Custer's last stand

[Lincoln1976]

1. he knew/was told the village was large = outnumbered = splitting forces = stupid = not LISTENING to facts but to his ego
2. he ordered Reno to split away == but then he want's him to come to his aid???!!!
what?
..he ordered Benteen to come up with the packs and ammo

No no no....hold your horses....splitting your command was done as standard book cavalary tactic....nothing out of the ordinairy..as long as you have the advantage of surprise, it was the best strategy simple as....

Yes, when Custer realized, just how big the camp was, he ordered Benteen to come to his aid since he could see that the majority of the hostile force was after him...again, sound decision....he couldn't know about Reno's defeat though

 

[harmonica]

1. he knew/was told the village was large = outnumbered = splitting forces = stupid = not LISTENING to facts but to his ego
2. he ordered Reno to split away == but then he want's him to come to his aid???!!!
what?
..he ordered Benteen to come up with the packs and ammo

No no no....hold your horses....splitting your command was done as standard book cavalary tactic....nothing out of the ordinairy..as long as you have the advantage of surprise, it was the best strategy simple as....

Yes, when Custer realized, just how big the camp was, he ordered Benteen to come to his aid since he could see that the majority of the hostile force was after him...again, sound decision....he couldn't know about Reno's defeat though

1. he knew/was told the village was large = outnumbered = splitting forces = stupid = not LISTENING to facts but to his ego
2. he ordered Reno to split away == but then he want's him to come to his aid???!!!
what?
..he ordered Benteen to come up with the packs and ammo

No no no....hold your horses....splitting your command was done as standard book cavalary tactic....nothing out of the ordinairy..as long as you have the advantage of surprise, it was the best strategy simple as....

Yes, when Custer realized, just how big the camp was, he ordered Benteen to come to his aid since he could see that the majority of the hostile force was after him...again, sound decision....he couldn't know about Reno's defeat though

1. maybe ''standard'' for the Army fighting the NAs = as many officers did not have a lot of experience in..it worked at the Washita because there were not many warriors
AND, a US unit DID get massacred there because they DID split up
2. it is a standard military rule--do not split up
Wounds from the Washita: The Major Elliott Affair

 

[harmonica]

1. he knew/was told the village was large = outnumbered = splitting forces = stupid = not LISTENING to facts but to his ego
2. he ordered Reno to split away == but then he want's him to come to his aid???!!!
what?
..he ordered Benteen to come up with the packs and ammo

No no no....hold your horses....splitting your command was done as standard book cavalary tactic....nothing out of the ordinairy..as long as you have the advantage of surprise, it was the best strategy simple as....

Yes, when Custer realized, just how big the camp was, he ordered Benteen to come to his aid since he could see that the majority of the hostile force was after him...again, sound decision....he couldn't know about Reno's defeat though

also they ''split'' forces /small force at the Fetterman Massacre --
the critical point also mentioned already--no fortified positions

 

[harmonica]

1. he knew/was told the village was large = outnumbered = splitting forces = stupid = not LISTENING to facts but to his ego
2. he ordered Reno to split away == but then he want's him to come to his aid???!!!
what?
..he ordered Benteen to come up with the packs and ammo

No no no....hold your horses....splitting your command was done as standard book cavalary tactic....nothing out of the ordinairy..as long as you have the advantage of surprise, it was the best strategy simple as....

Yes, when Custer realized, just how big the camp was, he ordered Benteen to come to his aid since he could see that the majority of the hostile force was after him...again, sound decision....he couldn't know about Reno's defeat though

Civil War was much different than the Plains Wars

 

[Lincoln1976]

1. maybe ''standard'' for the Army fighting the NAs = as many officers did not have a lot of experience in..it worked at the Washita because there were not many warriors
AND, a US unit DID get massacred there because they DID split up
2. it is a standard military rule--do not split up
Wounds from the Washita: The Major Elliott Affair

not quite, it is?

Rommel split up his forces at several occasions, at Mersa El Brega for instance where he severally spanked the british arses, even though the outnumbered him considerally....

