|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 18, 2018 11:46:49 GMT
Hi Dan, hope you get better soon, a similar virus almost killed in my Sister a while back and has done in poor old Ken Dodd, I know a lot of people who live and work in old peoples homes and it is going through the old folks like wild fire.
Anyway back on track; If you can’t justify the idea of all five going forward, then how can you justify the notion that a commander like Custer would plonk three of his companies on a big ridge then carry on forward with just two. Leaving a large portion of your force behind and moving forward with whats left gets you nowhere, in fact you are playing into your enemies hands.
Everything you read about this part of the battle says that Custer took off over the bluffs at speed, this high rate of knots was the reason so many horses broke down. So Custer his traveling at speed over the bluffs and to his left he sees Reno’s battalion in three columns of fours heading towards his objective, so he knows the game is a foot and speed is the key to get behind the village while Reno does as much damage as he can.
He then sends for Benteen, again with the words “be quick” so everything is in motion and time is the essence. Now when he reaches the ridge line above deep coulee, I think he takes stock of the situation and proceeds forward to battle ridge, now he can see activity in the village and assumes that every one is moving north probably in an effort to get away, so he reads the topography and probably consults Bouyer and comes to the idea of blocking the Indian escape rout and actually crossing the river at a point in which to drive them all back south.
So if you add all these things together you have an aggressive commander who requires speed and man power to obtain his goal and that to me means, get to the northern edge of this village with every man I have, while the rest of my regiment pitches in from the south and hopefully we can bag the lot.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Mar 18, 2018 12:46:35 GMT
Tom, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I may need your help again and you Steve, in regards to which direction they took as this is new ground for me and if they took this route, they were nowhere near Ney-Cartwright ridge and at the northern end of battle ridge instead of the south. Check out the map and see the two routes which follow the creeks on the map, if they did move up one of these creeks and spotted the soldiers for the first time then this changes everything; Custer Creek runs approximately parallel to Highway 212. There are several drainages that move to and away from the battlefield. I suspect that Wolf Tooth was going to use Custer Creek to get around the guards that were out and to intercept Custer. Wolf Tooth was called back before he could see Custer so he had no knowledge until he moved back. The drainage we ride along the Custer Battlefield continues across the highway north and runs into Custer Creek. If you look at Google pro you see a pull out on highway 212 and also where the two track roads meets the highway. There is a hill at that intersection which has Indian artifacts consistent with the battle.
If you move back the Highway towards Putts there is a gate along the highway. Tom and I have seen the Cheyennes going in there an uphill toward the battlefield. Both the Ford Ds gathering and this gathering below BRE have some significance to the Cheyennes. They are not public participation scheduled events. Also the ride from Reno Creek to the battlefield is a Cheyenne event but at least the public can see them close up when they ride along the road between Custer and Reno/Benteen.
Regards
Steve
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Mar 18, 2018 14:49:05 GMT
Here is the Google earth image. The gate they used is near the 212 marker. The red lines are distances from LSH and where a carbine was found and the hill with Indian artifacts.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 18, 2018 19:33:10 GMT
So Steve, do you think that WT & BF first moved out of the village in northeasterly direction?
I always thought that they went more towards the south or southeast and that how WT saw the soldiers moving down deep coulee and drew the directions accordingly on his map, which wouldn't have been possible if he was up north.
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on Mar 18, 2018 21:14:50 GMT
So if you add all these things together you have an aggressive commander who requires speed and man power to obtain his goal and that to me means, get to the northern edge of this village with every man I have, while the rest of my regiment pitches in from the south and hopefully we can bag the lot. Ian,
You are absolutely correct, and this is the main cause for 5 companies of US Cavalry being destroyed. Custer as always didn't give a damn about his mission, Terrys orders, the Army of anything but his own fame.
If you remember the main thrust of Custers mission was to prevent the Indians from escaping to the South. Terry wanted them to head North. With that many Indians and animals they would have to follow the LBH River where Terry would be waiting for them. He would have them in a hammer and anvil. But what does old George do, he tries to prevent them from heading North, exactly the opposite of his orders, so he could claim the victory all for himself........How did that work out.
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 18, 2018 23:36:10 GMT
And I thought you had reformed Dan, seen the light, been born again in the blood of George. Alas, Alas, the world turns
Although you correctly pin the tail on Custer's donkey the sad thing is that any competent tactician, one without a desire for fame and adulation could have accomplished his mission by taking the steps that both mission and prudence demanded,and could have accomplished what Terry ordered without firing an offensive shot, or as an alternative could have forced the Indians to attack him, placing them at a disadvantage.
Had Custer positioned himself between the present camp and the Big Horns he could have cut off that access to the south. They could not go west toward Crow Country. There was insufficient water available to go eastward, and north along the river would have become the only alternative placing them within the vice of Terry's anvil, and Custer's hammer.
Excellent.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Mar 19, 2018 0:52:37 GMT
Nice gentlemen; perhaps the last nail in the tactical analysis.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 19, 2018 11:13:57 GMT
I commend you boys for giving me a lesson in what this mission was all about, but it has little to do with my post to Dan [not Dan Benteen].
