| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - January 17 2005 : 3:10:26 PM
|
Well, no, I don't think the skill of the Army or the Indians with firearms made much difference. They both stunk as sharpshooting units, and based on every other battle significant friendly fire loses must be assumed in a coverless surround. The weapon isn't as important as being trained to use it, and there's no real evidence so far that excessive training occured in either camp, mostly because neither side could afford practice ammo.
The issues arose, I thought, about whether the rifle or the carbine load was used, and nobody seems to know, except Varnum who says he used rifle and assumes everyone else did as well. Then, we have the very few .45-55/or 70 casings that appear to have been pried out, but we don't know if that was from the Springfields or from the Indians trying to misuse the ammo in another weapon. Supposedly knives were found by the bodies indicating they'd tried to pry them out, but I can't find that although I know someone said it.
But the big question is: IF the 7th practiced a lot, the major problems with the ammo and the carbine would have been apparent long before. There's no indication of that, no records, so either they didn't practice much (and therefore never noticed the alleged defects from prolonged use) OR there was nothing wrong with the carbines, but you cannot have it they were good shots (which would be due to practice) and the carbines were defective. Unless there were idiots, which I don't contend. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
  |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2005 : 4:01:13 PM
|
Yes, Wild. Explain why shooting at 500 yards applies to the LBH? And what percentage of either Indians OR soldiers do you think were good enough shots at that range to have an effect? Hence, discussion of it is pretty bovine.
For your edification DC I posted
Unless the slope was greater than 45 degrees and the firing was long range it would have little or no effect on the trajectory of the round.What effect it would have on a trooper's aim I have no idea.
Anyway if you think the battle was an extended firefight then the sloping terrain must have had the opposite effect on the Indians.I made no claim that the battle was fought out over long range.It was nothing more that a observation on ballistics in reply to BJ.
Would it be too much to expect a little common courtsey and that you might just read people's contributions before dismissing them as bovine? Thank you. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2005 : 10:12:21 PM
|
| D.c., I realize that you believe that the academy of yesteryear was incompetent and created by primative savages. I also realize that you believe that the soldiers and Indians of the 1800's were poor shots, ill trained and they all "stunk" as fighting men. What I don't understand is who died and left you as an authority about anything. Your egotistical belief that you are "it" is amazing. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 07:26:58 AM
|
quote:
Supposedly knives were found by the bodies indicating they'd tried to pry them out, but I can't find that although I know someone said it.
Well, I don't know about the knives, although I have heard/read that somewhere also. What I did stumble upon last night while reading was this from Brininstool's Troopers With Custer (5th ed., University of Nebraska Press, 1989 p. 55). From the account of Pvt. William C. Slaper: (on Reno Hill) "...While in this line, Capt. French was about in the center, giving orders as cooly as though it was a Sunday school picnic. He would sit up tailor-style, while bullets were coming from the front and both sides. I could but marvel that he was not hit. Without appearing to be in the least excited, he would extract shells from guns in which cartridges would stick, [emphasis mine-BJM] and pass them loaded, then fix another, all the time watching in every direction."
OK, that seems to put to rest the idea that the cartridges did not stick. However, it behooves everyone to remember before they start squabbling again, that Reno's men likely fired many more rounds than Custer's, thus maybe that is the reason for the stickage. But, it does make more relevent the original question about the Springfield cartridge, were they the carbine load or the rifle load? I think it was Prolar who, when questioned about the practical effects, mentioned more black powder residue. If, and a big if, rifle cartridges had gotten included in the ammunition train rather than carbine, you would get the same results with less firing. In the case of Slaper, I think they were using carbine rounds as he mentions at least two times that they (Reno's troops) had almost used all their ammunition while in the valley.
Best of wishes to all my fellow bovines 
Billy
|
Edited by - BJMarkland on January 18 2005 08:11:28 AM |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 08:33:22 AM
|
In reading about trials conducted by the British army during the early 1840's on the suitability of percussion based firearms over flintlocks, I was staggered to learn that on average a flintlock suffered a misfire or a hangfire once every six shots.
