Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2021 12:22:11 GMT
I am not saying Kanipe is a candidate is for trooper of the year, a straggler, or a shirker in my previous statement. I merely raise doubt and ask the question. There are several assumptions and observation. 0. TC was with Custer, not his company and took Kanipe as his messenger to relay any orders to Harrington he thought might be needed. If so, why a SGT and not a private? 1. Someone, possibly Tom Custer, sent Kanipe back without George Custer knowing, to tell the trains to come on. 2. George told Tom to do it, who sent Kanipe. Why not Cooke? (Maybe TC was moving with GAC, and Cooke was near the rest of the command group). 3. He was straggling, figured out things were bad, and decided on his own to do it. This is possible, but seems to me somewhat unlikely. 4. He was shirking and invented the story as a cover up. From his reputation, this seems unlikely. 5. Wagner states in Timeline N (Messengers) @ 1250 Local, It is not unreasonable to assume that if SGT Daniel Kanipe was sent back with a message for CPT McDougall and the packs, he would have been sent from approximately this location, the southwestern shoulder of Sharpshooter Ridge. 6. On page 52, Wagner says, "SGT Daniel Kanipe, riding with his C CO companions..." Page 53 Wagner says Kanipe says was selected because SGT Finckle was having trouble with his horse. Page 61 "Kanipe remembers Custer speaking with Reno after Cooke issues Reno's orders. Page 64, Kanipe takes credit for Custer's move to the high ground. Page 96, Kanipe said Custer's men all went at a trot.... Page 102 Kanipe ...Custer did not slow down. Page 107, Kanipe never admits being told to return to the command group as Martini was. Page 108, a long paragraph about Kanipe, but states "at the time, he told noone who sent him and it continued that way until some time after the results had been obtained, that neither MacDougall or Mathey say they talked to Kanipe. and concludes the paragraph "but enough to raise the specter of doubt". Page 109, Wagner compares Kanipe's computed speed with Martini's. Thus, I submit he raises the issue but does not state he was a shirker or deserted. Some other things. Let's assume Custer's Wing is grouped into two columns, E and F in the North, I, C, and L in the South and he is using Yates and Keogh as BN CDRs. Custer is out front (or ranging around) and the BN CDRS are where they can best see him. They put their own companies in the lead of their column. Company Commanders locate where they can best see the BN CDR or maybe Custer. So C is 2nd or 3rd in the South. Where is TC? Is he with Custer (plausible if he is serving as his ADC, perhaps even likely since he was found near GAC) or with his company (possible). If TC is with Custer and was told to dispatch a messenger, then why would he go to his company to dispatch Kanipe? Or, why is Kanipe up with TC? Both of these don't seem reasonable, but perhaps C Company is leading the battalion, which makes many of Kanipes claims more credible. Why use Kanipe instead of a private? This story, www.historynet.com/7th-cavalry-sergeant-daniel-kanipe-saved-horse-not.htm dealves a little deeper into things, but again is inconclusive. Nothing I have read indicates anyone ever accused him of cowardice. From all these points it appears plausible TC was near GAC and had Kanipe with him. It also appears no one ever asked Martini about it since ostensibly Martini would have been close enough to see the interaction. I find it plausible Kanipe may have been straggling that day, but implausible he was shirking or a coward, because any surviving members of his company would be able to ferret out the truth and his marriage to the 1SGT's widow seems to show he is well regarded by all. It is also reasonable for Wagner and others to ask just what Kanipe was doing that da. In any case, the event does not affect the battle. Regardless of how fast anyone wants the trains to move, they are the slowest unit in the Regiment and they are probably moving at their best speed in any event. (Note to self: When you wake up in the middle of the night, quit checking your e-mail.)
