|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jun 2, 2015 12:33:50 GMT -6
Is this show a proper put together programme or just a short TV documentary made for use on a news station? Ian. Both, I guess. It is one in a series of one-hour documentaries. They are being shown on a cable news network and are supposed to tell the truth behind our historic legends. I've seen a few of them, and they have been average at best. To answer quincannon's question about why we watch such shows, I try to see and read all things Little Bighorn simply because I want to know what's out there. For example, years ago while volunteering at the battlefield one June 25, it quickly became clear that most of the visitors based their entire knowledge of the battle and its participants on the "Son of the Morning Star" show, which was generally good but had its issues also. Since I had seen the show (and read the book) I was better able to answer their questions and gently correct some "facts." Diane
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jun 2, 2015 12:39:40 GMT -6
Thanks Diane, I will see if it is available to download, glad to see you back.
Have you heard anything on how Hunk is doing?
Ian.
|
|
JoeG
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by JoeG on Dec 19, 2015 16:46:26 GMT -6
Hello from the UK, I've seen a couple of decent programmes recently on UK television featuring George Custer. What I wondered is, how is he viewed in the USA generally today, is it cultural, is he a flawed hero, is he vilified by the General public, or is he not even considered at all by most US citizens at all today. My fascination with the LBH battle is rare in the UK, is that the same in the US?.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Dec 19, 2015 22:13:33 GMT -6
JoeG It seems to be the latest fad to pick apart historical figures and actions. The US is undergoing a difficult time it that we are attempting to remove all statues, flags, names from history to achieve political correctness. Primarily we are attempting to sanitize the history from the 1861-1865 conflict as if to remove any remembrance of the past. George Santayana wrote “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This is a dangerous trend for a young nation.
George Custer seems to have really gave support from both ends of the spectrum. Very good to very bad. I grew up thinking he was the great soldier who saved the country by his sacrifice at the Little Big Horn. My opinion of George has evolved over the past 10 years. I have read and researched a little bit about Custer and the campaign and battle.
I believe Custer was a brave self promoter who was like a puppy, cute when young not so when grown. After the War Custer did poorly leading volunteers who were wanting to be discharged. After the volunteers left he had to deal the men who filled the ranks after the War. They were not bright eyed patriots like those in 1861-1865 and had very low moral. Custer crashed as a leader and did not regain his former status and glory.
By the Spring of 1876 Custer was up to his elbows into politics and chicanery with a worthless gold mine, bills he could not pay and desperate to have another shot at the military success had always had in the past. His performance at the Little Big Horn was in my opinion was very poor. He split his command into 4 pieces prior to the fight and afterwards he divided his battalion into further smaller units none of which could provide mutual support. They were all too far apart. He ended up commanding 1 company and not the regiment at the end.
The 7th was a poorly trained and equipped regiment. The had only had all 12 companies together a very short before the campaign. The men were not trained in riding, shooting while riding, target practice was non existent and Custer did share his plans with his officers.
Did not mean to write an epistle but felt like running my fingers across the board. I am glad you are on the board and look forward to posting more with you. Merry Christmas Dave I hope I answered your question with all my drabbling.
|
|
JoeG
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by JoeG on Dec 20, 2015 4:04:56 GMT -6
Thanks for replying Dave, a perfect mini-biography. Can I ask, is anything taught in school about the LBH battle or the indian wars in general. Would the population in general be aware of LBH history.
Happy Christmas to you.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Dec 20, 2015 8:25:05 GMT -6
When I took history in high school (1960S) the book stated the whole regiment was wiped out. It did have Custer's name in it but the content considered the action a US mistake and the Army policy was to wipe out Indians. Took me a few years (1969) to learn that soldiers and Marines don't do things on their own. They are basically follow civilian orders on what to do or not. Usually from the President with the money coming from the Congress.
Some Presidents are better than others
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 20, 2015 11:28:10 GMT -6
I think for the most part I agree with Dave. Where I might take issue is in the training of the 7th. This has been brought up here a number of times and I seem to be on the losing end: most people agreeing with Dave.
Contemporary comments, however, do not seem to back up the more universal opprobrium brought upon the unit... other than those by this one idiot, Captain Robert G. Carter of the 4th Cavalry. It also appears Marcus Reno was a rather good drill-master and the type of living of the times made horse riding a fairly common occurrence. So while I would agree marksmanship was probably sub-standard-- compared with latter years' training-- I do not think it was all that bad and I think we might be surprised at the discipline and maneuvering efficiency of the regiment.
