|
Post by quincannon on Dec 31, 2020 22:40:28 GMT
I have no doubt about either the German beer or Wagner's focus, zeal, and passion for the subject. Obsessions though are another matter, and he would not be the first, nor will he be the last, person in this world to run his ship aground, upon rocks and shoals steered by obsession.
It does not matter what source or sources he has Ian. Think about it, then look at many of the books in your library. An author will quote a source in a footnote, then when you go back to the notes and bibliography in the end pages of that book you find that his source is just the repetition of sources found in previous works by other authors. It becomes and endless cycle of repetition, and many times it is impossible for the reader to determine what the original source was, and if that source had any validity.
No, if you believe the theory of five companies going north, then it is impossible to believe the conventional theory or any part or parcel of it. By the same turn, if you believe the conventional theory, then it is impossible to believe anything near all five companies being in the north end of that battlefield. It's like you either voted for Trump OR Biden. You cant say I voted for both of them, nor can you say you gave both of them half a vote. Your feet must be in one mud puddle or the other. They cannot be in both.
So the bottom line is that if you believe Wagner's timed rehash of conventional thought, then everything we have discussed here for five years is for naught, it did not, nor could not happen. On the other hand if you believe the five company north theory, Wagner's book along with his timing is little better than fish wrapper, a complete waste of both time and money. It's all in what you believe, but you cannot believe both.
Yes, he argued about German order of battle with me once too. I had the complete German order of battle book by my side at the time, the one the Germans themselves produced and that was translated after the war by the U S Army. He never did it again.
Stealing a off topic moment here: My German half tracks that were mailed on 22 December from Massachusetts, left Massachusetts yesterday, according to the postal tracker, that updated this morning for the first time since the 22nd. Meanwhile my Valentine (1/56 scale) that I ordered from another place in Massachusetts on Tuesday (29th), will be here on Saturday
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Jan 1, 2021 5:34:54 GMT
Fair enough. If this new Dive Shop doesn't break me, I'll still sport your tab in the spirit of reconciliation.
Hoping to hit LBH next October, when the diving season in The Keys drops to almost zero. Maybe we could meet up and you can give me a tour, and a lecture. I'll pay you in beer.
Aloha,
Duane
Duane If you go to the battlefield, walk the road from Ford B up FF Ridge to Calhoun Hill. When you reach Calhoun Hill pause and run through your mind, as you observe the terrain, the whole business of Custer's approach to Ford B, then retire to Calhoun Hill, and then have a charge off Calhoun Hill into Calhoun Coulee, and so on (Wagner) . I think you will find it makes no sense. Also look closely at Calhoun Hill as a defensive position..it does not stack up well.
Before you go Read
Cheyenne Memories of the Custer Fight by Richard G Hardorff. Easily the most important book about the battle!
Reconstruct, map out, and consider what the Cheyenne are saying. Use the geographic markers they give in their accounts.
At the Battlefield
After Calhoun Hill walk through the Keogh position and then up to LSH and Cemetery Ridge. If you have understood what the Cheyenne have told you, then Custer taking all 5 companies to Ford D and being defeated while trying to break contact and move back will make perfect sense of the battle for you. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 1, 2021 7:45:19 GMT
Actually, all of Battle Ridge to include Calhoun Hill does not stack up well, unless you are commanding a 19th Century era brigade, that is at least 75 percent of full strength. There are no opportunities offered by the terrain to refuse your flanks, should that become necessary.
I concur with Mac's route suggestion and sequence for your visit. What I do not concur with is going to Montana in October. You are most likely going to freeze your tookus off. End of August, first part of September would be a better choice.
Mac, once Duane sees Calhoun Coulee he will see the light. I would sooner ride point for the Light Brigade at Balaclava than stick my nose in that goddamned hole.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Jan 3, 2021 11:02:27 GMT
I went late September and the weather was fine.
As QC says look hard at Calhoun Coulee Duane, consider where Lame White Man and his friends would have to come from in order to hit the flank of Company C and force them onto FF Ridge. Traditional (Wagner) view they were deployed in Calhoun Coulee below Greasy Grass facing Greasy Grass...inconceivable.
Then consider them newly deployed to FF Ridge and you will see their flank is exposed and the attack is totally consistent with accounts. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 3, 2021 16:34:40 GMT
To put a finer point on what Wagner theorizes Duane. Wagner has Indians in Calhoun Coulee that were causing problems for Company stationed, as he says. on Battle Ridge just north of Calhoun Hill. He has Company C occupying that position for the same period as Company L's period of occupation on Calhoun Hill. Somewhere during that time the Indians started giving Company C some real heartburn, with at least harassing fire, so it was decided that Company C charge mounted in that downward very narrow defile that has rugged high ground on both sides, which then levels off into a small basin directly in front of Greasy Grass Ridge, another piece of rugged high ground.
