|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 19, 2020 10:51:09 GMT
Mac, as you can see, one of the firing lines is below Luce ridge and also giving that Indian fire points are below them, I would guess they are shooting down into MTC. Also there are more cavalry firing positions actually on Luce, which can suggests that we have two lines of advance. The finds on Luce could be directed towards the east but with no Indian fire points in that direction, they could also be directed into MTC. We also have another group of finds below the "W" around ten army casings, which could suggests a smaller group of soldiers, but giving all the action from both sides, I wouldnt send a small company of 38 all ranks through that area to the ford.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Aug 19, 2020 13:24:58 GMT
Mac
I think all action was from small numbers of Indians until they cross Deep Coulee. I think the action from the west was from that mixed group of Cheyenne and Sioux that got up MTC before the larger number of Indians responded up Deep Coulee. I think JSIT shows the mixed Cheyenne Sioux group. I believe a few Dog Soldiers were with that group. The group from the east would most likely be the Cheyenne hunting party returning down MTC. A few years back we were on a field trip with Dixon and he told the account of the returning Cheyenne hunters. There are artifacts to the east of the line through Luce and Nye Cartwright. It has the same small number of soldier artifacts in response to the Indian positions. Another site is north and east and I believe that would be wolf tooth.
The Real Birds claim to have picked up buckets of soldier cases in MTC. If the firing is from across the river it would be well over 600 yards distance. We know the soldiers were willing to fire from such distances but there seems to be very little hits made.
In that line of single markers it appears to me to similar to small number of shooters following a group and hitting one at the intervals shown by the markers. I think it is the Maguire map route which matches the current markers. It is also consistent with other theories. I do reject that it is a line over 1500 yards wide moving down the drainages and they are all shot on that line.
Regards
Steve
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Aug 19, 2020 13:46:12 GMT
What appears to be happening in our research is that small numbers of Indians were everywhere on the battlefield. Their timing and location leads to accounts that don't match up with others. So are they untruthful or do we have the locations in time wrong.
I think the split in MTC makes Benteen and Godfrey correct and the Indian accounts also. If a Sioux draws the Gray Horses near MTF and also on CR but with no riders what made him do that?
I believe that Donahue has the Gray Horses and C moving up Deep Coulee toward Calhoun Hill and then E and F moving north. He has them moving out BRE and returning across Cemetery Ridge.
The artifacts of .45-70 cases have matches at BRE and Calhoun Hill. On BRE there are 14 carbines with 4 matching the Calhoun Area. So Donahue has them placed on the Calhoun on the way over to BRE and retrograde could have BRE first and then the Calhoun Area.
I think the Maguire map is close to what Curley states he observed. The split makes Godfrey and Benteen accounts possible. To refute Godfrey with all 5 companies doesn't takes as much evidence. I don't think Benteen ever states that he believed all five companies were within 600 yards of MTF.
I believe that Godfrey saw the trail in real time but I believe it was three companies and the route is as stated by the eyewitnesses. If Godfrey is only drawing a arch to show that some soldiers went straight across MTC to the Calhoun Area than up to that point everything matches. Where I think he is wrong is that he has no movement by any soldiers north of LSH. That is not correct. Soldiers were there and one theory has it as E and F. Another as all five companies.
Regards
Steve
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Aug 19, 2020 14:59:37 GMT
In my job for the last 20 years I was the Law Enforcement Program Supervisor. Our district officers perform about 40% of their time in law enforcement. Some districts that 40% could be 90% watercraft. I believe that I took a Game Warden approach when working hunters and fisherman. That would be a friendly approach since they did nothing wrong. If you poach a deer you are not a hunter. You are a violator. That would be a different approach. At the time I started we were almost 90% law enforcement. Do to the fair labor standard act the Game Warden part of the job was destroyed. If you worked more than 50% in law enforcement of your time you were not professional and eligible for overtime. You could not work hours and not claim them. One time my diary had 350 miles and only working 3 hours. Levi told me to make sure the minimum number of hours reported would be with the speed limits.
The agency took on watercraft and ohv activities which are not Game Warden work. Officers were assigned numbers of hours in Watercraft and Off Highway vehicle patrol according to their district. Those hours came out of the 40% that the officers could do within FLSA guidelines. So the Game Warden turned into an officer sitting at home on a computer or field work in habitat evaluation and wildlife surveys.
I was proud of the Game Warden work that I did in the Verde Valley.
In 1992 I became the Law Enforcement Program Supervisor and no longer performed district Wildlife Manager activities. So for over 20 years I was not doing the Game Warden activities of a district Wildlife Manager.