The fact the regiment had never operated all together-- all 12 companies-- is also a bit over-rated, in my opinion. While battalions were not standard TO&E organizations back then, regiments were, as were companies. Companies were used to operating on their own and at the LBH, pretty much acted that way anyway... with the possible exception of A and G. Every other unit seemed to operate pretty much on its own, though Benteen's battalion would also be an exception, except for the fact he never got a chance to do so. Even when H, D, and K were in action, it was pretty much constrained in the siege of the 26th. (We saw what happened with D, pointing out the individuality of companies).
As for Custer himself, except within the fairly large LBH-Custer community, he is pretty much regarded as an anti-hero here in the U. S. I say, "fairly large," but only as a relative term: the many thousands of people who have an interest in history, narrowly down to those with an interest in the American West, narrowed further by those with an interest in the Indian wars, then even more narrow with the specifics of the LBH. That last number must be several thousand people, many of whom visit sites, read books, etc., but who never contribute publicly.
Most people with no clue seem to revile George Custer with all sorts of unjustified-- in my opinion-- garbage. I think Dave pretty much nailed it... and it is a great topic for discussion. Beer included.
Best wishes to all for a merry, happy, joyous, and holy Christmas, and a healthy and happy New Year, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Dec 20, 2015 17:08:07 GMT -6
Fred "I think for the most part I agree with Dave " "I think Dave pretty much nailed it... and it is a great topic for discussion. Beer included. " You have made my Christmas! Thank you for the kind words, it means a lot. Merry Christmas to all. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by dave on Dec 20, 2015 17:20:01 GMT -6
Thanks for replying Dave, a perfect mini-biography. Can I ask, is anything taught in school about the LBH battle or the indian wars in general. Would the population in general be aware of LBH history.
Happy Christmas to you.
Joe Joe I graduated high school in 1967 and the times have changed since my days. My daughter's high school AP History teacher did not do wars. She spent less than an a day covering all American wars. Colleges offer American History courses but I do not remember any length of study covering either LBH or Custer. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Dec 20, 2015 18:32:04 GMT -6
Fred,
I believe you are wrong on the training issue, as I have said in previous posts.
1. Army. The 1876 Army was very poorly trained. Its state of training was one of the worst in the history of the US Army, 1775-2015. A private today has more training than a colonel then. And I mean in troop leading procedures, leadership and the military decision making process. But I do not believe the issues of the 176 Army caused the defeat. The majority of the other regiments in this Army would have had a far better performance.
2. Peers. The 1876 Army had 10 cavalry and 25 infantry regiments. Compared to its peers, the 7th was badly trained. You criticize CPT Carter. CPT Carter was from the 4th Cavalry, which was the best trained and led regiment of the 35. It was an elite unit, selected again and again for the hardest mission. The 4th was sent to clean up the mess the 7th left, and, per usual, had great results. Hell, Miles outperformed the 7th in the same area, against the same enemy, at the same timeframe, with an infantry unit.
Regard Carter's comments as a defense of the Army, and of the 4th. In Carter's eyes, training and leadership made a difference. He believed the 4th would have won LBH, and I agree with him, based on analysis, not emotion.
3. New equipment fielding. The 1873 Springfield Carbine, was approved in 1873 (obviously) and fielded to the 7th in 1874/5. What I find fascinating is that the other 34 regiments are full of accounts of new equipment training and marksmanship training. Not the 7th. It appears they did some shooting by company at a target 4 feet high and 100 feet long. That's great for the Brown Bess musket. It is useless for the 1873 Springfield carbine.
The 7th showed gross deficiencies in individual marksmanship, but FAR more in collective marksmanship. The NCOS and officers were grossly deficient in their jobs. I can go through this again, though I am just repeating 20-30 previous posts. Again, they were not just bad by a universal standard, they were horribly bad compared to the other 34 regiments.
4. The 7th Cavalry had the same soldiers every other unit had. The soldiers generally did their jobs. The battle was lost by the gross ineptitude of officers and NCOs at company and above operations.
In particular, we can say, beyond doubt, that every officer in the north should have been court martialed and fired. Five companies died five separate deaths. Not a single company was in supporting range of any of the others. We know they burned a major portion of their limited ammunition at targets 600-1000 meters away. This when their limited marksmanship training meant very low probability of ANY hits beyond 200 meters.
5. So the gauntlet is thrown. Tell me where I am wrong.
Respectfully,
William
PS. I am considering a valley post. Is there any way the Reno BN could have had a better outcome, without support from GAC and his 5 companies? I believe GAC's failure to enter the valley guaranteed a US defeat, every decision after was about the scale and scope of the defeat.
