| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - November 15 2007 : 8:22:47 PM
|
Regardless of the fact that the statement was made 40 years later, does
not mean it did not happen. And as far as the COI goes, most of those
who made statements, was not what they had knew or said prior to the COI.
The COI was nothing but a white wash of Reno's actions.
Now you said in a post that there was a statement made by Hares that he had
fired only 12 rds of ammo. What Co was Hares in. I can find no Hares or Hare
that was in any Co in the valley fight, and I have two rosters. And I also
checked the aliases. The only Hare I can find is Lt. Hare and he was in Co "K"
You can spend many hours reading what those who were there had to say, and
each time you find something different in them. The problem is that you or
I cannot change what has been said by the those who were there and took part
in the battle. And keep in mind they all didn't sit down and write their
stories the next day. Most if not all were years after the battle. Unless
you or someone else can come up with something that Lt Varnum's statement was
not true or did not happen, I will stick by it.
|
Sgtmajor |
  |
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 16 2007 : 09:21:52 AM
|
Before we dismiss RCOI, one would have to believe that under oath they were all willing to lie. That is hard to believe for me. I find the testimony similar to most court testimony in that recollections are not exact and are filtered by ones perceptions. Without it there is very little original sources of information. There is testimony that condemns Reno. It is not a far stretch to imagine that if Benteen believes he did the best he could with the facts at hand he would not be willing to testify that he erred.
It is only in hindsight and sorting out what happened that preferred alternatives become available. The question at a COI should not be could you have done it better. That answer is yes. The COI is for actions that actually took place. The actions were found to be within acceptability not that it was the best choices made that day.
Debriefing and planning address how to do it better. Marksmanship and Horsemanship were addressed by the Army after this battle. Modifications were made to the Springfield and ammunition quality improved but the weapon system remained so the single shot carbine was not determined to be a problem by the Army.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on November 16 2007 09:25:02 AM |
|
|
|
chasber
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - November 16 2007 : 11:31:22 AM
|
Luther Hare was with the scouts as second in command under Varnum. He rejoined his company for the hilltop fight.
The RCOI is indeed very valuable as the only sworn testimony concerning the battle. I believe as SgtMajor that it was a whitewash. As in court testimony it is up to the jury to decide if what is said is true. To give the officers a blank check on truth just because they are officers is a mistake. If Reno went down every other officer would have been placed under the glass and very few of them performed well that day.
|
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 16 2007 : 12:58:15 PM
|
Chasber, As I said I did not find Hares on any of the rosters in the valley
fight. However I was looking in "William O. Taylor's book for some infor-
mation and found that, Taylor said that when the horses were taken to the
woods they were under the charge of Lt. Hare. Also in Sarf's book on the
LBH I found Hare listed as a scout from Co "K". My mistake, you were right.
But keep in mind I was looking for Hares as you wrote it. I was not looking
for Lt. Hare, as far as I knew Hares may have been an enlisted man in one
of the Co's. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
chasber
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - November 16 2007 : 7:37:20 PM
|
| Sorry Sgtmajor, that possesive apostrophe thing always gets me. Something back on topic, this is from J.G.Benton Lt. Colonel commanding the National Armory. The most powerful Winchester available for frontier service was sighted for an extreme range of 300 yards. The Springfield carbine was sighted for an extreme range of 1300 yards. The penetration of the Winchester into pine at 100 yards was less than half what the Springfield's (note possesive apostrophe). |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 16 2007 : 8:21:33 PM
|
Chasber, No apology needed. As you know we have discussed alot of things
here. Today I was reading an article that I have that was by Mark Gallear
it is called "The Guns of The Little Bighorn". In the article he claims
that the 7th did not get there Springfields until 1876 and were the last
to get them. He also says one of the potenial reasons for failings of the
Springfield at the LBH, was that they had been issued a number of faulty
weapons returned by other units.
We know that Reno said he had only six weapons that had problems, and we
don't know about any others. If the 7th were issue those sprigfields in
1876, how long before the LBH. How much training did they have with the
weapon.Could it have been the lack of training on the part of the soldiers
with a new weapon, and could this have been a factor. I would like to know
if anybody else on the Forum can add any information on this article. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
chasber
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - November 16 2007 : 11:44:20 PM
|
| In Reedstrom's Bugles, Banners & Warbonnets he has companies B,G and L receiving the new Springfield in June, 1874. He has the rest of the Seventh having the Springfield by September 1874. It would be interesting to see which one of them is correct. |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 17 2007 : 07:21:54 AM
|
Chasber: Interesting stats on the penetrating power/range of the Winchester vs the Springfield. Sounds like the Springfield would have been a fine sniper weapon at Stalingrad!!
