| Author |
 Topic  |
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
 Posted - February 13 2005 : 12:32:14 PM
|
Nothing wrong with a box defence.Reserves to reinforce areas under pressure good idea.No significent casualties means you are not under pressure, gives time to organise in an orderly manner.I think you indicated that the horses would require 40 handlers.Turn them loose and they might take a few Indians off your back.No cover?If there was no cover then there was no cover for the indians either but I believe that the broken ground offered sufficient cover which with a little digging could be improved.
Really, that just shows the insight professionals provide. Well it did prove successful with Reno and Benteen. |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2005 : 12:55:34 PM
|
There is a LOT of cover around LSH and all the soldier's positions, for that matter. Ravines deep enough you could run and not easily be seen. The ground is very deceiving.
Reno had lost a lot of horses, Wild. Plus wounded. It's not like there were a lot of choices. Note, they did not take the highest ground. Benteen chose better than Custer's group did.
Custer was cavalry, and to willingly choose to become infantry absent cause (or point), or to willingly put yourself on ground and situation where that choice might have to be made - plus, being further away from the target - after passing up a logical crossing spot for the alleged attack makes no sense.
For someone so offensivly minded, he ended up the furthest away after passing up the ideal crossing point. There are too many cognitive dissonances in these theories about Custer post MTC that don't hold together at all. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2005 : 1:25:57 PM
|
Custer was cavalry, and to willingly choose to become infantry absent cause (or point),
He could run or go on the defensive.He choose to run and you see what happened.
Cavalry do only one thing they charge.If they are not doing that they are useless they employ infantry tactics. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2005 : 5:30:43 PM
|
I've read books on military tactics, and many on military history. The two never seem to mesh, and those who disobey the standard tactics win as much or more than those who obey it. And most of this is pretty bovine, Warlord, Chapter 1, Wannabe 101. I've grasped the concept. I just think it is a particularly stupid set of suggestions for those guys on that day.
Its Wild who says this should have been fought at LSH, not me, and yes there is a far more defensible ground and Custer's guys were on none of it. In it, they weren't good enough to take advantage of it. But this isn't the point. It was irresponsible to have place them where they ended up. I don't think Custer did, that he was out of it, the clique fest of nepotism that was the 7th froze, and they were nailed running to high ground in panic and not thought.
Even Red Horse, dug out for recent consideration, says the soldiers with Custer went down so fast they hardly fired at all and it was a quick and snappy affair. There are many problems with his tale, but he's credited with saying that, and he was there. It melds with what Benteen and Godfrey and everyone else who actually saw it said: Custer's groups made a bad battle. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2005 : 11:08:03 AM
|
As said previous, Warlord, we hold similar opinions of each other. And as for your rather baseless assumptions of ability to intimidate, as no doubt throughout your life, they're pretty laughable. Perhaps your fabricated psychologist can help you with that, along with your altogether revealing trains of thought in your postings.
You have your military authorities and friends, I have mine, I'm secure in their agreements with me. Eh. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 27 2005 : 3:38:35 PM
|
Interesting shot of what I think is a trapdoor carbine, model year unknown. Since the scout is represented to have killed the slayer of Capt. Emmitt Crawford, I looked up Crawford in Heitman states that Crawford was killed by Mexican troops while in pursuit of Indians in 1886.
http://sirismm.si.edu/naa/4605/01600511.jpg
Billy
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 27 2005 : 9:50:52 PM
|
Agree about the studio shot. However, I am not sure about the rifle. However, if a studio prop, it likely would be an older model Springfield, say 1875?
Billy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 28 2005 : 10:06:49 AM
|
| ......by which I meant if you were trying to ascertain any info on frontier guns from the photo, bear in mind it could just be a studio prop - a defective or frozen old gun lying around after various transformations. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - March 10 2005 : 09:36:22 AM
|
Here's a quote for you DC.
Thus, Godfrey placed part of the blame on the weaponry. In many instances the Indians had more modern repeating rifles. Godfrey noted from his own experience that cartridges when corroded or dirty would not always extract and the cartridges would have to removed with a knife.