Splitting up your forces is common military tactic...it doesn't always work of course and is highly dependant on the situation....in Custer's case, it back fired since his tactic was used against him...this wasn't the first or last time in history that that happened

 

[harmonica]

1. maybe ''standard'' for the Army fighting the NAs = as many officers did not have a lot of experience in..it worked at the Washita because there were not many warriors
AND, a US unit DID get massacred there because they DID split up
2. it is a standard military rule--do not split up
Wounds from the Washita: The Major Elliott Affair

not quite, it is?

Rommel split up his forces at several occasions, at Mersa El Brega for instance where he severally spanked the british arses, even though the outnumbered him considerally....

Splitting up your forces is common military tactic...it doesn't always work of course and is highly dependant on the situation....in Custer's case, it back fired since his tactic was used against him...this wasn't the first or last time in history that that happened

and the Japanese did it at Midway and lost
again--totally DIFFERENT warfare--you CAN'T compare them
terrain different/weapons different/etc

 

[Lincoln1976]

also they ''split'' forces /small force at the Fetterman Massacre --
the critical point also mentioned already--no fortified positions

What do you mean regarding Fetterman? he didn't split his troops as far as I was aware..he was lured (against army recomandation) to pursue a "fleeing" small NA group.

cavalary tactics did not emphasis on fortified positions! and that was certainly not, what Custer had in mind either..riding into the camp, causing havock and at best taking women ans children hostage was probably what he was after...

 

[harmonica]

1. maybe ''standard'' for the Army fighting the NAs = as many officers did not have a lot of experience in..it worked at the Washita because there were not many warriors
AND, a US unit DID get massacred there because they DID split up
2. it is a standard military rule--do not split up
Wounds from the Washita: The Major Elliott Affair

not quite, it is?

Rommel split up his forces at several occasions, at Mersa El Brega for instance where he severally spanked the british arses, even though the outnumbered him considerally....

Splitting up your forces is common military tactic...it doesn't always work of course and is highly dependant on the situation....in Custer's case, it back fired since his tactic was used against him...this wasn't the first or last time in history that that happened

also, Rommel more or less went around the Brits--did not attack into the defense
Germans had better tanks and anti-tank guns

On the other side British were equipped with poorly armed and armored Cruiser Mark Is, Cruiser Mark IIs, Cruiser Mark IIIs, Cruiser Mark IVs and Crusaders which proved to be no match for the experienced German crews with their Panzer IIIs and IVs

 

[harmonica]

also they ''split'' forces /small force at the Fetterman Massacre --
the critical point also mentioned already--no fortified positions

What do you mean regarding Fetterman? he didn't split his troops as far as I was aware..he was lured (against army recomandation) to pursue a "fleeing" small NA group.

cavalary tactics did not emphasis on fortified positions! and that was certainly not, what Custer had in mind either..riding into the camp, causing havock and at best taking women ans children hostage was probably what he was after...

with Fetterman, some troops stayed at the Fort

 

[Lincoln1976]

and the Japanese did it at Midway and lost
again--totally DIFFERENT warfare--you CAN'T compare them
terrain different/weapons different/etc

woaw!
Dude, the Japanese got their asses handed because they CONCENTRATED their carrier fleet...it was a tactic developed by them (they had the most experience in carrier tactics) and it was copied by the US navy...having six aircraft carrier in one location was risky, yet it gave a lot of fire power...the kido Butai was blessing and curse in one, but the battle of midway was lost due to their second bombing run at the island, while they should have prepared for an air attack....and the fact that their reconnasance operation was carried out by planes, operating from heavy cruisers (just in case you didn't know) and crucial intel wasn't relayed back to Admiral Nagumo in time (a Jap sub sighted the US carrier group prior but didn't report back for instance)

 

[Camp]

How would a commander hold troops in reserve or have a plan for attacking two or more fronts if he does not split his forces? How could a flanking movement be conducted without splitting forces?