As the Program supervisor we constantly analysed how we did things and how we could improve. Almost every operation that involved more than two officers was analysed for what we did right, what we did wrong, and how we could improve. When a case was involved my investigator and myself would assist or take over. We were both full time law enforcement so we were not limited by FLSA.
As far as analysis we would look at crime scenes and try to put together what occurred. Sometimes the scenes were old and beyond the statute of limitations but we would collect artifacts which would have been evidence if discovered earlier. After years of collecting this information we gained the use of GIS. That allows us to analyze specific events both in time of discovery and location.
An analysis of what occurred on the road from Stoneman Lake to Camp Verde led us to the methodology used be a group of bad guys. We could observe spot lighters, we could find blood and evidence of a fresh kill but we could not find someone with blood on them or any meat. Finally we spent hundreds of hours putting together and analysing what we found on the ground. There was a spot light shooter vehicle. They shot the animal and never touched. There was a processes vehicle that took care of the carcass and wrapped it. A third vehicle picked up the carcass. So if you stopped the first you would have a firearm and spotlight. The second vehicle would have persons with blood on them but no reasonable suspicion to stop them. The third vehicle had no weapons or blood. We knew they had to be communicating. We stopped a vehicle spotting lighting and while talking to him a radio was heard. Shorty had an AT&T radio in his glove box and it was on a frequency we did not monitor. We took him to the side of the road and stopped the next vehicle. Our plan was to ask them if they heard any shots. They had blood on them and they also worked with Shorty. They joined shorty. The third vehicle had a deer in the back of the truck. They had read a book on survival poaching and the method was in the book. We obtained copies and distributed it to the regions.
I believe that Douglas Scott has some of that same GIS information. A lot of what was in the basement (LBH) became mixed and more or less useless.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 19, 2020 15:35:09 GMT
So you think Godfrey's map is wrong because it does not show any soldiers north of Last Stand Hill. Technically you are correct, the map is incorrect. It is incorrect because it was based on knowledge he gained in 1876 and that was reinforced in 1886, and the map contained the sum total of his knowledge in 1891 when he wrote the article. That knowledge was incomplete compared to what we now know today. In making that statement of yours you are making the assumption and saying in effect that Godfrey knew about a presence north of Last Stand Hill. By presence I mean organized presence. You have no knowledge that he did. If you had bothered to comprehend what I said earlier, he may have been aware of some bodies out there in 1876, and he may have mistaken those bodies as outliers, and not evidence of organized occupation. By the time he writes the article in 1891 he is convinced that any of those outliers, and presumably some of the more organized arrays such as C on F-F Ridge, and E down in Deep Ravine were people and units trying to escape. The reason he is convinced of that is that he says in the article he is convinced of that. Do you not take the man at his word? Godfrey in those years between 1876 and 1891 had the maturity to be able to change his mind, to admit, at least to himself, and to the readers of his article, that his first impressions had changed, something you evidently do not have the capacity to do yourself.
Godfrey's exact words are these - " The numerous bodies found scattered between the river and the ridge (speaking here of Battle Ridge) were supposed (1876) to be the first victims of the fight (the conventional theory of 1876). I am now (1891) satisfied that these were men who either survived those on the ridge, or attempted to escape the massacre", In the next paragraph he goes on to say - "Custer's route was as indicated on the map, and his column was never nearer the river or village than his final position on the ridge" That was the man's view in 1891, and evidently remained his view for the remainder of his life, and that is indicative of the fact that he had absolutely no knowledge of any action in the Ford D area during his lifetime.
That is a mighty flimsy argument you put forward for Godfrey being wrong. Unworthy of you, or anyone else that has studied this battle for more than five minutes and that is conversant in the English language.
The map is incomplete, rather than being wrong. It is incomplete because Godfrey did not posses the required knowledge to make it complete in 1876, 1886, 1891 when he wrote the article, or at any time before his passing to my knowledge of the man.
I would also think, if you had the maturity of judgment to do so, that if you could bring back to life all of those early map makers and persons such as Benteen, and others, who made statements and drew their maps immediately after the battle, and give them the knowledge of the battle that we now posses, would they change their opinion of routes and battle flow. I don't know if they would or not, but neither do you. That, to me, is why I find Godfrey's article so valuable and so powerful. You see a man over the period of fifteen years change his opinion of events as he gained more knowledge of them. The mark of man's maturity is to be able to say "I don't know" when he doesn't, and "I was wrong" when new knowledge of something he has previously commented on comes his way. Godfrey was in that sense a very mature man, and it is really a shame that there were not more like him in his day, and even more like him today.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Aug 19, 2020 16:42:46 GMT
In Godfrey's account he states that Calhoun dismounted and went to the Calhoun area and that Custer never got closer to the river than Last Stand Hill.