What relevance does this have to Springfield's jamming.
Just this. No one thinks of lines of British redcoats or Blue coated Continental Army soldiers suffering huge numbers of misfires every time they went into battle (at least I don't). Yet according to that statistic they must have suffered extraordinary numbers of misfires in just about every battle they fought. So if we read some reports of Springfield's jamming, then doubtless there were many, many more incidents which went unreported. |
Edited by - dave on January 18 2005 08:55:03 AM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 09:48:22 AM
|
Just this. No one thinks of lines of British redcoats or Blue coated Continental Army soldiers suffering huge numbers of misfires every time they went into battle (at least I don't).
Ya see Dave armies of that era employed Napoleonic tactics.Units would march up to within 100 yards of the enemy [effective range of musket]deliver/receive one or two volleys and then charge with the bayonet.No long drawn out firefights thus few misfires. |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 10:14:31 AM
|
Sure, point taken. But say 100 men, 2 volleys, thats still 30 odd misfires. Reasonably significant in my view.
Anyway the real point was that most firearms of the 19th century and before usually suffered from some drawback, be it misfiring, jamming or whatever. To prove a point Wild, do you know what a Lancaster Carbine is? and do you know why they were shaped like they were? |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 10:32:56 AM
|
Never came across it my friend no idea.I could Google it but that would be cheating so do tell I'm fasinated.
|
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 11:01:09 AM
|
Google it by all means.
Its a carbine version of the muzzle loading 1853 Enfield rifle-musket brought out around the mid 1850's for artilarymen and sappers(if my memory is working). Externally its identical to the Enfield rifle. The difference is that it has an oval bore (in profile that is). What we would call the breech end is larger in calibre than the muzzle end, ie. the bore tapers down in size towards the muzzle.
The reason I mention the Lancaster, is that it was introduced to stop jams from occurring when when soldiers were ramrodding the bullet down the barrel. Apparently the Lancaster was considered un-jammable, the downside being it was a bit of a lottery where your shot went - usually anywhere except where you were pointing the thing apparently.
If you were to read a write up on the 1853 Enfield I very much doubt you would find any reference to bullets jamming during reloading. And yet the Lancaster was brought out specifically to address that very problem. Researching firearms can be very frustrating because people there was a lot of stuff which isn't reported, simply because it was taken for granted. And thats pretty much what I'm saying about the Springfield. It suffered to some degree from jamming, breaking extractors, whatever and people just took it in their stride and accepted that, that was the way things were. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 11:30:22 AM
|
Gee. Where to start. Ya see, Wild, when you say, in answer to Dave, "Ya see Dave armies of that era employed Napoleonic tactics.Units would march up to within 100 yards of the enemy [effective range of musket]deliver/receive one or two volleys and then charge with the bayonet.No long drawn out firefights thus few misfires" you have the thrill of ascribing that time - no! Era! - to a child ten years old. Napoleon was born seven years before Lexington Green. The Revolution was not fought according to Napoleonic thought, because that's impossible. Can you name the changes Napoleon employed to distinguish his tactics and use of weapons from the American Revolution?
But that does bring up one fascinating aspect: the urge to mythologize Americans and their shooting skills. At Lexington Green the Minute Men, so called, firing into massed red formations managed, in toto, to hit three soldiers and wound them. OH, and an officer's horse. I know we're swamped with impressive info about the variants of Kentucky rifles and their New England cousins and all that supposedly rugged American know-how, craftsmanship, and marksmanship, but the facts are the British - using their supposedly outmoded style - killed four of us immediately, four later died of wounds, and something like fifteen of us were wounded. On the way back to Boston, at night, Our Heroes were able to shoot a number of Brits in the back. Of course, the distance and number of missed shots aren't tabulated, but we're assured they all hit.
That's the basis for much of our mythology at issue here. It's rubbish.
