Post by tbw on Jun 7, 2010 12:25:08 GMT -5
Have we come to believe what wasn't true. Most of us take it for granted that Custer's 7th Cavalry was the finest fighting unit that ever took the field, the elite of the army at that time. I keep hearing how elite and deadly they were, how they could meet and destroy anything they came upon, whether it have been the Natives or some invasion force trying to invade our country. Yet the comparison is usually made in association with other wars in the not to distant future, WWII being sited the most, Vietnam the least and WW1 not at all, which in reality was closer to the conflict in question. Our doughboys in WW1 were pathetically ill prepared for what they went up against, and at the start of WWII we hadn't advanced much farther then we had when WWI had ended, same uniform, same bolt action rifle, same ships, you name it. We were ill prepared to take on the Indians then, let alone the 3rd Reich and Imperial Japan. Yet we still get these comparisons, which make no sense at all. It seems everyone does it, and no one stops to check out what others said at the time about these so called *elite* troopers. And perhaps the best comparison of all, how they stacked up against those who had just fought in the Civil War only 7 to 8 years having past when these expeditions occurred.
From - JAY COOKE'S GAMBLE The Northern Pacific Railroad, the Sioux, and the Panic of 1873 BY M. JOHN LUBETKIN UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA PRESS 2006.
The following remarks come from Confederate General Tom Rosser, Chief Engineer on several surveying expeditions to hunt for routes for the railroads. And on one of them he met up with a former West Point class mate of his Lt. Col. George A. Custer. In one chapter Custer's Aug. 4th, 1873 battle near where the Tongue and Yellowstone meet is detailed and another chapter divulges details about the battle a week later where the Yellowstone and Big Horn meet. But one supposes because Rosser was a Confederate General his views, taken from his diary, would not be of significant importance in knowing the facts surrounding those events. What I do find distressing about such an arguement is the defense he made of Custer's supposed attempt at MTF published in Graham's Custer Myth. Why defend his supposed actions there, and try to make an attempt here to say something negative about Custer or for that matter any military action? It doesn't make any sense. Why defend one where the army was defeated, and not defend their actions here, where their actions won the day?
The Railroad Surveyors were attacked by several hundred Indians in O'Fallon Creek Valley in 1872. Here they had circled the wagons, not like in the TV series "Wagon Train", end to end, but had circled them with each side of a wagon's wheels being near to the next. I had always assumed they meant to do this 'in lines' rather than form a circle, but here he explains how it was done. Here they had a Gatling gun and some army infantry, and they did use the Gatling gun on the Indians, Rosser's diary enlightens us as to what happened:
"...The Gatling gun was opened on them, and as soon as they came within the range of musketry, the infantry rear guard began firing. But on they came in perfect order."
"I felt sure that they would charge on the infantry and make an effort to reach and destroy our train. The Indians maintained order and came boldly and rapidly on..."
The Indians unexpectedly broke off the attack and went for the cover of a ravine, and as Rosser explains:
"What a relief! I believe if they had come on 25 feet further, that our infantry would have broken and run... I then realized the difference of an army fighting for patriotism and one fighting for a business rather than work for a living. A company of volunteers in the armies of '61' and '65' would have killed every Indian in that platoon..."
What does one think of when they think of the LBH fights and this particular incident? While he made it sound like they were charging the Gatling Gun, and they very well may have been, more likely they were charging the army infantry "rear guard" because as he explained, had they came on, that "infantry would have broken and run". The difference between a "Civil War company of volunteers" and that "infantry"? "A company of volunteers in the armies of '61' and '65' would have killed every Indian in that platoon..."
I think what is clear is that the army training, equipment and soldier quality between the wars lagged behind. This is a well documented fact. What is also clear, is that when it came to equipping and training men for a new war or conflict, it took several years to get things right. One does have to ask a couple of questions though. Why would "a Civil War company of Volunteers" have killed every Indian charging them, and these men didn't? Why would a "Civil War company of volunteers" have killed every Indian charging them, and these men 'break and run'? He attributed the difference as "fighting for a business" as opposed to "fighting for patriotism." The real difference as he really pointed out, was in the 'timber' and quality & training of the soldier and whether or not his shots rang true enough so that - that soldier, and those next to him, didn't have to run and be faced with a life or death choice.
From - JAY COOKE'S GAMBLE The Northern Pacific Railroad, the Sioux, and the Panic of 1873 BY M. JOHN LUBETKIN UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA PRESS 2006.
The following remarks come from Confederate General Tom Rosser, Chief Engineer on several surveying expeditions to hunt for routes for the railroads. And on one of them he met up with a former West Point class mate of his Lt. Col. George A. Custer. In one chapter Custer's Aug. 4th, 1873 battle near where the Tongue and Yellowstone meet is detailed and another chapter divulges details about the battle a week later where the Yellowstone and Big Horn meet. But one supposes because Rosser was a Confederate General his views, taken from his diary, would not be of significant importance in knowing the facts surrounding those events. What I do find distressing about such an arguement is the defense he made of Custer's supposed attempt at MTF published in Graham's Custer Myth. Why defend his supposed actions there, and try to make an attempt here to say something negative about Custer or for that matter any military action? It doesn't make any sense. Why defend one where the army was defeated, and not defend their actions here, where their actions won the day?
The Railroad Surveyors were attacked by several hundred Indians in O'Fallon Creek Valley in 1872. Here they had circled the wagons, not like in the TV series "Wagon Train", end to end, but had circled them with each side of a wagon's wheels being near to the next. I had always assumed they meant to do this 'in lines' rather than form a circle, but here he explains how it was done. Here they had a Gatling gun and some army infantry, and they did use the Gatling gun on the Indians, Rosser's diary enlightens us as to what happened:
"...The Gatling gun was opened on them, and as soon as they came within the range of musketry, the infantry rear guard began firing. But on they came in perfect order."
"I felt sure that they would charge on the infantry and make an effort to reach and destroy our train. The Indians maintained order and came boldly and rapidly on..."
The Indians unexpectedly broke off the attack and went for the cover of a ravine, and as Rosser explains:
"What a relief! I believe if they had come on 25 feet further, that our infantry would have broken and run... I then realized the difference of an army fighting for patriotism and one fighting for a business rather than work for a living. A company of volunteers in the armies of '61' and '65' would have killed every Indian in that platoon..."
What does one think of when they think of the LBH fights and this particular incident? While he made it sound like they were charging the Gatling Gun, and they very well may have been, more likely they were charging the army infantry "rear guard" because as he explained, had they came on, that "infantry would have broken and run". The difference between a "Civil War company of volunteers" and that "infantry"? "A company of volunteers in the armies of '61' and '65' would have killed every Indian in that platoon..."
I think what is clear is that the army training, equipment and soldier quality between the wars lagged behind. This is a well documented fact. What is also clear, is that when it came to equipping and training men for a new war or conflict, it took several years to get things right. One does have to ask a couple of questions though. Why would "a Civil War company of Volunteers" have killed every Indian charging them, and these men didn't? Why would a "Civil War company of volunteers" have killed every Indian charging them, and these men 'break and run'? He attributed the difference as "fighting for a business" as opposed to "fighting for patriotism." The real difference as he really pointed out, was in the 'timber' and quality & training of the soldier and whether or not his shots rang true enough so that - that soldier, and those next to him, didn't have to run and be faced with a life or death choice.