Getting ready to go back to sleep, I went back to the modern edition of FM 22-5 (FM 3-21.5) and read this tidbit about positioning of units when the lined up for review which was in effect from at least 1812 to 1910 or so. Perhaps this explains why Cavalry Guidons were a swallow tailed version of the National Flag and not the Red and White flag with the letter designation we know today?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 11, 2021 16:00:02 GMT
I did not say that you said anything about Kanipe, that was original to you. I said Wagner assassinated the man's character, without him being around to defend himself. I also said that letting such slander loose on the world is not right. A lie travels around the world ten times, before the truth gets out of bed in the morning. I went on to say that the preponderance of evidence, which is all you get as a standard in civil proceedings, says that he did not do anything other than what he was directed by legitimate authority to do. Remember, he only said that Tom Custer directed him to the trains, not Benteen. I can easily see that happening, if Company C was somewhere near the rear of the column. Tom was always a faster thinker than his brother. It could well be that when Wolf Tooth's band fired upon the column, Tom turned to Kanipe and said ride back and inform the trains that contact has been made. Indians are out, watch yourselves. Martini, later on was directed to find Benteen. Is that so far fetched? Had not Tom acted without orders earlier, in ordering the regiment to get up and prepare to move. Who better to use than Kanipe? He could, by training and experience give the trains and escort commanders a much clearer picture of what was taking place ahead than any private.
What is the evidence that you base the assumption of Custer dividing into two battalions based on? I see none. In fact I see only what Godfrey said in his Century article - Custer personally commanded a five company battalion. Speculation on this matter has been widespread over the last hundred and forty four years, and every bit of that speculation has not had a shred of evidence to back it up.
Tom Custer acting as an ADC for his brother is another of the Wagner wedges, It must be that way, because MY (his) theory does not allow for anything else. I can see Mike Robel now, being told that he has to horse hold for the battalion commander and not be allowed the honor of leading the company he commands in battle. Your reputation would be permanently stained if you did not refuse such a directive. I do not believe George would ever dream of visiting such shame on his own brother. I would not do it to my worst enemy.
All of this might not effect the battle per say, but it does effect how we see the battle, and in particular how we see the decision making process, and the sequence of action. It also gives up a clue as to some small details that could very well have a large impact, were they honestly explored, instead of being wedged into the narrative, to fit someone's idea of what took place. Someone's idea and the truth are many times at loggerheads with one another.
Wing was an obsolete term in the cavalry of 1876 as was squadron. The only valid term to use designating a formation between company and regiment was battalion, which could mean anything from two to six companies. I have no doubt that wing and squadron were still in the lingua franca of the day, but they are technically incorrect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2021 17:16:38 GMT
Kanipe. I understand your point of view. I am just postulating assumptions/facts as I sit here in front of my computer. I am not inclined to point to Kanipe and say shirker/coward. And straggling, given the narrative does not seem appropriate either, otherwise I guess in might be Fin-Kanipe Ridge. I am postulating GAC did not know Kanipe had been sent back to the trains, hence him telling Martini to bring the trains up. C could have been close to the column head since he seems to have witnessed a lot of events with Custer in them and he was handy and trusted enough by TC to give him the mission. But still, with so few people in the company, why one of his better sergeants.
I don't know if Custer was using battalions or not. I infer it because I'm pretty sure he was in two columns and the separation between C, I, L and E and F on Battle Ridge.
I certainly agree I'd be pissed, as any commander would be, with being a strap hanger to the RCO rather than commanding my company. Hell, my BN CDR left me behind as the Rear Detachment Commander when my wife was due to pop when I was the S-3 Air after giving up command of my company for both Tank Gunnery and Battalion ARTEPS. I was embarrassed at being left behind so I get it. But, his history is he was in 2ACR when his son developed a 105 degree fever, his wife didn't drive at the time, he was refused permission to go home to get her to the hospital, and by the time the wives helped her out, the boy's brain was reduced to jelly and he had about the ability of a 24 month old and died at age 45 about 18 months ago. He had 4 daughters and since I had 3, he was just taking care of me. But there you are.
