Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
the Gatlin gun he was suppose to take (actually three of them) where carriage mounted ...pieces of "artillery" really...not much use for a quick strike force....I don't know how to post the individual image but look at these monstersIt would have been nice if Custer had taken the Gatling Guns like he was supposed to. Idiot.
gatling gun 1875 - Google Search:
If that would have worked, than they could have used the 1500 men infantery that marches up from the South..the main force under Sheridan
The 7th Calvary was split. Reno being one part of it. Custer another. Crazy Horse hit Reno and forced a retreat then move quickly to attack Custer with Superior numbers.......Cutting off any retreat to a defensive position.Well, the Army examined the Custer battlefield extensively and mapped not only where the US soldiers fell, but also bloodstains indicating fallen or wounded NA's, and importantly, where they found empty cartridges. Nothing indicates Custer or his men made it to any ridge or his forces were split during the last stand battle.Yes. Been to Crazy Horse mountain as well.After having been to the battlefield, do you believe the story you just posted?Crazy Horse's Story of the Battle of the Little Bighorn
AT THE LITTLE BIGHORN, Crazy Horse led his crack troops in charges that shattered the defenses of first Reno and then Custer.
Iron Hawk and Standing Bear described how Crazy Horse's first flanking charge of the battle "broke Reno's left wing" in the timber and sent his men fleeing for their lives, and Flying Hawk described how Crazy Horse personally rode among the American soldiers and "killed a lot of them with his war-club." Then after he disengaged from Reno, Crazy Horse led his combined Sioux and Cheyenne force to flank Custer's retreating men.
Flying Hawk described how Crazy Horse "shot them [American soldiers] as fast as he could load his gun" while he studied the situation. Then He Dog said Crazy Horse led a charge which split Custer's right flank on the ridge above the river. In the deadly melee that followed, Red Feather described how Crazy Horse rode between the two split portions blowing on his wild, unearthly Eagle Horn. Crazy Horse drew withering fire but escaped untouched.
Crazy Horse was legendary to the Indians. With the best Calvary in the time. He outflanked over a 1000 men in the battle of Rosebud. I have no doubt that he slammed into Reno and then maneuvered to crush Custer.
OK, but that is different than the Crazy Horse story you posted. Maybe I misunderstood.The 7th Calvary was split. Reno being one part of it. Custer another. Crazy Horse hit Reno and forced a retreat then move quickly to attack Custer with Superior numbers.......Cutting off any retreat to a defensive position.Well, the Army examined the Custer battlefield extensively and mapped not only where the US soldiers fell, but also bloodstains indicating fallen or wounded NA's, and importantly, where they found empty cartridges. Nothing indicates Custer or his men made it to any ridge or his forces were split during the last stand battle.Yes. Been to Crazy Horse mountain as well.After having been to the battlefield, do you believe the story you just posted?Crazy Horse's Story of the Battle of the Little Bighorn
AT THE LITTLE BIGHORN, Crazy Horse led his crack troops in charges that shattered the defenses of first Reno and then Custer.
Iron Hawk and Standing Bear described how Crazy Horse's first flanking charge of the battle "broke Reno's left wing" in the timber and sent his men fleeing for their lives, and Flying Hawk described how Crazy Horse personally rode among the American soldiers and "killed a lot of them with his war-club." Then after he disengaged from Reno, Crazy Horse led his combined Sioux and Cheyenne force to flank Custer's retreating men.
Flying Hawk described how Crazy Horse "shot them [American soldiers] as fast as he could load his gun" while he studied the situation. Then He Dog said Crazy Horse led a charge which split Custer's right flank on the ridge above the river. In the deadly melee that followed, Red Feather described how Crazy Horse rode between the two split portions blowing on his wild, unearthly Eagle Horn. Crazy Horse drew withering fire but escaped untouched.
Crazy Horse was legendary to the Indians. With the best Calvary in the time. He outflanked over a 1000 men in the battle of Rosebud. I have no doubt that he slammed into Reno and then maneuvered to crush Custer.
Face it. Crazy Horse was one bad assed fighter. He was never defeated and Custer got wiped out for underestimating him.
The split was to split portions of the 7th. And that most certainly happened......partially by Custer's stupidity.