 

[harmonica]

and the Japanese did it at Midway and lost
again--totally DIFFERENT warfare--you CAN'T compare them
terrain different/weapons different/etc

woaw!
Dude, the Japanese got their asses handed because they CONCENTRATED their carrier fleet...it was a tactic developed by them (they had the most experience in carrier tactics) and it was copied by the US navy...having six aircraft carrier in one location was risky, yet it gave a lot of fire power...the kido Butai was blessing and curse in one, but the battle of midway was lost due to their second bombing run at the island, while they should have prepared for an air attack....and the fact that their reconnasance operation was carried out by planes, operating from heavy cruisers (just in case you didn't know) and crucial intel wasn't relayed back to Admiral Nagumo in time (a Jap sub sighted the US carrier group prior but didn't report back for instance)

no no--the Japanese SPLIT their forces at Midway/Alaska operation with 2 carriers for the Alaska Op

 

[mikegriffith1]

1. maybe ''standard'' for the Army fighting the NAs = as many officers did not have a lot of experience in..it worked at the Washita because there were not many warriors.

You need to do a little serious reading on Custer's Last Stand. First off, there were plenty of warriors at the Washita. Second, dividing your force was a standard U.S. Army tactic when fighting against Indians. General Nelson Miles, a great Indian fighter, strongly defended Custer's actions at the Little Big Horn and argued that Reno and Benteen should have been prosecuted for gross dereliction of duty.

AND, a US unit DID get massacred there because they DID split up
2. it is a standard military rule--do not split up
Wounds from the Washita: The Major Elliott Affair

Again, you need to do some serious research. It was not a standard rule to concentrate forces when fighting Indians. For that matter, some Civil War generals, such as Robert E. Lee, achieved great success by dividing their forces during the war.

Custer held his own for hours at the Little Big Horn, partly because the Indians logically assumed that Reno's force would quickly be coming to Custer's aid, so they refrained from a close-up assault and were content to engage in a long-distance fire fight. But, when they saw that Reno's force wasn't going anywhere, they decided to close in on Custer.

Reno blundered horribly by leaving the timber (the sunken area of trees to which he initially fled after losing his nerve the first time). The timber was one giant natural rifle pit, and the Indians were shocked when they realized that Reno was making a dash from the timber to what would later be called Reno Hill. Reno lost one-fourth of his command in that foolish, blundering move. Also, by leaving the timber, Reno's force no longer threatened the village because Reno Hill was over a mile farther away from the village!

I would recommend three readily available books on Custer's Last Stand:

Phillip Tucker, Death at the Little Bighorn (Skyhorse Publishing 2017)

Nathan Philbrick, The Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull, and the Battle of the Little Bighorn (New York: Viking, 2010)

James Donovan, A Terrible Glory: Custer and the Little Bighorn (New York: Little, Brown, and Company, 2008)

 

[harmonica]

1. maybe ''standard'' for the Army fighting the NAs = as many officers did not have a lot of experience in..it worked at the Washita because there were not many warriors.

You need to do a little serious reading on Custer's Last Stand. First off, there were plenty of warriors at the Washita. Second, dividing your force was a standard U.S. Army tactic when fighting against Indians. General Nelson Miles, a great Indian fighter, strongly defended Custer's actions at the Little Big Horn and argued that Reno and Benteen should have been prosecuted for gross dereliction of duty.

AND, a US unit DID get massacred there because they DID split up
2. it is a standard military rule--do not split up
Wounds from the Washita: The Major Elliott Affair

Again, you need to do some serious research. It was not a standard rule when fighting Indians. For that matter, some Civil War generals, such as Robert E. Lee, achieved great success by dividing their forces during the war.

Custer held his own for hours, partly because the Indians logically assumed that Reno's force would quickly be coming to Custer's aid, so they refrained from a close-up assault and were content to engage in a long-distance fire fight. But, when they saw that Reno's force wasn't going anywhere, they decided to close in on Custer.

I would recommend three readily available books on Custer's Last Stand:

Phillip Tucker, Death at the Little Bighorn (Skyhorse Publishing 2017)

Nathan Philbrick, The Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull, and the Battle of the Little Bighorn (New York: Viking, 2010)

James Donovan, A Terrible Glory: Custer and the Little Bighorn (New York: Little, Brown, and Company, 2008)

you need to do a little serious reading on Custer's Last Stand
from The Earth is Weeping by Peter Cozzens--which I have right here on my end table
--page 96
''Black Kettle's village of fifty three lodges stood in sorrowful isolation''
bold mine
''after Sand Creek he and his three hundred [ total ] followers always wintered alone''
bold and parenthesis mine
''844 officers and men of the Seventh Cavalry pounded toward the Washita'''
bold mine
how many warriors at the Bighorn??? 1500/3000/etc??
WTF are you saying???

