection.
Caliber .38. One .38-caliber Colt New Police cartridge was recovered as were four .38-caliber lead alloyed bullets.
Caliber .45 Colt. A single .45-caliber Colt brass cartridge case with a boxer primer was also found. The primer type post-dates the battle, but could date to the 1886 era.
Caliber .45 Bullets. Was likely fired in a .45-caliber Winchester rifle. Another.45-caliber bullet is a 405 grain variety, but is unfired and may represent a field loss of a modern bullet used for interpretation at the park.
There are also three .45-caliber 500 grain bullets in the group. This bullet type was not produced by the army until several years after the battle. These bullets postdate the battle and are probably associated with activities such as the reburials, administration of the National Cemetery, hunting, or target shooting.
Caliber .50 450-Grain Bullets. Two .50-caliber bullets weighing 450 grains were found. Both are heavily alloyed with tin and were produced in modern molds. These represent twentieth century activities and not battle era depositions.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Oct 8, 2012 5:53:48 GMT -6
Regarding volley fire, a few have mentioned about how units would employ this tactic, Jag even said about firing in platoons, if two volleys were heard from Reno hill, then it could be have been L Coy, if this Company was in skirmish line, one platoon could have fired first and the second shortly after.
This could also mean that this was the only Company that managed to deploy in skirmish line, Keogh maybe still mounted or dismounted in the swale, and C Company was either still mounted or hit before it could deploy.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Oct 8, 2012 6:08:50 GMT -6
Regarding volley fire, a few have mentioned about how units would employ this tactic, Jag even said about firing in platoons, if two volleys were heard from Reno hill, then it could be have been L Coy, if this Company was in skirmish line, one platoon could have fired first and the second shortly after. This could also mean that this was the only Company that managed to deploy in skirmish line, Keogh maybe still mounted or dismounted in the swale, and C Company was either still mounted or hit before it could deploy. Ian. Ian, You are in big trouble now my friend, you are starting to think the way I do Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by wild on Oct 8, 2012 6:16:18 GMT -6
"Individual units are incapable of responding independently"
Colonel please that is not what I posted.
This is what I posted The individual units were incapable of responding independently The as in specific units,in this case the companys of Custer's battalion. Wereas in a specific past tense action,in this case Custer's last stand. As suggested Custer's command was in line astern follow my leader mode,In that formation mode, companys could not respond as they were committed to holding formation until ordered otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 8, 2012 9:18:05 GMT -6
Bull Puckie. You have absolutely no idea what formation they were in. You're assuming again.
In fact you have no idea they were in any formation above the company level, nor do I.
Formations come apart at first contact at least at the level you are speaking of. Also you make it sound like these people had no more imagination in formation selection than a John Ford movie. You describe in your various posts a column formation, companies in column. Given the circumstances, is that how you would approach this tactical situation? Columns are for traveling, speed, and ease of control. Is that what this situation called for, with the potential of both flanks being exposed after leaving Cedar Coulee, I don't give Custer much credit for his conduct of this battle, but even I give him more credit than that. Pull out a book on tactics and stop depending on John Ford.
In Richard's world soldiers and the units they serve are automatons. Thank goodness the real world is well "real". In Richard's world a subordinate unit would do nothing if attacked without receiving orders to respond? Does that sound real? Does that sound logical? Does that sound like anything but what it is, an extreme view, defended by one whose stock in trade is extreme views, for what purpose I have no clue with the exception of provoking a quarrel?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 8, 2012 9:23:58 GMT -6
Yantaylor,
Note that relics, like cases, manufactured before the battle were not necessarily used and deposited till many years after it. Finding non Springfield carbine cases manufactured before the war on the field in no way proves that these were used in the battle. Salting, celebrations official and not, desecrations, any and other scenarios could explain their presence without stretching credulity.
Also note how Scott, with his accurate and scientific bent, is careful and uses terms like 'up to' and 'could have' that are translated by the Miniver Cheevies into 'this number did/proves that...' Scott and Fox have never been as sure about their findings as others have been. Like Gray, they did the necessary work which, regardless of being right or wrong, was the necessary step to get history on the road and to kick myth aside.
