|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jun 10, 2021 15:12:25 GMT
Have enjoyed reading and catching up this AM,regarding Custer not crossing the river and COG. This post addresses several issues and may seem as though I am simply an opinionated bastard. I spoke with Chuck the other day,we discussed a number of aspects of the battle, to include whether or not he could have out performed GAC on that day. And from our discussion I think he could have, from the Crows Nest on. I will let him explain if he wishes.
Here goes the screed.
1. Custer was seen by the NA's as soon as he crested the bluffs. Gall and Charging Bear/ John Grass 2. Mac a portion Custer's command did a look see near Ford B, while exiting Medicine Tail Coulee before returning to th ridge line. Suck it up, they decided it a no go, too many male bodies remained in the village at that location. Citation see above. 3.Three companies did not remain behind while two proceeded to Ford D, maybe a small group awaited Benteen, though doubtful. Think about this would savy commanders(Keogh or Calhoun) have allowed the build up of so many well armed(with repeating rifles) enemies to build up in their front and left? C, I, & L were bitch slapped, while attempting to return south, C&L stopped and I hit broadside. Did they go all the way north? Were they attempting to open a retreat route south as ordered?
Going to move out to meet Steve on Monday.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 10, 2021 16:03:36 GMT
What QC told Tom was that he thought he was better prepared (by training and military education) than Custer was, and went on to say that while he would like to think he could have performed better, no one, including himself knows how any of us will perform under extreme stress. Just because you do it once does not mean you will always do it, or even do it a second time. Human beings are not like that. Even the hardest are still most fragile.
So Tom if you think I could have performed better than Custer, that is almost as bad a statement about Custer as me saying Daffy Duck, and Little Orphan Annie could have performed better than Custer. The bar is just not that high in Custer case.
There are a couple of problems associated with a couple (two I suppose) having a look see at Ford B.
1) What could eight pairs of eyes see better, than one pair? The essence of reconnaissance is to see without being seen, or at least attempting to do so.
2) When you are dealing with a tiger, it is probably best to not tease the tiger before you turn your back on him.
3) More importantly, when you do tease the tiger, and then turn you back on him, it is probably best to assume that the tiger will be stalking you in your rear, and it then is probably not all that wise to try to return via the same ground where you know the tiger lurks, and will be waiting for you.
So casting the pearls of wisdom out there, why would Custer, being repulsed from Ford D, attempt to again cross the tiger's path, and not adopt the much wiser coulrse of action, of withdrawing in a wide arc eastward, then swing south, avoiding the tiger in his rear? He already had enough to handle with that second tiger he stirred to action in his front.
So he either did not know of the tiger in his rear, because he had not awakened the tiger at Ford B, or he was a complete idiot, who did not think that the tiger had a vote in the outcome, and would act upon that vote.
You answered your own query Tom,. You said he saw too many Indians at Ford B. Had he gone there, that is exactly what he would have seen, but that could also have been assumed from what he could see of that place from a respectful distance of a mile or more on the eastern ridge complex. Instead of being a jigsaw puzzle of events, studying a battle's actions and outcomes is more of a flow chart where one's previous actions have a material effect on one's future actions, or choice of future actions.
If you close the refrigerator door, your not going to get out the beer that you have chilling, which is why you went to the refrigerator in the first place. On the other hand if you leave the refrigerator door open so you can have access to the beer, then the beer is not going to be as cold as you want it to be. So the answer becomes do not drink beer, or accept the precepts (tactics) of keeping beer cold. You would have Custer do neither, and there are always second and third order effects of any action you take on the battlefield.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jun 10, 2021 18:34:37 GMT
Maybe you could have won, but you haven't paid attention to what Steve and I have been saying all along, the eyes were four to six hundred yards away, there is an area where as you exit the coulee where you would be hard to see. Easier to explain voice to voice.
The tiger already saw GAC when he arrived at the top of the bluffs. Remember the two names I alluded to above. Fred doesn't like what I told him about Gall et el either.
Back to cutting grass and a cold beer.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 10, 2021 19:54:12 GMT
Keep your refrigerator closed Tom.
I took what you and Steve said into consideration, based upon our conversation of a few days ago. Six hundred yards from a concealed location I can readily buy. What I cannot buy is Custer approaching Ford B. itself, for a look. Six hundred yards away, and remaining concealed is not approaching Ford B, and I wanted to make that clear. I believe I know the area you are speaking of, and I would agree you can see from there with a low probability of anyone at the ford seeing you.
Also Gall and that other fellow seeing Custer, was most probably unknown to Custer. Therefore it would have no influence on Custer's decision making process. Someone seeing Custer, and being alerted to where he was, and possibly what he was doing, is far different that Custer sticking his finger in someone's eye at B, then thinking he could still use the route he came as a route of withdrawal. If Custer had determined that his observation of the Ford B area was still unknown to his adversaries then he would have every reason to look at that route (the way he came) as a route over which he could travel again.
