| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
 Posted - January 27 2006 : 12:07:54 PM
|
quote:
Wild1 ~ Would it have been justified if Custer won? A resounding, yes.By the same token then if he had followed orders and been defeated then he must be held responsible. A system which encouraged commanders to disobey orders provided they were sucessful would only lead to chaos in the long term.
Of course you are assuming that this "defeat" as I am percieveing it. Is one where the entire command meets to "encircle" the enemy on the 27th? If that is the case then no, that would have fallen under Terry's responsibility, would it not?
Your reference to "A system..." sentence is one of keen observation. I can't agree that it was "encouraged", only that Custer took advantage of the "oppotunity" for whatever reason he thought necessary. Whether that reason was for further advancement, or because of exisiting conditions unfavourable to him in higher command/political circles is left open for debate.
PS: Please see Vern's reply on the previous page. He did reply. I always hate it when a page changes. Because sometimes the last post on that page is not seen. :) |
Edited by - Benteen on January 27 2006 12:13:29 PM |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2006 : 1:40:48 PM
|
If there is any discussion whatever about what military orders in the field meant/said, then whoever wrote them should be shot, or at least sentenced to be employed in academia writing course descriptions for brochures or five page "mission statements" for counter clerks at Dunkin' Doughnuts because nobody reads those and expects comprehension absent a liter of absinthe. It is, after all, their job to write clear, precise orders upon which lives and mission success rest.
Terry's orders can be reduced to about four active verb sentences, not the New Age mishmash of sensitivity he committed to paper. Custer's orders to Benteen and Reno are worse. There is a strong whiff of playing forward cya concerns. But it apparently was done knowingly for Custer's delicate ego, and as proof Custer sent passages of praise to his blushing bride like an eight year old preens before a parent with a good report card. Only McClellan was worse in that regard.
Nobody would think the Indian camp would stay put, and converging by the Big Tree or at the mouth of a stream was rather pointless, as is this 'feeling to the left' when the tribes could simply have gone east after Custer passed beyond Crow's Nest up the Rosebud and before Gibbon/Terry arrived down the LBH, and done so without hurry or fear. Fortunately for the 7th as a whole, the Sioux were as clueless and dunderheaded as they, but tanned, rested, and in number. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2006 : 2:00:57 PM
|
Certainly Terry's orders did not meet the modern standard, but the US Army did not use the Five Paragraph Field Order in those days.
As for the indians leaving, they actually hung around after the battle until they got wind of Gibbon's approach -- so had everything gone as Terry wanted, they would have still been there when the two jaws of his force closed in. Whether the jaws would have caught anything (assuming the indians would have fled) is something no one can know. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2006 : 2:38:58 PM
|
I don't know anything about the FPFO or modern standards, but that Grant wrote excellent, confusionless orders and so did Sherman and Reynolds and Hancock and it's common sense. Leave no room for misunderstanding. Terry's orders could start out 'When in April' or 'Call me Ishmael' and be more appropriate to the contents.
By the Indians staying put, I didn't mean after the battle but 'at all.' If Custer had just scoped out the Sioux trail's direction, maybe gone to the CN and then continued as Terry wanted, feeling to his left, there was nothing to prevent the camp or a large portion from heading up Reno Creek leisurely after he passed, crossing well behind even the 7th's pack train while Custer was well south, and hitting the Black Hills.
I don't think it real for the Army to have supposed the camp would stay put for a week or more while forces converged. And I don't think they did; it was an ideal, not a mandatory objective. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2006 : 3:09:17 PM
|
quote:
By the Indians staying put, I didn't mean after the battle but 'at all.' If Custer had just scoped out the Sioux trail's direction, maybe gone to the CN and then continued as Terry wanted, feeling to his left, there was nothing to prevent the camp or a large portion from heading up Reno Creek leisurely after he passed, crossing well behind even the 7th's pack train while Custer was well south, and hitting the Black Hills.
They could have done a lot of things, but they chose to stand and fight, and did not leave until they detected the approach of Gibbon's column.
Given the record -- fighting both Crook and Custer, I suspect if Gibbon had arrived first, they would have fought (and probably defeated) him. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2006 : 6:06:20 PM
|
Mr Humphrey
And Terry clearly wanted a rendezvous at the mouth of the Little Big Horn on the 26th of June.