Of course the average 7th trooper probably could not have hit a thing at 300 yards, much less 1,300 yards--.
Pity we'll never know the Indian rate of weapon/ammo failure-. |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 17 2007 : 11:30:58 AM
|
Brent, we do know from some finding that the indians use other ammo in
there weapons, this kind of information is lacking, but would be nice to
know. However, noe from what Chasber, has said I wonder why this Mark
Gallear did not mention the fact that some were issued the weapon in 1874.
However you still come to the that as you say Brent, the where not able
to hit anything at 300 yards, let alone 250. Now let me say this, I have
over the last few days been trying to read as many statements as I can
get my hands from men who fought in the valley fight. Sgt John Ryan of
Co "M" says in his statement in the "Custer Myth". The indians were well
mounted and armed. They tried to cut through our skirmish line. We fird
volleys into them repulsing their charge and empting a number of there
saddles. He then speaks of Lt Hodgson walking up down the line encourag-
ing the men to be calm and to fire low.
If this statement is true, and I like to add here that Hodgeson was a West
Pointer, and knew what should be done on a skimish line. So from what Ryan
says, then there was a certain amount of fire control on the skirmish line,
and were causing the indians problems. What it comes to is there was no one
protecting Reno's left flank, the indians then took advanage of this and
started around his left flank causing Reno to move his troops to the woods.
The indians kept moving to his left and got in his rear which brought on
the retreat to the bluffs. However I do hope someone out there on the forum
can shed some more light on the Springfield and when issued to the 7th.
Chasber, thanks for the info, something to work on. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 17 2007 : 12:29:08 PM
|
AZ, As to the RCOI, I am not saying or I don't really think any of those
offcers or others lied under oath. I do believe and from what I have read
they only answered questions asked of them. I also feel they were more
concerned with protecting the regiment. They all had to deal with the
disaster of the LBH, and mostly likely didn't want to damage it any more
or to point fingers.
What ever took place Major Reno had to deal with that. Now you mentioned
in an other post about Reno regrouping on the hill. Let me address that by
saying this. As I have stated before I am no great defender of Capt Benteen.
However he deserves a great amount of credit for what he had done on the
Hilltop. If he did not arrive when he did, I believe Reno would have kept
running and the rest of Reno's command would have met the same fate as Custer.
I believe he showed leadership, and great responsibility in saving what was
left of the regiment, and in my opinion deserves alot of credit. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 18 2007 : 11:44:01 AM
|
SGt Ryans comments are interesting--but if I'm not mistaken, the Indians had no saddles to empty (?)
Anyway, I know what he meant.
But I'm wondering just how many saddles they REALLY emptied? |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 18 2007 : 12:15:42 PM
|
Brent, I spent a great deal of time searching for that same answer, however
it is not easy. I have read that as many as 14 or 15 were killed and many
wounded. I had just read an article that Capt French had wrote. He had his
own own rifle, he claimed to have killed or wound 6 or 8 indians. This is
also backed up by Ryan.
In an Indian account I was reading, a trooper in the retreat was chased by
several indians. The indian giving the account said he was using his pistol
and killed one indian and wounded the indian who was a nephew of the indian
telling the story. He then fired at him but missed and he knocked the soldier
off his horse with the butt of a rifle, as he had no ammo for it.
An other article states that when Reno first set up his skirmish line the
indians were held at bay and many hit with bullets. It was not till Crazy
Horse arrived that kept the indians back, he then looked for a weakness in
the line and then found that no soldiers were on the left of the line near
some low bluffs, this is where he made his charge and drove the line back
to the woods. Although he said Indians were being hit, he never said how
many. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 18 2007 : 12:55:58 PM
|
Sgtmajor:
Of course some folks believe that only 30+ Indians were killed during the entire battle, which would leave hardly any to be killed by Custer or the Reno/Benteen consolidated group.