I am mystified by what TC is doing on Last Stand Hill instead of with his company however?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 11, 2021 18:11:48 GMT
Tom Custer in all likelyhood was on Last Stand Hill was there because he had either been wounded at Smith was, or was left behind for some reason unknown when his company pulled out. Why wasn't Bobo with Company C, rather than with Company I where he was found? If you postulate that the situation up north makes confusion an understatement, then both of them could have lost their horses, or something else that prevented them from leaving with the rest of the company. It happens, and it happens all too often. Another alternative is that Tom saw things going to shit, made sure his company was in capable hands, sent them south and decided to see the end with his brother if it came to that.
I admire your battalion commander for his kindness, but the situations were entirely different, and Tom Custer did not require his battalion commander's kindness.
Regarding both Kanipe and Tom Custer, The Army is a small family where everyone knows what everyone else is all about. You and I are proof of that. We have already discovered someone we both know and have discussed him. What has it been two weeks?. It was a small town in 1876, and it was still a small town at the height of its numerical strength in World War II. Eisenhower most probably knew all of his corps, division, and regimental commanders long before they fought under him in France. You read "Crusade in Europe" and his later works like "Stories I Tell My Friends" and you readily see that.
You don't know if Custer was using battalions or not. OK, but what evidence can you present that he was. It is fiction, but I can understand how someone unschooled would think that based upon the positioning of the markers. You are not unschooled though. You are a professional soldier. Even then the position of Company I seems to be an out of the ordinary, if there were two battalions. Don't know if your battalion ever marched in two columns. You can bet your last farthing though that mine did, and did so on a regular basis. What makes the difference here is the retention in command of one person, and the direct line of command between the battalion commander and the company commander. The tactical situation demands close control of one consolidated five company battalion. Five is well within the span of control. There is no reason to split the command relationships, and finally, Custer's battalion would not be the first and certainly not be the last to be spread all over hell's half acre at the end of the day, when all the powder smoke has dissipated.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Feb 11, 2021 19:06:34 GMT
I disagree violently disagree with your conjecture. The timing is wrong: If Wagner's times and sequence are anywhere near correct, Reno is forming the skirmish line at 1205 Local. Martini is not dispatched until 1305 Local. Reinforcing Reno is reinforcing failure, even though Custer is about to fail himself. He does not know Reno has started to retreat before sending Martini. Boston reaches Custer at 1345 after which he continues toward MTC. If Custer was thinking defense, he would have already turned around. (Next event) We don't know what Boston told him and we don't know how he reacted, except he continued to go North. This message, the poorly written means just what it says and though terse and poorly worded follows an order format. Benteen. Enemy Situation: Big Village. Mission: Get up here. Service Support: Bring the Trains. Sadly Be Quick and bring the trains are contradictory. Implied: Martini knows the way and he will guide you. The trains when you consider B Troop, the number of soldiers detailed to it, the packers and others is nearly as big as another battalion. It can, so far as things go, take care of itself. If he didn't want the trains, he wouldn't have mentioned them. If he wanted Benteen to find Reno and defend, it would be because he was going to come back (the next event). The order would have been something like Benteen. Big Village. Find Reno and fort up. Protect the trains. I'm coming back. EDIT. I am slowly wading through that 226 page Ford D thread and come to the part where this order is discussed. I want to make it even simpler my point even simpler. We don't know what Custer told Cooke, but Cooke wrote "come". I don't think even a rattled Cooke would mispell GO as COME. If you are late going home from work, you don't call up your kid on your cell phone and say to them "Come to your friend, Nicks house." you say "Go to your friend Nicks house."
If you want someone who knows where you are, like a child in upstairs and you are downstairs in the dining room with dinner, you say "Come to dinner." If you are out someplace else in a car and realize its almost dinner time, you might remark "Oh. It's time to GO to dinner" becuase you are NOT "there" where dinner is to be served.
