Ford B: Prelude to Destruction

[quincannon]

First off, any movement toward Ford B has not been established. That is a plain simple fact. That is not to say there was no activity in Medicine Tail Coulee. It is almost undisputed fact that there was. Both these things being said, does not mean that they are connected. In other words, activity in Medicine Tail Coulee does not mean that movement was directed at Ford B for any purpose whatsoever.

I plan to go to the Safeway tomorrow. The Safeway is in the vicinity of the dry cleaners. The fact that I am in the parking lot that serves both does not mean I intend to go to the dry cleaners. I have no business at the dry cleaners. I do have business to tend to at the Safeway.

Who ever said (except Wagner) that Custer ever visited 3411? Who ever said (except Rini) that Custer ever visited Weir? No one, of any credence that I know of. I will cut Fred some slack here. 3411 is a Wagner invention. It's a damned good place to do what Custer was supposed to have done. That does not mean it is THE place, or in fact it was actually Custer who visited the place. Tom you are sounding like these things are indisputable well established facts, and they are not. They are speculation, tea leaf reading, and crystal ball gazing, all without one solid fact to support them.

[miker]

First hand, I have no direct knowledge of being able to view the ford from Weir or 3411, so I'll take your and Wagner's word for it. But I will caveat that when he turned right, leaving Reno to his own devices, he had no idea what was or was not along the ridge line or where the main village was. Thus he was surprised by Wolf Tooth, just the way he was surprised by the small village near the Lone Teepee. He wasn't doing reconnaissance, he was doing movement to contact and it seems to me Wolf Tooth was probably also surprised, but recovered, and attacked the 7th from the NE through the SE from behind.

On the other hand, Custer also probably did not know squat about Ford B or D. I grant there were others who knew about those Ford This or that by another name. I think people from E or F did do recon of the Ford, were detected, and repulsed. It happens. It was not a feint because he didn't know where the enemy was at the time. The Indians who went to the Ford apparently got there in just the knick of time and were able to deceive George of their strength.

On the gripping hand, maybe Custer was trying to clear the zone (Medicine Tail Coulee) as he moved WNW. But maybe not. At any rate he was stopped, tried to retreat, got fixed, and destroyed. Point, game, but not the match to the Sioux/Cheyanne who at this point are now ahead 2.5-0. (The Powder River fight is the 0.5 point, but maybe it should be a 1 which makes is 3-0. (Hmmm. There is a certain symmetry with the Battle of Midway when Yamaguchi thought he had a 1 on 1 fight with Spruance.

I dispute your assertion that Custer knew about the other villages at the Washita. He developed the plan for that AFTER he had attacked and destroyed that village and then figured out that they were starting to come for him. At least there he apparently did do reconnaissance and had a plan.

[deadwoodgultch]

Mike,

There was never any statement from me that he knew about the other camps along the Washita, he did not. Until, he was confronted by the warriors from the camps and used the hostages to extract himself from his situation. Otherwise the Last Stand may have been in Oklahoma. Another scouting, recon, Intel issue.

Chuck, by the way it was not Rini that discussed Custer on Weir, it was that other famous Italian, Martini!

You guys have a good night.

Regards,
Tom

[quincannon]

I beg to differ. Rini promulgated the same thing, at least early on, probably as a counter to Wagner's 3411. Rini would do anything to discredit Fred, whose stock was then on the rise in the LBH community.

To be clear here, a lot of people said they saw Custer on the bluffs. DeRudio being one but there were several more.  Fred said Custer was at 3411 and it was from there that he was viewed from the valley floor. As I remarked above 3411, a very identifiable place on the ground was a Wagnerism. Might have been a very good guess on his part. It certainly was a terrific spot from which to view the proceedings in the valley. We have a photo in our banner on this board showing just how good a place it is. Nevertheless it was a Wagnerism, one to which nothing factual can be attached.

The same could be said of DeRudio's sighting. My memory is that the terrain on those bluffs is a bit rolling, and something looks quite different when you are on those bluffs, as opposed to looking at them from the valley. For a moment let's say that DeRudio did see Custer, then how can we be sure he saw him on Weir given the nature of the terrain.

Now for the final wrench into the works. I will take any person you care to name into that valley, then position three other people on those bluffs dressed in a similar manner, one of which is known to them, and two that are not, and ask them to pick out the one they know. Then I will do the same thing with three people the person knows, again dress them in a similar manner, and ask that person to identify the three by name as individuals. The point here, if you have not already caught my drift, is that the distance is too great to render a positive identification. Those people thought they saw Custer to the exclusion of anyone else, because that is what they wanted to see ---- Custer.

