Battle of the Little Bighorn

its the 143 anniversary of Custer's last stand. A classic example of vanity and poor planning.

what's your point please?

I didn't know there was suppose to be a point? There is no initial point.

As a avid Custer enthusiast, having read a number of books on the topic, been to the battlefield and watched a few movies on it.my favorite being "Son of the Morning Star" I felt inclined to post up on the 143rd anniversary of the event.

There is another movie on custer coming out next year called "Custers Strategy of Defeat". I've seen a few snipppets of it but not enough to have an opinion.

Most,if not everyone has heard of the last stand. Its polarizing in that you either think custer is a hero or a fool in that particular instance.

So no point here. Was hoping for opinions.

I'm not as well read on him as you are(hope you're well read on both sides of his story). Opinions..hmmm, I feel he was a glory hunting,ambitious egotistical butcher. But that's just an opinion. He sure bit off more than he could chew.

I know president grant diodn't like custer,at the time, just before the battle, he was in the dog house for arresting Grants brother for drunkeness. So custer was looking at this new opprtunity to not only redeem himself to his former glory but other aspirations. Like a possible run at the presidency.y

To me custer was a mess. He finished last in his class at west point. In past indian patrolling he alledgedly had an indian gf and fathered a child by her.

To his credit he fame and glory were his fearless charges leading his troops during the civil war. Hecwas made a brevet general during that time but had been reduced to a colonel since.

But we didn't need vain arrogant leaders who disobeyed orders either.

Custer's #1 problem was inferior armament. He led his troops up against an enemy with superior weapons - lever-action repeating rifles - and more of them than his own troops had of breachloaders, as battlefield archeologists have proven. If the 7th Cav had equal weaponry, the outcome would have been different, no doubt, maybe not victory, but not a massacre. If he expected to meet an enemy with equal or lesser weaponry, his tactics weren't that bad, though he still would have sustained a high number of casualties that wouldn't have been necessary. Once again, Washington bureaucrats blame the field commander for their failings - repeating rifles could have been procured years earlier. Washington REMFs didn't like that they might use more ammunition than the bean-counters wanted them to, bullets cost money and soldiers lives were cheaper then. His unit could have had Henrys or Winchesters, and even a Gatling gun or two. Thankfully, future combat saw better weaponry developed, and though there were still some problems (1st gen M-16's, for one, and I personally know of SOF elements ditching their MP 5s and M-16s and reverting to M-14s for the longer range shots needed in Desert Storm, and ditching their issued pistols for double-stacked HK USP 40s and 45s, too), the weapons fielded since have been keeping close or exceeding enemy capabilities. Maybe not immediately, but we adapt quickly - Browning's M1911 is a good example, and if you've seen the SOF stuff of today you know their not dropping their piece to pick up AKs anymore, unless they're out of ammo. I could tell ya more, but I'd have to kill myself!

Ya the trap door springfield 45/70 while good long range accuracy was a one and done shot and were prone to jamming. Indians had an assortment of weapons to include henrys and winchesters. Good close range fighting.....which it was that type of fighting. The whole thing was a recipe for disaster.

They did have a gatlin gun but left it in the rear with the mule pack train hauling the munitions.

RR please do not tell us more,we enjoy your company.