|
Post by Beth on Aug 25, 2015 20:20:01 GMT
Lately I have been seeing across the boards the line something like 'no one had ever faced a NA village like the one Custer faced. '
Questions--is that a valid excuse/reason for Custer's defeat? To a uninformed nonmilitary person like myself, it seems to be that every single battle would always be something that had never been faced before and those in charge should do their best not to get locked into a plan that had no ability to flex for changing conditions. If I have the wrong impression, I welcome correction.
Beth
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 439
|
Post by colt45 on Aug 25, 2015 21:27:58 GMT
Answer to your question: No, that is not a valid excuse. As you noted, every battle is different and commanders are supposed to handle whatever situation confronts them. They are supposed to evaluate each situation and fight if they can win, and if it is obvious they can't win, get out of there.
Custer had ample opportunities to take actions other than the ones he did. Had he done so, he may not have won the battle, but he and his 5 companies probably would not have been wiped out and he might have accomplished the mission of denying the Indians their sustenance, horses, and other supplies, which in and of itself would have been a victory as it would have forced many of them back to the reservations.
The Custer fanboys always try to find an excuse for his defeat, other than it being his fault.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Aug 25, 2015 22:14:45 GMT
I concur with the no. In whatever you do in life it is as well to have done some sort of planning and to have some idea what you are getting yourself into. QC once asked me what did Custer know before he engaged the NA? This is the question here and one that illustrates why Custer had such a bad day. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Aug 26, 2015 0:39:47 GMT
The weird thing is that everything Custer thought he knew was based on poor information and stereotypes. Scouting would have solved the poor information but I don't know if anything could have overcome the stereotypes. Perhaps a timely telegram from Crook?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 26, 2015 2:32:25 GMT
Numbers by themselves are never important to any commander. Numbers at the point of contact are important.
LBH was a winnable battle.
Anyone that uses numbers or size are making excuses. They do not want to see the faults of the commander, or the faults of the unit engaged that we all here are quite familiar with. To them LBH is nothing more than a John Ford movie. They think for instance that it is OK to hold a river crossing, with the river to your back (SWAYR), or attack in a column of fours through an un-reconnoitered defile (FA).
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Aug 26, 2015 15:47:49 GMT
Beth I have read that any battle plan goes out the window as soon as you make contact with the enemy. Custer's plan---I am not sure I know what it was exactly---as explained by military experts on these boards, died, along with 5 companies, after he left 3,411. I am puzzled that adults would be so enamored with GAC that all thoughts of reason and sanity fail them and they become worshipers of a cult based on a mere mortal. GAC was a flawed man with an equal heroic and horrific record of military service. When emotions over come common sense we see the rise of cult figures and religions like the one of Custer being the immortal visage of a heroic man. Bunk! I am firmly convinced that the real military heroes, besides the wounded and fallen, are the ones we never know or hear of not the glory hunters. They only leave a path of good and decent men who were sacrificed for their prestige. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Aug 26, 2015 16:29:00 GMT
I understand the allure of Custer, the myth. He is almost akin to Paul Bunyon, Pecos Bill or Casey Jones--more legend than man, an ideal of both the American soldier and the American west-reaching immortality by battling against the ultimate enemy: civilized man vrs the untamed. He was a meme before there was the Internet. Custer the myth has little or nothing to do with the real man.
The real Custer a flawed man who perhaps reached the pinnacle of success much too young without really understanding it's responsibilities. Once he was away from the glories and constant adrenaline rush of battle, he became bored with the day to day running of his regiment and lazy about his duties.
I have often read that Custer's contemporaries called him a born soldier, plus he showed the ability to lead, like a football captain on a playing field.
However Custer had absolutely no ability be a coach. He didn't have the ablity to plan an attack. He couldn't do the tons of paper work and details that go into be a coach.
Custer reminds me of a football coach we once had at a local college. Coach B had one play, running up the middle. It worked a lot, especially the first year of his coaching contract and the team even got a bowl game. However after the second and third season the other teams always knew what Coach B would do and his success went way down and eventually he was let go. I always think of Coach B when I read about Custer.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Aug 26, 2015 17:17:08 GMT
Jonathan Luther "John" "Casey" Jones was killed at Vaughan, MS about 80 miles from me. His home in Jackson, TN (100 miles north)has been made in to a museum. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Aug 26, 2015 17:45:55 GMT
Jonathan Luther "John" "Casey" Jones was killed at Vaughan, MS about 80 miles from me. His home in Jackson, TN (100 miles north)has been made in to a museum. Regards Dave Cool! I knew Jones was a real person, like Johnny Appleseed. I've been searching to see of John Henry is legend or based on reality. I love American folk legends, maybe because I grew up in the shadow of Paul Bunyan.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 26, 2015 18:13:10 GMT
Not making excuses for the man, but his decision to parcel out his regiment were fundamental military mistakes and add to this the lack of recon. He was caught with an insufficient force on a hill top overlooking his objective, he could have tried to take stock and re-group but never did, and I also think that when he made the decision to proceed north, he knew that he didn’t have enough clout to take this village, otherwise he would have made attempt.
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 26, 2015 18:19:02 GMT
I thought Alan Hale was Casey Jones, along with fireman Wally and the rest of the crew.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Aug 27, 2015 0:16:00 GMT
Not making excuses for the man, but his decision to parcel of his regiment were fundamental military mistakes and add to this the lack of recon. He was caught with an insufficient force on a hill top overlooking his objective, he could have tried to take stock and re-group but never did, and I also think that when he made the decision to proceed north, he knew that he didn’t have enough clout to take this village, otherwise he would have made attempt. Yan. Yan I wonder what was in his mind when he went north. Was it shock and he had to decide or just indifference as I am GAC therefore I go. Complicated character with a fragile ego and dreams of glory instead of reality like a known reenactor. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Aug 27, 2015 1:05:14 GMT
I bet everyone wants to know. I don't think it was indifference--I think he probably had so many things going on in his mind it might have been chaos--and perhaps shutting down his thinking process. Some people are better in crisis modes than others.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 27, 2015 4:30:14 GMT
I am not well known for cutting George any slack, but I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with most of you.
George Custer did not think he was doing any wrong by what he did and how he maneuvered in my opinion. His fault was thinking that he was maneuvering a division, the level he had the most combat experience with, instead of a regiment. On the surface the maneuvers can be identical, but the combat power, self sufficiency, and resilience of the major parts of a division are far in excess of their counterparts at regimental level.
Were he commanding a division at LBH vice a half strength regiment, I would find no fault with anything the man did. He was not, and paid the price.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Aug 27, 2015 14:07:41 GMT
Can you explain further please?
What is the size difference between a division and a regiment?
|
|