Just a reminder, GAC's own estimate of the situation was that there were 1500 Indian warriors in the valley, and he sent 3 companies to fight them by themselves, with no other support.
Not only did GAC take the 5 companies he had promised to support the valley battalion, but he also sent orders to the two trailing battalions to follow him and stay out of the valley. GAC is not to blame for the Elliot defeat, but he is totally and completely at fault for the valley train wreck.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Dec 20, 2015 18:41:43 GMT -6
montrose Good post with plenty of details for readers to apply to their own studies. Good to see you back. Merry Christmas Dave
|
|
alanw
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by alanw on Dec 21, 2015 14:46:21 GMT -6
Fred, 5. So the gauntlet is thrown. Tell me where I am wrong. Respectfully, William Although you replied specifically to Fred, I will contribute my thoughts on the subject if I may. General Crook at the Rosebud, with a command of some 1,200 men faced an Indian force of similar, if not smaller numbers. Crook's command fired around 20,000 rounds of ammunition inflicting minimal casualties. Also, subsequent to LBH, was there ever an engagement where the Army faced anywhere near the odds the 7th faced? I'm fairly sure that the 4th and others would probably have outnumbered their opponents in every encounter. Just some thoughts on my part, and I'm by no means an expert, so please be gentle when you pull my response apart - after all it is the season of good will.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Dec 21, 2015 15:10:28 GMT -6
Fred, General Crook at the Rosebud, with a command of some 1,200 men faced an Indian force of similar, if not smaller numbers. Crook's command fired around 20,000 rounds of ammunition inflicting minimal casualties. Also, subsequent to LBH, was there ever an engagement where the Army faced anywhere near the odds the 7th faced? I'm fairly sure that the 4th and others would probably have outnumbered their opponents in every encounter. Just some thoughts on my part, and I'm by no means an expert, so please be gentle when you pull my response apart - after all it is the season of good will. Alan, I agree with your post about Gen Crook, however I believe Col Montrose was refering to Gen Nelson Miles who did in fact clean up after the disaster at LBH by mounting a winter campaign and getting the Indians on the reservation. But some good thoughts on your part. Merry Christmas Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by dave on Dec 21, 2015 22:11:24 GMT -6
Dan I believe you are correct regarding it being Miles. Good to hear from you again. Merry Christmas to you and yours Dan. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Dec 21, 2015 23:03:31 GMT -6
I think the 7th at one time was known for it's drill. At best that is one skill in a whole list of what is required to be battle ready. I have not read of any substantial training for firing while moving with a revolver. I find it hard to believe that going into battle with proper training that we would have even one private stating he had never ridden that fast before nor fired his Colt SAA from horseback. That is about as untrained as one can get for a mounted charge with revolver.
Sgt Ryan states that even Custer would not fight these troopers mounted. It seems to me that the LBH battle is proof that the regiment was not fighting from horseback.
I don't know how the 7th compared to other units but I do know that having and independent seat and training firing horseback should be something battle ready troopers should be able to do without thinking about.
If you have never ridden that fast before you would tend to have tunnel vision and most likely hold on with both hands. The horse is in charge and relies solely on its flight mode. This makes an easy target for an Indian to ride up to an pull the trooper off his horse.
I get that most drill is not done at charge gait speeds but I think for both the horse and the rider they should have trained and experienced it before actual combat.
Only two persons in French's company appreciated the accuracy of using a rifle instead of the issued carbine. I think Ryan paid $100 for his rifle. I also think that those who appreciate the rifle were more likely to have practiced at various ranges and therefore in general were better shots.
You really had to be a rifleman to make hits at various ranges using .45-70 or .45-55 cartridges. In what I have read they were not issued enough ammunition during the time period before and going to battle. The 60 rounds that they shot must not have been at speed for they failed to recognize the need for cleaning rods to push out stuck cartridges.
Target practice at various ranges is a skill but is not a substitute for thinking under pressure or experience. I am guessing that the Reno skirmish line was the first time there was a problem with shooting to fast. Combat is not a good place for training. It is good for experience but you need to have trained before engagement.
Moving off the skirmish line French had to threaten his troops in order to keep them from running off to their horses. He threatened them to do what should have been part of their training and practice. That is to face the enemy and maintain fire as they withdrew from the line.
I believe Godfrey threatened his troops also.
I guess I am looking for the indicators of training, practice, and experience.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|