As to how any of this is relevant, though, it isn't. Again, the examples of first hand testimony from officers who saw the field three days later do not lead to a conclusion of a fight lasting long enough to have extraction failure play a role. Second, if this was typical of the Springfield, why would this not appear in those long practice sessions at some point that made the 7th so eerily accurate and "broke the back" of the non-existent Sioux war machine? Third, why only the 7th? Surely Crook would have noticed. Surely Merritt.
As to syllogism - with which this forum is in love, doesn't understand, and misuses - the fact that a primitive firearm of another nation misfired thirty years previous to the LBH somehow is not compelling evidence that a more advanced carbine in the relevant battle did, and this to compensate for no evidence of that failure. That's the Burmese mule again, trotted out to prove the pack train time.
Whatever jammed carbines there may have been with Reno are not necessarily due to the carbine or the ammo but the incompetent - or terrified - soldier.
If the Springfield fouled so much as to affect the safety of the soldiers how come nobody noticed, reported, refused to use it during its long, long service with the American Army?
This is just another attempt to excuse Custer's failure to win one. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on January 18 2005 11:34:42 AM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 3:49:27 PM
|
Sure and begorrah ar'n't you de crafty one DC.An here I am tinkin ta meself thah de horse was de same in Washington's time as in Nappy's time an de musket dah dem Minute Men carried fured no furder dan de muskets iv de Old Guard.
you have the thrill of ascribing that time - no! Era! - to a child ten years old.
I trust that you are not refering to the age mental or otherwise of my esteemed friend Dave.
Era is of course an extended period of time so perhaps you could allow me a little poetic license to extend that time back as that is the only element which has changed.
The Revolution was not fought according to Napoleonic thought,
You will explain of course just what Napoleonic thought was.
Can you name the changes Napoleon employed to distinguish his tactics and use of weapons from the American Revolution?
But did I not say [although a slight bit "previous"]that the American revolution was fought along "Napoleonic" lines.
But to remain relevant, the battle of the LBH was a classical tactical Napoleonic battle.Although neither you nor the victors could comprehend that.
Our Heroes were able to shoot a number of Brits in the back.Best possible way.We've been doing that for the last 800 years just didn't get enough of them.
Second, if this was typical of the Springfield, why would this not appear in those long practice sessions at some point that made the 7th so eerily accurate and "broke the back" of the non-existent Sioux war machine?
At the battle of the Wa****a Custer deployed a troop refered to as Cook's sharp shoopers.So I guess there was some attempt to raise the standard of marksmanship in the regiment.
the fact that a primitive firearm of another nation misfired thirty years previous to the LBH somehow is not compelling evidence that a more advanced carbine in the relevant battle did, and this to compensate for no evidence of that failure.
Black powder is black powder and has the same effect on breech/muzzle regardless of nationality. The fact that the Brits were experiencing the same difficulty with their contemporary Martini-Henry adds weight to the contention that there was a problem with the Springfield.
Question.Why did the 7th switch from the Spencer which proved so devastating at the Wa****a to the Springfield which could not be reloaded in action on horseback?
Dave
And thats pretty much what I'm saying about the Springfield. It suffered to some degree from jamming, breaking extractors, whatever and people just took it in their stride and accepted that, that was the way things were
Very interesting.I think Warlord was saying somewhere that the grunts in Vietnam found that the m16 was made by a toy company and performed accordingly only that the 60s generation of sandbags had enough sense to kick up about it.Different times. |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 4:26:03 PM
|
Wild,
Boys of the old brigade ! |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 5:35:43 PM
|
Hunkpapa
Boys of the old brigade
No offence friend but just wait till we get yis in Landsdowne. |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 5:54:13 PM
|
| Me Im a Celic man[Glaswegian voice] |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 8:08:27 PM
|
| God bless the United kingdom and Ireland. |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 9:29:44 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
As to syllogism - with which this forum is in love, doesn't understand, and misuses - the fact that a primitive firearm of another nation misfired thirty years previous to the LBH somehow is not compelling evidence that a more advanced carbine in the relevant battle did, and this to compensate for no evidence of that failure. That's the Burmese mule again, trotted out to prove the pack train time.
