|
Post by wild on Aug 12, 2016 1:22:02 GMT -6
Colt
How do you know there were no briefings after Custer went up the bluffs? Because there were no briefings before he went up the bluffs . He had blindly committed half the regiment without knowing the exact whereabouts of the village or the lay of the land.
In all our discussions up to this Ford D was a recce issue [in other words for tactical purposes it did not exist]are we saying now that it was an attack option? Let's get this clear are we now saying that Custer was wounded during a recce?
If, by capturing the women and children, he could bring the Indians to heel, that was the way to do it. How is going to round up 6000 non coms with 210 men while under attack from 2000 warriors? How many "non Coms" do you think he can round up? Has he to deploy men to cover his dispersed rounderuppers? Do you think he will kill woman and children if the warriors do not do this heel thing?
His movements from the bluffs on also indicates proper use of terrain, if we accept JSIT's account and Godfrey's account about seeing Custer's trail In complex terrain an account of a visual is nigh on useless.
The artifact evidence gives us clues as to where the men were at times No they don't because the Indians took every single item and fired every carbine they captured. Regards
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 12, 2016 3:06:49 GMT -6
On the non coms issue. Applied to the LBH this must be the greatest con job ever to muck up a military history investigation. Non coms were the spoils of war ,first ya won the war . As a military objective it was a physcological gambit which left the nuclear option to the enemy. Taking into account the numbers involved it had zero chance of success other than a remote chance that you might just might negotiate an exit. Remove the non coms from the equation and what possible use was another ford ?
|
|
|
Post by shan on Aug 12, 2016 6:02:05 GMT -6
Perhaps I ought to mention that we discussed whether Custer was killed or wounded scenario several times way back when. At the time I managed to get the opinion of a friend who works as a Pathologist over in Washington state. He specialises in gunshots wounds, and he told me that after years of seeing such wounds, given the trajectory of the bullets that struck Custers body, he would have died almost immediately from either wound, or if not immediately, then very soon after. When I pressed him on that, he said he thought it would be a matter of minutes. As far as I can remember, I think the general consensus was that if he had indeed been shot at the ford, then he would have been dead by the time they got to Calhoun.
Aside from that, I wonder if anyone can answer to the question I posed awhile back. What would army protocol at the time be for dealing with a wounded officer, i.e Smith, having been wounded at ford B?
Being an officer, would they have been obliged to take him along with them on the move back up to Calhoun, and then onto ford D if that's where they went? If so, wouldn't that have been both an inconvenience, especially as speed was of the essence, as well as being very uncomfortable for the man himself. The fact that he was found on LSH, possible indicates that he hadn't been that badly wounded down at the ford.
Shan
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Aug 12, 2016 6:28:25 GMT -6
Shan,
I think you, somewhat, answered your own question. They would attempt carry away any wounded they could, to a safer place. Yes at the time the officer would be a priority. There really was no area of safety, so you do the best you can.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 12, 2016 7:24:24 GMT -6
A wounded man was left behind on the Weir Point escapade.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 12, 2016 9:59:59 GMT -6
Perhaps I ought to mention that we discussed whether Custer was killed or wounded scenario several times way back when. At the time I managed to get the opinion of a friend who works as a Pathologist over in Washington state. He specialises in gunshots wounds, and he told me that after years of seeing such wounds, given the trajectory of the bullets that struck Custers body, he would have died almost immediately from either wound, or if not immediately, then very soon after. When I pressed him on that, he said he thought it would be a matter of minutes. As far as I can remember, I think the general consensus was that if he had indeed been shot at the ford, then he would have been dead by the time they got to Calhoun. Aside from that, I wonder if anyone can answer to the question I posed awhile back. What would army protocol at the time be for dealing with a wounded officer, i.e Smith, having been wounded at ford B? Being an officer, would they have been obliged to take him along with them on the move back up to Calhoun, and then onto ford D if that's where they went? If so, wouldn't that have been both an inconvenience, especially as speed was of the essence, as well as being very uncomfortable for the man himself. The fact that he was found on LSH, possible indicates that he hadn't been that badly wounded down at the ford. Your pathologist friend is undoubtedly correct and if I am not mistaken-- though I would have to look it up-- others said the same thing if the wounded man were George Custer, based on Custer's wounds as found. That is another reason I am sure the wounded officer was not Custer. Another thing: these Indians were no dummies. Despite the uniform variations, they knew an officer when they saw one. Smith never wore boots... or at least not there he didn't. He preferred brogans worn with white spats. He also had a 1 1/2" yellow stripe down the side of his pants. If he wore his buckskin shirt-- and I doubt he did-- then he had his blue "fireman's" shirt on... and visible. He also wore a large white felt hat, further setting him apart from the appearance of his men. Indians would have seen all that and would have keyed in on him. If he was issuing orders-- and why wouldn't he be?-- then that is just further indication of a leadership role. As for military protocol with a wounded man, officer or otherwise, you simply do not leave him behind, especially in those circumstances. (Remember Eagerly's consternation 'til the day he died regarding Vincent Charley; Edgerly's relationship with Weir was never the same again.) LT Sturgis, alone, would have seen to that. It is also quite probable-- not, "possible," but probable-- the wound was not quite as debilitating as Custer's side-entry wound. It could have been severe enough to incapacitate Smith, though maybe not immediately. Remember, they were at the ford around 3 PM and the battle ended at 4:40. It could have taken Smith that amount of time to die... unlike Custer's wound which would have been fairly quick. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Aug 12, 2016 10:17:47 GMT -6
Shan,
Happy to see you posting. I think our last discussion was two years ago.
