|
|
Post by joewiggs on Mar 27, 2011 16:24:08 GMT -5
Well said and done! I would only add one point to your statistics regarding rate of fire and amount of ammunition;accuracy! The statistics become even more alarming when we consider the proficiency rate (or lack thereof) of the soldiers on the skirmish line. Not only were the men doomed to failure due to the distance of additional ammunition as you pointed out but, that failure was accelerated by poor marksmanship that did not keep the warriors at bay.
Unhampered by soldier fire, the warriors were able to encroach the soldier position constantly from every angle until such time as to be able to loft thousand of arrows into the air. Arrows that landed with such a numerical consistency that accuracy was not needed as a large percentage of them fell into the prone backs of the men.
The men became completely demoralized which hasten the "Flight or Fight Syndrome" to its final and ignoble conclusion; the survivors ran for their lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Mar 27, 2011 17:01:06 GMT -5
Joe,
Most certainly accuracy was implied. The amounts of KIA/wounded are accounted for down to a 25% accuracy in the Test Fire thread. Still, after firing 7 shots ( 1 from their Carbines and 6 from their pistols) they should have killed or wounded some 300 Indians! If there was a controlled command where the File Closers monitored the mens rates of fire, as there was on Reno's Skirmish Line, that 1/4th (25%) accuracy should not have been hard or that difficult for them to have attained. What it indicates is that something else was going on there, perhaps Benteen's "scattered corn" analogy is more applicable than we could ever imagine. As I understand it Custer wore his ring on his left index finger that day, perhaps that had something to do with it (smiley-wink).
Also...
Many researchers, book writers and amateurs alike miss entirely is what the implication of the "timing" of those skirmish lines meant.
That pack train wasn't 7 miles away as Benteen indicated at one point in his testimony, it was a guess and a bad one at that. It would never have been allowed to have been anywhere that far back! According to the 1860 Ordinance Manual a mounted walk was 4 mph, a trot 7 mph and a gallop and/or charge 10 to 13 mph. (And before someone says it wouldn't apply in 1876, think again. A Model T in 1916 would run the same as one in 1906. A horse is a horse,,,, is a horse...
The furtherest back they would have been allowed to lag would have been about 3 1/2 to 4 miles, as they could get a trot out of those animals. Confirmation that they were not that far behind was the Indians sighting of the Pack Train on the bluffs as Reno retreated.
Benteen also was never over 2 1/2 miles from Custer's position at any given time. This was also testified to at the COI. How do we know this is true? Well, for one, Benteen himself. Benteen told of hearing Custer's men cheering more than once, but didn't know what they were cheering about. Again critical thought has to go into this, but just how far does that "shouting" carry? Farther than a gun shot or volleys? Where was this? There sure wasn't much to cheer about and none was reported as they went down Reno Creek. But, there was confirmation of cheering reported by those in Custer's command as he and his men went down the right bank.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cutter on Mar 27, 2011 19:48:35 GMT -5
Not to be too off topic here, Custer wore his West Point ring on his right small finger?
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Apr 6, 2011 13:20:05 GMT -5
you see CC, I have nothing to be forgiven for. Not by you, however. I have nothing against different ideas , but I like them based on facts - or having roots on facts, at least when those opinions are trying to demolishing an historical character. If they're not, and they're along with sarcasm, they are offensive or tending to be arrogants. Ask yourself why you're not the only one having a poor opinion on Custer but you're the only one to create quarrels with it. I think here nobody needs sarcasm, but just talking about the battle and share our views and knowledge (again, for how little this knowledge may be). I'm here just because I thought this forum has this task. This is my last word on this subject. Cinnamon, please forgive me for my belated response to your post. You are correct and, I speak on behalf of the Administrator as well when I espouse the following: The forum does have this " task" to share views without sarcasm. Your posts are always interesting and welcome. Please continue to share your valued thoughts with the rest of the forum. Your friend, Joe Wiggs |
|
|
|
Post by Cutter on Apr 6, 2011 13:37:29 GMT -5
Yup.
|
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Apr 23, 2011 18:01:18 GMT -5
Cinnamon, I'm sorry for being so late in letting you know that I feel the same as Cutter and Joe. Please keep on submitting your thoughtful posts. We miss you!  |
|
cinnamon
Sergeant
our love will last forever
Posts: 132
|
Post by cinnamon on Apr 30, 2011 11:09:07 GMT -5
Thank you all for your support...
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Apr 30, 2011 14:48:17 GMT -5
Glad you're back partner!  |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Apr 30, 2011 18:22:39 GMT -5
Cinnamon, great to have you back! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Cutter on May 1, 2011 13:01:35 GMT -5
Yes sir, good to see you here again Cinnamon! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jun 12, 2011 12:24:34 GMT -5
I just discovered that Custer applied for the position of Commander of Cadets at West Point in 1870. Lt. Col. Emory Upton got the assignment in 1870.
Once again one of those "what ifs" that certainly would have changed a bit of history undoubtedly!
|
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Jul 12, 2011 17:44:13 GMT -5
I believe that the battle would have come out differently if Custer was not in command. I'm not an authority on commanders of that day but, probably, none of them were as eager to fight as he was.
I see a battle without the separation of the men, the Indians breaking camp and getting away. Terry arriving and finding nothing but exhausted horses and men and explanations of whose fault it was that allowed the Indians to escaped.
Eventually the Indians would have gotten tired of running and would eventually turn themselves in as they actually did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cutter on Jul 13, 2011 8:15:07 GMT -5
Custer was one of the best field commanders they had, as although the indians would eventually grow weary of the chase, it's the "eventually " part that the government didn't want. They wanted the question settled as soon as possible, so they got Custer into the hunt.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jul 13, 2011 20:48:54 GMT -5
I could not agree with you more! Great thought!
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Jul 16, 2011 18:05:37 GMT -5
Custer was one of the best field commanders they had, as although the Indians would eventually grow weary of the chase, it's the "eventually " part that the government didn't want. They wanted the question settled as soon as possible, so they got Custer into the hunt. You got it right partner! He was the best! What's amazing to me is that when things went wrong, the government dropped the whole bag in Custer's lap. Reno and Company made it real easy to shift the blame at the R.C.O. I., they placed all the blame on the shoulders of a dead man. Plenty of the soldiers who may not have taking a liking to such a "stab" in the back of the General wouldn't speak up because they preferred someone else taking a licking rather than themselves. |
|