[miker]

Tom,

I seem to have misunderstood your comment. I think I read into your comment that he knew there were other villages rather than he became aware they were massing.

I believe however, he did enough recon to determine the village was isolated and plan to surround it. He failed to recon further which may be understandable.

Chuck

While in Norway I was able to recognize 3/4 of my daughters when they were a ridge line away from me perhaps 1000 meters. I recognized them by their clothing then used my long telephoto lens to take their picture and confirm. The fourth daughter was with us.

I don't think I could have done so much further than that or through dust. I was gratified I was right though. as I recall the range would be about a mile+.

Custer's hat could have been distinctive. Familiarity with the target can be an advantage. I'm somewhat skeptical. maybe if his flag was with him. Also about seeing gray horses. Seems to me they'd all look the same. My wife walked right past me twice after my return from the field. Just sayin'.

[miker]

This discussion made me want to look at my map 1:10000 scale map again. Using a straight edge to track the sight line from Weir Point to the vicinity of Ford B, it seems possible there is a good LOS.

Using Google Earth (hopefully from the same position) from Weir Point shows that the Ford is not visible from there. One should probably have been able to see portions of the village. Could they tell if it was empty enough with the naked eye or the optics of the period? I don't know.  The terrain around Fort Riley, KS is similar and LOS from the map to the ground was very tricky, especially when we went from maps with a 20 foot contour interval to a 10 or 20 meter contour interval.  The ground looked very different between the two contour intervals.  Vegetation, even though relatively treeless, posed problems with target acquisition and engagment, even on the tank range, which was part of the point.  The experience may not be totally transferable.  Damn the snow storm.



If the banner picture is a view from Weir Point I would really like to know the grid coordinate Steve was at, his height above the terrain, the azimuth of his shot, and the location of the ford as he sees it. Again, I suffer from not having been able to get there and I probably could not have got to where Steve was.

One of my experiments would have been to be at Weir Point and have my wife standing near the monument and to determine if I could see her with the naked eye and then through my long telephoto lens. Since the monument was pretty small from Calhoun Hill, I would guess the answer would be "no" which may speak (or not) to DeRudio's ability to "see" Custer. SEeing Teepees and people rushing about could be different. It will just have to wait and see what develops.

EDIT:  As it turns out, I did the line of sight check from the south side of the road instead of the northern side in the vicinity where I guess Weir was.  Using the more accurate (but probably not precise) location, you still can't see the Ford worth a crap, but you can see LSH, Calhoun Hill, 3411, and Reno Hill.  All of those places can see everything else except the ford, but there is a lot of dead space.  I also checked several places along the road and its pretty much the same:  you can't see the Ford.

Then I "walked" down the ford several times using street view.  I still think its doable.  I find it very bothersome I didn't have the time to do the exploration I wanted.  But not bothersome enough, baring a financial windfall of sorts, to make me go back.

I still would like the grid coordinate, height above terrain, and azimuth of his shot and the grid of where Steve thought the Ford was from 3411.  Not that I don't trust him, but what's not inspected gets neglected.

[quincannon]

The banner is from 3411 Mike.

[miker]

Okay. Thanks.

[deadwoodgultch]

This thread is interesting, thanks. To be fair I already knew where the ford was when I first viewed it from Weir and there was activity there in the reenactors camp. Ford C view is partially blocked but I knew where it was as well. As you know Wier is split by the road, but it is fairly wide, affording various angles. I actually believed that Custer's view of Reno's action in the valley was from the extreme western point this promontory, located at the edge of the bluffs.

And Chuck, I had read Martin's account prior to joining any of the board. Did no know Fred and had not harassed Rini.

Regards,
Tom

[deadwoodgultch]

As an aside here, were you ever involved with the Sheridan Tank, Mike?

Regards,
Tom

[miker]

I was trained on them, but never commanded one or a cavalry platoon equipped with them. I was a tank platoon leader first, then got a cav platoon after we switched from Sheridans to tanks. I wasn't particularly sad.