Source
http://www.wyomingtalesandtrails.com/custer6.html
Comments DC? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 10 2005 : 12:01:55 PM
|
The same ones I've always had, and always noting that Godfrey did complain, but the complaints are solely those of the 7th and after the battle. Crook's men didn't complain, did they? Did cartridges, when dirty or corroded, spring from the gun after a Winchester 73 was fired flawlessly? Corroded and dirty ammo (and yes, I realize we need to define what is 'dirty')probably screwed up a number of weapons, soldier and Indian. If this was a known problem, what was the instituted procedure to reduce the likelihood of its occurence? What weapons available to the 7th, with dirty and corroded ammo, would perform better?
We're being asked to believe that weapons kept in use by the Army for thirty years were flawed enough to have cost the Custer battle in their, what?, second year of use? My repeated point: even if the guns were as flawed as purported periodically, each of these flaws would have emerged in the numerous practice sessions and previous violent encounters between issue and LBH. They either did not or there were no numerous practice sessions or the 7th's officer corps was derelect in not formally complaining about the weapons. But the officers praised the weapons overall.
If the soldiers weren't well practiced in their use, periodic flaws in the extraction was the least of their problems. If you reread my posts, this is the sum of my complaint about this fetish on weapons trivia. It hardly matters what rifle the 7th was given if they weren't trained in it and familiar with likely issues and how to prevent or take care of them. Surely, nobody waid "When your carbine inevitably freezes because the shell won't extract, pry in out with your knife. This, rather than see to your ammo and care for the weapon or, god forbid, practice." |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - March 19 2005 : 11:36:50 PM
|
Yesterday, I was fossicking through my favourite used bookshop and I happened to pick up a western (River's End by Bill Gulick) and while flicking through the pages I stumbled across some comments on the various firearms of the day, and significantly a section which was quite critical of the performance of the 1873 Springfield.
Now I know basing comments from a novel is likely to get me crucified on this forum, but what I would like to know is, what did Reno say about the Springfield carbine at the Reno Court of Inquiry?
Because if this novel is to be believed (and I don't see why I shouldn't believe, as the author had lifted a number of quotes directly from the pages of history and incorporated them into the novel) then Reno was particularly scathing about the carbine.
I can't remember the quote verbattim, but it begins with Reno saying that 6 carbines were rendered unservicable from a total of 380 possessed by his command. Does anyone know the full quote? I think I've seen part of the quote reproduced elsewhere, but I'd never seen what apparently seems the full version until yesterday.
|
Edited by - dave on March 19 2005 11:43:15 PM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 20 2005 : 01:07:26 AM
|
Dave, Larsen has referenced that quote before so he likely will be able to supply the full context.
Paul, you wrote:
quote:
The problem seems to be that if it can be proven the 1873 Carbine had very serious problems at LBH, many will be able to say that is the reason Custer lost, thus making Custer a larger hero.
Two things: First, people have been attempting to prove since 1876 that reasons other than inept leadership caused the loss of Custer's battalion. As people who had more insight and "hooks" into the establishment have been unable to do this, I feel that anyone's chances of proving that the cartridge/carbine issues constituted a major impediment to their survival will likely only involve regurgitating the same old "facts" ad nauseum. Secondly, suppose that you are able to prove a direct correlation between carbine performance and loss? I fail to see how that makes Custer a "larger hero", perhaps less inept than most give him credit for but, still, when you get your butt in a position where the only thing that can save you is the reliability of a single-shot carbine, you have mismanaged your forces.
Time for work.
