|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 29, 2016 15:04:38 GMT
Yes I agree that that Godfrey and JSIT have merit, so the only thing I can suggest is that the command initially moved along the bluffs in view of Reno's command, but later moved east and took a rout more in line with Godfrey's.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Aug 29, 2016 15:41:05 GMT
I think the middle Coulee route is from an Indian scout that was with Custer.
There two prominent ridges running into MTC that would be good for climbing out of MTC. At the top of one is an engagement site with steel pins placed by Weibert.
We also rode to the east of SRR. I found a golf ball out there. It seems to far for Martin's various accounts.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 29, 2016 16:46:51 GMT
Agree with you Ian, and so do sound tactical principles.
I believe we can all agree that Custer with five companies transited the East-Luce-Nye-Cartwright axis. How they got there may very well remain a mystery, and we may just have to accept never knowing. My point is though that we just cannot accept the speculation of people who write books, that they traveled in this coulee or that, took this trail or the other without some proof of the matter, and to my knowledge there is no proof.
The larger issue is, did it matter? I do not believe it did. For certain it is a gap in knowledge, but a gap that really has no meaning as to outcomes. Nice to have knowledge, but not so important that you cannot piece together what transpired in some broad outline form.
We cannot take anything that a latter day author has written. We must tear it apart to discover truth, keeping in mind that in the absence of information to the contrary, Custer must be assumed to have followed what were considered the sound tactical principles of that day. We know he made one hell of a boo boo, going onto the bluffs, but that mistake cannot color our thinking to the point where we believe everything he did was a mistake, based upon the one we know he committed.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Aug 29, 2016 18:58:05 GMT
I tend to agree that it doesn't really matter what route Custer took for the most part except for a couple of little issues, like who was seen on the bluff by Reno's troops. Also I seem to recall but can't remember the source that a trail was found perhaps by Godfrey that showed Custer traveled further away from the bluff. Would it have made sense tactically for Custer to have divided his forces and traveled north in two or even three columns
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 29, 2016 19:45:35 GMT
Yes I am in agreement with you all on this one, but it looks like he changed his mind once he reached the top of the bluffs and this probably prompted him to alter course and head for the high ground, it would be at this point that Martini was dispatched.
Just trying to find out if he ever had any intention of actually using MTC before moving up to the LNC ridges.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 29, 2016 20:45:57 GMT
You will recall Beth that up to the point of the split with Reno Custer did travel in two parallel columns. So yes it does make sense tactically to provide security to both flanks, and avoid the possibility that the head of either column gets thumped simultaneously. There is no reason to think that he would not adopt this same formation (probably a two and three mix) as he traveled on the bluffs, as long as the distance was not so great between the two that they could not mutually support each other, if either were jumped.
I think it is highly probable that they stayed separated by a moderate distance as the two routes joined on L-N-C-E. That too would make sense from a security prospective. It is in fact the tactical application of not putting all your eggs in one basket, but having the two baskets close enough to reach when you decide to make egg salad for the church picnic.
Keep in mind here that the second paragraph is pure speculation, and there is nothing to say this happened EXCEPT what would be a tactical best practice.
The answer as to who Reno's men saw, if they actually saw anyone, can't really be answered either, answered that is to the point where it can be graven in stone for all time. You would have to know who said they saw, where (I mean the exact spot)they were at the time of seeing, what were the line of sight parameters, and ascertain why in the hell were they looking in the first place, because the looking means they took their eye off the ball they should have been watching. You know how I think that these people were Sandringhaming the whole event, so I will not pursue it further. Nice romantic Victorian era story for the wives and kiddies, that may have happened, but one that I don't believe likely.
Ian: Remind me to ask Custer his "intention" when we are all together in the great stable in the sky, shoveling heavenly horse shit.