Is it too late to warn Custer?
Most everyone deserves some respect for the service they gave to our country, Custer deserves much respect for his exploits during the Civil War but honestly not much after that. Look at Fredendall, (Philippines, WW I & WW II), was an excellent trainer and administrator, handled himself fairly well during his command of Operation Torch but then everything changed.I dunno, but I think it's a little late to be assessing the situation now. LOL.
Anyhew, Custer was simply a power hungry arrogant warmonger who had no real respect for his enemy.
I disagree...I live in acountry, where the actions of men who fought 700 or 1000 years ago are still relevant today..in Custer's case, I find it very importand to avoid the "little big man" cliche of a lunatic incompetent "warmonger"....fist of all: he deserves some respect for the service he has done to his country during his career and secondly, is the thought that the US army would be completely reckless and stupid and God what not not a bit far fetched?
I dunno, but I think it's a little late to be assessing the situation now. LOL.
Anyhew, Custer was simply a power hungry arrogant warmonger who had no real respect for his enemy.
I disagree...I live in acountry, where the actions of men who fought 700 or 1000 years ago are still relevant today..in Custer's case, I find it very importand to avoid the "little big man" cliche of a lunatic incompetent "warmonger"....fist of all: he deserves some respect for the service he has done to his country during his career and secondly, is the thought that the US army would be completely reckless and stupid and God what not not a bit far fetched?
The story was that he hit Reno first and caused a retreat. Then moved quickly to encircle Custer. His strategy was to divide and conquer. Then destroy a smaller force with superior numbers as he did to Custer.OK, but that is different than the Crazy Horse story you posted. Maybe I misunderstood.The 7th Calvary was split. Reno being one part of it. Custer another. Crazy Horse hit Reno and forced a retreat then move quickly to attack Custer with Superior numbers.......Cutting off any retreat to a defensive position.Well, the Army examined the Custer battlefield extensively and mapped not only where the US soldiers fell, but also bloodstains indicating fallen or wounded NA's, and importantly, where they found empty cartridges. Nothing indicates Custer or his men made it to any ridge or his forces were split during the last stand battle.Yes. Been to Crazy Horse mountain as well.After having been to the battlefield, do you believe the story you just posted?Crazy Horse's Story of the Battle of the Little Bighorn
AT THE LITTLE BIGHORN, Crazy Horse led his crack troops in charges that shattered the defenses of first Reno and then Custer.
Iron Hawk and Standing Bear described how Crazy Horse's first flanking charge of the battle "broke Reno's left wing" in the timber and sent his men fleeing for their lives, and Flying Hawk described how Crazy Horse personally rode among the American soldiers and "killed a lot of them with his war-club." Then after he disengaged from Reno, Crazy Horse led his combined Sioux and Cheyenne force to flank Custer's retreating men.
Flying Hawk described how Crazy Horse "shot them [American soldiers] as fast as he could load his gun" while he studied the situation. Then He Dog said Crazy Horse led a charge which split Custer's right flank on the ridge above the river. In the deadly melee that followed, Red Feather described how Crazy Horse rode between the two split portions blowing on his wild, unearthly Eagle Horn. Crazy Horse drew withering fire but escaped untouched.
Crazy Horse was legendary to the Indians. With the best Calvary in the time. He outflanked over a 1000 men in the battle of Rosebud. I have no doubt that he slammed into Reno and then maneuvered to crush Custer.
Face it. Crazy Horse was one bad assed fighter. He was never defeated and Custer got wiped out for underestimating him.
The split was to split portions of the 7th. And that most certainly happened......partially by Custer's stupidity.
Most everyone deserves some respect for the service they gave to our country, Custer deserves much respect for his exploits during the Civil War but honestly not much after that. Look at Fredendall, (Philippines, WW I & WW II), was an excellent trainer and administrator, handled himself fairly well during his command of Operation Torch but then everything changed.I dunno, but I think it's a little late to be assessing the situation now. LOL.
Anyhew, Custer was simply a power hungry arrogant warmonger who had no real respect for his enemy.
