The two volleys Oct 7, 2012 14:13:11 GMT -5
Post by tunkasila on Oct 7, 2012 14:13:11 GMT -5
Walsh wrote: As I have noted before, volleys would not have been useful in this fight for anything other than signalling. The way the Indians fought made it obsolete. I always read how they would lay on the ground and than quickly pop up to fire at the soldiers. What could volleys do against this strategy? If there was volley firing, my bet is it was signalling for help. There is no concrete evidence for volley firing. Just because you find shell casings in a line doesn't mean they were discharged from a firearm simultaneously although the possibility remains. It could have been a skirmish line of troopers who were firing at will.
General Godfrey was convinced that the volley firing so distinctly heard on Reno Hill was a signal by Custer for Reno to come on.
Ah, the famous volley firing. Or was it, as walsh questions? Fact is, walsh is proposing the opposite of Godfrey. Godfrey says it was volley firing and was a signal to Reno to come to Custer. Walsh is saying that volley firing was useless in Indian fights, there is no concrete evidence for it and could have been a skirmish line firing at will.
Imo it was repeated heavy firing rather than volleys and could have been distorted by the local acoustics to sound like volleys.
BTW, when Godfrey put forward his argument, he had moved very much to defending Custer and being critical of Reno.