This stuff is hard, because we know more than Custer did, and we cannot let that knowledge interfere with how we see this flow chart of battle unfold. We must concentrate on what Custer knew in order to ferret out his decision making process. It does not matter that we know that the only route of withdrawal open to him was eastward. Custer did not know it.
Wagner does not like anything that calls into question how he views this battle. What you can lay the rent money down on is someone in the village area saw Custer east of that village and heading northward. Gall and his battle buddy (I cannot recall his name) were probably not the only ones. Sure as hell though somebody spread the word that Reno was not the only opposition present, and that those fighting him better shift pronto.
Back to Iced Tea and rust wash on the tracks of my Russians.
Have a safe and productive trip.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 11, 2021 5:54:48 GMT
What we have to consider is the henry rifles, now if these rifle chaps were the best striking force available to the village, they would be needed to be used at a point where they would be most effective, so the main fighting was now the northern Ford's, so who directed the best armed braves to Calhoun hill?
This is where timing comes into play as these braves would have back tracked north, reached the area around ford b and veered east to attack Calhoun, so troops must have been on this location for these braves to group together and storm this high ground.
Where am I going with this I hear you ask, well this would add weight to the line on Calhoun hill to be in place a lot longer then we thought.
I would have guessed that the henry rifle auxiliary force would have carried on north through the village to unleash their fire power on cemetery hill, as this was where the action is, but no, they crossed at ford b.
So the time frame for L company to lay sticks and receive fire from this group, must depended in;
A, L being in the area B, the time it took for these braves to ascent the hill, which is a fair distance up hill against army fire.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jun 11, 2021 12:37:39 GMT
Ian, the cartridge finds tell us that not only Henry rifles were there, but Yellow Boys, and Winchester 73's as well. Makes you wonder if those guns as well as those warriors were sent there and pre positioned there to cut off a retreat or to stop reinforcements. Just a thought.
Chuck, our discussion the other day did not go into the why, I agreed you may have done better on 6/25/1876. While Custer attended Hudson High, he did no graduate with positive distinction. He then spent little time learning his craft. Basically from staff officer to Brigade commander. There is no question about bravery. Time spent from butter bar to 0-4 is essential, in my opinion, to learn your craft. You need to learn to trust your subordinates, the judgement of whatever G-2 format you have. Patton , was by some considered rash and a number of others things but he hooked up with Oscar Koch, in !my opinion the best G-2 in the European theater, he also relied on quality subordinates, if he couldn't he replaced them.
My thoughts about the Indians knowing Custer's whereabouts comes from John McLaughlin's book "My Friend the Indian" among other sources. The book is about $3.00 at Big Byte Books online or Amazon. That's cheap enough enough to simply pick out the chapters you want to read, they are clearly marked as to topic.
Regards Tom
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2021 14:55:16 GMT
Tom,
I may be all wet, but I don't believe the Sioux/Cheyanne chiefs controlled their men in a way such that they would order a group to go to a place or even have a reserve. Crazy Horse and some others may have been taking steps to form a doctrine (the classic decoy or ambush to lure out the reaction force/main body) but by and large did not appear to have a doctrine.
This is the distinction between a "WARRIOR" and a "SOLDIER". Soldiers are disciplined to fight in a certain matter. Warrior's are generally free to follow their leader's example or do as they want. They were apparently not ridiculed or disciplined for choosing not to fight or choosing to fight in a different place than their leader. (I may of course have absorbed some of the wrong lessons here.)
The Indian attacks were, at least to me, a swarming attack (such as fire ants and killer bees conduct), but with more individualistic judgements. In the 11th ACR we called it "Find the Bastards, then Pile On!) or "The Ant Treatment" in which we looked for anyway we could to move around or through an enemy position. Somehow I became fairly adept at this and on at least two occassions, I pulled the enire Regiment behind me when I found gaps in a REFORGER and in a V Corps FTC.
In my view, as I have stated before, the Sioux approach appears to me to be a predecessor to the Finnish tactics they employed against the Soviets in the Winter War.
The Zulu's were soldiers. They had a doctrine and leaders and I dare say they trained on knew how to execute their attacks. The Sioux certainly did not train. Of course, in this instnce, neither did the 7th Cavalry, but the officer's at least probably had some idea about how they were supposed to fight.
I also become incensed when people in the US Army refer to themselves as "Warriors". The Army does not have "Warriors", it has SOLDIERS. Soldiers do not running around doing as they please on the battlefield.
On a side note, I wonder at the lack of 'progress' in the art and science of killing in the America's and I guess in Austrailia. Why did they never leave the Stone Age? Some of it is due to lack of large domesticated animals. Perhaps it was also due to low population density and abundence of prey. I would submit, the indiegneous life style in North America was doomed by the arrival of the Horse because it was in direct competition with the Bison for food and water. Then, when the Eureopean Market was attracted by Bison robes (and to a lesser extent) tounges, and the natives responded to the market demand, they killed off Bison (and other animals) at non-sustainable rates. Even without the US government poliicies, the life style was doomed. Of cousre, new diseases did not help any.
