|
Post by wild on Aug 9, 2016 5:44:49 GMT -6
Colt Fine post. I'll include Tom in this response as he has posted similar.
A move to Ford D comes at a price . Stated often enough but worth repeating. Moves away from supports increasing the gap by a further 2 miles. Hands the Indians at least 15 minutes free gratis. Exposes the line of march to interdiction. Everything is in the air while in contact with the enemy. Also Custer has no idea as to the stat of the crossing at Ford D always assuming that he knows of it's existence.
Your scenario is also based on the command having functioning cohesion with which to execute a series of withdrawls. They could not even form a square.
It was Custer who went to the Crows Nest without taking his senior officers with him. It was Custer who went to Weir Point without taking his senior officers with him. So I'm saying it was Custer who went to MTCF . It was the Custer show and he was calling all the shots. The decision at MTCF was the pivotal decision and weighing all factors negative and positive they favour a crossing at MTCF. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Aug 9, 2016 6:06:43 GMT -6
Richard,
Fair response. Colt's scenario has much in the way of underpinning. Try this on for size!
Godfrey in what is quoted below seems to back up JSIT's tale of not Ford B but rather possible Ford D/northern movement.
"The accepted theory for many years after the battle, and still persisted in by some writers, was that Custer’s column had turned the high bluffs near the river, moved down the dry (Reno’s) creek, and attempted to ford the river near the lowest point of these bluffs; that he was there met by an overpowering force and driven back ; that he then divided his battalion, moved down the river with the view of attacking the village, but met with such resistance from the enemy posted along the river bank and ravines that he was compelled to fall back, fighting, to the position on the ridge. The numerous bodies found scattered between the river and ridge were supposed to be the first victims of the fight. I am now satisfied that these were men who either survived those on the ridge or attempted to escape the massacre."
"The wife of Spotted Horn Bull, when giving me her account of the battle, persisted in saying that Custer’s column did not attempt to cross at the ford, and appealed to her husband, who supported her statement. On the battle field, in 1886, Chief Gall indicated Custer’s route to me, and it then flashed upon me that I myself had seen Custer’s trail. On June 28, while we were burying the dead, I asked Major Reno’s permission to go on the high ridge east or back of the field to look for tracks of shod horses to ascertain if some of the command might not have escaped. When I reached the ridge I saw this trail, and wondered who could have made it, but dismissed the thought that it had been made by Custer’s column, because it did not accord with the theory with which we were then filled, that Custer had attempted to cross at the ford, and this trail was too far back, and showed no indication of leading toward the ford. Trumpeter Penwell was my orderly and accompanied me. It was a singular coincidence that in 1886 Penwell was stationed at Fort Custer, and was my orderly when visiting the battle field. Penwell corroborated my recollection of the trail. The ford theory arose from the fact that we found there numerous tracks of shod horses, but they evidently had been made after the Indians had possessed themselves of the cavalry horses, for they rode them after capturing them. No bodies of men or horses were found anywhere near the ford, and these facts are conclusive to my mind that Custer did not go to the ford with any body of men."
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 9, 2016 9:36:27 GMT -6
Hi Tom It is a pity that the "tactical" approach to understanding the battle is at variance with that based on "witness"accounts. Both systems have their faults and weaknesses. Maybe Custer never fought according to the tactical handbook and Godfrey's account is his version of an interpretation of a woman's view of the battle? Cheers
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 9, 2016 10:44:05 GMT -6
I am a little uncomfortable with banning someone . . . after all free speech is one of the greatest rights we have as Americans. Having said that this Board is not a Democracy and the moderator has the right to also "ban" someone who is causing issues and/or being a troll just to make waves.
Some times it's best to let someone rant and rave and in the end we all can see what they are all about. As the old saying goes: "Give someone enough rope and they'll hang themselves!"
Anyway . . . just wondering about the "overwhelming" force Custer or some other officer met approaching a ford.
We know NAs didn't have the most modern of weapons (unless of course the ones who were dealing with the attempted crossing, were chosen because they had the best weapons). How much fire power would it have taken to stop any attempted crossing in its tracks?
Custer faced far more fire power during the Civil War yet continued onward with his attacks/charges. Could a handful of warriors with limited firepower be able to stop the US Cavalry's attempt to hit the village?
I doubt Custer or any other officer would have been impressed by Indian firepower. This begs the question: Was Custer the one who lead the approach to the river/village really hit/wounded causing the command to fall back even though Indian resistance was limited?
