|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 2, 2017 19:26:19 GMT
Chuck, I don't know were Grey puts Thompson, Fred puts him north of Reno hill but some of the data I have goes back yonks to 2011 and comes from old discussions.
One point I wanted to make is that around the time he and Watson where making their way back to Reno hill, the balloon had gone up with Benteen and Weir getting ejected off the peaks, so this area would be alive with retreating cavalry and Indians.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 2, 2017 20:42:22 GMT
My theory Ian, and that is all it is, a nice word for guess, is that these four guys fell out before Custer slanted eastward. Two went to the rear and Thompson and eventually Watson got out of the open and down over the lip of those bluffs you see in the banner photograph. I fact I think they were probably somewhere within the confines of that picture.
They may have and probably did see Reno breakout, but were down low enough on the bluffs not to see Reno/Benteen go to Weir. More than likely they were scared out of their wits, and went nowhere for a couple of hours.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Aug 2, 2017 23:38:51 GMT
The timing Ian mentions and maps is compelling. The idea of covering that ground in 30 minutes under those conditions is nonsense. Also his battle description, as I remember it, bears no relationship to any other account or archaeology. It is an interesting story with grains of truth but that is all. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 3, 2017 0:24:31 GMT
His battle account Mac sounds like the 300 Spartans slaying the heathen horde by the thousands, but alas being overrun in the last extremity. It is exactly like the Alamo story in that regard. That type of thing was very popular in that day, especially when the overrunners, were considered a substandard species by those from which the overrun came
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 3, 2017 14:32:57 GMT
I don't know what the protocol would be in this situation, because these were cavalry men and if one of them drops out due to horse fatigue, then are they obliged to follow the column come what may? These troopers were on foot and knew that their supporting units are on the back trail and they also so knew that the way back was clear. So asking them to catch up with a fast moving column on foot into a combat zone sounds rather silly to me and heading back to friendly units is the logical choice.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 3, 2017 15:25:37 GMT
Thompson's story indicates a desire to follow the column even though he is dismounted. That is his story as written, but we do not really know what he was thinking at the time.
Let's examine the known facts (known by us and known by him.
1) He has lost his ability to keep up with the column.
2) He had no way of knowing what was behind him, where they were, what direction they would take etc.
3) He had no way of knowing the back trail was clear. All he knew was that it was clear as he passed through.
4) He knows that he cannot stay where he is and must find some temporary place of refuge.
That is all he knows, and he can/would only make a decision as to what to do based upon what he knows.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Aug 3, 2017 17:48:07 GMT
Was it normal to have men drop out because of their horses collapsing (as opposed to perhaps malingerers) or was this a problem unique to that day?
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Aug 3, 2017 19:55:34 GMT
Beth I know that I would sure be concerned dropping out of formation in the middle of the hostiles villages or near by them. Would any soldier know if there was a secure area to dismount and claim to have had a lame horse? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 3, 2017 22:49:36 GMT
I believe we have to look at the human dimension here.
Are the things Beth mentioned anything more than what all of us face every day of our lives, things break, humans tire, animals tire, fear rises up, people are lazy, incompetent, and some do anything they can to shirk their responsibilities?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2017 3:58:10 GMT
1. Straggling. People drop out of march columns, from ancient Sumer to today. Illness, injury, dehydration, etc, etc. The challenge is that most folks drop out because they physically can not keep up. But some folks drop out for mental reasons: fear, laziness, desire to commit crimes. As an easy example, google Sherman's "bummers".
2. LBH. Four folks dropped from Custer's column, all from the same company. Brennan and Fitzgerald fell back along the line of march until they joined the trailing elements. Watson and Thompson hid. I concur with QC that they headed to the nearest cover and concealment, that would place them on the forward slopes of the bluffs.
QC mentioned facts. It is a fact that Thompson's horse was found by the Reno force during the advance to Weir point. The markings on the saddle proved it was C Company, and it was handed over to senior C Co NCO, our friend SGT Kanipe.
3. I do not regard PVT Thompson as evil. Many years later, he wrote an account for local media. He sexed it up. He borrowed things he heard from other participants as if he witnessed them. He also added things from that era's media, dime store novels etc. He likely had help from the media in making the story sexier.
4. The account of witnessing a band of troops being circled by mounted Indians is classic nonsense. He can not witness what did not happen. Indian accounts, archeology, terrain prove this as a fabrication. But it was very common in media of that era and in dime store novels.
5. Sexing up accounts is still being done. The book and movie on Operation Red Wings is full of fabrication. Total number on enemy KIA is zero. Total number of enemy WIA is zero. We know this beyond a shadow of a doubt, the damn fight was video taped by 5 cameras. So next time you see movie Lone Survivor, understand enemy was two four man teams, and none were hurt. Movie shows dozens/hundreds of enemy hurt. A total lie.
6. I have more examples of current battles with false accounts. I will do so in whisper or mail, as our people died. The false accounts are to cover up how our bad decisions and bad tactics got our folks killed for no reason. (Tarawa ring a bell?). The weird thing for today, we have drone and airborne videos proving the lies. I do not mind that we keep the media off the military's internal failures. I do mind when the cover up is to hide the things that went wrong. Then we promote commanders who failed in battle, and continue bad tactics that lead to future combat deaths. (Patilla airfield)
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Aug 4, 2017 6:19:39 GMT
Thank you gentlemen. I was unsure if it was a normal thing to happen, a few more moments of thought and I probably would have realized that the answer was yes.
I tend to think that perhaps Thompson had help 'sexing the story up' to bad it is probably too late to see who actually benefited from the account.
The man acted bravely on Reno Hill, it's to bad that this account of his experiences sometimes take away from the rest of his story.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 4, 2017 13:48:02 GMT
I suppose it would be natural to lose so many troopers in the advance, it was bloody hot and the horses had been going at it for hours, but we all think of the few from C Company, but the other Companies too had men drop out of the column, only Calhounās Company L had no stragglers;
C Company; John Brennan Morris Farrar John Fitzgerald Peter Thompson James Watson
E Company; William Reese William Shields
F Company; John Sweeney
I Company; Gustave Korn
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Aug 4, 2017 14:06:00 GMT
William,
Not only was the airfield a bit of a mess, so was placement of charges on an armored boat in the harbor. As a matter of fact neither of those plans worked out in a "nifty" fashion.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 4, 2017 16:56:08 GMT
This above is the second mention I can recall of Montrose disagreeing (his mention of Tarawa) with the Central Pacific thrust in the two pronged operational concept dealing with the Pacific War.
I disagree, in fact I strongly disagree.
This thread perhaps is inappropriate as a place, but if you are willing Will, I will be glad to take you on in a through discussion of the topic elsewhere on the board.
Mind you, I am talking strategy and operations here, not tactics. The tactics were functions of the physical conditions on each of the individual islands. Sometimes they were good, sometimes not so much, but that can be said of all battle.
The question is were the operational concepts, and the strategic objectives correct. I would suggest you read Hornfischer's "Fleet at High Tide" and then we can engage. A boxer is no good if they can only offer a right hook or a left jab. They must have both for balance to pose a credible threat.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 4, 2017 19:21:20 GMT
I would love to have a discussion involving island fighting in the pacific, when I mean island fighting I mean mainly land battles with the emphasis on troops on the ground rather than air force and navy.
|
|