|
Post by wild on Jan 11, 2013 3:34:21 GMT -6
he moved closer to 2 1/2 miles away No he did not move 2 1/2 miles away.The move was "away" and the determining factor was time not distance. What the GNM people do not tell us is how long they will allow Custer for his excursion. They have the third secret of Fatima[send name and address on a post card];that which the Indians were using rendering them comotose. Next... while DC has a point regarding terrain, it is irrelevant. There was a mission... a goal... and terrain wasn't going to stop them. If terrain played any part in holding men back it was only in a decrease of speed, not a fear of entering an inhospitable place. Instead of moving at 17 MPH for two miles, maybe the speed dropped to 12 MPH due to difficult terrain. It was non cavalry country.If nature wanted to queer cavalry that is the landscaping it would have provided. Custer's 5 troops in column of march and at speed will stretch at least a kilometre.Troops will lose sight of each other,the terrain will fragment the column,control and response will be ponderious. The terrain could be why Keogh split from Custer.Did he lose sight of him and not knowing what the call was decided to stand his ground and fight?
As per his Dark Eminence Once in contact with the enemy who was not running, they were adhered to them. A tar baby. In a word yes. The board military seem to think that being in contact with the enemy requires an exchange of fire.It does not.They had Custer's goolies mired in tar from MTC on.
Dan Many happy returns.Keep the Faith.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jan 11, 2013 6:01:07 GMT -6
Hello DC, both Chuck and I had this conversation about Custer’s leadership last week, and the thought of ordering small platoon like Companies to either attack or defend without any support was crazy, yet if a group of men or more importantly Officers and NCOs from each Company were found in a specific area, then it seem like those men were attacked while in situ or getting caught whist in the motion of deploying. F Company; LSH (Officers/NCOs/EMs) C Company; FF Ridge (NCOs & EMs) E Company; Cemetery ridge then drove down to Deep Ravine (NCOs/EMs) I Company; Eastern Face of Battle Ridge (Officer/NCOs/EMs) L Company; Calhoun Hill (Officers/EMs) I know that the men and Officers who seen the area after the battle said that the place resembled a Buffalo hunt, but if the men on these features broke and fled, then it would resemble what they saw. I said last week that if GAC and his command were chased by hundreds of warriors, how come that LSH mainly contains men from the HQ and F Company, if there was two wings and Keogh wings was further away from GAC and Yates and the village, why didn’t his men make it on to LSH to meet up with the rest of the command, if Keogh had seen GAC getting hit by such a hoard, he could have fired a few rounds to slow the attackers down then mounted up and re-joined him commander on LSH, I don’t see why each of the five Companies got isolated so easily, why would any commander disperse his command with no support on different features when they could see what they were up against. DC, I was thinking what you said about Phil the Greek, we had a Neighbour called Neil who served in the RAF, after he left he became a driver for the Royals, and he said that he loved driving Prince Philip because he was not adverse to using industrial language, he swore like a trooper and was also very funny, Princess Anne was another one who could Cuss. Going back to that day they visited Widnes, the day finished off with a fight, but that was a not unusual after a day on the ale, most of that gang are dead and gone now, I and a few others who were the younger of the group still meet up now and again, I remember saying the last time we met ‘’we few, we happy few, we band of brothers’’. There is a painting to celebrate the event. www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/royal-visit-the-visit-of-hm-queen-elizabeth-ii-and-hrh-pr103344 This shows the bandstand and paths we laid no sign of us though we were banished. Ian.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 11, 2013 9:03:45 GMT -6
Hi Ian but if the men on these features broke and fled The flow of battle and company final positions was totally destroyed by the spurious markers because we don't know for certain which are the spurious markers. For example I think there are 80 markers in and around Keogh's position.Might suggest that the real stand was made by Keogh.Are ther 40 markers on LSH? And what of Deep Ravine?28 troopers are said to have died here but no burials found there? For example can we say with any certainty that L company died on Calhoun Hill or was it just Calhoun and a few die hards with the bulk of the company fighting alongside Keogh? Regards
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jan 11, 2013 9:27:40 GMT -6
Good Afternoon Richard, I was trying to pin down the various features each Company could have been on when they first made contact with the enemy, if we take the Keogh sector and look at the three places I have named, you may find only a few markers, but if just some of these markers belong to Officers (which some of their fellow Officers identified) and another few to NCOs (which some of their colleagues also identified) then there could be a chance that this is where that particular unit was when it broke, it may not have been in a skirmish line, it could have been trying to deploy or standing to. Going back to the 28 men supposed to be in the deep ravine area; if 28 bodies were found and the NCOs identified as being from E Company then the odds of E Company being separated from F Company are high, F Company were found on LSH, so how was this small Battalion/Wing commanded by Capt. Yates split into two, why were they not up each other’s arse trying to get away.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 11, 2013 10:30:29 GMT -6
I sure wish someone would define cavalry country for me, ninteenth century horse mounted cavalry country. I look at places like Palo Duro Canyon in Texas and Oak Creek Canyon in Arizona and think cavalry operated there so it too must be cavalry country. Those two places make the land beyond MTC appear to be as if they were a football field or wide open parkland.