I have already discussed what I think his line across MTC represents. If anyone thinks it is real route than we can get in place on a topo and see if it goes through Luce and N/C. I think it can be ruled out to not be a route but rather a suggestion that some troops came directly to the Calhoun Area which what Curley states he observed and the artifacts show.
You can see that same route on the 1891 topo map. It is labeled "Custer's route over this ground unknown and it ends at Calhoun. This is one year before the publication of my Century Magazine January 1892 Godfrey article.
So either they had different source or they believed that Godfrey was suggesting rather than drawing an actual route.
If things weren't flimsy we wouldn't be here. I think William and Fred who visited here are satisfied that Godfrey is correct with CIL and that they never moved from the Calhoun Area.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 19, 2020 17:22:29 GMT
You may think what you wish. You can even align your opinions with Wagner and Montrose if you wish, just as long as you label those opinions "I think" instead of "I know". That makes it your opinion, just like a part of the anatomy that everyone has. But unlike that part of the anatomy, opinions are something that must be justified by some semblance of fact or they become empty rhetoric, not useful to anyone other than the holder of the opinion.
Now will you give this a rest for a day or so, that enables me to do something far more important to me than addressing you, namely finish reading my latest Tom Clancy novel, where you always know the good guys from the bad by the way they use their computers.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Aug 20, 2020 13:55:30 GMT
Ian, thank you for the Godfrey map, sorry it took so long to do so. I did not risk stepping on Chuck's original post again or his adjustments to it. The line of travel is where I knew it was. You are still and forever the map wizard.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 20, 2020 14:39:21 GMT
Why thank you Tom.
We do have a lot of trails knocking around the area, Godfrey has just added another to the mix, so either Custer split his battalion into more than two or we have the old case of the Indians parading around on captured cavalry horses looking like a funny version of trooping of the colour.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Aug 21, 2020 14:24:24 GMT
I think Godfrey shows a corridor he believes that some troops passed through. It is not a route like one would get from traveling it with a GPS. IF I am correct than what Curley states he saw and the artifacts found fit within his theory. I think it would be interesting to know if the 1891 Topo map had the eastern route placed in 1891. That would be before Godfrey published his article.
Ian your observation of firing from MTC toward Luce fits our on the ground tour with the Cheyenne accounts from the returning hunting party. Tom missed that year because of an accident.
Chuck some opinions are better than others and our court system recognizes expert opinions. I thought that would be common knowledge. It happens all the time in both criminal and civil cases. I have been qualified for both criminal and civil cases as an expert and therefore could form and testify to an opinion.
Certainly we can all remember the OJ case where there was lots of expert opinions presented. In civil lawsuits there are expert opinions allowed all the time.
Regards
Steve
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Aug 21, 2020 14:35:08 GMT
I don't see any evidence in the Godfrey article that refutes what Curley states he saw. Curley had it right even when Godfrey believed they all went to Ford B. I think it took him 10 years to change his mind. I think Benteen also changed his opinion about Ford B. They basically align with what Curley, Martin, and Thompson state.
If we look at what the Sioux and Cheyenne accounts state we have understand that they don't share after battle reports. I believe that Godfrey has the Sioux accounts which fit only part of the action. The Cheyenne accounts are the same way but together we get a better picture.
The artifacts between MTC and Deep Coulee are not accounted for by Gall. I think he states he went up Deep Coulee and that is what is shown on Godfrey's map in my opinion. The Cheyenne accounts start in MTC. Together these accounts form a better picture of Indian involvement.
Regards
Steve
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Aug 21, 2020 14:56:47 GMT
Mac, as you can see, one of the firing lines is below Luce ridge and also giving that Indian fire points are below them, I would guess they are shooting down into MTC. Also there are more cavalry firing positions actually on Luce, which can suggests that we have two lines of advance. The finds on Luce could be directed towards the east but with no Indian fire points in that direction, they could also be directed into MTC. We also have another group of finds below the "W" around ten army casings, which could suggests a smaller group of soldiers, but giving all the action from both sides, I wouldnt send a small company of 38 all ranks through that area to the ford.