A rose is a rose by anyother name. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. (note: Lifetime non-smoker, except for inhaling and exhaling the spew of four smelling poullutants my parents expelled.)Fred's timeline for dismount: 12:38 Local Sun Time and 1:35 Command Time Fred's Timeline for Martin heads back: 1:05 Local Sun Time and 2:02 Command Time
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Feb 11, 2021 19:26:32 GMT
Well, I liked going down MTC long before I read Wagner. I am slowly coming around to questioning it. I understand why he went for Ford D. I think when it comes to responding to an order, especially when the chips are down, you go back to normal, in which "Come" means "Come to me." It's training and not just military training. You have said repeatedly since I joined, and in the other threads I have read, you revert to training. Martini knows the way back to where he Custer "was." Maybe he can even find it. Benteen is smart and can follow the trail once he is close. And get destroyed. I am suspicious of Wagner's times, and I told him so. He explained why they are so precise. Any time is +/- 2 minutes (one minute on either side because of accuracy issues, even more back then. Maybe less now). Just like a 100m grid coordinate can be 200 meters off. Especially in the dark. In the forest. with No moon. And rain. As to your Independent command, I always wonder what Buford, Merritt, or Upton would have done. Stayed along the Rosebud for starters, maybe. I admit I would be hard pressed to turn toward the enemy. Just as I am still be hard pressed to turn down MTC,, but I am questioning it. I would not be crazy to go North to Ford D. Back to Reno Hill is probably the best alternative, if I can't get to Ford A. Mike
I like both directions just as Curly an eye witness describes. Curly states they split with some going straight across and some heading toward MTF. Specifically the gray horses. I believe that E and F were together along with HQ. Martin states he was sent back from around 600 yards of the ford. Pvt Thompson sees some fighting from his location along the river. So all three witnesses would have the soldier near Ford B.
Maguire map #4 shows a split in MTC.
Two different Sioux drawings show gray horses being chased across the western corridor which is where the current markers are located.
From the artifact maps, you can trace the soldiers that Curly states moved straight across from Middle Coulee. They entered MTC and moved toward the obvious egress point. Instead of moving north to the top they turned to the east and moved up the drainage. That drainage puts you on Luce and it is a continuation of the artifacts from MTC, Luce, and N/C dropping into Deep Coulee.
What this does is that Indian accounts occurring at the same time at different locations make sense if they split in MTC.
Regards
Steve
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2021 19:52:56 GMT
We don't know why Tom Custer and other people were killed where they lay. Some people have very good theories about it. TC should damn well stayed with his company, but who knows? I can see the CO and/or 1SG being last off the delaying position.
My battalion commander kindness wasn't the point. The point was I very much get that TC would have been enraged and mortified to be removed in commanding his company in the first big fight the Regiment had been in since Washita.
I have stated I find it highly unlikely Kanipe was a slacker or deserting or a coward for the reasons you have given and I have agreed with at least twice. This does not stop me from making the observations I have made.
Neither of us know if Custer was commanding 5 companies as one battalion, or if he split the regiment into 4 battalions plus the trains. Prior to leaving the Rosebud, the Regiment was split into four battalions, no? And then he decided to command all 12 directly? Yes? Then why would he not return to that organization? We do not know what Cooke wrote in his little black book when they stopped just over the divide. We can be sure that he detached Reno and Benteen each with three and detailed B to the Packs. I think your reasoning for one battalion of 5 is valid, but again, we don't know in the way that we would if we had the task organization at the top of the order or in paragraph 1C. You have studied the battle much longer than I and have been on the ground multiple times. I give your conclusion very serious thought and award high marks for critical thinking. I have read a bunch of books, studied maps and aerial photography, and thought about the problems in command and control and I have no solid opinion on it one way or the other, but I favor your conclusion.
My last battalion habitually marched in combat column, three tank heavy teams in front and the pure mech guy in the back. Once in 18 months, I remember us marching in two columns. Invariably, the first company got chewed up and after spending a day with the 3 teams moving to the front two times in the course of the days operation, at the orders group that night, I said, "Sir, are we sure we want to continue to attack in combat column? I really think you can only do this three times before we have no battalion left." I don't remember if we went to two columns the next day or not. Nor do I remember how it went.