If you are going to comment on a point I make DC, then do me the courtesy of addressing the point as I raised it, and not twisting it into an entirely new context. I never sought to compare a Lancaster carbine with a Springfield. Why would I seek to compare a muzzle loading weapon firing Minie balls, with a breech loading rifle firing metallic cartridges?
If you read, carefully, what I wrote - its about the lack of documentation regarding problems suffered by old firearms.
quote:
Whatever jammed carbines there may have been with Reno are not necessarily due to the carbine or the ammo but the incompetent - or terrified - soldier.
If the Springfield fouled so much as to affect the safety of the soldiers how come nobody noticed, reported, refused to use it during its long, long service with the American Army?
Comment 1:
The M1/M2 carbine was produced in literally millions during WW2. It was still in general use in July 1950, the start of the Korean War. At the battle of Chosin Reservoir, American soldiers and marines literally threw their carbines away, because they simply would not work in the freezing weather.
If I apply your logic, how could this possibly happen?
Given that the US army used the M1/M2 during WW2, with no doubt many hundreds of thousands of hours of combat and campaign usage, millions of rounds of ammunition fired through these weapons, use in both the Pacific and European theatres, you'd think that they would have realised that the M1 was basically an unrealiable design.
Yet 5+ years on, the Marines were still fighting with a weapon which couldn't handle sub-zero temperatures.
The M1 carbine is hardly an isolated example, or for that matter even the worst case. The 1888 German commission rifle (look it up), the Canadian Ross rifle of WW1, the Reising submachinegun, the L85A1 of the British army are all examples of weapons which were either unsafe, unreliable or both. In most cases the unfortunate users just had to scrounge or make do. In the case of the Ross, the Canadian filched SMLE's from the British and the marines unfortunately "lost" their Reising smg's on Guadalcanal.
In some of these cases the defective weapons were quickly replaced, some were however retained in service for a surprisingly long time. The Ross was Canada's service rifle between 1905 - 1915, during which it went through 3 versions (see comment 2 below), and 80 design modifications. And yet, after all those redesigns, it was still in 1915 an inherently unsafe rifle incapable of handling mud or ammunition which didn't conform to extremely tight tolerances. Had the first World War not intervened the Canadian army might have had to put up with the Ross for even a longer period of time.
Even as recently as the 1980's and 90's when you would think that firearms designers would be aware of all the pitfalls and hazards of firearms design, the British army had the suffer the L85A1, an superbly accurate weapon by all accounts, but one totally unsuited for dusty environments. The L85A1 was in service for well over 10 years, including seeing service in the Persian Gulf war before the British government was finally forced to concede that it might need fixing, and then only then because of the crescendo of complaints had reached a fever pitch.
I could probably dredge up a few more examples, but I think that is enough to make the point that some military weapons have had severe shortcomings, which the soldiers have been well aware of, but which they have just had to persevere with.
Comment 2:
As Prolar points out, there were a number of models produced during the service life of the Springfield. By the time of the later models, most of the bugs would have been ironed out. So in considering extraction failure, we must restrict ourselves to the 1873 model.
The model 1877 Springfield for instance incorporated a number of minor modifications which according to one website were initiated by the failure of the rifle during the Great Sioux War.
See
http://www.trapdoorcollector.com/m77.html
I'm not trying to slate the Springfield, indeed I think that given the military budgets at the time, it was an extremely sensible and logical choice, which probably performed surprisingly well. If you were to compare the Springfield with some European long arms of the time, you might appreciate that the US army had a weapon which was definately superior to a number of its contempories. The Springfield at least had and extractor/ejector system. Quite a number of European weapons, including the numerous Snider variants, the 1871 Mauser and a number of others had to be rolled on their backs so the empty cartridge would fall out.
quote:
This is just another attempt to excuse Custer's failure to win one.
