It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why did the US 7th Cav lose at Little Bighorn?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
When George Custer led five companies of the 7th Cavalry into the Little Bighorn valley, on June 25, 1876, he surely was convinced that he was going to defeat the Sioux. Despite what you might think, the reason he split his command was because he was worried that the Sioux might try and pull a Wachita on him, and escape around his regiment. Yet, despite the fact that the US troops were well-led, and well-armed with long range, single shot springfield carbines, the native americans still won. If we look at the battle from a historical context, archaeology tells us how he lost, but we don't know why.

[edit on 22-9-2008 by Ranger23]




posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Ranger23
 


Have you ever been in a military conflict? Or have you heard of "Murphy's law"? From my experience no matter how well planned the attack is something will go wrong...all ways. So its hard to say what went wrong. For all we know the guy banging the war drums could have signaled the wrong event. I.e infantry to move in or w/e. Any answer would really be a speculation cause unless you were their that's all we can really do, speculate.


just for a whim...what if the splitting of the company was a navigation error? It happens a lot.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Indians heap smart. Have better guns. Have better plan. Have Great Spirit on their side.

Sheesh, don`t you watch TV, Kimosabe?



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Custer's forces were vastly outnumbered, and underestimated the natives' capacity to strategize and use the weapons at their disposal.

They were defeated by overconfidence.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by hILB3rT
 


Yes, in fact I did serve in Afghanistan, and I still think that even if Murphy's law was dead set against Custer, the 7th still should have won.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   
It's not the size of the dog in the fight. It's the size of the fight in the dog.
And if you are stupid and arrogant enough to get sucked into a box canyon, you get what is coming to you.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Ranger23
 


Custer was a murderous bastard even during the Civil War, when he fought against one of my ancestors who fought with Moseby. Custer began executing captives, and Moseby's boys began doing the same thing. The northern press called these retaliations, "murder." But it was OK while Custer was doing it. He was finally reigned in by a superior who told him to knock it off.

He did the same thing out West. His arrogance was exceeded only by his vanity.

Custer violated all thirteen of the inviolable rules of warfare against the Sioux. When you walk and rewalk the battlefield with a critical eye, you can only come to the conclusion that Custer was a complete idiot.

Victory in battle is not a matter of numbers, technology, or weapons. It is an intuitive, knowing mind. That intuition must be counter-intuitive in substance. Custer was a very poor commander.

His last decision was his worst. After being turned back at the river, he hooked left instead of hooking right. The actual fighting took less than ten minutes, probably closer to five.

Custer came looking for a fight, and he got one.

One thing about native Americans. If someone came looking for trouble, they sure hated to see a man go away disappointed.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ranger23
reply to post by hILB3rT
 


Yes, in fact I did serve in Afghanistan, and I still think that even if Murphy's law was dead set against Custer, the 7th still should have won.


If "Murphy's law was dead set against Custer" then there would defiantly be no way for Custer to win. I mean think about it according to Murphy's law if something can go wrong it will. So if "Murphy's law was dead set against Custer" then everything would go wrong. Not to much to debate there.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
G A Custer was NOT a very good leader for one. He believed his own "hype".

The 2nd reason is that the bullet casings used in their rifles where made of spun brass and would "swell" when inserted into a hot chamber. The soldier would fire the bullet and then have to fight the gun to extract the casing. Basically they where not able to lay down an effective fire pattern because their guns where jamming left and right.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
And if you are stupid and arrogant enough to get sucked into a box canyon, you get what is coming to you.

Consider this...the 7th died on a hill. I'm not an expert in geography but isn't there a difference between a ridge and a box canyon?



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
They lost because they died.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ranger23

Consider this...the 7th died on a hill. I'm not an expert in geography but isn't there a difference between a ridge and a box canyon?


I'm not disputing either side, but just want to mention that a lot of these 'war storys' get romanticized by people who never where at the battle, or even visited the battleground years after the fact. Maybe they never even spoke with a survivor of either side, let alone know the relative strenghts of both sides in the conflict..

So, it is possible the actual fighting was in a box canyon, while some renowned painter pictured a heroic last stand on a hilltop ?

I wasn't there and I'm not familiar enough with both the history nor the terrain to conclude on any side.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phatcat

Originally posted by Ranger23

Consider this...the 7th died on a hill. I'm not an expert in geography but isn't there a difference between a ridge and a box canyon?


I'm not disputing either side, but just want to mention that a lot of these 'war storys' get romanticized by people who never where at the battle, or even visited the battleground years after the fact. Maybe they never even spoke with a survivor of either side, let alone know the relative strenghts of both sides in the conflict..

So, it is possible the actual fighting was in a box canyon, while some renowned painter pictured a heroic last stand on a hilltop ?

I wasn't there and I'm not familiar enough with both the history nor the terrain to conclude on any side.


I get that you don't know, and I'm not criticizing but for the benefit of anyone else, Custer's last stand was on a hill...



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Actually Custer and the bulk of his men died on what one could call a gentle, rounded hill, one of a series connected in what I'd refer as a ridge. But there were men who died in many scattered locations. It was panic. And it was fast.




top topics



 
1

log in

join