Nineteenth century horse cavalry could operate nearly everywhere writ large. Were there some places that would impeded movement.? Sure were, but largely they were places that would impede tactical movement, not movement itself. Coming down off those bluffs might be one such place that would impeded movement in tactical formation, and after all that is what cavalry or any military formation does.
I agree with Fred here. Movement beyond MTC would be slowed but hardly stopped. More care must ba taken because of the brokeness of terrain, but all of it is negotiable in formation.
To Richard's point about formation. I truely believe he has watched far to many John Ford movies where Mr Cohill's Troop leads Mr Pennell's. The column is but one formation used primarily for speed and control of movement. It is far from the only formation in the trick bag, and to make a statement that Custer's command was in column is an assumption of facts not in evidence, and as such to "assume" makes an ASS out of the assumer as well as U and ME if we believe him to the exclusion of any other possability.
Further Richard cannot deal with the idea that the movement north was deliberate. OK, prove it was not deliberate. Not pontification, not outlining the folly of it, PROOF. If you can't Richard then shut up about it, for without PROOF you have no standing to argue that it did not happen by deliberate act, just like I without PROOF have no standing to argue that you are wrong about your theories to the excluision of everything else.
Custer's mission was to FIND the enemy, FIX the enemy, and FINISH the enemy. I see absolutely no evidence that this was not uppermost in his mind, his intent, until near the very end, and there is no one out there that can point to anything that says otherwise. Overcome by events is what happened, the only thing that is in any way ponderable is the sequence of those events.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jan 11, 2013 10:48:11 GMT -6
Hi Chuck, there is a split among the members of what happened after GAC got to the end of MTC; One group think that the GAC column (with GAC at the head) rode straight down MTC with the notion of crossing over the river and straight into the village, nothing wrong with that GAC was a bit of a rash commander and he may have wanted to get stuck in whilst Reno was still engaged, but if he got stopped by copious amounts of warriors, so many that the whole command had to turn to the high ground just to shake them off, they why weren’t there soldiers lying dead from the flats all the way to Calhoun hill, as far as the markers show, the main casualties start around the features I have name earlier, and then start to line up all the way over Battle ridge, also if GAC has any merit as a command surely at the sight of so many warriors he would have turned around to TC and Cook and said get the command out of here this place is a death trap.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 11, 2013 10:54:12 GMT -6
Cavalry country is level land where you can charge in line, ala west bank of LBH. You're playing loose with the Glossary of Terminology. That horses in single file can follow a path to a canyon floor and then form up or just act as vehicle for soldiers to be used as infantry doesn't make the path cavalry country although the unit is called cavalry and trained as such. Sorta.
Again, what is awful about LBH is the deceptive nature of the land, but I don't think experienced officers would be fooled. You don't want to find yourself in a coulee subject to attack from both sides, you wouldn't want to ride the hogback ridge subject to attack from ALL sides where you'd have no cover and the enemy had lots. If they just wanted to cantor or trot to where the monument is from Weir Point without worry of attack, they could do that easy. That does not describe the situation, though. And Custer would not wait for the packtrain is sight of the enemy to waddle to him over a period of an hour, as it did when not nearly so tired back at Reno Hill. Incompetence is exhausting.
WE see the relatively lush grass and that conceals the land even more. But back then, grass was chomped to the nubs by game and ponies and dirt and dust were not subdued as they are today. Afternoon shadows would alert the observer to what was hidden.
The early photos, even a few years later, testify to that.