 

[harmonica]

1. maybe ''standard'' for the Army fighting the NAs = as many officers did not have a lot of experience in..it worked at the Washita because there were not many warriors.

You need to do a little serious reading on Custer's Last Stand. First off, there were plenty of warriors at the Washita. Second, dividing your force was a standard U.S. Army tactic when fighting against Indians. General Nelson Miles, a great Indian fighter, strongly defended Custer's actions at the Little Big Horn and argued that Reno and Benteen should have been prosecuted for gross dereliction of duty.

AND, a US unit DID get massacred there because they DID split up
2. it is a standard military rule--do not split up
Wounds from the Washita: The Major Elliott Affair

Again, you need to do some serious research. It was not a standard rule to concentrate forces when fighting Indians. For that matter, some Civil War generals, such as Robert E. Lee, achieved great success by dividing their forces during the war.

Custer held his own for hours at the Little Big Horn, partly because the Indians logically assumed that Reno's force would quickly be coming to Custer's aid, so they refrained from a close-up assault and were content to engage in a long-distance fire fight. But, when they saw that Reno's force wasn't going anywhere, they decided to close in on Custer.

Reno blundered horribly by leaving the timber (the sunken area of trees to which he initially fled after losing his nerve the first time). The timber was one giant natural rifle pit, and the Indians were shocked when they realized that Reno was making a dash from the timber to what would later be called Reno Hill. Reno lost one-fourth of his command in that foolish, blundering move. Also, by leaving the timber, Reno's force no longer threatened the village because Reno Hill was over a mile farther away from the village!

I would recommend three readily available books on Custer's Last Stand:

Phillip Tucker, Death at the Little Bighorn (Skyhorse Publishing 2017)

Nathan Philbrick, The Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull, and the Battle of the Little Bighorn (New York: Viking, 2010)

James Donovan, A Terrible Glory: Custer and the Little Bighorn (New York: Little, Brown, and Company, 2008)

......hahahhahah--as I stated before the Civil War was nothing like the Indian wars--like Vietnam was nothing like WW2

 

[mikegriffith1]

1. maybe ''standard'' for the Army fighting the NAs = as many officers did not have a lot of experience in..it worked at the Washita because there were not many warriors.

You need to do a little serious reading on Custer's Last Stand. First off, there were plenty of warriors at the Washita. Second, dividing your force was a standard U.S. Army tactic when fighting against Indians. General Nelson Miles, a great Indian fighter, strongly defended Custer's actions at the Little Big Horn and argued that Reno and Benteen should have been prosecuted for gross dereliction of duty.

AND, a US unit DID get massacred there because they DID split up
2. it is a standard military rule--do not split up
Wounds from the Washita: The Major Elliott Affair

Again, you need to do some serious research. It was not a standard rule when fighting Indians. For that matter, some Civil War generals, such as Robert E. Lee, achieved great success by dividing their forces during the war.

Custer held his own for hours, partly because the Indians logically assumed that Reno's force would quickly be coming to Custer's aid, so they refrained from a close-up assault and were content to engage in a long-distance fire fight. But, when they saw that Reno's force wasn't going anywhere, they decided to close in on Custer.

I would recommend three readily available books on Custer's Last Stand:

Phillip Tucker, Death at the Little Bighorn (Skyhorse Publishing 2017)

Nathan Philbrick, The Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull, and the Battle of the Little Bighorn (New York: Viking, 2010)

James Donovan, A Terrible Glory: Custer and the Little Bighorn (New York: Little, Brown, and Company, 2008)

you need to do a little serious reading on Custer's Last Stand
from The Earth is Weeping by Peter Cozzens--which I have right here on my end table
--page 96
''Black Kettle's village of fifty three lodges stood in sorrowful isolation''
bold mine
''after Sand Creek he and his three hundred [ total ] followers always wintered alone''
bold and parentheses mine
''844 officers and men of the Seventh Cavalry pounded toward the Washita'''
bold mine
how many warriors at the Bighorn??? 1500/3000/etc??