Now I do not doubt that Indians had infiltrated into, or were in he process of infiltrating into, Calhoun Coulee during this period. In fact I would bet the farm on it, as it was a covered and concealed route to Battle Ridge. What I find unrealistic is that, by the very nature of the terrain alone there are no clear fields of fire from that location onto Battle Ridge. They would be firing up hill, against unable to see targets, until they reached the very lip of the coulee that comes out on the ridge at the point where Battle Ridge, Calhoun Hill and Calhoun Ridge join together. A good map like the Bonafides as well as the McElfresh clearly show this. It is even more apparent when you view it in person.
The bottom line is that if things were as Wagner says they were, Company C may very well have ridden into Calhoun Coulee, but it is highly doubtful they would have ridden out alive. We know they did because we have evidence by a considerable number of markers that Company C's final organized position was on F-F Ridge.
It is much more likely that when Company C arrived they moved from behind Calhoun Hill mounted down the length of Calhoun Ridge to F-F Ridge where they were forced to dismount, or maybe dismounted of their own accord, formed a skirmish line facing Indians coming into the battle space from the Ford D area, and were overwhelmed fairly quickly. That in turn forces Company L, now positioned on the top of Calhoun Hill, to refuse their flank, due to Company C folding and trying to get off F-F Ridge.
Calhoun Coulee is a hell hole, that I would compare to some of the terrain on Peleliu and Okinawa. Not quite as difficult perhaps, but certainly just as tough to dig an enemy out of, and you sure as hell can't do it mounted.
The later in the year that you go to LBH, the more you chance snow, as well as very cold weather. If snow is on the ground it will defeat your purpose in going, as you will not be able to see the full effect terrain has on this battle. Mac's suggestion of late September is the uppermost limitation. If I recall, the year Mac visited, it was not two weeks later when the area was well below zero for a time, with heavy snow fall. I remember my telling Joan that Mac was lucky, and had he gone later he would have seen what Montana is really like in winter.
|
|
|
Post by rebcav on Jan 3, 2021 20:17:19 GMT
Looked up Calhoun Coulee and found a video of a guy explaining the terrain while filming it. Now I see what you're saying. A mounted charge down that hole would have been a disaster. But as an infiltration route it's almost worth it's weight in gold. It must have been VERY "disconcerting" to see a bunch of Indians all of a sudden "pop out" of that Coulee at such close range. Now I gotta re-think a bunch of stuff. It all so very confusing sometimes. And if it's confusing NOW, I could imagine the chaos on 25 June 1876. Went to find Calhoun Coulee in "Where Custer Fell", then realized my dad still has it.
Rethinking the October visit due to all the scary weather reports. Might do Vicksburg instead. Hope this finds everyone well. Aloha, Duane
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 3, 2021 20:36:41 GMT
Indeed it was worth its weight in gold as an infiltration route, but when you're infiltrating you ain't shooting, so that your presence will not be discovered while you are infiltrating. The opposite side of that coin is that Calhoun Coulee is also a potential death trap to infiltrators, IF the infiltration is detected, and there is sufficient force available for the friendlies to first blunt the infiltration, then surround the infiltrators on the high ground on two sides of the coulee, and destroy them. Such forces of course were not available, so in this instance the point is moot.
Wagner went to the same school I did, The Infantry School at Fort Benning teaches all this stuff, in fact the school pounds it into your head, so it is likely you never forget it, EVER. That is why I get upset with much of what he has in his book. It does not meet the Benning standard of best tactical practices, which in fact have been best practices since Hannibal Barca crossed the Alps, Moses parted the Red Sea, and Alexander rampaged from the Med to the Indian Ocean. Those lessons are so much in my memory that I can visualize learning and exercising them today. That was fifty five years ago. So when these obvious red flags in the conventional narrative are overlooked for the sake of Wagner's own agenda, I believe then that his whole body of work becomes a disservice to the subject, which is the direct opposite of what his intention was. In fairness he put one hell of a lot of work into what he did, and is to be commended for sticking to it for so long. I just wish he had produced something that could be relied upon.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Apr 1, 2021 17:49:10 GMT
An excellent addition to the reading list. Fred Wagner's new book "Marcus Reno in the Valley of the Little Bighorn." This book is the total package and Fred's best effort yet. He gives the background music for the entire action and how it impacts the performance in the valley. Using contemporary and modern military terminology and definitions to explain to readers Reno's actions. Wagner allows the reader to decide for themselves what they feel about Reno's performance, then he grades him, himself, predicted upon military doctrine.
A real solid read.
|
|