|
Post by quincannon on May 11, 2023 21:31:18 GMT
I am quite sure that tank did have ammunition based upon the crew having ammunition for their personal weapons. I am also very intrigued by the Indians use of armor piercing arrows, which is the first time they were in use since Agincourt, proving once again the sneaky hands of the French (they were salvaged British arrows taken from dead French knights) in US affairs supplying illicit weapons to our enemies who should have been our friends had we treated them half way decently and not tried to steal their land with every advance westward, and steal their culture by insisting that they wear long pants and cut their hair, which in turn reveals that the U S Government was secretly in league with the tonsorial industry, until that industry was coopted by Italian immigrant barbers who were much better that their trade than the English who had dominated tonsorial America since the Dutch sold New York for a paltry sum opening the door for Wall Street bankers to dominate Hell's Kitchen. So there.
|
|
|
Post by miker on May 11, 2023 22:39:18 GMT
LO, the poor Indian! Hounded by the very dogs of hell.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 11, 2023 23:36:04 GMT
I'm not on a soap box here, I am just reminding everyone that they are human beings just like the rest of us, with hopes and dreams for themselves and their future, and we destroyed them in our process of building what we consider our country, when in reality it should be OUR country.
Take this current case under consideration. I obviously did not know Red Hawk, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary I must assume him to be an honorable man. I believe if asked he would tell the truth. I have no reason not to believe that. The unfortunate part here is that he told his story through a third party, who was not there. The possibility then exists then that the story Red Hawk told is not presented accurately in the retelling. So, do we believe the filtered story, or not? Oh, he is just an Indian so to hell with him. We will present the story the way we want that puts our hero in the best light. Whomever said it was correct - "The first casualty of war is the truth" but never condemn those that try to tell the truth along with those who publish the distortions of that truth.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on May 12, 2023 10:39:10 GMT
Red Hawk interview recorded by Nicholas Ruleau November 20 1906 Pine Ridge. (also present and contributing Shot in the Face, Big Road, Iron Bull all present at Little Big Horn) Source Drawing Battle Lines M N Donahue Page 170 These later soldiers were coming down on the ridge in three divisions. They did not come down to the river. The first division came to a point about half a mile or three quarters of a mile from the river.
If they are coming down on a ridge, the only ridge available to them that implies they are traveling towards the river is Battle Ridge. Bear in mind here that Gall also says that the soldiers were coming down the same ridge towards Calhoun Hill and he was in the same general location as Red Hawk. Note too Shot in the Face, Big Road, Iron Bull were present at the interview and presumably agreed.
So we have geometry and four Indian witnesses.
Cheers
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on May 12, 2023 10:48:41 GMT
To return to Custer moving North. QC mentions Chancellorsville. QC if Custer was commanding and not Hooker might the outcome have been different?
I am interested your opinion.
I think the why to Custer going right at Little Big Horn is the same as the why of why was he sent with on the mission with Terry. Because he would be aggressive and take on the Indians.
More soon.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by miker on May 12, 2023 12:42:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by miker on May 12, 2023 13:01:07 GMT
To return to Custer moving North. QC mentions Chancellorsville. QC if Custer was commanding and not Hooker might the outcome have been different?
I am interested your opinion.
I think the why to Custer going right at Little Big Horn is the same as the why of why was he sent with on the mission with Terry. Because he would be aggressive and take on the Indians.
More soon.
Cheers
No way to tell. History unfolds as it does. There is no such thing as a turning point. Wars/battles are not necessarily won by the better commander but by the one who makes fewer mistakes. And just what did his aggressiveness do? Got himself, his brothers, and nearly 50% of his regiment killed. Sometimes prudence and discretion is the way to go. You clearly revel in the Australian Mounted Infantry charge, but he shouldn't have got away with it. He got lucky. Try that in Europe. 1. He attacked across open desert. 2. He attacked in Daylight. 3. He elected not to dismount but to charge which gave him surprise. 4. Somehow he got under the guns. 5. The Turks were poorly trained and commanded and didn't adjust their sights. 6. I don't think he had any artillery support, but am probably wrong. 7. Apparently the Turks did not have canister. He Is celebrated not because of his tactical acumen but because of his luck. Custer, in my view, wasn't ever a good commander or even a good soldier. He was lucky. Till the LBH.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 12, 2023 16:04:00 GMT
I concur with Mike here in both posts.
Red Hawk did not say. Ruleau said that Red Hawk said. I concur on the ridges as well. The place is full of ridges and all of them give access to the river in one form or other, because they share one thing in common they all give access to the coulees leading off the ridges to the west. Down to common everyday 21st Century usage means south, but how would an Indian or Ruleau use that word? I don't know and that the rub.
No one can ever take away from the deeds of the Australian Light Horse, but they were very lucky, that they ran up against some portion of the Turkish Army that did not know their business.
