|
|
Post by royalwelsh on Jul 19, 2015 22:18:01 GMT
I think any discussion on the defeat of the US 7th Cavalry at the Little Big Horn river on 25/26 June 1876, including the complete wipe out of 5 companies under the command of Lt Col George Armstrong Custer, has to begin with an analysis of why only this regiment suffered a defeat of this scale during the Centennial Campaign or even during the entire Plains Wars period? Was there a uniquely aggressive or concentrated enemy? Was this regiment uniquely poorly trained? Was this regiment uniquely poorly led on 25/26 June 1876? Or was there simply "bad luck"...?
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 19, 2015 22:33:50 GMT
Or all of the above? Can any factors be eliminated because they existed at other battles?
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Jul 20, 2015 10:36:09 GMT
I think any discussion on the defeat of the US 7th Cavalry at the Little Big Horn river on 25/26 June 1876, including the complete wipe out of 5 companies under the command of Lt Col George Armstrong Custer, has to begin with an analysis of why only this regiment suffered a defeat of this scale during the Centennial Campaign or even during the entire Plains Wars period? Was there a uniquely aggressive or concentrated enemy? Was this regiment uniquely poorly trained? Was this regiment uniquely poorly led on 25/26 June 1876? Or was there simply "bad luck"...? I think we need to remember Fetterman and the problem of not understanding NA tactics (bait and trap) and of dividing the command or allowing it to be divided. Tactically did Custer understand that the hanging left flank of Reno in the valley was a gift, as NA were known to favour flanking , why wouldn't they? Certainly the men of the 7th seem to be, in many cases, poor riders. (training) Finally, the NA were unusually concentrated and therefore more aggressive. Again why would you not be? Put it all together it spells disaster. Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 20, 2015 12:42:44 GMT
Custer viewing the valley fight must have had an idea that Reno would naturally occupy the timber line to prevent any incursion on his right flank, which even I would see as a weak spot because if provided the Indians with cover, the left flank was open ground and great for any mounted attacks to sweep round Reno's left.
So I would hope (if I was Reno) that the horse herders had either rounded up or scattered the pony herd, thus denying the Indians their mobility.
Plus if you formulate any plan of attack, even one as rudimentary as Custer's then you need both of the attack groups to stay in the fight, with Reno being forced to fight his way out, virtually assured that his group out of the fight, leaving Custer as the only group left in the zone of operations.
Ian.
Ian.
|
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jul 20, 2015 15:15:33 GMT
There was only one true offensive movement against the enemy on June 25, 1876 by the 7th. That says a great deal.
Regards,
Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 20, 2015 17:01:09 GMT
Tom: I think what you said above is true, sort of.
No question in that Reno's was the only offensive move that culminated in an assault, but I also think that you could also rightly say that everything Custer did was offensive, in that he sent Benteen away for an offensive purpose, if there were Indians to be found, and I would also say that his movements onto the bluffs and northward were for an offensive purpose.
Don't have much doubt that if Benteen had found anything out there he would have conducted an assault.
Don't have much doubt that Custer would have done so as well, had he found a favorable opening. That leaves the open question though, why did he not determine if there could or possibly would be anything favorable up there before he brought so much of his force so far forward. Looking at this thing charitably, it seems his desire was for a coordinated attack on about the same objective as Reno, without knowing, size, access, trafficablity, and having some notion of hostile intention, beforehand.
AK likes the term OBE. I like to think back to the old Mickey Rooney, Judy Garland movies where some teenager says - Hey kids let's put on a show - and if by magic singers, dancers, and an orchestra suddenly appear as if this "show" had been a Broadway production. Just isn't like that in real life, where things like this are the product of a lot of hard work beforehand.
|
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jul 20, 2015 17:19:28 GMT
Sorry Chuck, you are right, Custer was certainly offensive on the 25th! Yes you can construe all of his moves, as of an offensive nature. You are in fact using the term correctly. Pardon me for the offensive remarks I have posted. I did not men to offend, I was just scouting around the board. Anything offensive was committed by accident. I don't mean to be a habitual and repeat offender.
Regards,
Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 20, 2015 18:34:52 GMT
OK. you win. When I stop laughing I am off to the doctor.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824 
|
Post by azranger on Jul 21, 2015 12:48:44 GMT
My thought it is a cumulative effect. It took all of the factors to suffer this defeat. Basically the 7th was fed to the Indians a few companies at a time. A failure to recognize the real life situation and to fight what was offered rather than what might be desired.
AZ Ranger |
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 21, 2015 13:32:52 GMT
You are right AZ, we know that Custer fielded 210 and Reno around 140, but how many managed to get to Weir peaks? companies D, H, K & M, would amount to around 150 all ranks?
That would mean that the village was never threatened by more than a third of the entire regiment at one time.
Yan.
|
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jul 21, 2015 14:12:26 GMT
My thought it is a cumulative effect. It took all of the factors to suffer this defeat. Basically the 7th was fed to the Indians a few companies at a time. A failure to recognize the real life situation and to fight what was offered rather than what might be desired.
AZ Ranger This may in fact the wrong place to ask these questions, but here goes. Would Custer's scouts, or anyone else with the 7th have noticed the war party trail coming and going to the Crook fight? Was not the combined village still on the east side of the river when the warriors left for the Crook fight? Would have anyone noticed the size of the trail, and the lack of poles being dragged? Was the command so locked in to attack mode and ardor to fight that they disregarded these signs? Remember this trail should have been discovered after Benteen went left on his scout, somewhere in the neighborhood of the "lone tepee." Would the command figure that Benteen would look into this when he crossed it?
So many questions, so few answers.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 21, 2015 14:36:14 GMT
Good to see AZ.
I like all three of these last posts in that they all go beyond the superficial. It is easy to say target fixation is the answer, and let it go at that, but it goes beyond and far deeper. What was done in this battle, and others, is fairly well known, but why, and we all must look at what could and should have been done, what should have been seen and was not, to fully understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 21, 2015 17:57:49 GMT
Where approximately would the war party's trail join the trail with lodge poles?
I would like to think that a scout worth his pay would have picked up the trail and I suspect they might have seen it. However I think they viewed it as more NA joining the village and didn't bother to notice that it was the trail of just people on horseback and not families traveling.
Beth
Great to see you AZ!
|
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 21, 2015 18:05:15 GMT
Yes Steve and his knowledge is invaluable.
Chuck, Custer was shedding strength in the days and hours leading up to the battle, once he realized how big his objective was then he tried to re-group with the note to Benteen being the start, in fact with Reno being busy in the valley Custer could have been depending on Benteen to get the rest of the regiment in the picture.
Yan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 21, 2015 18:15:16 GMT
Does anyone see the irony of the fact that Custer may have been defeated while waiting for the cavalry? It goes against almost every western movie ever made.
Something I have always wondered, given that Custer thought he knew where the enemy was and believed that they were fleeing, was sending Benteen on his valley hunt prudent?
Beth
|
|