Billy |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 20 2005 : 7:47:42 PM
|
Dave- The stuff about the six unserviceable carbines comes from a letter Reno wrote to General Benet, chief of ordnance, dated July 11, 1876. It's published in Loyd Overfield's collection "The Little Bighorn, 1876", pgs. 60-62; I've copied most of it onto one of the pages of this thread. That's the main purpose of the letter, to bring attention to that; at the end he also suggests that fewer men would have died on the hilltop had they all been equipped with Trowel bayonets, but he doesn't go too deeply into it. The letter's almost entirely about the carbines.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - March 20 2005 : 7:52:41 PM
|
| Warlord: That is good information. Surely no one would argue that the failure Custer's men to keep the Indians at a distance was a cause for the defeat. Reliability of the carbines must have played a part in that. Still you are wasting your time trying to convince some people. I believe someone even argued that a single shot was a better choice than a repeater for a combat arm. |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - March 22 2005 : 11:23:27 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
Warlord: That is good information. Surely no one would argue that the failure Custer's men to keep the Indians at a distance was a cause for the defeat. Reliability of the carbines must have played a part in that. Still you are wasting your time trying to convince some people. I believe someone even argued that a single shot was a better choice than a repeater for a combat arm.
With respect Prolar, I'm not sure that the issue was as clear cut as it might seem to us today. I've read a comment (can't remember the source) that in intense fire fights many of the tube magazine repeaters of the time, effectively became single shot, after the magazine had been expended. Presumably the soldiers didn't want to spend the time topping up the magazine and reverted to manual loading in order to keep up their rate of fire.
The early repeaters also typically had poor ballistic properties due to the bullet shape, although I believe the French Lebel had a specially designed magazine that allowed the use of spitzers.
All that said, the question I ask myself is, if I had been a trooper of the 7th, which rifle would I have carried to the battle. The answer is unquestionably a Winchester 73, followed by a Spencer. Somewhere down the bottom would be the Springfield. While a repeater might not have been the best choice for foot soldiers, they make a huge amount of sense for cavalry. I don't think its unbelievable to think that had Custer's companies been armed by Winchester's, at least some of them might have fought their way free of the battlefield.
I don't think the Springfield was a terribly bad rifle, and once they had overcome the initial teething problems (and even many of the more famous service rifles such as the M16, Lee-Enfield, Springfield 03 etc experienced some degree of trouble in their early iterations) it turned out to be fairly reliable weapon. It was however an obsolete rifle even when it was adopted. Considering that in the early 1870's the US was still the worlds pre-eminent small arms manufacturer, it was a pretty poor effort. Other countries were adopting weapons which were self extracting and self cocking. The Swiss had even adopted a bolt action tube repeater in 1867, some six years previous.
Still you only have to look at what happened to the US navy between 1865 and 1890 to see the cause of the problem. Not that I'm entirely unsympathetic to the politicians of the time. The country had just emerged from the most devastating war to waged on its shores, and I'm sure the scars still ran deep.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 22 2005 : 12:34:15 PM
|
Possible, if hardly likely. The stories we have suggest that some soldiers could have mounted and made it to Reno or at least East somewhere anyway with just pistols. Most Indians were on foot, it seems, and weren't particularly good shots anyway.
Again, what combat evidence of this fouling appears before the LBH within the 7th (Ryan's company had the carbines since 1874) OR in Crook's forces eight days earlier OR after? There were people who didn't like single shot and requested repeaters, but that isn't a condemnation of extraction mechanisms. Surely, some similar complaints would appear if this was due to the design or, in the specific case of the 7th, using carbines rejected by other units, so the story goes. What other units, by the way?
In any case, Reno's complaint of 6 defective carbines out of his 400 plus indicates that 1 to 1.5% of the soldier/carbine combos failed. That's well within the range of human error in any enterprise and certainly within an acceptable range for mass produced anything of the time, which is to say at most it isn't significant and could ALL be human error. Also, how come they didn't know till the battle they lost? They practiced a lot, right? Well, no.
So what actual advantage is given to those with repeaters if they aren't trained in them better than the 7th was trained? More ammo fired faster by scared troopers, but do hits increase? Eh. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 22 2005 : 12:52:02 PM
|
In any case, Reno's complaint of 6 defective carbines out of his 400 plus indicates that 1 to 1.5% of the soldier/carbine combos failed.