What balls he made of his orders is part of the bigger picture, the part I am eluding to is the way he turned right up the bluffs and went north, but I thank you both for reminding me of the overall campaign.
In fact let me take this further, now there are a few people on this board who have studied GAC the man and officer much more then I have, so can any of you recall him ever leaving a portion of his attack force to sit on a feature while he wanders off to seek alternative objective? Remember that I am talking about a combat situation and Custer aware that half of his regiment where possibly engaged elsewhere. Would he take such a pause whist a another battle was taking place around the corner and the soldiers involved were his own?
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Mar 19, 2018 15:03:01 GMT
So Steve, do you think that WT & BF first moved out of the village in northeasterly direction? I always thought that they went more towards the south or southeast and that how WT saw the soldiers moving down deep coulee and drew the directions accordingly on his map, which wouldn't have been possible if he was up north. Ian
I think an Indians rode out to call WT back and let him know the soldiers were closer than thought. Some time after that WT saw Custer but he also knew to look for him. I am not aware of where WT left the Big Village and I think many others may have left at various river crossings. They would know where the guards were posted and therefore how to avoid them.
Regards
Steve
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on Mar 19, 2018 22:17:04 GMT
In fact let me take this further, now there are a few people on this board who have studied GAC the man and officer much more then I have, so can any of you recall him ever leaving a portion of his attack force to sit on a feature while he wanders off to seek alternative objective? Remember that I am talking about a combat situation and Custer aware that half of his regiment where possibly engaged elsewhere. Would he take such a pause whist a another battle was taking place around the corner and the soldiers involved were his own? Ian,
Hope this helps a little. I am not an expert on Custer, but from what little I have learned, it would appear (anyone can correct me) it would appear that during the bulk of Custers combat career which was the Civil War, he was always under some ones command. They would be the ones to do the thinking and tell Custer where to go and what to do. Mainly to charge. So if this is true than I don't think Custer spent much time if any at all, seeking alternative objects. He basically went where he was told and did what he was told to do. Again usually to charge
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 20, 2018 3:19:10 GMT
Dan: You are correct, as a brigade and divisional commander he always had a superior close by and was wisely used as an attack dog which did not require much in the way of brains.
On those few occasions that he slipped the leash he did cause his superiors some heartburn. One such incident was hanging some of Mosby's men. Pretty detailed account of it in "Ranger Mosby" by Virgil Carrington Jones, which is probably available at your local library.
Funny thing was that Grant came to despise Custer, and greatly admire John Mosby who served in the Grant Administration.
|
|
|
Post by dan25 on Mar 21, 2018 13:11:39 GMT
I haven't had a good flu like this since the last one. One thing is for sure, the older you get the tougher it is to deal with.
After reading my post again, I believe I owe an explanation for my poor choice of words regarding, "I just can't justify it". Just learning the old, or some what accepted theory of C, I and L being left behind while Custer took E and F looking for another ford was easy to accept since the people that presented it had spent at lot of time and effort trying to determine and explain what happened. A considerable difference than some author just writing a book using information he borrowed from other people.
I was still learning and questioning the other or original theory and then to be introduced to a new theory. I still don't completely understand the old theory. I have never asked the question why Custer would have left three companies behind, and to be honest I never gave it a thought as of yet. I did take QC and Mac's advice and began reading the post's, "Custer moves to Ford D with Five Companies" I must say it is very convincing. At the rate I read, then try to absorb what I have read I will be celebrating Christmas before I finish.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 21, 2018 13:33:57 GMT
D25, If you have not read Godfrey tells a tale, please do so, that in conjunction with JSIT has made me wonder and think.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 21, 2018 16:34:39 GMT
D25: Everyone including myself accepted the conventional story, or most of it, for a very long time. I would venture that most of us did not give much thought to it as well.
When this board was founded almost four years ago, the founders determined that this site would be one that prided itself on the free exchange of information, and that nothing was an untouchable sacred cow.
This theory developed from Mac's visit to LBH a couple of years ago, and a dinner that I had with Mac a week or so later here in Colorado Springs. Mac was troubled after walking the field. His civilian occupation as a scientist allowed him to view it from a completely different perspective. He shared those troubling factors with me at that dinner, which started me on the road to questioning the whole story from a slightly different perspective, that of tactical best practices. Not being an expert in the mobile application of tactical principles, I am a foot solder through and through, I called on Colt a tanker to fill in my body of knowledge and it grew from that point. The lions share however of this work can be attributed to Mac, Steve, Tom and Ian.
So the end result was it took us all better than two Christmases to fine tune all of this and there is still work to be done.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Mar 21, 2018 20:53:24 GMT
Dan25 in case you have not noticed I have put a summary of the theory in the Basics section to make it easy for people like yourself to get an overview.
It is a theory that we are investigating so feel free to bring proof to the contrary to test the theory.
Cheers
|
|