Gibbons reported that they estimated 6 days for his column to reach the mouth of the LBH arriving on the 27/28th.Terry's orders indicate that the column would not remain at this point but move up the the river with the hope of getting the Indians between the two forces.Nothing there about a rendezvous or a specific time.
Further Terry states It is impossible to give you any definate instructions in regard to this movement and of Gibbon he states of course its further movements must be controlled by circumstances as they arise.So it is clear that movements and timings were approximate with the priviso that Custer should allow enough time for Gibbon to get his force into position.So there was in fact ample time for Custer to reach the tongue and also cooperate with Gibbon.
It is the uncontrolable factors which set the parameters for such maneuvers as rendezvous and there was at least 1500 of them.
DC
What is the difference between searching for a moving enemy and a stationary one?
If there is any discussion whatever about what military orders in the field meant/said, then whoever wrote them should be shotI am rushing to you by next post in a plain brown envelope your very own orderbook complete with company clerk.If you are not satisfied you have 14 days in which to return the contents.
|
Edited by - wILD I on January 27 2006 6:18:04 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2006 : 6:09:57 PM
|
.
|
Edited by - wILD I on January 27 2006 6:13:41 PM |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2006 : 6:29:15 PM
|
quote:
And Terry clearly wanted a rendezvous at the mouth of the Little Big Horn on the 26th of June.
Gibbons reported that they estimated 6 days for his column to reach the mouth of the LBH arriving on the 27/28th.
Which is not that far out of line with Terry's second message to Sheridan.
quote:
Terry's orders indicate that the column would not remain at this point but move up the the river with the hope of getting the Indians between the two forces.Nothing there about a rendezvous or a specific time.
Again, Terry speecifically says in his order to Custer and in his message to Sheridan that his intent was to "inclose" the indians in the valley of the Little Big Horn and that Gibbon was to move up to the mouth of the Little Big Horn.
quote:
Further Terry states It is impossible to give you any definate instructions in regard to this movement and of Gibbon he states of course its further movements must be controlled by circumstances as they arise.
You're conflating two parts of the order -- his instructions to Custer (which would be Paragraph 3 of a modern Field Order) and his information on the movement of Gibbon's column (which would be Paragraph 1b.)
quote:
So it is clear that movements and timings were approximate with the priviso that Custer should allow enough time for Gibbon to get his force into position.So there was in fact ample time for Custer to reach the tongue and also cooperate with Gibbon.
In point of fact, there is not. Had Custer marched at the agreed-upon 30 miles a day, he would have been on the headwaters of the Tongue when Gibbon's column encountered the indians. And, given their performance against both Crook and Custer, they would probably have fought and defeated him.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2006 : 12:59:51 AM
|
Wild:
1. "What is the difference between searching for a moving enemy and a stationary one?" The moving one is harder to find and coordinate attacks against by separate units without instant communications between them.
2. "I am rushing to you by next post in a plain brown envelope your very own orderbook complete with company clerk." Not Fred, again. You know I don't like Fred as my clerk, we've been through this. In any case, written on official embossed stationary/orderbook or chisled in stone tablet or verbally rehearsed with the Italian/Amnerican Exchange Student of The Month, a crappy missive subject to multiple interpretations still bites the big one. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2006 : 11:03:18 AM
|
Mr Humphrey
In point of fact, there is not.
This is based on hindsight and cannot be used to justify Custer's disobedience.When Custer made that fateful decision to turn off the Rosebud he did not know the exact location of the village.Your arguement is totally based on Custer knowing the position of the Indians at the planning stage of the campaign.
Again, Terry speecifically says in his order to Custer and in his message to Sheridan that his intent was to "inclose" the indians in the valley of the Little Big Horn and that Gibbon was to move up to the mouth of the Little Big Horn.
Inclosing is a condition not a location.
DC
The moving one is harder to find
There is a theory that a moving object reduces in size and thus indeed would be harder to find but I think as you need to be approaching the speed of light the 2mph Indian village would not qualify. |
Edited by - wILD I on January 28 2006 11:05:16 AM |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2006 : 11:09:48 AM
|
quote:
In point of fact, there is not.