As to the Great Northern Journey nobody is required to prove it didn't happen: proponents are required to prove it did. There is evidence that can act in support BUT there is something we know happened that would explain it all, and that can't be gainsaid. It must be eliminated as a cause of artifacts before a theory can usurp it.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 11, 2013 11:10:49 GMT -6
Ian: There are those that argue that Custer was attempting to make a flank attack in support of Reno. That is just dead wrong in my opinion. It was an envelopment with the objective being in the rear of the enemy not pushing into a flank. That may seem as being semantics to those who were sheep dipped in tactics from a book or at the costume shop, but it is not semantics at all and is critical to the understanding of what happened in my view.
A "flank" attack would be launched into the - as the word implies - the flank of the engaged hostile force. We know that that left flank was well anchored by the bluffs and river, therefore it was unassailable. If we know it it is safe then to assume that Custer knew it from the vantage point of 3411 where he could see it.
The movement to MTCF therefore was envelopmental to reach the rear, to attempt a squeeze play. That did not pan out, because it was the middle of the encampment still somewhat occupied. When you look at envelopment being the objective then the movement to the north to Ford D or the lesser fords is a logical extention of the intent to envelop.
I will digress a moment to comment on something often said on the other board about modern vice period mindset. We do, us moderns, like to think that the U S Army of the mid ninteenth century held the training and readiness views of Sir John Moore and his fictional counterpart LTC Richard Sharpe. That I am afraid is an unfullfiiled by facts notion. The truth is from a tactical and training perspective they were not very good, Some were better than others, and unfortunately for the U S Army Will is quite correct in what he wrote above. The best tactician is not worth a bucket of spit as a commander if he is not also a top notch trainer of soldiers. Brilliant tactics without the trained means to execute them are like cheap ball point pens without ink, useless.
DC: We disagree
Cavalry country is anywhere cavalry can operate and use maneuver and place fire upon the enemy. Now if you would argue some is better than others you will find no argument, but if your argument is that cavalry can only be defined as being effective while mounted in open terrain that is just not so. If you want to discuss European "one trick pony" cavalry your argument might have enough standing for me to also largely agree. American cavalry followed the dragoon tradition. They were more of a general purpose force that could fight well mounted and nearly as well when dismounted dragging horses along, and could function quite well as light infantry when they left the horses behind. I think there is a difference and it is a very important difference. Go to Aldie Gap where dismounted cavalry held off their mounted counterparts quite successfully and then tell me about broken terrain and what cavalry dismounts can and cannot do.
DC: You are a man of both the eastern and western United States. Do you not think it would be counterintuative to design a force for employment in the varried terrain which the US offers to be able to do only one job effectively? Do you not think that a cavalry commander that dismisses everything but the prospect of mounted combat in favorable terrain is one that the US tadxpayer is not getting their monies worth from?
To your point about terrain. Riva Ridge was hardly infantry country. Mount La Defensa was hardly infantry country. Pointe du Hoc was hardly infantry country, yet somehow mission trumped terrain. You go where you gotta go to get the job done. You do what you gotta do to get the job done. Nobody said is was not dangerous. Nobody said it would be the first choice. Nobody said that it would be easy. What they say is do it, and you do it. You might fail but it won't be because someone says it's just to hard.
Bodies, not specific locations of bodies, but the general area that bodies were found, and the seperation of the two main areas prove northern movement. What is not proven is the reason for the northern movement. So proponents are required to prove the reason for movement, not the movement itself.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 11, 2013 13:15:33 GMT -6
Cavalry country is anywhere cavalry can operate and use maneuver and place fire upon the enemy. I think you may be confusing the role of cavalry for that of "horse" as in Frontier Horse,Natal Native Horse,Alexandra Mounted Rifles even Slatteries Mounted Foot. Neither cavalry nor Horse are stand alone arms performing as they do a supporting role to the main body. At the LBH the 7th was acting and expected to act as cavalry.The two orders given by Custer was to pitch in and charge. The action could not be concluded successfully if the command acted as " Horse". The terrain over which Custer's Great Northern Journey would take the command was not conducive to cavalry action either on the offensive or defensive against such odds.[see Benteen and Weir Point] The terrain would have much the same effect as charging through a forest or over soft ground.[see Agincourt or Napoleon's artillery at Waterloo]
As regards the formation in which Custer was advancing I see no good reason why it should be any other than line astern as no one not even Custer knew where he was headed.