I disagree...I live in acountry, where the actions of men who fought 700 or 1000 years ago are still relevant today..in Custer's case, I find it very importand to avoid the "little big man" cliche of a lunatic incompetent "warmonger"....fist of all: he deserves some respect for the service he has done to his country during his career and secondly, is the thought that the US army would be completely reckless and stupid and God what not not a bit far fetched?
In Oran he failed to understand his mission.
He violated several basic principles of command embodied in American doctrine.
He ignored the profound benefit that comes from the leader’s appearance of personal bravery.
He forgot that self-control is an absolute prerequisite for command.
Finally, a commander cannot make fundamental tactical mistakes in the field and expect to survive.
Fredendall was a Francophobe and an Anglophobe ill-suited to wage coalition warfare; a micromanager who bypassed the chain of command – giving orders as far down as company level; a coward, he allowed animus with subordinates to affect his judgment and undercut their authority; and finally, staring defeat in the face at Kasserine, he tried to pin the blame on others.
Heck, he was having his engineers dig out a bunker out of solid rock, still had the old WW I mindset.
He went from being "one of our best" to being "one of the most inept senior officers to hold a high command during World War II".
interesting, I never looked at the Africa campaign from that angle or even heard of the guy....but you're right...even though being defeated by Rommel isn't a really big shame in a senseMost everyone deserves some respect for the service they gave to our country, Custer deserves much respect for his exploits during the Civil War but honestly not much after that. Look at Fredendall, (Philippines, WW I & WW II), was an excellent trainer and administrator, handled himself fairly well during his command of Operation Torch but then everything changed.
In Oran he failed to understand his mission.
He violated several basic principles of command embodied in American doctrine.
He ignored the profound benefit that comes from the leader’s appearance of personal bravery.
He forgot that self-control is an absolute prerequisite for command.
Finally, a commander cannot make fundamental tactical mistakes in the field and expect to survive.
Fredendall was a Francophobe and an Anglophobe ill-suited to wage coalition warfare; a micromanager who bypassed the chain of command – giving orders asff far down as company level; a coward, he allowed animus with subordinates to affect his judgment and undercut their authority; and finally, staring defeat in the face at Kasserine, he tried to pin the blame on others.
Heck, he was having his engineers dig out a bunker out of solid rock, still had the old WW I mindset.
He went from being "one of our best" to being "one of the most inept senior officers to hold a high command during World War II".
That is absolute true..however, a second lieutenant, rising to the rank of brigadir general...something unprecedented in history...You are only as good as your last battle.
As for respect, I don't automatically show respect to someone in uniform. Not all deserve respect. As for Custer, I did not know him personally but what I do know about him is not all that flattering.
That's your privilege.Most everyone deserves some respect for the service they gave to our country, Custer deserves much respect for his exploits during the Civil War but honestly not much after that. Look at Fredendall, (Philippines, WW I & WW II), was an excellent trainer and administrator, handled himself fairly well during his command of Operation Torch but then everything changed.I dunno, but I think it's a little late to be assessing the situation now. LOL.
Anyhew, Custer was simply a power hungry arrogant warmonger who had no real respect for his enemy.
I disagree...I live in acountry, where the actions of men who fought 700 or 1000 years ago are still relevant today..in Custer's case, I find it very importand to avoid the "little big man" cliche of a lunatic incompetent "warmonger"....fist of all: he deserves some respect for the service he has done to his country during his career and secondly, is the thought that the US army would be completely reckless and stupid and God what not not a bit far fetched?
In Oran he failed to understand his mission.
He violated several basic principles of command embodied in American doctrine.
He ignored the profound benefit that comes from the leader’s appearance of personal bravery.
He forgot that self-control is an absolute prerequisite for command.
Finally, a commander cannot make fundamental tactical mistakes in the field and expect to survive.
Fredendall was a Francophobe and an Anglophobe ill-suited to wage coalition warfare; a micromanager who bypassed the chain of command – giving orders as far down as company level; a coward, he allowed animus with subordinates to affect his judgment and undercut their authority; and finally, staring defeat in the face at Kasserine, he tried to pin the blame on others.
Heck, he was having his engineers dig out a bunker out of solid rock, still had the old WW I mindset.
He went from being "one of our best" to being "one of the most inept senior officers to hold a high command during World War II".