This is based on hindsight and cannot be used to justify Custer's disobedience.When Custer made that fateful decision to turn off the Rosebud he did not know the exact location of the village.Your arguement is totally based on Custer knowing the position of the Indians at the planning stage of the campaign.
Where do you get the idea that anyone is trying to justify Custer?
The village was expected to be in the valley of the Little Big Horn, it was in the valley of the Little Big Horn.
quote:
Again, Terry speecifically says in his order to Custer and in his message to Sheridan that his intent was to "inclose" the indians in the valley of the Little Big Horn and that Gibbon was to move up to the mouth of the Little Big Horn. Inclosing is a condition not a location.
You're kidding, right?
Military operations are exercises in time and space. If the indians are to be inclosed, the columns must inclose the right space at the right time.
Location and time are everything. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2006 : 12:21:17 PM
|
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Terry clearly wanted a rendezvous at the mouth of the Little Big Horn on the 26th of June.
Gibbons reported that they estimated 6 days for his column to reach the mouth of the LBH arriving on the 27/28th.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is not that far out of line with Terry's second message to Sheridan.
Vern-- What was the first dispatch to Sheridan, something like " I only hope that one of the column's finds the indians" dated June 21.
"The best guess the three commanders, Terry, Custer Gibbons could make was that the 'fixed point' was near the headwaters of the Rosebud and Little Bighorn. Actually that 'point' turned out to be about two days march further downstream..."
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2006 : 12:30:10 PM
|
Benteen--There was no "sufficient reason" to depart from his orders. The only "sufficient reason" to do so would have been "when in nearly in contact with the enemy." This was the only requirement that Terry stated that would have been of "sufficient reason".
Apparently someone near General Terry thought there might be sufficient reason. "someone...would change the words "sufficient reason" in his orders, to "absolutely necessity" in the copy made of them in Terry's copy-book!" |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on January 28 2006 12:33:28 PM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2006 : 2:13:48 PM
|
<<<It is, impossible to give you any definite instructions in regard to this movement, and were it not impossible to do so the Department Commander places too much confidence in your zeal, energy, and ability to wish to impose upon you precise orders which might hamper your action when nearly in contact with the enemy. He will, however, indicate to you his own views of what your action should be, and he desires that you should conform to them unless you shall see "absolutely necessity" (absolute necessity?) for departing from them.>>>
It seems to me that the change doens't change the meaning a whole lot. It seems to me that Custer could not change those orders unless it was absolutely necessary! And to me I can see no reason why Custer would have found anything absolutely neccessary to depart from Terry's orders, do you? |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2006 : 2:44:42 PM
|
Where do you get the idea that anyone is trying to justify Custer?
Have you forgotten what your arguement is?That Custer was unable to follow his orders because they were impossible to execute in the time available.
The village was expected to be in the valley of the Little Big Horn, it was in the valley of the Little Big Horn.
A valley which was 60 miles long or 3-4 days marching for Custer and Gibbon.So you hold that in a valley 60 miles long there was to be a rendezvous on the 26th at a point not specified regardless of where the Indians were?
Military operations are exercises in time and space. If the indians are to be inclosed, the columns must inclose the right space at the right time.
At the planning meeting did they know where the right space was?
Apparently someone near General Terry thought there might be sufficient reason. "someone...would change the words "sufficient reason" in his orders, to "absolutely necessity" in the copy made of them in Terry's copy-book!"
