|
Post by quincannon on Apr 17, 2019 6:09:41 GMT
Could not help of thinking of you as I watched Gettysburg tonight. Those discussions we had on firepower and maneuver were never more graphically portrayed on screen.
The books are the entire Scrivener series complete, plus a lot of biographical material and a couple of fine books on Gettysburg. We need to connect somehow, and I was thinking that someone that was passing through Colorado, may meet up with you along the way.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Apr 17, 2019 12:27:23 GMT
An old saying here "the older I get the better I used to be." For this battle read "the older I get the closer I was to the action" The point I was making was not that we reject warrior testimony. Of course we read it, research the probable location of the informant, check terrain references, and correlate with the archaeology. I certainly believe for example, using these criteria, that the group we, for convenience, reference as Company C did move from the ridge out onto FF ridge where they were quickly attacked by Lame White Man's force.
As to older, later contributions like the musings of many authors, I say forget them and start from where the new archaeology has taken us.
People like Curley and Thompson, lets be skeptical and follow the above criteria.
I believe Thompson's geography stands up to scrutiny. I do not for a second believe his description of fighting at Ford B, as it bears no resemblance to any other evidence.
Just wanted to be clear. Cheers
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Apr 17, 2019 12:33:21 GMT
Ian or AZ or others. How about a map based on the Colt, QC theory of the movement to the big W contact and the movement of Custer to go past the opposition and around them?
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Apr 17, 2019 20:05:43 GMT
That is something I can do over the Easter, maybe good Friday? Just need to try and pin down Colts route so I can transpose it onto a google map.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 17, 2019 20:52:52 GMT
The one you have already done Ian, is Colt's route exactly if you move the blue line a bit off of the park road and more into Deep Coulee. Check with Colt before you draw, but I am pretty sure that is correct.
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 439
|
Post by colt45 on Apr 17, 2019 23:20:22 GMT
Yan, Chuck is correct. Move the blue line off the road (high ground) and down into deep coulee moving east toward the other drainage that runs north/south more or less. That would be the tactically correct route for the maneuver element to use to move around the right flank of the hostiles being engaged.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Apr 18, 2019 4:29:58 GMT
I think it has been pointed out that this movement by Custer around the W to its west brings him past the Butler marker. This would make some sense of why Butler was following this route on the way back to the south. It would also add to the idea that the intended return to the south was along this route, adding a factor to why Company C moved to Company L,s right when they arrived.
Curley says there was a conversation between Custer and Bouyer in MTC I think (?), my mind goes to wondering when in this timeline that conversation occurred before the engagement at the W or after? Excited by this idea, well done QC. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Apr 18, 2019 19:35:20 GMT
Hi everyone, sorry about the delay, lot of work to do before the Easter holidays. Here is the map based on Colts idea;
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Apr 19, 2019 12:13:05 GMT
Thank you Ian! I am stretching my memory of that terrain but I feel that the route would be closer to the yellow line than to the river. AZ, Tom or others do you have an opinion? Cheers
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 439
|
Post by colt45 on Apr 19, 2019 21:42:04 GMT
My memory of the terrain is question is that it is a gentile sloping, not an abrupt altitude change. Therefore, to remain concealed, the maneuver element has to move further away from the yellow line in order to remain masked by the terrain. Not sure how far away that has to be, so Mac may very well be correct. We are talking about needing around 10-12 feet (height of horse and rider) lower elevation in order to be concealed.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 20, 2019 0:56:55 GMT
Agree with both of you. Earlier I said on the eastern edge of MT Coulee, that could also been expressed as the lower western slope of the L-N-C ridge complex. I do not see any maneuvering element closer that five to six hundred meters from Ford B.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Apr 20, 2019 1:48:43 GMT
QC I regret we can not meet up this Spring/Summer this year but there is always Fall. As much as I would love to have the books I believe I would enjoy the opportunity to just sit and chat with you more. Our views and ideas are very diverse but that is what would make the conversation so enjoyable. Don't give up on me as I am sure doing some powerful thinking on how to get to Colorado, with permission of course. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Apr 20, 2019 10:05:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Apr 20, 2019 10:05:15 GMT
Ian, the map is really close, the elbow in the blue line is too sharp. It should not reach the park road. When I blow your map up on the board from your rendering you need to move 1/4 inch further from where it touches the road.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Apr 20, 2019 11:06:54 GMT
|
|