You are only as good as your last battle.
As for respect, I don't automatically show respect to someone in uniform. Not all deserve respect. As for Custer, I did not know him personally but what I do know about him is not all that flattering.
The story was that he hit Reno first and caused a retreat. Then moved quickly to encircle Custer. His strategy was to divide and conquer. Then destroy a smaller force with superior numbers as he did to Custer.
That was a battle tactic...........and they actually compared Crazy Horse to Bedford Forrest for it. Because Forrest would do the same thing. Hit quick, cause confusion, and then rapidly maneuver to cut off smaller forces.
Crazy Horse was a great tactician. Indian or not when compared to military strategy.
One of the best books on the US African Campaign is An Army at Dawn by Rick Atkinson followed by The Day of Battle (Italian campaign) by the same author. It's actually a bit of a miracle Operation Torch succeeded, where the Vichy French fought back we and the Brits mostly got our asses handed to them. Hell we didn't even know how to properly load the supply ships, weapons and ammo stowed with thousands of tons of less essential material on top of it........interesting, I never looked at the Africa campaign from that angle or even heard of the guy....but you're right...even though being defeated by Rommel isn't a really big shame in a senseMost everyone deserves some respect for the service they gave to our country, Custer deserves much respect for his exploits during the Civil War but honestly not much after that. Look at Fredendall, (Philippines, WW I & WW II), was an excellent trainer and administrator, handled himself fairly well during his command of Operation Torch but then everything changed.
In Oran he failed to understand his mission.
He violated several basic principles of command embodied in American doctrine.
He ignored the profound benefit that comes from the leader’s appearance of personal bravery.
He forgot that self-control is an absolute prerequisite for command.
Finally, a commander cannot make fundamental tactical mistakes in the field and expect to survive.
Fredendall was a Francophobe and an Anglophobe ill-suited to wage coalition warfare; a micromanager who bypassed the chain of command – giving orders asff far down as company level; a coward, he allowed animus with subordinates to affect his judgment and undercut their authority; and finally, staring defeat in the face at Kasserine, he tried to pin the blame on others.
Heck, he was having his engineers dig out a bunker out of solid rock, still had the old WW I mindset.
He went from being "one of our best" to being "one of the most inept senior officers to hold a high command during World War II".
I'll have to check that out! interesting stuff right there..Africa has for me always been a bit of a back burner campaign compared to Russia or D day..I should polish up on my knowlege!One of the best books on the US African Campaign is An Army at Dawn by Rick Atkinson followed by The Day of Battle (Italian campaign) by the same author. It's actually a bit of a miracle Operation Torch succeeded, where the Vichy French fought back we and the Brits mostly got our asses handed to them. Hell we didn't even know how to properly load the supply ships, weapons and ammo stowed with thousands of tons of less essential material on top of it........
Not only those previous screw-ups our troops were sent to North Africa without winter gear........, in November....... The night gets below freezing during the winter. Guess none of the planners had ever been to a desert in the winter.I'll have to check that out! interesting stuff right there..Africa has for me always been a bit of a back burner campaign compared to Russia or D day..I should polish up on my knowlege!One of the best books on the US African Campaign is An Army at Dawn by Rick Atkinson followed by The Day of Battle (Italian campaign) by the same author. It's actually a bit of a miracle Operation Torch succeeded, where the Vichy French fought back we and the Brits mostly got our asses handed to them. Hell we didn't even know how to properly load the supply ships, weapons and ammo stowed with thousands of tons of less essential material on top of it........
Thanks again!
That is what happens when you put a Liberal incharge of support of a battle.I'd like to know your opinion about the battle of the greasy grass eg. Custer's last stand....I recently bought a book by Peter Panzeri (Little Big Horn 1876) and was quite intreagued by it, since it does give a very good and detailed insight into said battle.
I always knew about Major Reno's questionable command of his troops, yet the whole extend in which his incompetance (and cowardice) contributed to Custer's command's demise is quite astonishing.
Sure, one can blame Custer for hot headedly storming into the situation which than turned against him, yet it was Reno's retreat (and subsequent heavy losses) which allowed the Indians to break loose and concentrate their whole numbers on Custer...
So,what do you think?