This copy book must not have been a duplicate book?And the change could only be made before the original was dispatched to Custer and why would it have been changed? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2006 : 09:25:09 AM
|
| Wild, Vern, Benteen--I've moved my replies to the old thread on Custer's orders. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on January 29 2006 09:58:50 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2006 : 10:28:01 AM
|
In a post to the Winchester thread Benteen wrote. This changes the dynamic of the fighting on and around LSH. The Warriors wouldn't have close to within range of the Springfield. The Springfield was more than a match for the Winchester in regards to range. See .45-70 at Two Miles: The Sandy Hook Tests of 1879
http://www.researchpress.co.uk/targets/sandyhook.htm
The carbine has a shorter barrel so its muzzle velocity is less than the rifle but even at half the range 1 mile would be more than adequate to handle any Winchester,
As a side note Winchester had gone out of business. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on January 29 2006 10:30:11 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2006 : 11:21:54 AM
|
| But......again. In the reality of LBH, when most Indians or significant numbers had no firearms at all, what the dif? Most Indians WITH firearms are unlikely to be aware of their weapons' furthest range, zeroing the sights, ballistic arcs, any of that. They'd come within notional range, pointed and fired. That's no slam, that's how the unschooled fight even today. Imagine the world's ridiculous and untrained street fighters with Winchesters. Peek, flinch, point weapon in general direction, flinch, again 8x, fire, flinch. Dramatic lever action for camera, scream about your courage, peek..... |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 31 2006 : 10:21:25 PM
|
"But......again. In the reality of LBH, when most Indians or significant numbers had no firearms at all, what the dif? Most Indians WITH firearms are unlikely to be aware of their weapons' furthest range, zeroing the sights, ballistic arcs, any of that. They'd come within notional range, pointed and fired. That's no slam, that's how the unschooled fight even today. Imagine the world's ridiculous and untrained street fighters with Winchesters. Peek, flinch, point weapon in general direction, flinch, again 8x, fire, flinch. Dramatic lever action for camera, scream about your courage, peek....."
I would tend to agree. If the Indians had lots of rifles and shot up lots of ammo maybe they wouldn't have thought it was as easy to win the battle. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 06 2006 : 08:38:25 AM
|
We have gotten off the track of the Springfield Carbine the subject of this thread and maybe we have beat it enough for awhile. Summing up what I believe the salient points:
1 The 7th had very little training in operation and firing of the Trapdoor Springfield prior to LBH.
2 The ballistics and range of the Trapdoor Springfield were superior to the Henry or Winchester repeating rifles.
3 The rate of fire of a trained operator could be as high as 12 rounds per minute. The rate of fire the repeating rifle was higher than the TD Springfield.
4. The ammunition used whether 45-70 or 45-55 was of inferior manufacture,at the time of LBH, which caused some problems but was not decisive as to the determination of the outcome at LBH.
5. Modifications were made to the 1873 carbine resulting in the Model 1877 carbine which included a jointed cleaning rod and a headless shell extractor. This modification was due to field conditions discovered at LBH.
6. The Springfield was not the cause of the defeat at LBH.
7. The Army continued to use the TD Springfield long after LBH.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on February 06 2006 08:53:03 AM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 06 2006 : 3:41:23 PM
|
Your summary requires a time AZ.
The 7th had very little training in operation and firing of the Trapdoor Springfield prior to LBH.
I'll come back to you on the above as it may not be as cut and dried as your post might suggest. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 06 2006 : 6:23:35 PM
|
"Your summary requires a time AZ."
The 7th had very little training in operation and firing of the Trapdoor Springfield prior to LBH.I'll come back to you on the above as it may not be as cut and dried as your post might suggest.
OK-- Training for operation would include the manual of written instructions, a practical hands-on of functions/malfunctions and enough practice firing to be proficient. The training booklet was available at the time. Clearing malfunctions such as a stuck case was available at the time. The firing of the weapon was lacking and malfunction clearing. If Reno is to be believed then five rapid shots would loosen up the Trapdoor leading to stuck cartridges. It should have been discovered during training. Unless training is documented it is hard to prove it occurred. Currently undocumented training is training that has not occurred and most likely then. The fact that they had to use a knife to remove a stuck cartridge case rather than a tool designed for it demonstrates the lack of practical use of the firearm and ammo enough to discover the issue.
This training needed to be completed before going afield with the TD Springfield.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 06 2006 : 8:47:43 PM
|
| Also, Godfrey attributed the ammo issue to 'dirty' cartridges rather than defective cartridges, and I'm not aware he changed his mind later. That makes little difference except that minimal training would have taught soldiers to keep them clean so they wouldn't jam. But......so long as it's not being claimed as a big deal anyway. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - February 07 2006 : 07:24:06 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Also, Godfrey attributed the ammo issue to 'dirty' cartridges rather than defective cartridges, and I'm not aware he changed his mind later. That makes little difference except that minimal training would have taught soldiers to keep them clean so they wouldn't jam.
*sigh*
Is it an unrealistic expectation for me to think that you might be capable in indulging in some lateral thinking? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Springfield Carbine