I think Luce is firing at the returning Cheyenne hunters that were coming down that fork of MTC. I don't think they are firing into MTC because of the distance. The Indian sites may not have been all identified since they are on private property. From the W you cannot move toward the Indian site in a straight line. The movement to accomplish that is illustrated by the soldier site on the flank. There is no indication of large numbers of Indians within weapon system range. The same thing can be seen to the east and it fits with Indian movement from Custer Creek. What I don't know is would the se these particular soldiers use suppression fire to allow the smaller group of soldiers to flank the small group of Indians. Regards Steve
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 21, 2020 15:17:40 GMT
"What I don't know is would the soldiers use suppression fire to allow a smaller group of soldiers to flank a small group of Indians"
Why do you think then that it is called FIRE and MANEUVER? One goes with the other as naturally as peanut butter goes withe jelly. Of course they would use fire suppression. It does no good to maneuver against someone, if that someone is allowed to get up and go before the maneuvering force can get at them. Suppression prevents or at least discourages ---- get up and go
Most probably that is not the way it is done in police work, nor should it be. I would expect that overwatch of those maneuvering would be much preferred for the safety of all concerned including the people you are trying to flank. This is not police work and the same techniques do not apply, no more than beanbag is like baseball.
I would also highly recommend that you familiarize yourself with Basil Liddell Hart's landmark book "Strategy" where he opines that the "Indirect Approach" is always the best approach, and gives examples of the technique from John Churchill to the mid 20th Century. Might just learn something new, that is applicable to both military and police work.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Aug 21, 2020 17:38:07 GMT
"What I don't know is would the se these particular soldiers use suppression fire to allow a smaller group of soldiers to flank a small group of Indians" Why do you think then that it is called FIRE and MANEUVER? One goes with the other as naturally as peanut butter goes withe jelly. Of course they would use fire suppression. It does no good to maneuver against someone, if that someone is allowed to get up and go before the maneuvering force can get at them. Suppression prevents or at least discourages ---- get up and go Most probably that is not the way it is done in police work, nor should it be. I would expect that overwatch of those maneuvering would be much preferred for the safety of all concerned including the people you are trying to flank. This is not police work and the same techniques do not apply, no more than beanbag is like baseball. I would also highly recommend that you familiarize yourself with Basil Liddell Hart's landmark book "Strategy" where he opines that the "Indirect Approach" is always the best approach, and gives examples of the technique from John Churchill to the mid 20th Century. Might just learn something new, that is applicable to both military and police work. Sorry if I confused you by how I asked the question but you didn't answer my question. I clarified it. I still don't know if they would have used suppression fire from the W. Would it be mounted or dismounted for instance. Is it a single event or is firing while moving. Considering some soldiers never have fired from horseback I think that would enter into the under what conditions that fire would be used. It appears to me that almost all fire by these soldiers would have the same results as suppression fire with very little hits. I learned a lot about suppression fire in the Marines. Surprised that you wouldn't think Marines would know about suppression fire. You would incorrect about the use of suppression fire in Law Enforcement. We have been taught about use of it in Law Enforcement situations from ALERRT. The actual situation determines where it is appropriate. You keep attempting to restrict yourself to Big City and high density areas. We work with Sheriff Deputies, State Troopers, Federal officers in multi-agency teams. One of our final scenarios involved a suspect firing from behind a log. The five man team approaches and four officers advance with suppression fire while one officer flanks and terminates the situation. Our specific team had one DPS officer, one Coconino County Deputy, one USFS LEO and two AZGFD officers. The team lit up his log while I flanked the suspect which resulted in the end of an active shooter situation. Since we don't know the location of the artifact finds other than general locations. The options of why they were firing has several possible scenarios. The Indian sites come from Weibert and not by a professional archaeologist search and find. So there could be more out there. Since I had already suggested that it look like something I had done in real life situations not sure why you would recommend a book. I think I have explained it that I am not interested in anything other than this battle when I go to Montana. I got the military part figured out. They all died. As far as literature I would be interested in anything available before the battle. I am particular interested in what the enlisted men would have been taught. I still have my Marine Corps notebook and it would cover everything I need to know at my level. For instance when did the 7th Cavalry practice the use of firearms and horsemanship let alone the use of suppression fire and flanking. In my experience I knew what to do in advance but sometimes an officer would make the decision on what to do. The majority of times there were no officers involved above the rank of captain. I don't understand how you fire and maneuver successfully when you can't ride at speed, shoot from a horse, or hit something with your carbine. The results seem to bear out my concerns. Regards Steve
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Aug 21, 2020 17:54:30 GMT
|
|