The whole discussion started because we got to the point where it was opined that even though Custer didn't really want the trains brought up, but Cooke wrote it twice and that made me think that MAYBE GAC did not know that TC had sent Kanipe, which would make it reasonable for Custer to tell Cooke to have them brought up. No where does that order tell us Custer's intent was for Benteen to do anything except go to Custer with the trains.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2021 19:59:14 GMT
I disagree violently disagree with your conjecture. The timing is wrong: If Wagner's times and sequence are anywhere near correct, Reno is forming the skirmish line at 1205 Local. Martini is not dispatched until 1305 Local. Reinforcing Reno is reinforcing failure, even though Custer is about to fail himself. He does not know Reno has started to retreat before sending Martini. Boston reaches Custer at 1345 after which he continues toward MTC. If Custer was thinking defense, he would have already turned around. (Next event) We don't know what Boston told him and we don't know how he reacted, except he continued to go North. . . . Fred's timeline for dismount: 12:38 Local Sun Time and 1:35 Command Time Fred's Timeline for Martin heads back: 1:05 Local Sun Time and 2:02 Command Time I stand corrected on the dismount time. I must have lost my boresight and it is difficult to think I could have mistyped the time had I been looking at the right place. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 11, 2021 20:49:50 GMT
I am not trying to argue the point(s) Mike. All I want to do is suggest that there are more than one way to view these things, and that is a very hard concept for the conventional thinking agenda driven folks like Wagner to swallow. In a way their mind is stuck in 1876, and no one can tell them differently than those things they are stuck with.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 11, 2021 20:58:49 GMT
We do try and look at all issues of this battle, some don't agree with that, we have had a few which say that the entire Custer battalion of five companies was challenged at ford B and driven onto LSH and destroyed, these posters had argued this point to the point of collaspe!!!
We have all noticed that some of the main Indian accounts which state the events around ford B, can also fit around ford D, the coulee, the high ground and the river crossing. Now these accounts were took by interipters and can easilly be miscontrude by the writers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2021 22:04:02 GMT
I am not trying to argue the point(s) Mike. All I want to do is suggest that there are more than one way to view these things, and that is a very hard concept for the conventional thinking agenda driven folks like Wagner to swallow. In a way their mind is stuck in 1876, and no one can tell them differently than those things they are stuck with. I am rather enjoying the repartee in this discussion. We certainly agree there is more than one way to view them and it is most difficult, probably impossible, to determine the full story, until we invent time travel and discover just why that National Guard crew in their M5 did not use the tank and what motivated them to join in the attack, beyond the duty to assist their fellow soldiers and where is that tank today?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 11, 2021 22:32:33 GMT
Yes, I knew you were a cultured man, from the first time I laid eyes on your posts. You remember that old episode of "Twilight Zone" too. The only thing accurate about it was at the time the Montana National Guard was mostly the 163rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. A sign of a true appreciation of the finer things of life, including that M-5. Where is the M5 today? Well in 1980 it was at Universal Studios in LA, along with the submarine model Carry Grant commanded in "Destination Tokyo", and that frigging shark from "Jaws".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2021 23:23:04 GMT
Oh then, here we go. That made me think of my dinosaurs, GI's, and Nazi's; a little known battle in WWII. I had to make them pretty small to get the forum to accept them. So, I have an M5. Where are there 1/35 scale American Indians and Cavalry Troopers? P.S. I must be crazy. I 1.5 closets full of unbought models and many unplayed games and I just bought some Indian Warrior sets and a "Last Stand" set in 1/35. 2 guys and a horse in the last stand, and 4 indians, 2 getting ready to run toward the enemy and two firing. It may be a little bit of forced perpsective modeling, or maybe I will just show the tankers with Grease Guns next to the cavalrymen. Attachments:
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Feb 11, 2021 23:51:01 GMT
Come on Mike mind on the job; start digging out that sewer. LBH is a disease.
Cheers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2021 23:51:35 GMT
last one Attachments:
|
|