|
Post by tubman13 on Aug 15, 2016 3:23:43 GMT -6
Richard,
Hope the birthdays were great.
Theories are just that, but reasonable ones are worth exploring. White Cow Bull was just about everywhere, or so he says, and I think is worth questioning reality of some claims, alas too late. That being said it is a tad late to question all involved. The one thing it is not to late for, is for reasonable people to question traditional theories, when new finds crop up.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Aug 15, 2016 6:29:34 GMT -6
White Shield’s account of what took place it also confusing, and if he states that this was MTF and that he saw Roan Bear and Bobtailed Horse, then the destruction of E Company took place at Ford B, he states that all the soldiers retreated away from the river but the grey horse company stood their ground. This sound more like Ford D or C to me as Smith’s Company died almost to a man on Cemetery/Deep Ravine area.
Bobtailed Horse apparently captured two E Company horses which had been stampeded, so again this stampede took place on cemetery ridge.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 15, 2016 9:05:09 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 Hi Shan Where do we find the trajectory or the bullet paths that struck Custer. That would be interesting. How do we know the distance the bullets traveled before striking Custer and what was the energy left in the bullets. We have muzzleloader hunters so we do some investigation of black powder and soft lead bullet wounds as compared to sonic speed bullets. If this data is available on Custer that would be great to look at. I would think bullet path assumes you know the position the subject was in when struck by the bullet. Is there details on the depth of wounds that Custer received? Thanks for the information AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 15, 2016 9:14:23 GMT -6
A wounded man was left behind on the Weir Point escapade. That is always the dilemma regarding the wounded. Since they were horseback how long would it take to pick up a disabled soldier and at what rate of travel could you move. Does two dead soldiers make sense to the person making the decision. I think there are to many decision variables to make an absolute answer. I know that no one left behind was taught to us in the Marine Corps. I am glad that never was one of the choices that I had to make. Think about being an assault and moving toward the enemy. Your buddy is wounded in the leg but a good chance of surviving. Do you drag him forward in the advance to the enemy or apply immediate bleeding techniques to stop the bleeding and continue on the attack. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Aug 15, 2016 10:03:52 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 Hi Shan Where do we find the trajectory or the bullet paths that struck Custer. That would be interesting. How do we know the distance the bullets traveled before striking Custer and what was the energy left in the bullets. We have muzzleloader hunters so we do some investigation of black powder and soft lead bullet wounds as compared to sonic speed bullets. If this data is available on Custer that would be great to look at. I would think bullet path assumes you know the position the subject was in when struck by the bullet. Is there details on the depth of wounds that Custer received? Thanks for the information AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Aug 15, 2016 10:25:56 GMT -6
Okay Steve,
Shan does not know that level of detail, nor does anyone.
Custer's injury strongly implies that he was shot near to where his body was found.
Shan raises other issues.
1. GAC. Given the highly dysfunctional state of the 7th Cav 1868-76: yes, a wounded officer in the inner circle could receive decision making that would kill enlisted and lead away from mission success. LTC Custer showed gross negligence in decision making at company and regimental levels throughout his life. Pretty good at division level though, He is an interesting case study.
The anti Peter principle. As he rose in rank, he showed more competence and ability than he did at lower ranks.
2. Rank as an issue for saving lives. I have issues thinking about saving an officer vice an NCO vice an EM. In this era, as in my era, prisoners are not taken. If you leave someone behind they will be killed.
If you can recover a WIA, you do so, immediately, without thought. All who see your effort will support it.
3. The Hidden Issue. Specific tactical situations require you to leave a IA behind. There are times when a fallback can allow reinforcements, planning, ad leadership to allow a return to that area to recover WIA. And there are occasions where tis means deliberately abandoning WIAs to be killed, even when they could have been saved.
This issue is heavily hidden in military accounts. If the individual is going to die anyway, ok. If his recovery will kill one or more, ok. But life is grey, there are times you leave someone to die to save yourself.
