|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 21, 2015 22:02:04 GMT
I think Beth that they threw the job together and used what they had at hand, if the resources were not available they pretty much got on with it.
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 21, 2015 22:33:14 GMT
To quote Eisenhower
"Plans are nothing; planning is everything."
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 21, 2015 22:35:09 GMT
Innovation and the use of field expedients are to be applauded, but it also has severe limitations. This was, in fact, a self inflicted wound. Imagine not knowing from at least 1866 onwards that mule pack trains were much more mobile over road less expanses of hostile terrain than wagons. While the use of the rivers was innovative this shortfall was nearly unforgivable.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 22, 2015 0:49:22 GMT
Innovation and the use of field expedients are to be applauded, but it also has severe limitations. This was, in fact, a self inflicted wound. Imagine not knowing from at least 1866 onwards that mule pack trains were much more mobile over road less expanses of hostile terrain than wagons. While the use of the rivers was innovative this shortfall was nearly unforgivable. Hadn't Crook been using mule trains for quite a while before 1876? Could part of the problem have been sort of bias in the Cavalry against mules?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 22, 2015 1:00:41 GMT
Don't know. Stuart as quartermaster of the Mounted Rifles used them in the 1850's too.
|
|
|
Post by royalwelsh on Jul 22, 2015 1:27:36 GMT
Innovation and the use of field expedients are to be applauded, but it also has severe limitations. This was, in fact, a self inflicted wound. Imagine not knowing from at least 1866 onwards that mule pack trains were much more mobile over road less expanses of hostile terrain than wagons. While the use of the rivers was innovative this shortfall was nearly unforgivable. Hadn't Crook been using mule trains for quite a while before 1876? Could part of the problem have been sort of bias in the Cavalry against mules? Beth,
It's interesting to look at the different approach of the two departments....maybe there was a Yellowstone fixation/bias....?
RW
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 22, 2015 3:09:18 GMT
Hadn't Crook been using mule trains for quite a while before 1876? Could part of the problem have been sort of bias in the Cavalry against mules? Beth,
It's interesting to look at the different approach of the two departments....maybe there was a Yellowstone fixation/bias....?
RW
Maybe it was harder to convince midwest farmers to give up their mules?
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 439
|
Post by colt45 on Jul 22, 2015 13:37:11 GMT
It was interesting that Crook, in pushing to the Rosebud, put his infantry up on the pack mules, leaving his wagons behind. I think this was a mistake in that he left the majority of his supplies behind, rolling the dice that he would be fine with the 4-5 days of supplies they carried. When he used up most of his supplies in the battle of the Rosebud, he had to turn back, leaving no southern prong in the the 3-prong movement to LBH.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jul 22, 2015 13:57:49 GMT
I think this was a mistake in that he left the majority of his supplies behind, rolling the dice that he would be fine with the 4-5 days of supplies they carried. This situation raised it's ugly head again, later in the campaign. It was somewhat of a starvation march, performed by Crook ending in Deadwood, it was also called the "Horsemeat March."
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 22, 2015 18:25:38 GMT
In the book “The March of The Montana Column” Lt. Bradley mentions that on the journey from Fort Shaw to Fort Ellis, his battalion of 12 officers and 195 men had ten wagons to carry 10 days rations, personal effects of the officers and men, camp equipage and extra ammunition.
Imagine 10 wagons to supply around same number of men that Custer took over the bluffs.
Yan.
|
|