Why don't you compare Cozzens' book to the books written by Tucker, Philbrick, Donovan, Robert Utley, Robert Nightengale, Larry Sklenar, Paul Hoffman, T. J. Stiles, John Gray, and the late great Charles Kuhlman (who is believed by many to have known more about the battle than anyone)?

As for the Battle of the Washita, you might check out this article:

George Custer | Washita | Black Kettle

 

[harmonica]

How would a commander hold troops in reserve or have a plan for attacking two or more fronts if he does not split his forces? How could a flanking movement be conducted without splitting forces?

your military knowledge is lacking--that's obvious
...holding troops in reserve is NOT splitting forces!!!!!!!!!!
...you don't attack 2 or more fronts with one unit-that's called a war--such as the Battle of the Bulge they used 3 armies to attack ONE sector--with each army designed to protect the others..there were about four Allied ''''''fronts'''---9th,1st, 3rd, 7th Armies--with the Germans attacking mainly the 1st Army
..and that is definitely WRONG if the enemy outnumbers you!!!
...as in North Africa, Rommel's forces ''protected each other'''

..if you are using a unit as a decoy, it is not the plan for the decoys to be massacred

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Custer led them into a massacre. They have scouts for a reason. To look before you expose yourself

Reno trying to salvage a precarious situation can’t be blamed

 

[harmonica]

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?

Custer led them into a massacre. They have scouts for a reason. To look before you expose yourself

Reno trying to salvage a precarious situation can’t be blamed

..thank you --recon--that's what the recon is for---so you can develope the BEST plan
..not a dumbass plan
..Reno's situation was just about hopeless

 

[harmonica]

1. maybe ''standard'' for the Army fighting the NAs = as many officers did not have a lot of experience in..it worked at the Washita because there were not many warriors.

You need to do a little serious reading on Custer's Last Stand. First off, there were plenty of warriors at the Washita. Second, dividing your force was a standard U.S. Army tactic when fighting against Indians. General Nelson Miles, a great Indian fighter, strongly defended Custer's actions at the Little Big Horn and argued that Reno and Benteen should have been prosecuted for gross dereliction of duty.

AND, a US unit DID get massacred there because they DID split up
2. it is a standard military rule--do not split up
Wounds from the Washita: The Major Elliott Affair

Again, you need to do some serious research. It was not a standard rule when fighting Indians. For that matter, some Civil War generals, such as Robert E. Lee, achieved great success by dividing their forces during the war.

Custer held his own for hours, partly because the Indians logically assumed that Reno's force would quickly be coming to Custer's aid, so they refrained from a close-up assault and were content to engage in a long-distance fire fight. But, when they saw that Reno's force wasn't going anywhere, they decided to close in on Custer.

I would recommend three readily available books on Custer's Last Stand:

Phillip Tucker, Death at the Little Bighorn (Skyhorse Publishing 2017)

Nathan Philbrick, The Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull, and the Battle of the Little Bighorn (New York: Viking, 2010)

James Donovan, A Terrible Glory: Custer and the Little Bighorn (New York: Little, Brown, and Company, 2008)

you need to do a little serious reading on Custer's Last Stand
from The Earth is Weeping by Peter Cozzens--which I have right here on my end table
--page 96
''Black Kettle's village of fifty three lodges stood in sorrowful isolation''
bold mine
''after Sand Creek he and his three hundred [ total ] followers always wintered alone''
bold and parentheses mine
''844 officers and men of the Seventh Cavalry pounded toward the Washita'''
bold mine
how many warriors at the Bighorn??? 1500/3000/etc??

Why don't you compare Cozzens' book to the books written by Tucker, Philbrick, Donovan, Robert Utley, Robert Nightengale, Larry Sklenar, Paul Hoffman, T. J. Stiles, John Gray, and the late great Charles Kuhlman (who is believed by many to have known more about the battle than anyone)?

As for the Battle of the Washita, you might check out this article:

George Custer | Washita | Black Kettle

sorry--you were massacred already
you tried to babble about ''many warriors'' at the Washita and I proved you wrong
battle over
no need to compare
the US OUTNUMBERED the NAs at the Washita --PLAIN and SIMPLE
that is a huge difference [ and fact ] I pointed out