But war is about winning. A badly wounded member is out of the fight, You save all you can. But losing the battle to save someone who will die anyone, is a bad call.
There are no easy answers here.
For the record, I was accused of leaving an indigenous soldier behind on a support mission. The soldier took a round that left a tiny hole in his left eye, and removed half his head on the right side. The two indig who were told to carry his body to the exfil LZ were both wounded, I carried one of them to the AC.
War requires hard decisions. I think I bend over backwards to give GAC the benefit od the doubt.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 15, 2016 11:16:47 GMT -6
My understanding is that the man left behind on the Weir Point jaunt had a branch of a tree forced down his throat.
Soldiers will go that extra yard, take that extra risk if they know, that if wounded they will not be left behind.
In civilized warfare it is not an issue. In The Battle of Hürtgen Forest aid stations changed hands several times ...no problem. If you are engaged in the kind of warfare Custer was engaged in then it should be made clear to the troopers to save a bullet for themselves or failing that a comrade should deliver the coup de grace.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Aug 15, 2016 11:43:24 GMT -6
[quote author=" wild" source="/post/116976/thread" timestamp="1471281407" Soldiers will go that extra yard, take that extra risk if they know, that if wounded they will not be left behind. [/quote] Richard, This is a very profound statement, and one that deals directly with Custer and the 7th Cavalry. At the Washita Custer left Elliot behind. I have seen posts that agreed with that decision and said the soldiers appreciated the decision to not risk their lives. Just the opposite is true.Aside from the fact that they want to save their brother,a soldier knows today Pete, Joe, and John are in trouble, tomorrow it could be me, what is this guy going to do. When he leaves them without a good faith effort to save them he can lose the confidence of his command. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Aug 15, 2016 11:52:27 GMT -6
For the record, I was accused of leaving an indigenous soldier behind on a support mission. The soldier took a round that left a tiny hole in his left eye, and removed half his head on the right side. The two indig who were told to carry his body to the exfil LZ were both wounded, I carried one of them to the AC. War requires hard decisions. I think I bend over backwards to give GAC the benefit od the doubt. Col Montrose, Right decision. Why have two of your men possibly killed to save one that is already for all intense purposes dead. Corpsman do the same thing. They dont waste time on someone they know is going to die, when they can spend that time on someone whos life they can save. Yes Colonel, it is a very tough business. Especially for those like yourself that have to make those decisions. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 15, 2016 15:45:26 GMT -6
Agreed Dan ,it is a band of brothers or it is nothing. Cheers Richard
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 15, 2016 16:03:39 GMT -6
pequod What a strange combination of words, "civilized warfare"
Yes war lends itself to some strange combinations . Try "just war" for size or "war criminal" or "cold war". Cheers
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Aug 15, 2016 16:27:05 GMT -6
Agreed Dan ,it is a band of brothers or it is nothing. Cheers Richard I wonder if we may be extrapolating too much of current day standards and practices to the 1870s' frontier army as it relates to concern for wounded. We know, for example, that, post battle, much more care was given to the burial of officers than to enlisted men, so maybe the same difference applied to wounded as well. If so, it may have been more of a societal than rank difference, with officers generally coming from the somewhat "better classes", while enlisted men were often the dregs of society that may have been considered expendable/disposable and not elicited a whole lot of concern.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Aug 15, 2016 22:35:17 GMT -6
[quote author=" wild" source="/post/116976/thread" timestamp="1471281407" Soldiers will go that extra yard, take that extra risk if they know, that if wounded they will not be left behind. Richard, This is a very profound statement, and one that deals directly with Custer and the 7th Cavalry. At the Washita Custer left Elliot behind. I have seen posts that agreed with that decision and said the soldiers appreciated the decision to not risk their lives. Just the opposite is true.Aside from the fact that they want to save their brother,a soldier knows today Pete, Joe, and John are in trouble, tomorrow it could be me, what is this guy going to do. When he leaves them without a good faith effort to save them he can lose the confidence of his command. Be Well Dan [/quote] Richard and Dan, I