My other thought is most conflict is due to population pressure. I had, even in elementary school, these visions of 'new' groups of people spawning in the interior of the Eurasion Continent and causing the population shifts. Actually, I supposed the trend started in Africa. Only the lack of a land connection and great sea distances protected the America's (and to a lesser extent Austrailia). With the improvement of sailing techology,the result was probably inevitable. What if the American Indians had developed large ships and steel/gunpower weapons?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 16, 2021 19:11:10 GMT
Mike: You will not be surprised if I think about this a little differently.
I think the Indians WERE soldiers and not warriors. I don't like this modern warrior horse crap either. When one has to puff one's chest out and declare such, it demeans the service, and the end the one uttering such claptrap just makes a fool of them selves. Soldiers are the servants of the nation they serve. I think the Indians were more like our mass mobilization armies of the past where everyone in a certain age group was conscripted to serve.
As to their tactics, I don't hunt (don't fish either), never have, but I would think a group of two or more going after game, would develop some sort of rudimentary tactical doctrine, so they could work in concert, and not stumblescrew all over each other. Were Indian tactics sophisticated? No, but they were organized and effective.
I also believe there was some sort of central direction. You don't pick up and move 10,000 people, without some sort of central direction.
Finally, I believe that the most critical error we can make when discussion Indian warfare in general, is that we never give them enough credit. There was no one better than they were in what they did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2021 20:39:20 GMT
I think they were developing tactics and think tactics to some degree developed from hunting techniques. I agree there was some centralized decision making for such things as moving the camp and/or breaking it up shortly after the battle. I find I have to continually force myself to not approach 19th Century Warfare like 20th Century Warfare. Plus, my main historical interest vaults from Belisarius to WWII, with only a hop, skip, or jump for 18th-19th century warfare alighting on Cowpens, First day of Gettysburg, and the LBH, with a slight glance toward the Zulu Wars.
However they managed the Rosebud and the LBH, and to a lesser extent perhaps, the Powder River are great achievements, but helped along by various mistakes of the US Army Commanders. One wonder's what would have happened with Buford, Merritt, or even Custer with a Civil War era Cavalry Division, other than they could probably never bring the Indians to battle due to lack of forage.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 17, 2021 3:08:41 GMT
I think a better question would be what could Joshua Chamberlain, or Win Hancock with a division, and in their prime, could do against the Sioux or Cheyenne? Cavalry, as you suggest, is faced with a two edged sword, short term mobility on one hand, balanced by the ball and chain of increased logistical requirements, in country that is less than favorable to cavalry operations, no matter what John Ford thought.
Good, well trained, light Infantry could have beaten the snot out of the Sioux and Cheyenne. It would not be either easy or quick, and patience is the watchword. Can you imagine walking out of your lodge one fine morning and finding the Iron Brigade on your front porch, having been there most of the night without your knowledge waiting for you to get up. Rogers knew how to do it, how to beat Indians, and apparently no one read his book.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 17, 2021 5:53:11 GMT
What did Rogers was that Amazon prime books was not invented which restricted his sales a little.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Jun 17, 2021 11:56:19 GMT
So much stuff. Tom I have no problem with Custer having people 600 yards from the Ford.
Mike One thing I would throw in is that the Indians had learned from the US military as they had fought them. Check out the Nez Perce. Traditionally they used an informally constructed half moon formation around their enemies (recorded since 1700's). This allowed them to disengage quickly as they were casualty averse. They only closed the half moon when they were confident of victory. In this context they certainly swarmed, as you say, as well.
Side bar, interesting I hope.
Australian Aboriginals Have a concept they call "country". They live on their country and they personally are part of country, as are all the others things in the environment that make up that country. Hence we often have a ceremony called "welcome to country" before major public events. Members of the local Aboriginal land owners are acknowledged and they welcome all visitors to country.
Europeans think of country in a much less connected way in my opinion. When the First Fleet arrived here in 1788 they found a park like environment because the Aboriginals had, for tens of thousands of years, used land care practices that maximized the productivity of their food resources. Took a couple of hundred years for scientists to understand this. I think the same is true of North America and the Native population. They lost the technological war!
Europeans have one big advantage over Aboriginals and Native Americans. They came from Europe. The theory is that you can walk from France to China at the same latitude. This is a massively bigger piece of land at one latitude than North America or Australia. So if something works developmentally in say the Middle East (Fertile Crescent) then it will work in France or in China. You can develop much faster materially when you are drawing transferable ideas from the majority of the world's population for tens of thousands of years. Just think where gun powder was invented.
Cheers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2021 12:11:30 GMT
I like the East to West flow of Eurasia vs the North to South flow of the America's. That should be obvious; I'm a little embarrassed.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 17, 2021 19:11:41 GMT
Jon Anderson claims that the earth was inhabited by four main tribes and these went on to spread all over the world "Negro, Asian, Oriental and Nordic"
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 17, 2021 19:21:33 GMT
Ah Ian, you forgot one. Shame on you. The one you forgot was the Blithering Assholes, which unfortunately have infiltrated their way into the other four.
|
|