I'm sure that some Indians were hit, but my hunch is that it may not have been as many as those articles seem to suggest.
But that's just my opinion, of course. Truth is that we'll never know... |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 18 2007 : 1:54:07 PM
|
Brent, I have been reading some interesting articles with sources for most.
I spend alot of time on this one sight, many good articles and intersesting
reading.
Yellow Horse, who fought in the battle claimed 83 killed
Red Horse, claimed 136 dead, and 160 warriors wounded
In the village, Kanipe said 75 dead warriors were counted
Little Buck Elk, said we tried to hide our losses, but it was
useless to lie, we had more then 100 killed.
Crazy Horse said, many warriors died from wounds.
Two Moon, White Bull, and Low Dog claimed the indians were driven
back many times.
The National Park Service found in 2006 that 200 warriors were killed
on the battlefield. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 20 2007 : 06:02:25 AM
|
Well--always suspicious of those (especially the Indians) who come up with those exact numbers. The only one of that group that sounds convincing is when Crazy Horse says "many". And that could really mean many, or what to him might only be a few dozen.
Wondering how Kanipe would have counted (or any soldier counted) bodies in the Village??
Again tho, I've read estimates from 32 all the way up to 500 or more Indians killed. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 20 2007 : 07:26:04 AM
|
Exactly what was covered up at RCOI
That watches were not set to the same time?
That ones perspective differs from others?
As far as having the Army review itself who is the peer group for the Army if not itself. Many positive training and equipment issues came to light and the Army took action to correct them. None of the facts regarding weapon systems, marksmanship,or horsemanship were covered up. Some believe this was a court martial which it was not.
The National Park Service found rock piles which indicate someone piled rocks.
As far as getting out of the heat of battle going bad for your side and regrouping somewhere else,it doesn't matter if it took Benteen to pull it together. First you have to retreat before regrouping. Something Custer never did and cost 5 companies.
1874- quote:
Overall, the soldiers were pleased with their weapons. Lieutenant James Calhoun of Company L wrote in his diary on July 1, 1874: "The new Springfield arms and ammunition were issued to the command today. They seem to give great satisfaction."
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 20 2007 : 4:47:54 PM
|
My Remarks concerning the RCOI was not directed at marksmanship or to horse-
manship, there were those questioned had made remarks about the ammunition as
these questions were asked, never made the remark that they were covering up
any of those items. However as for the RCOI, one only has to read about and
to compare it to what was said at the COI, by Reno and Benteen. As far as time
goes nobody in battle can give an accurate estimate of time or distance, this
would be hard at best to do.
The difference between Custer and Reno is the fact that Custer stood his ground
and fought, granted he lost his command, but he stood fought. And it seems he
gave as good as he got, he just didn't have enough to win. You can call Reno's
movement to the bluffs a retreat, but to me it was a commander trying to save
his own hide. Nobody in that valley fight in the woods did not know what he
was doing, the fact of the matter is he didn't know what to do. But we do know
this, he had 39 men killed or wounded and left them to the indians to be put
through a horrible death. He had no concern for those men or those left behind
that had the good fortune to get back to friendly lines. No there should have
never been a RCOI, and yes to me it was a cover up of the facts, that were not
brought out.
Reno should have been Court Martialed, I consider what he did desertion in the
face of the ememy. This is my opinion, and there are plenty of facts to back it
up. I have no doubt there are those who will disagree, and mostly lay into my
opinion. But keep this in mind the facts will have to be greater then the ones
already available, and to disprove them. We can't change history, we can only
change our minds if history was wrong. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
chasber
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2007 : 03:18:13 AM
|
| Reno's conduct of the action in the valley was far, far, worse than what Reynolds did on the Powder River. Reynolds was dropped like a hot potato and Reno wasn't even charged. Reno's conduct on his scout was as bad if not worse than what Reynolds did and that never came up again. There would not have even been a COI if Fred Whittaker hadn't had some books left to sell. |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2007 : 12:43:41 PM
|
Chasber, I have no doubt that you are right about Whittaker, he was behind
the reason of the RCOI. But let me ask you this, what would have happened
had Custer lost the majority of his command, and had managed to get back to
safety, or the rest of his command, and leaving wounded or dieing troops to
the indians, there would be a lot of Whittakers out there wanting to hang
him from the highest tree they could find.
