dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 17, 2018 23:03:19 GMT
Everyone and everyone gravitated to George. Regards David
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 18, 2018 0:39:09 GMT
I think you missed my point Dave. What if it was George that refused to leave a wounded Tom, or the other brother Boston, or the Reid kid.
I would think that would be equally plausible.
These though are the things that drive me bat shit about LBH. I am of the opinion that these people were supposed to be professional soldiers, to whom duty was a sacred concept, and not doing that duty on either the battlefield or any other time was unthinkable. Death is something a professional soldier lives with every day, not only in combat, but also in training. We are careful about how we do our job and are really stingy about expending lives, the fewer the better, and when we must, it hurts down deep just as much for the poor kid you really didn't get to know as it would for your own brother or sister.
But what do we get in all this bull shit we hear about LBH. It is more about the foibles, pratfalls, and misconduct of the personalities rather than looking at the battle as an exercise in tactics, or more specifically the application of bad tactics. The story is very simple. George Custer leading a regiment of cavalry f**ked up his leadership and tactical employment of that regiment to the extent that there was needless cost of nearly three hundred lives. Whose brother played suck up, whose brother in law screwed the pooch, what Captain was trying to play patty fingers with the Colonel's wife, which officer could out drink all others, which private, who was more intimate with his horse than girls, corresponded with what Captain, whose nephew picked his nose, is all needless bull shit that tell us absolutely nothing about what happened
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 18, 2018 10:10:44 GMT
It has come through now.
I got the book from a charity shop, thought I would do my bit.
I have his "British Army Handbook 1939-45" and it is very good, I know you had issues with his US number, but I have almost complete set of handbooks [US, UK, USSR, Japanese and German], I just need an Italian one to finish the job, but I have never seen one until today and it was on line, it was rather expensive at around £12, mainly because it was only issued in small numbers.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jan 18, 2018 11:59:05 GMT
Ian, neither did the Italian Army, and besides 1945 would have been way too late for them.
The above, regarding the LBH has been good reading. Chuck, you mention in your last post, "tactics." Now those tactics may not have been as bad had GAC shared them, with say Reno. Also, had he(GAC) pulled the plug on Benteen's scout and given him specific orders prior to, or concurrent with dispatching Reno and proceeding to the heights on his own movement.
Dave your hypothesis, is well reasoned based on human nature and may have skewed thinking, we will never know. I just don't see Tom as part of HQ, on orders.
Regards, Tom
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Jan 18, 2018 12:06:58 GMT
Ian, neither did the Italian Army, and besides 1945 would have been way too late for them. The above, regarding the LBH has been good reading. Chuck, you mention in your last post, "tactics." Now those tactics may not have been as bad had GAC shared them, with say Reno. Also, had he(GAC) pulled the plug on Benteen's scout and given him specific orders prior to, or concurrent with dispatching Reno and proceeding to the heights on his own movement. Dave your hypothesis, is well reasoned based on human nature and may have skewed thinking, we will never know. I just don't see Tom as part of HQ, on orders. Regards, Tom Agree with your second paragraph Tom. The 5 companies to ford D theory makes all involved look better (note just better ) in my view. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 18, 2018 15:35:25 GMT
Tom, the Italian book was dated 1940-43. It should have been dated 1940, because after Beda Fomm, they played mainly a secondary role.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 18, 2018 15:39:25 GMT
We have only three incidents to work with concerning TWC. The Godfrey story The Kanipe Story The Martini Story.
Kanipe said that Tom sent him back with a verbal message, so because Kanipe was a company C sergeant, we can say that Tom was with his company.
Martini was with the HQ and mentions that the General [GAC] was with his Brothers.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 18, 2018 16:11:03 GMT
Ian: Move E to where you have F. Then reduce the beaten zone for E to where it just touches the trees, Move F into the basin near the end of the trail leading down the middle of Cemetery Ravine to where you see the Deep Ravine head cut. That is the basin. Turn the F marker then to where it is oriented southwest, shooting into the Deep Ravine head cut. This is what Wagner says they were doing there. Reduce the beaten zone for F as well, going no further than the river. Change those directional arrows to red to make it easier for everyone to read, Remove the box you have for the E Horses and replace it with just a yellow H. and move the H to the visitors center, just to the right of the green shaded area which is the cemetery.
I want to make this a picture of what Wagner put into words on the other board.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 18, 2018 16:43:55 GMT
Tom, actually the tactics would have been good for a brigade, if you disregard the Benteen sojourn westward. They are not so hot for a six hundred man regiment though.