appreciate your points of view. We are now back to something I learned from a very funny instructor in OAC. DOTS. DOTS means Depends On The Situation. This means leaving a wounded soldier behind may be appropriate in one given situation, and inappropriate in another. DOTS is not kind to LTC Custer. He made dozens of decisions that his superiors, peers, and subordinates thought were wrong. He wrote hundreds of pages defending his decisions. We know his defense of his decisions are riddled with lies. I have linked detailed articles and books explaining this before. I will not keep beating the same horse. GAC made bad decisions that killed people. So have I. Many combat leaders have regrets. The issue is this: Was GAC a decent officer who had occasional bad decisions, or was he promoted beyond his ability? Was he grossly negligent at any assignment from company to regimental commander? You know where I stand. I believe I have been very fair to him, over hundreds of posts. Respectfully, William
|
|
|
Post by shan on Aug 16, 2016 5:10:32 GMT -6
Hi Steve,
Steve you ask,
"Where do we find the trajectory or the bullet paths that struck Custer. That would be interesting. How do we know the distance the bullets traveled before striking Custer and what was the energy left in the bullets. We have muzzleloader hunters so we do some investigation of black powder and soft lead bullet wounds as compared to sonic speed bullets. If this data is available on Custer that would be great to look at. I would think bullet path assumes you know the position the subject was in when struck by the bullet.
Is there details on the depth of wounds that Custer received?"
Good question, one which in turn drove me to plough through a number of books until I found a quote from a Sergeant Thomes F. O'Neil in Richard Hardorff's book, " The Custer battle casualties 11. The Sergeant seems to have brought an almost forensic eye for detail to his examination to Custers body compared to most of those who viewed the corpse, and it was his account I used when questioning my friend who works as a pathologist.
The account relates that the wound on the body seemed to have entered it on the left side, a little below and behind the left breast, ( someone elsewhere suggested that Custer may have hd his arm raised at the time, but don't ask me where I heard that, maybe it was me,} the bullet travelling between the back and the breastbone, { thereby according to my friend, probably damaging the heart and lungs,} before coming out on the right side near the lower ribs. { Again I heard it said elsewhere, that Custer had a minor wound on his left forearm or wrist, which could, and am I'm guessing here, have been caused by the bullet as it left the body.}
O'Neil then goes onto speculate that this may have been caused by a mounted indian firing down while the general was on foot, { could he have been kneeling at the time?} Having dealt with the body shot, he turns his attention to the head wound. In his opinion, given that the head wound showed no sign of powder marks,he suggests that it was was probably inflicted by an Indian on foot on the same level as the general. Strangely, he makes no mention of an exit wound, but then as far as I know no one else has mentioned it either.
As to what this means, well, you would know far better than I , but I have to say that on re-reading the accounts after several years, one gets the feeling that most of those dealing with the state of the generals body, sound as if they are trying to avoid any direct reference to the wounds, possibly, because they had his wife in mind. We only have to think of what Godfrey revealed sometime later to get a sense of that.
Now I know we are only dealing with ones man's opinion here, and that he gave this statement many years later, but compared to others, he does seem to have given the matter a deal of thought in an attempt to work out what happened to the general.
Shan
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 16, 2016 8:04:46 GMT -6
My understanding is that the man left behind on the Weir Point jaunt had a branch of a tree forced down his throat. Soldiers will go that extra yard, take that extra risk if they know, that if wounded they will not be left behind. In civilized warfare it is not an issue. In The Battle of Hürtgen Forest aid stations changed hands several times ...no problem. If you are engaged in the kind of warfare Custer was engaged in then it should be made clear to the troopers to save a bullet for themselves or failing that a comrade should deliver the coup de grace. That is my understanding also. Seems to me that is what Benteen held against Custer. Yet the decision was made not go look for the Major. I think it was heads you win tails you lose call. Custer did not have a clear direction to go and save Elliot. The Indians were massing. That being said every enlisted man wants to believe that his buddies won't leave him behind. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|