But Whittaker only pointed a finger, remember it was Reno who wanted the
COI, and if he was sure of his actions, and did nothing wrong then why
try to white wash it. We all know Whittaker was the fuse, but remember
this there were officers who were not going to step forward to come to
the defense of Reno or Benteen. French being one of them, and don't for-
get he was in the valley fight. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
chasber
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2007 : 2:09:59 PM
|
| I always see questions about Custer's actions and why he did things the way he did. I have to wonder how his actions would have been different had he known Reno was going to leave the attack and Benteen wasn't going to participate in it. |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2007 : 4:05:10 PM
|
I have no doubt that Custer did know what was happening on Reno's valley
fight. I do believe his scouts kept him informed. Some accounts I have
read by other writers say Custer did know and was trying to draw the indians
from Reno's attack. And I do believe he was looking for Benteen to come up to
support Reno or to get to him. Some of the men who have wrote articles on the
battle say that Custer was always looking on his back trail, some say he was
looking to see if Benteen was on the trail yet.
I also have wondered what would have happened had it been Beteen who made the
valley attack instead of Reno. Would he have done anything different, and if
he was driven into the woods, would he have made a stand there. What do you
think Reno may have done when he got Custer's order. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
chasber
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - November 22 2007 : 01:18:22 AM
|
| From several accounts it would seem that Reno was considered competent when under direct control. With Benteen holding a thousand warriors upstream Custer and Reno with 500 men could well have written a totaly different story. A story that would not be nearly as interesting and probably hardly discussed today. It is also possible that the only real difference would be the number of names on the monument. |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 23 2007 : 2:50:17 PM
|
Ah--what might have been!!
I'm fairly sure Custer was expecting Benteen--after all, he sent for him twice. Big mistake was, of course, sending him off in the first place. And because Custer didn't support Reno quickly enough (along with it's own lack of determination and not enough men), that weak effort faltered. Reno ran for it, Benteen (coming rather slowly) stumbles upon him, and decides to stay put. Custer either dosen't realize help isn't coming, or refuses to admit the Indians aren't running, or refuses to abandon the offensive (or maybe all three) and is wiped out. Bad day all around.
My own view is that the attack on the Village with Benteen and Reno combined may have had a better chance, but even then, if Custer waits too long in deciding where to press his own attack, that charge peters out as did Renos. Who knows what would have happened next?--I guess it depends how far Benteen/Reno were able to penetrate the Village. Maybe they'd be in too deep to even get out... |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 23 2007 : 4:14:42 PM
|
It has alway been my contenion that Custer had plenty of scouts. He could have
have sent some of those scouts under the coomand of Lt. Varnum to do the same
thing as Benteen. And he wanted Benteen to get back as soon as possible however
the problem was he kept sending messages to Benteen to keep checking the ridges.
Martin claims that Custer, ordered Reno to attack the village, and that he Custer.
Martin claims Custer he would support him, and go to the other end and drive them
and have Benteen hurry up and attack them in the center.
Kind of a bold plan when you I have know idea what is in front of you, and have
no knowledge of the terrain. Benteen was Custer's ace in the hole and could of
used him in Reno's attack with a good amount of success. One of Reno's problems
was his he did nothing to protect his left flank, which the indians took notice
of and attacked the left and got into Reno's rear. If he had placed Co "G" on
the left flank, instead of sending them into the woods, which may have held the
indians in check, and maybe Benteen may have come up to his support. 20 or 30
minutes longer may have made a big difference in Custer's attack. But it is all
guess work, and that day belong to the indians, and everything seems to have
worked in their favor. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
chasber
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - November 24 2007 : 03:01:32 AM
|
| Varnum was out front to the left, Hare was out front to the right and Bouyer and the Crows were watching the lone teepee camp when Custer sent Benteen. Forgetting what Benteen said in later years the fist ridge Custer sent him to was just over a mile away. Benteen's route to the successive ridges never took him much over two miles from the trail Custer followed. Why he sent the whole Battalion I cannot say. From the RCOI, when Benteen was asked how long 100 men with 60 rounds of ammo could of held Reno's position in the woods, Benteen answered 5 to 6 hours. Moylan stated that Custer, seeing Reno deploy in the valley, would have no reason to think Reno would not be able to take care of himself. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Springfield Carbine