Custer was not a good commander ever. His conduct while in uniform also suggests he was not a good soldier or human being either. I'm not even sure he was all that lucky. He rose to prominence in the waning days of the Army of Northern Virginia, and those sent against him, even then gave him a couple of severe black eyes, Buckland Mills being the one that tells me all I need to know about Georgie.
Never sell Joe Hooker short. After Fredericksburg he completely reorganized and retrained the Army of the Potomac, and by the time of Chancellorsville they were in great shape for battle. He gave them a spirit they had never attained before, and did it after they had suffered their worst defeat ever in December 1862. Hookers plan for the Chancellorsville Campaign was a very good one. For four days Lee did not know if he should shit or go blind, he was that fooled by Hooker's maneuvering. At the end of the AOP's maneuver phase he had Lee between an anvil and hammer, and Lee was shitting his pants. My read is that Hooker's offensive moves on the first day of battle sending three corps down the turnpike toward Fredericksburg was in some manner bait to draw Lee into attacking him at the by now fortified position around the Chancellor crossroads. Can I prove that? No, but if you put together what Hooker had done before, and his overall objective, it makes all kinds of sense.
Of course Lee did attack making at the same time both a bold and very stupid move around Hookers flank. Bold in its concept. Exceptionally stupid in its execution. You don't start late, move more than a dozen miles with 30 K troops and expect to have a lot of daylight remaining when you get there. The guy that salvaged what could be saved from the mess was JEB Stuart, and gets very little credit for it.
Keep in the forefront of your mind Mac that the Union Army did not lose Chancellorsville. The senior leadership of that Army lost Chancellorsville by indecision and in the case of one corps commander gross incompetence. Oliver Otis Howard did much more for our country in establishing Howard University than he ever did serving in his countries' uniform.
Could Custer have won Chancellorsville. I may still be rolling on the floor with even someone asking that question throughout the coming weekend. No offense to you of course. Custer could have fetched Joe Hooker's horse I suppose, but win Chancellorsville, not in a thousand lifetimes. George Custer could not plan his way out of a wet paper bag, much less maneuver an Army of 150 thousand men.
If you want to study Chancellorsville and I encourage it start with "Chancellorsville" by Stephen W. Sears. He also wrote the go to book on the Maryland Campaign of 1862 "Landscape Turned Red"
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on May 13, 2023 9:13:17 GMT
The Custer question was related to aggression rather than ability. Should have phrased it better.
The Light Horse charge was necessary as they had no water and Beersheeba had wells. One man from the charge, modestly, said he would concede there was some courage involved in starting it but that once the horses scented the water there was no way they could stop. Often left out was the British artillery concentrating on taking out the Turkish machine guns.
The Australians were comfortably the best performed troops in WW1 mainly because they came from the highest living standard in the world and were physically bigger and stronger.
The same would be true of the stature, strength and training of the Indians vs Cavalry at LBH. Often forgotten!
Cheers
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on May 13, 2023 10:58:03 GMT
My final thought here is that although there are many ridges these gentlemen are explaining what happened on the ridges where they killed soldiers. That could only be Battle Ridge and F/F Ridge.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 13, 2023 14:06:02 GMT
Custer's aggression is exactly why he would have been a complete disaster at Chancellorsville. Hooker's plan was to cross the river assemble at least five corps at the Chancellor crossroads, forcing Lee to be drawn out of the Fredericksburg lines and attack him. Hooker intended a defensive battle, having had enough of frontal attacks the previous December.
Coming down a ridge and fighting on the same ridge might just be two different ridges being spoken about. The way you prove any theory is to test it against all available alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on May 16, 2023 14:14:05 GMT
4 witnesses and 1 map - the map supplied with the Red Hawk info had 3 dots on the route - seemingly nearer/parallel to MTC. 3 dots = 3 divisions(?). <Maybe; but either way the 1st stand they were pushed back to is closer to MTC, and then back to the 2nd at CH, etc. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on May 16, 2023 14:35:04 GMT
Gall, via Godfrey... Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 16, 2023 15:58:26 GMT
Unfortunately I get an error message when I try to expand those two maps, but fortunately I have copies around here somewhere, and am fairly familiar with them. Considering that you have been on the board for a couple of weeks, I am assuming you have had a chance to catch up on some of the threads that may spark your interest. Obviously this is one of them. Interested to hear your views on this phase of the battle.
I too am a Godfrey Guy. He put in the best performance of the entire battle as commander of K in my view. His, by the book, delay in the retrograde back from Weir Point was masterful. The narrowness of the terrain sure helped but it was masterful none the less. He was also a keen observer, and not afraid to publicly say he had changed his views on what happened over the passage of time up until he published the Century article.
Off this specific topic but:
Who was in command of Company C going into battle in your view T. Custer or Harrington?. Godfrey says T. Custer.
Was there one battalion Custer's (five companies), or were there two Yates (2 companies) and Keogh (3 companies)? Godfrey says one.
WELCOME ABOARD
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on May 16, 2023 17:47:10 GMT
Thanks QC - cheers!
|
|