No Ian we cannot say T. Custer was commanding his company because he sent Kanipe a Company C sergeant back. We can say T. Custer was with his company because any requirement to send someone back would by protocol and the proper use of the chain of command demand that requirement be sent THROUGH the company commander. The sending through is what puts T. Custer in command of his company. Had T. Custer been working with the headquarters it would not be proper for him to go directly to Kanipe. He would have gone to Harrington, who in turn would go to Kanipe.
With his brothers --- I am with my brothers on this site. I am with my brothers and sisters when I go to church on Sunday. I am with my brothers when I go to the Army-Navy game and sit on the Army side of the stadium. Henry V was with his few, his happy few, his Band of Brothers at Agincourt. I am sorry to say that unless we can define brothers what Martini says tells us nothing. To leap to conclusions as many have done before, that this one word from Martini really meant Tom and Boston, is to leap off of a cliff, because there is no evidence one way or another in that one word - brothers.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 18, 2018 17:55:27 GMT
Ian I have a book by Forty on the British Army circa 1980's. He did a great job on that one which leaves me with the inescapable conclusion that he should stay home.
Tom Custer being assigned to the headquarters is just nothing more than a bunch of conventional thinkers who in their neck deep wading in the pool of convention have lost their ability to discern facts for themselves. In other words they form a band of lazy slugs who fully accept the pablum fed to them over the years to the point where they are unable to think for themselves.
I am in hopes that Ian will amend that map as I laid it out above, as a visual recreation of what Wagner has said on the other board. When done, I believe you all will come to the inescapable conclusion that such a disposition of forces with only two companies would leave the right flank totally open, and an avenue for envelopment that would preclude anyone getting back to LSH if these positions Wagner puts them in are accurate.
The key fault in Wagner's positioning of forces is the location of the Company E horses. If the horses were run off at that location, then the Indians are already between E and F and LSH, and those running them off could have only come from one place, around the right flank.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 18, 2018 20:58:36 GMT
I have had a go, using what you described. I will we was doing this together in person so I can nail it.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 18, 2018 21:14:42 GMT
Pretty close. Move F down toward the river more moved closer to those three little notches you can see cut in the bluffs, but stay in the basin, and you nailed it. You are looking for a place beside and a little below that square yellow dot on the map. Make those red marks enter both beaten zones, but make them shorter, so as it does not appear the Indians were penetrating those positions, just attacking them The Indians that got the horses were coming from Highway 212, not through E.
I wish we could too, but for now pretend you are a battalion commander in Afghanistan, and I am that ass hole located just a few miles down the road from me controlling the drone that is providing you over watch and intel. Same principle to what we are doing here.
KEEP IN MIND HERE
I am not believing any of this happened this way. What I am trying to illustrate is the Wagner troop disposition is flawed, in terms of how these things unfolded. This is only one version of what would have probably happened if what Wagner says is correct.
It does not take any sort of tactical genius to figure out, given this graphic presentation of troop positions with only two companies involved, that these two units would have quickly become surrounded and any stand that was made would more than likely have been on Cemetery Ridge and in the Cemetery Ravine basin, not on Last Stand Hill.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Jan 19, 2018 0:11:11 GMT
My belief is that because Tom Custer is found on LSH when Company C are at Calhoun Hill, he is attributed to the headquarters group. Maybe Smith was part of the headquarters ! QC is absolutely correct in that this geometry does not work. Fred tries to fit the data to the story rather than the story to the data. Remember that the archaeology shows warrior firing positions on BRE exactly as the red line illustrates. The two company story simply CANNOT be true. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 19, 2018 1:21:38 GMT
Concur. The Wagner geometry is all wrong.
Where I differ is - The two company theory can be correct, maybe, but it cannot be correct in the version we have been told for one hundred forty years, and which Wagner repeats with his book and recent posts on the other board. The geometry is wrong for all of them.
The only possible way for the two company theory is:
There was an excursion to Ford B but there was no movement to Ford D. There was no movement further forward than LSH, which eliminates anything happening of Cemetery Ridge, or any Army activity on Battle Ridge Extension.
It would also mean that a two company skirmish line existed in Cemetery Ravine at some juncture and that this line became split during the fighting leaving E down in that hole (as the E Troop book has them) and F collapsed on itself at LSH.
All this then means that Custer was only trying to defend on Battle Ridge with his whole force, thus the positioning of C and L, and still you would be scratching your head as to why Company I was back where they were apparently with their knickers down around their ankles.
Now make that pot full of crap I just painted on the side of your barn work with all of the evidence and testimony.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 19, 2018 16:06:43 GMT
New map;
|
|