Barring that inevitable event, it is certainly possible that using MTC was his intention, but he could not determine at the upper end the viability of MTC Ford where the coulee met the crossing point. Perhaps that is why he decided to take the high ground to a point where he could see that MTC Ford narrows to a point where an opposed crossing would be highly problematic. Taking the high ground offers him an either-or, two possibilities, which remain possibilities, until one of those possibilities is eliminated. You get to N-C, look at B, find it not acceptable, and move to D, without a break in stride.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 30, 2016 10:53:41 GMT
Did the Custer column take water at the Eschelman Ford?, now just where are these fords in relation to any rout taken by Custer, are they nearer to SSR than the bluffs?
Lt. Varnum saw the Custer column at a point about 500 yards south of Reno hill.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 30, 2016 12:01:39 GMT
By five hundred yards south I expect he meant that the Custer column was five hundred yards south.
1) Where was Varnum?
2) How far away (west) from the bluffs when he saw them?
3) Did he say if he saw the column or just the dust they would inevitably create, which he took for the column?
4) Did he report his sighting to Reno, as he should? The column on the bluffs was a game changer for Reno - essential intelligence.
5) When did Varnum first report his sighting, and in what medium?
What I am getting at here is that Varnum was presumably a busy man at the time. I expect he would be fairly far away from the bluffs in pursuit of his assigned duties. We see things without realization of the fact we are seeing, and the significance of what we saw. I can see Varnum a day or two after the battle saying to himself ---- Christ, that dust I saw up there must have been Custer. That would be quite believable, at least to me. But then again, such a realization is a far cry from "seeing" Custer in the present tense. Everyone does this at one time or other. Steve will tell you that many times an eye witness to an event does not make the best witness for the prosecution.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Aug 30, 2016 12:15:00 GMT
OK You guys are beginning to confuse me. Luce is directly across from Middle and Cedar Coulees. The further east you go the longer you would have to travel in the bottom of MTC. Martin never claims to have climbed out of MTC on the other side.
I think we need to find Godfrey's route from the other side of MTC. If Custer was east of SSR it is a flat wide drainage. The Scouts would be a long ways from Custer if the were on the bluffs above the village.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 30, 2016 12:30:37 GMT
Yes I think he meant the Custer column was 500 yards down river from SSR. Varnum states that this sighting was made just after Reno had ordered dismount and deployment to skirmish order, and it was a proper sighting and no dust cloud. Varnum did speak to Reno later when they met in the timber, but I am unsure about what was actually said. Some of Reno’s men did say that they saw the column as they rode down the valley, but this was early in the piece as the column mounted the bluffs.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 30, 2016 12:36:47 GMT
Steve is this the route?
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Aug 30, 2016 13:35:38 GMT
Shame that can't overlaid on Google. Looks much like Godfrey's story. Ian, can you pick out Sharpshooter Ridge? My less than stellar old eyes think I can but not sure.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 30, 2016 15:18:18 GMT
Sorry Tom the map has not come up like it should, but here is a link to site were I got it from; linkHere is the map again with the red area around SSR (I think) and the yellow line Custer's route;
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Aug 30, 2016 22:02:06 GMT
In the light of discussions on the North to South Battle Flow thread I now feel Custer changed nothing after 3411. He was on the move as fast as possible to get beyond the village and the stop on the bluffs was a short one. We can probably never be sure of his exact route but I will say it was probably the one that was going to get him past the village and into the Ford D area as quickly as possible and as discretely as possible. I think AZ's tactical analysis is terrific thinking but I wonder if Custer was prepared to take the chance on warrior infiltration (or thought it not so probable) in the interests of speed? So what would be the fastest route? Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 31, 2016 3:06:52 GMT
I agree, speed was the essential element if any success was to be achieved.
Today the solution for an armor commander would be find a high ball, damn the flanks, and go for gold.
My money is over sharpshooter, then East-Luce-Nye-Cartwright-BR-BRE-Ford D.
I also think he should have not screwed around with Wolf Tooth as he apparently did, rather slip him the middle digit and blow right past him.
That's how Maurice Rose, Bob Grow, and P. Wood would have done it.
|
|