[colt45]

Agree with Mike on Sheridans. It sucked to be in one. Too light a vehicle for the 152mm. Firing one was an exercise in crew rotation. Recoil is so violent the TC is ejected, gunner gets moved to the TC position, loader gets bounced all around the turret and into the gunner's position (that was the joke of the day by those of us unfortunate enough to have spent any time in them). In actuality it was very hard to fire one as it raised off the ground to the second roadwheel. This made for an uncomfortable experience when firing anything other than a missile from the main gun.

[quincannon]

If I remember correctly the original concept for the Sheridan was as a replacement for the M56 SPAT, a tracked, open top vehicle, carrying a 90mm gun, designed to equip the anti-armor platoons in battle groups. My battle group had them (6 as I recall), although I understand European based battle groups used M47 tanks in their stead. They were fast, had a good gun, but no crew protection whatsoever.

I believe had that concept been fulfilled, and the Sheridan been used exclusively as a platform for the TOW missile, it would have been much more of a success. That's my thought anyway for what it is worth. I really do not know how many times the U S Army must be hit over the head, before they realize that a light tank has no place on the battlefield. Look at the record. The M3 and M5 Stuarts, M24 Chafee, and M41 Walker were all failures in one respect or the other. The Walker was the best of the bunch and probably quite useful in Banana Wars, but not on the contemporary conventional battlefield.

Back to the subject at hand. Do all these things really matter and are they an aide to understanding what happened? You cannot know, what cannot be known. Suffice to say, the only real thing that can be gained of any value for the future, and that is why we study battle, for the future, is Custer made a grave tactical error in going north of Ford B. All the rest is unnecessary, and no more than of mild interest, to anyone interested in the study of battle. It does not even matter why he did it. He did it and that is all that matters.

[herosrest]

Jan 31, 2023 0:07:12 GMT quincannon said:

I beg to differ. Rini promulgated the same thing, at least early on, probably as a counter to Wagner's 3411. Rini would do anything to discredit Fred, whose stock was then on the rise in the LBH community.

To be clear here, a lot of people said they saw Custer on the bluffs. DeRudio being one but there were several more.  Fred said Custer was at 3411 and it was from there that he was viewed from the valley floor. As I remarked above 3411, a very identifiable place on the ground was a Wagnerism. Might have been a very good guess on his part. It certainly was a terrific spot from which to view the proceedings in the valley. We have a photo in our banner on this board showing just how good a place it is. Nevertheless it was a Wagnerism, one to which nothing factual can be attached.

The same could be said of DeRudio's sighting. My memory is that the terrain on those bluffs is a bit rolling, and something looks quite different when you are on those bluffs, as opposed to looking at them from the valley. For a moment let's say that DeRudio did see Custer, then how can we be sure he saw him on Weir given the nature of the terrain.

Now for the final wrench into the works. I will take any person you care to name into that valley, then position three other people on those bluffs dressed in a similar manner, one of which is known to them, and two that are not, and ask them to pick out the one they know. Then I will do the same thing with three people the person knows, again dress them in a similar manner, and ask that person to identify the three by name as individuals. The point here, if you have not already caught my drift, is that the distance is too great to render a positive identification. Those people thought they saw Custer to the exclusion of anyone else, because that is what they wanted to see ---- Custer.

The 3411 matter was wagnerism as you quiantly put things and I guess that he saw Benteen's 'G' on his map of the thing. 'G' was where Custer got his first view of the villages.

Since Benteen could not possibly have known of the event or location, I guess we must all sctarch stuff and wonder. Fred may have worked something out or just accepted Benteen's comment as the latest new thing. The map of course was long lost and discovered by W.A. Graham. link

Regards

[quincannon]

My thoughts on the matter HR, are that Fred was pretty darned close to the spot with the 3411 Wagnerism, if not exactly on it. 3411 itself is a surveyed benchmark noting altitude above sea level, marked on the USGS 1:24000 scale map. Of course, that map did not exist in Custer's day, but I would expect George to have a pretty good eye for high ground. The photo from 3411 is a very good indication of what can and cannot be seen from that place, as well as others in the immediate vicinity.

My objection to Fred's and the work of others in this regard is that they state these things as fact, when they are not fact at all. At best they are educated guesses. We don't really know if Custer (himself) viewed anything from anywhere. Someone viewed something I suppose because there are too many reports of having seen someone or someone's, but I do not take it as established fact that it was Custer.

Fred did a lot of valuable work. His rendition of the Reno valley fight will stand the test of time. With "Strategy" though, he was all too finite. Too sharp a point applied to his pencil, and what happens when you sharpen your pencil that way? The point rapidly breaks off.