I made a point ealier that the 6 carbines were rendered unservicable through jamming.10 times that number could have jammed but had been cleared. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 22 2005 : 12:59:42 PM
|
And you don't think Reno would have mentioned that, given it was support for his position? Coulda, woulda, shoulda in spades.
Also, where are all the complaints from Crook's men? The carefully crafted excuse that the 7th's were rejects from other units (think about that)runs aground on Ryan's claim and praise that his company got them in 1874. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 22 2005 : 1:34:35 PM
|
And you don't think Reno would have mentioned that, given it was support for his position? Coulda, woulda, shoulda in spades.If the weapon had been cleared it would not have been reported to him.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 22 2005 : 2:28:00 PM
|
Really? A hundred weapons, say, chronically foul, but if they cleared by the end of the battle, that would not have been reported to him? Or, you know, subject of myriad letters and complaints? And hearing of the six, he would not have queried others to see if there had been more, to buttress his case, and so discovered the others?
And why did this not happen during meaningful practice, or in the field previously? So long as it was technically clear at the end of the battle, no need to report it? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2005 : 12:06:28 AM
|
Paul, not disputing your interpretation but:
1) You said you had evidence that Crook's forces on the Rosebud suffered malfunctions of their rifles due to defective ammunition if I recall correctly.
My question-from what source/sources did you extract that knowledge from?
2) You mention that there was a wholesale change in ammunition in 1877.
Same question-Source it please.
3) You or Prolar refererenced the fact that someone (ME) said that the troops could shoot as fast with a single shot as with a tube or magazine rifle.
What you two neglected to notice was that it was a direct quote from the report of the Board to recommend new rifles. It was not pulled out of the air. Paul, I expect that from you, but Prolar, I expected more research!
Paul, saying and proving are two different things. Opinions are just like that anatomical feature we sit on, everyone has one. However, without documentation to prove your point, all you are doing is howling into the winter sky.
Billy
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2005 : 06:43:05 AM
|
DC
And why did this not happen during meaningful practice, The answer is in Reno's report.It was the reckless firing of a faulty weapon by hastily organised troops [untrained]which resulted in the weapon jamming.Range practice is not a reckless exercise,thus no incidences of jamming.
It is a fact that weapons of that period were libable to jam on reaching a certain temprature.Add to that faulty ammo and extracter.Now place that weapon in the hands of [according to you] a poorly trained trooper and place that trooper in the midst of a howling mob and whatever pityful chance he may have had is gone.
So long as it was technically clear at the end of the battle, no need to report it?
It is not the 2% of carbines which became unservicable but the 100% which were faulty that Reno's report is about.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2005 : 09:15:20 AM
|
So, we await proof of Crook's men having the same carbine issues for a battle they felt they won to compare to the reports of those who fought a battle they tied to draw conclusions about a battle definitely lost.
After some months of blather, still no reports of regular practice for the 7th to become good with the weapons to offset the opinions of officers who saw the field. They said that it was a fiasco with no organized stand except, maybe, with Calhoun's troop and a few on LSH. Not that it mattered much. Given that they were wiped out with no huge enemy loss - portions of which had to be friendly fire - there is no contrary evidence from the battle itself to dissuade the opinion the soldiers weren't that hot and didn't get to fire enough to produce the alleged problems which, in fact, weren't all that awful in trained hands.
In any case, only Custerphiles use them as an excuse. The bad workman blames his tools. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2005 : 09:24:20 AM
|
I intend to get hold of the Reno quote I alluded to earlier, sometime in the next fortnight. If the alleged quote is true - hopefully Larsen will confirm whether it is or not - then Reno condemmed the carbine in fairly strong terms.
If the Springfield was all that wonderful, I find it curious indeed that Reno should fire of a letter to the chief of ordnance not much over 2 weeks later. Hardly a ringing endorsement I would have thought.
Even more curiously, why did they bring out a revised carbine the next year? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Springfield Cartridge ID