QC,
Remember: drunk at the bar.....a tar baby.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 8, 2012 9:35:02 GMT -6
Ian: Given your senario, how do you explain the two volleys statement being distinct. How do you explain the cartridge cases on Luce-Nye-Cartright. Case in point. Given that cartridges were found in quantity on L-N-C Ridge identified as period cartidges, and given these cases were fired early on which seems to be consistent with the line of march and general flow of the battle, why would you not assume then that by the time Company L reached Calhoun Hill and dismounted there would be some measure of engagement with the hostiles and that fire was both outgoing and incoming, thereby a volley fire would be indistinct with the other surrounding firing?
Volley fire resounds with a crack, almost a sound of something being torn. Non-volley firing sounds like popcorn being popped, and continous popping sound reaching a crescendo.
Fred always says, and I think he is upset with me therefore absent, that all these events must be taken not as isolated things but in context one with the other. While it is possible that volley firing eminated from Calhoun Hill, it does not seem to fit with events that were going on before, and what was probably going on simultaniously with your volley event.
DC: Yes I remember. I misread your intentions then and hereby give you a long delayed apology for my intemperate words and manners. I now fully understand them in the way they were meant.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Oct 8, 2012 12:28:14 GMT -6
Bull Puckie. You have absolutely no idea what formation they were in. You're assuming again. In fact you have no idea they were in any formation above the company level, nor do I. Formations come apart at first contact at least at the level you are speaking of. Also you make it sound like these people had no more imagination in formation selection than a John Ford movie. You describe in your various posts a column formation, companies in column. Given the circumstances, is that how you would approach this tactical situation? Columns are for traveling, speed, and ease of control. Is that what this situation called for, with the potential of both flanks being exposed after leaving Cedar Coulee, I don't give Custer much credit for his conduct of this battle, but even I give him more credit than that. Pull out a book on tactics and stop depending on John Ford. In Richard's world soldiers and the units they serve are automatons. Thank goodness the real world is well "real". In Richard's world a subordinate unit would do nothing if attacked without receiving orders to respond? Does that sound real? Does that sound logical? Does that sound like anything but what it is, an extreme view, defended by one whose stock in trade is extreme views, for what purpose I have no clue with the exception of provoking a quarrel? Bull schissen Q. How do you know that Custer's individual units were [capable] of responding independently? You don't. They weren't, and they didn't have that capability or the result would not have been so much scattered corn within a square mile devastated area along their line of march. The evidence wild deposits here is more valid than your own tripe-gripe spasm of words.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 8, 2012 12:44:55 GMT -6
I see we have another opinion from the school of logic defiance, with a post graduate degree from the college of let them kill me while I await orders
I might ask you the same question in reverse. How do you know they were not? Simple enough. Do you have an answer based upon your vast experience in the overall subject, assuming your major in tactics of course. Jag, you betray yourself as another drunk at the bar as DC puts it. A person wishing to start a fight just because.
I might ask an even better question. How do you define independent action? What is it Jag? You know so damned much, so define the phrase. Tell us all, so we may marvel in your lack of understanding of the easily understandable. Let the rest decide who is right and who is wrong. This is just another example of a person being so wedded to his own view of things that his mind is closed like a steel trap.
Do you know that it was not an independent action on the part of Calhoun to stop and defend Calhoun Hill? No you don't, nor does anyone else. Do you know it was not an independent action that moved C Company off Battle Ridge and down to FF Ridge? No you don't nor does anyone else. Do you know that Company E was not engaged in an independent action on Cemetery Ridge, an action not under Custer's immediate control? No you don't, nor does anyone else. Therefore unless you have evidence not available to any one of us, the fact is that you don't know jack s**t about what transpired or what did not transpire. In fact you KNOW nothing. You like Richard are in the assuming business, another assignation in the bushes with Fido.