Further Richard cannot deal with the idea that the movement north was deliberate. OK, prove it was not deliberate Everything beyond MTC is pontification but some here not content with pontification add stupification because that's the only way the GNJ can be sold.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Jan 11, 2013 13:57:11 GMT -6
Good Afternoon Richard, I was trying to pin down the various features each Company could have been on when they first made contact with the enemy, if we take the Keogh sector and look at the three places I have named, you may find only a few markers, but if just some of these markers belong to Officers (which some of their fellow Officers identified) and another few to NCOs (which some of their colleagues also identified) then there could be a chance that this is where that particular unit was when it broke, it may not have been in a skirmish line, it could have been trying to deploy or standing to. Going back to the 28 men supposed to be in the deep ravine area; if 28 bodies were found and the NCOs identified as being from E Company then the odds of E Company being separated from F Company are high, F Company were found on LSH, so how was this small Battalion/Wing commanded by Capt. Yates split into two, why were they not up each other’s arse trying to get away. Ian. Ian, As far as the markers go, certainly some credence should be given to their location, but truth be told, I believe Pvt Snuffy was buried where the digging was easiest. Not necessarily where he fell. Just a thought. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 11, 2013 15:11:30 GMT -6
Cavalry country is conducive to those mounted units and their primary function denoted as 'cavalry' and not 'mounted infantry' or 'dragoons.'
It is true that what we called cavalry were meant in 1876 to be both cavalry and dragoons, although poorly trained in either function, but that isn't the issue you raised. "Cavalry country" is referential to the ability to charge and ride at speed as a large unit. LSH to Weir Point really isn't, although there are short areas to allow it but these areas are surrounded by features favoring infantry to dehorse cavalry. In aggregate, it's bad country for a line charge.
The West Bank where Renee can walk away chased by mounted soldiers is cavalry country, level and broad.
|
|
|
Post by Gatewood on Jan 11, 2013 15:34:48 GMT -6
The West Bank where Renee can walk away chased by mounted soldiers is cavalry country, level and broad. Something else to speculate about - if Reno/Benteen had moved to support Custer sooner, what would have been the impact if, rather than following his trail and "supporting him from the rear", they had re-entered the valley (good cavalry country) in accordance with Reno's original orders and re-struck the south end of the village while the warriors were drawn off fighting Custer? Of course we can only speculate about specifics, but, in general, might not that have been a better or at least viable option? As long as we are speculating, I speculate that part of their delay in moving (I'm not saying that the delay was unwarranted, but there was some delay) was due to considering/discussing alternatives such as this.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 11, 2013 15:55:10 GMT -6
If Custer had actually attacked the village that would have drawn off numbers from Reno while still in the valley and Benteen would have been drawn there naturally. Also, Reno's orders vary from attack the village or bring them to battle, which to me is different.
That Custer did not support and vanished down river for reasons unknown were among the many issues for Reno and Benteen, and choosing the correct course would depend upon the very thing Custer never did: knowing what, exactly, they were up against and where the enemy was before ordering contact.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 11, 2013 15:56:34 GMT -6
DC: What you are speaking about is ideal cavalry country. A good portion of the earth's surface is not ideal cavalry country. This argument of yours is like saying AK's fighter can only fly in certain types of air. You are not displaying your usual degree of common sense here.
Cavalry can do far more than execute a mounted charge and yet you seem to think they only have that one trick in the bag. Armies seldom grapple with the ideal. They go where they must and do what they do, and the good ones win.
If you are asking me if I would relish taking troops into the broken and compartmented terrain north of MTC the answer is no I would not. If you asked me if I would do it were it a mission requirement the answer is yes.
Richard I can think of at least a dozen good reasons why a column formation should not be used from 3411 onward. You are dropping your drawers sir. Don't they have echelons, wedges, and diamonds in the Irish Army or is the column the only way you can fight your way into the pub?
Gatewood: What you suggest would require a degree of situational awareness not present. Would be interesting if they did have it though.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Jan 11, 2013 16:05:04 GMT -6
It is certainly desirable to fight on terrain that is best suited for your troops abilities, but bad terrain can be overcome by good troops and leadership.However,
Poor leadership, poor planning, and poor use of tactics cannot.
Be Well Dan
|
|