We have read many times that the military little regarded Indians as a organized fighting force and even a small command should be able to hold out with no problem. Then again we have many instances of commands being overwhelmed and/or wiped out by superior numbers but with inferior weapons.
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Aug 9, 2016 11:21:39 GMT -6
I'm not sure that the immediate force or firepower being faced was as decisive a factor as the overall situation that they were getting themselves into. At some point someone surely had the thought of "Even if we can get across the river and into the village, then what?". It would have been the plains equivalent of urban warfare, with a small force being ensconced within a setting where they didn't know what was what and surrounded by "buildings" that confused the situation and provided cover for their enemies. Also, while we kill countless electrons debating how many "warriors" were present, that would have become increasingly meaningless as the troopers would have also had to deal with the home guard of older men and younger boys, as well as the women's auxiliary. At that point I also view the question of gunpowder weapons as being largely irrelevant, as I visualize a situation in which Indians would appear from out of cover, such as behind a lodge, to leap on a soldier, drag him from his horse, and stick a knife in him or bash his brains with a club. In short, I guess what I am saying is that, even if a probe was made at a crossing, I have my doubts as to how serious an effort it really was and how vigorously it would have been pursued, regardless of what might have happened in the process.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 9, 2016 11:43:31 GMT -6
crhzrs
I doubt Custer or any other officer would have been impressed by Indian firepower. This begs the question: Was Custer the one who lead the approach to the river/village really hit/wounded causing the command to fall back even though Indian resistance was limited? Custer wanted a headon clash with the Indians . He had his opportunity at MTCF . He had caught them napping and MTCF was wide open ; he had to attack there. His rallying call to his troops was not going to be followed by a jaunt along the LBH Ford hunting. At this point there is a break in transmission and when normal service resumes we find Custer and his entire command lying dead on a ridge a mile and a half further North. What the f*** happened ?
Custer had suprise and possibly local superiority ; what more does a cavalry commander require? Only Custer's incapacitation would have caused the attack to be aborted. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 9, 2016 11:50:09 GMT -6
Let's not forget Custer's attack on Black Kettle's Village in 1868. He had very little recon info yet he charged headlong into the village. Granted it was an entirely different scenario with a surprise attack at dawn rather than an afternoon attack at the LBH and it was winter rather than summer and it was against the hapless Black Kettle rather than hard-cord resistant fighers like Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, Crow King et al.
Still Custer had the element of surprise, better organization, firepower, and discipline. Yet Custer or someone else was stymied by small forces of warriors with/without ample firepower at a river crossing. Custer should have been able to roll over any opposition but didn't.
One again one has to wonder if Custer was incapcitated . . . no other officer would have caused such a fall back/retreat if hit. Custer had the advantage and something turned it around.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 9, 2016 11:54:48 GMT -6
Hi Fred So what's the story on a wounded Smith getting to LSH? Best Regards Richard
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 9, 2016 12:00:02 GMT -6
Excellent reasoning crzhrs ,we'll make a soldier out of you yet. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 9, 2016 12:59:07 GMT -6
My soldiering days are long past, served during the Vietnam Era and I'd rather talk it over than shoot each other over it!
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Aug 9, 2016 12:59:51 GMT -6
I am a little uncomfortable with banning someone . . . after all free speech is one of the greatest rights we have as Americans. Having said that this Board is not a Democracy and the moderator has the right to also "ban" someone who is causing issues and/or being a troll just to make waves. Some times it's best to let someone rant and rave and in the end we all can see what they are all about. As the old saying goes: "Give someone enough rope and they'll hang themselves!" I would agree with all of the above. But, being banned from a board is not the worst thing in the world, one might find other priorities in life. Also, some might aim to get banned from a board, heck, I was banned from the Spanky and our Gang/ Queen of Queens Board. Have not missed it.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 9, 2016 13:17:12 GMT -6
Would you believe I was and am banned from Irishmilitaryonline. It is not being banned that is the problem it is the reason why .
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Aug 9, 2016 13:30:44 GMT -6
That reason I would love to hear. I am sure that is was not by somebody probably living in mommy's basement!
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 9, 2016 18:15:39 GMT -6
So what's the story on a wounded Smith getting to LSH? The Strategy of Defeat at the Little Big Horn. One can find it on Amazon or directly from the publisher. Hope you are well, Richard. I am delighted to see you back here. Very best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 10, 2016 2:15:15 GMT -6
I have a copy Fred or at least I did until my son appropriated it. And best wishes to you too Fred Richard
|
|