Part of fighting these "savage wars of peace" is understanding there is no Geneva convention, there is no equal treatment of WIA/POW. If you leave someone behind, they will be tortured and killed.
You ask if US forces will treat an officer WIA differently than an enlisted WIA. In the context of leaving them behind to be butchered. It makes no difference. If you can bring out a wounded comrade, you do so regardless of rank.
There are occasions where you leave a comrade behind, knowing he will die, to save yourself or others. I still distinctly remember a conversation with a SF SGM in my ROTC program, where he described a fight where his MACV SOG team was overrun. He left his indig personnel behind, and heard them being murdered. IT ruined him. Decades later, he could not handle the guilt. As a ROTC student, ARNG PVT2, had to disarm him and talk him out of suicide, when I was inexperienced as all hell.
US military has left soldiers behind to die, in complicated situations. I am not sure I can post specific battles. Rage and anger lingers over these events, even after many years.
The folks left behind in the valley, Vincent Charlie, etc. The folks who left them knew they would be killed, and chose to save their own lives first. War is a hard business.
The point of battle, and the tactical and operational level of war; is not saving one specific person. The idea is to defeat the enemy. Sometimes this means letting one of your own die, when you could save a life by losing that battle, campaign, or war.
Respectfully,
WJB
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 12, 2016 13:58:34 GMT -6
Two seriously good post by Fred and the Col.
Hi Fred Love the description of Smith's ensemble so don't fail me on this......when and where did the notion of Custer going after the non coms first appear. Best Regards
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 12, 2016 15:48:53 GMT -6
Love the description of Smith's ensemble so don't fail me on this......when and where did the notion of Custer going after the non coms first appear. Richard, I do not follow you here. Please be more precise. Thanks. And thanks for the kind words. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 12, 2016 16:27:04 GMT -6
Hi Fred There is a source for the theory that Custer had the capture of the women and children as his main objective. Do you know of such a source and in what year it appeared ? Cheers Richard
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 13, 2016 2:18:23 GMT -6
From the bluffs decision point to Ford D is 4 miles .Custer did not know this . His purpose of attacking the North end of the village is to roundup sufficient women and children as to impress the warriors. To get to the North end of the village he must pass a perfectly functional MTCF. To get to the North end of the village he must parade a column of at least 500 meters in full view of the village .[Well ok the dust would screen his movement] Cavalry unless charging are a wasted space.And this wasted space would be on display for at least half an hour. Bear in mind that Custer had ordered his two battalion commanders to pitch in to anything they might find ,this ford D operation does not ring true. I'm not going to describe what is required to round up "non coms" in the presence of their daddies ;figure it yourselves. So the Ford D escapade can be described as the indefensible going into the unknown to do the impossible in full view of the countless. And just to keep this on thread only a Custer shot at MTCF TICKS ALL THE BOXES.
With respect and good wishes to my friends of the other persuasion.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Aug 13, 2016 4:00:00 GMT -6
Richard,
The Custer column would use terrain to conceal movements, they would be east of the ridges, after 3411. They would only be in view of Wolf Tooth's band, also east of the ridges. Ticks all the boxes, sounds a bit like game, set, and match. While the outcome is very much the same, you have to let the game play out, there was not even a scrum at MTC.
By the way, I still say you should have dropped in and June, you may have picked up a new learning or two. Hope your Saturday has begun on a high note, and you enjoy the rest of the day.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 13, 2016 4:50:09 GMT -6
Hi Tom Yes early walk over the mountains and two birthdays ahead a 9 year old and a 60 year old . The 9 year old should be fun.
And yes pity about June but maybe oct if my boat comes in.
Seeya Richard
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 13, 2016 7:33:39 GMT -6
There is a source for the theory that Custer had the capture of the women and children as his main objective. Do you know of such a source and in what year it appeared ? Richard, The first I heard of it was-- I believe-- in the Richard Fox book, Archaeology, History... etc. That came out in 1993. I read the book some time around then... I seem to remember reading a New York Times book review of it, so when I saw the book in the local book store, I bought it. Between that one and SOTMS, that started me on this whole thing, though I did not really begin to get serious until 1998. The Fox work was the first I had heard of the "capture" or "rounding up" of families to break the impetus of the warriors' fighting. Now you know I am a huge believer in Fox' work, but there are a couple things I disagree with, "rounding-up" or "capturing," being one (or two) of them. I just do not buy it, knowing Custer's personality as I do (... and I am currently reading Louise Barnett's marvelous book, Touched by Fire, which, so far, is validating my views of GAC). In my opinion, Custer was going to tear through whoever and whatever he found on the other side of Ford D. It would achieve the same objective as Fox speculates, but in a much more emphatic way, showing everyone exactly who was boss. That was more George Custer-- again, in my opinion-- than the Mr. Nice-Guy round-up. Does that answer your question? Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 13, 2016 8:11:43 GMT -6
Good man Fred thanks for that .I just thought that it went back much further and was now the ne plus ultra of any self respecting LBH theory. Best Regards Richard
|
|