|
Post by Beth on Dec 12, 2015 21:57:56 GMT
There is one thing that I completely disregard, that being that Custer was nailed on Battle Ridge in toto by a mass of Indians streaming across the river at multiple points. This does not withstand the time to travel from river to ridge, and would suggest that the Indians had a clear vision of Custer's route and intentions. Going down to Ford B makes absolutely no sense tactically. Don't think he would have seen anything there with any clarity from the ridge line, BUT the smoke and dust rising from the B area should have told him something was down there THUS, he had not reached the northern end. A scout or two verifying this would be all that was required, and it certainly would not require or justify the commitment of a two company strength reconnaissance. I tend to agree that dropping a company off at or near Calhoun Hill would make sense. I also agree about dropping Keogh off in that swale area. Company C, under these revised circumstances is, and remains, a mystery. All we really know is that many from that company were found on F-F Ridge. We assume they came from Battle Ridge, but assumption is all it is. Do we have any Indian tale leading us in that direction to the exclusion of any other possibility. Can't recall any. We hang our hat on Battle Ridge to F-F Ridge via Calhoun Coulee, BECAUSE we know that some must have retreated in the direction of BR, hence we speculate that was from where they came. In all probability, based upon what is in evidence none of us will ever know for sure. I tend to think that if things don't make sense its because either we don't have all the information or it didn't happen that way. I know that when it comes to LBH we probably will never be able to totally be able to construct what happened unless a whole lot more archeological information is uncovered. Eyewitness testimony can only be a guide to events but it can never be taken as gospel because eyewitness testimony is by its nature inherently faulty--an eyewitness can only relate what they experienced or saw. Ironically as I am typing this we are watching a show we recorded from National Geographic channel called Breakthrough and in particular the episode "Decoding the Brain" I know that anyone beyond the US probably won't be able to see it but if you have the ability to view it 'on demand' Nat Geo I highly recommend it for the section they do on 'flashbulb memory' It is extremely enlightening on how memories change with time and how 'false memories' can form. I did find this article that explains the study but hearing the interviews is startling.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Dec 13, 2015 12:17:59 GMT
The notion of no approach to Ford B is an interesting one. I have often wondered about confusion of Ford D and B. My first thought is the evidence of firing from LNC which is shown by archaeology but it is so far from Ford B that it need have no relation to any move there. Certainly a move diectly north makes much more sense if you want to get behind the village. I need think time! Maybe this should be a new thread. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Dec 13, 2015 12:42:18 GMT
Mac, I suspect that any firing from LNC was aimed at Wolftooth and that’s why I found his rendition of what he saw to JSIT so interesting because he saw the direction Custer approached and even his formation, the two column advance all moving to the same location, he even said that E company formed the rear guard and it was this company that fired from LNC.
Another Indian map I saw today was by a Cheyenne called Rain-In-The-Face, and said that 50 soldiers fought on Calhoun hill as a rear guard, so maybe only Calhoun was left behind with the other four + HQ carrying on.
If any of you don’t have the Donahue book “Drawing Battle Lines” I would advise you to get a copy as it is a great book (Xmas prezzy perhaps).
Yan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2015 0:52:49 GMT
I think it most probable that it was friendly fire as well. Martini was obviously unaware of where it came from/ Don't know why you think it near impossible for a hit at 800 Will. They do it nearly every day on the other-other board. If I remember correctly the Romans were standing to, morning and night in Gaul. Do not the Commentaries mention this? I have mentioned this anecdote before.
During the Cold War, we had massive wargames outside of Army bases, in the German countryside.
I was in one of these about 1987, it was not a REFORGER, had about 6 Divisions. I was in the long forgotten 8th ID, a crappy unit because it had very limited training areas compared to every other NATO division (even the Danes).
Anyway, we were fighting another US Div, and a German Division attacked our flank, and basically wiped us. IN the chaos that followed, I was a platoon leader with 2 platoons from my company, one from another battalion and two from another brigade. I was the only officer. I pulled us into some defensible terrain, while I tried to find other elements of my division.
I needed to see into the valley below me to see the damn Germans, while I waited for the other platoon leaders to meet me for an orders group. I found a really good observation point, in a ditch that was beautifully positioned for defense. I instantly decided to put my TOWs here, and establish a hasty defense while I tried to raise BN or BDE on the radio. I saw on my map something called limes on my map, which I did not understand.
Limes was the Roman term for the defenses they had built to hold off the German/Goths 2000 years ago. I was in a bad situation, and just went to the closest defendable terrain. It is vastly amusing that some Roman centurian made the same decision a few thousand years ago.
There are certain tactical principles that remain the same now and then. My frustration with the liar board as how they distort, deceive and lie about basic concepts.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Dec 21, 2015 10:07:56 GMT
Just goes to show that even a couple of thousand years ago, military leaders still had an eye for a good defensive position, I used to enjoy some of the ex-military on these boards talking of things like “that is bad place to defend” or “the terrain further along could be defended better” and Calhoun hill and Cemetery hill were always used in comparison.
The main things I suppose would be to have good fields of fire, some cover would also be nice and a water source, an elevated position would be preferable as the attackers would have to climb “aka” Hill 937.
But having said that Custer may have kept to the high ground all the way from Luce to battle ridge, but fielding small units such as the ones deployed that day, were too small to hold ground on their own and could be easily out flanked, and I cannot see any indication of two or more companies ever supporting each other at one time on the same piece of ground, so if Custer did have the advantage of high ground then he squandered it.
Yan.
|
|