You have no idea of what orders were issued, or if any orders were issued. If they were issued you have no idea at what level, regiment (-), battalion, company, or squad, do you? You assume that everything that happened happened as a direct result of one man issuing orders. Were this a court room, some smart lawyer would raise an objection based upon facts not in evidence. You have no idea of any facts upon which to base your assumptions, because there are no unchallenged facts, and you were not there to bear witness. Now it is OK for you to have in mind what you think happened, but it is also OK for others to do the same. If yours is not based upon logic and reason, expect it to be called out for what it is, pile upon pile of unsupported assumption. I would expect the same to come my way, if I venture to far out on a limb. The difference between you and Richard vice myself is that I have no intention of shooting the messenger when they can lay substanciated fact upon the table, vice my mommy told me so.
What did you expect? Scattered corn. Tell me what would it look like when a couple of thousand hostiles took on 210 soldiers, having them cut off and cut up? I would suspect that it would look much like a field of scattered corn and that says absolutely nothing about the subject at hand. Military units are echeloned so that they may take independent action. Soldiers, particularly officers and NCO's are trained to use initiative and judgment in these matters in the absence of orders. Now the 7th Cavalry was not the poster child for sound tactical judgment in my view, but regardless of their faults, neither were they mindless statues.
I have zero tollerance for crap like this, zero.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Oct 8, 2012 13:44:04 GMT -6
Hello Dark Cloud, I pasted the Scott data concerning post-battle ammunition because I agree, people must have been opening up over this area for years, and also regarding the point you made over kids picking up cartridge cases, yes I also agree, with a battle so high profile as this one, I bet loads of stuff has vanished into thin air, making the work of people like Scott more difficult.
Hi Dan, the problem concerning firing, or volley firing is a hard one to pin down, as Chuck said, only a few of the Officers at the RCOI actually say Volley, they only say firing, but I agree with you actually, if these volleys were in fact fired, or fired in tandem then my money is on L Company as the troops who (allegedly) fired them. An NCO said this;
Sergeant Culbertson; at first it was a couple of volleys, very heavy; afterwards it was lighter and appeared to be more distant. Lieutenant Varnum made the remark that General Custer was hotly engaged.
But then Lt. Varnum came up with this; it was not like volley firing but a heavy fire, a sort of crash, crash. It must have pertained to Custer’s command at the other end of the Indian village. I thought he was having a warm time down there, a very hot fire evidently.
Good afternoon Chuck, that’s just it mate, I cannot disagree with you, some say volley, some say firing, like everything else concerning this battle, it’s hard to make a cut and dry statement, there must have been a lot of incoming fire as well as defensive firing from the soldiers, so what I was trying to get across is; if there was two volleys fired, then I think that L Coy are the most likely candidates.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 8, 2012 14:03:29 GMT -6
Ian: If they were using volley fire as a tactical measure on Calhoun Hill. First a couple of volleys than fire at will I think there might be merit to your argument. If volley fire was used as a tactical measure that would be one of the more likely places.
We still must contend with the cartridges found in the L-N-C vacinity. Perhaps they came later. Perhaps not. Regardless, if distinct volleys were heard, then L-N-C must be considered. That raises the question, what was the purpose. Long range volley fire as a means of discouraging further advance on the part of the hostiles. Long range volley fire as a means of covering the withdrawl of someone else. Volley firing as a means of signaling. All three are possabilities, and perhaps there are some reasons not thought about.
I seem to remember these cartidges were found in the 1920's or 30's. I don't recall if Fox and company went over there. Someone will tell us. If it was the 20's or 30's and no Fox then those cartridges on L-N-C could have come from anywhere, put there by anyone, and have absolutely no bearing on the issue.
I am having my troubles with the postal system of both our countries at present. I sent a print of Jutland to a ship friend of mine in Plymouth. Correct address and everything, but some computer somewhere says there is no such place as Plymouth in the UK. I am sure the Royal Navy will find that information useful.
I just love words and phrases like volley and hotly engaged. They tell us so much, don't they?
|
|