Its not. There is nothing about the battle which can't be explained by a determined attack by numerous and well armed Indians.
I just don't see any reason to gloss over the possibility that some troopers may have experienced extraction problems with their Springfields. Pretending that such problems didn't exist when in all likelyhood they did, is as much an attempt to mythologize the battle, as if we were to pretend that every soldier was Wyatt Earp. |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 9:55:26 PM
|
| Dave: Great post. Iwish I could have said it as well. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 11:27:58 PM
|
Dave,
quote:
Pretending that such problems didn't exist when in all likelyhood they did, is as much an attempt to mythologize the battle, as if we were to pretend that every soldier was Wyatt Earp.
They weren't Wyatt, Annie Oakley, and Quick Draw McGraw wrapped up in one? *sigh* Another legend bites the dust.
Great recognition of the importance of that diagram! Now I know who to go to with arms questions in research!
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 24 2005 : 9:33:23 PM
|
| Dave, a belated comment from someone who just had the opportunity to read your thread, excellente mi amigo!!! |
|
|
|
Aolain
Recruit
Status: offline |
Posted - January 24 2005 : 10:25:23 PM
|
Warlord:
On one hand, I am sympathetic to your basic argument. It does seem to me that 30 Indian dead for the Battle of the Little Big Horn is alarmingly low. With that said, and on the other hand:
1) You weaken your arguement by wild-eyed ranting (sorry about that observation)
2) When military units fall apart, it is entirely possible that the unit can be wiped out and only impose minor casualties on the enemy.
Whatever the case, calm down Warlord. Make your points with logic and reason. Calling Dark Cloud names and ranting does your position no good. And, again, for what it is worth, it seems to me that Indian casualties must have been more that the oft quoted 30. |
"Next to a battle lost, the saddest thing is a battle won." Arthur Welleslay, First Duke of Wellington |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 24 2005 : 10:26:04 PM
|
David,
Your post goes in toto:
In reading about trials conducted by the British army during the early 1840's on the suitability of percussion based firearms over flintlocks, I was staggered to learn that on average a flintlock suffered a misfire or a hangfire once every six shots.
What relevance does this have to the Springfield's jamming.
Just this. No one thinks of lines of British redcoats or Blue coated Continental Army soldiers suffering huge numbers of misfires every time they went into battle (at least I don't). Yet according to that statistic they must have suffered extraordinary numbers of misfires in just about every battle they fought. So if we read some reports of Springfield's jamming, then doubtless there were many, many more incidents which went unreported.
So, you most definitely say that you're comparing the Lancaster to the Springfield. You say "...they {referring to the weapons you later identify as Lancasters} must have suffered extraordinary numbers of misfires in just about every battle they fought. So if we read some reports of Springfield's jamming, then doubtless there were many, many more incidents which went unreported." So if, then doubtless. That doesn't follow, of course, but you did indeed say that because we have information about the Lancasters failing, it must be true of the Springfield. I distorted nothing.
As to Chosin Reservoir, how many M1's froze and had to be thrown away? What percentage of the whole? How many, in fact, were thrown away in terror or depression by retreating Marines? How many failed due to bad service by the Marine or soldier or just worn out weapons? When we win the battles, how many of the same weapons failed under similar conditions?
How many froze at the Bulge necessitating their being thrown away? Or in the mountains of Italy with the 10th Mountain Division? The soldiers at the point of the SS attack at the Bulge were a bad outfit, led by social officers and was chosen for its incompetence by the Germans to receive that attack. Yet I haven't read of them blaming the M1, even though they got wiped. Was it that much colder at Chosin?
Are there any other cases of the M1 being thrown away because of design flaw? I've read it was a most reliable weapon. General MacArthur reported to the Ordnance Department during heavy fighting on Bataan that: "Under combat conditions it operated with no mechanical defects and when used in foxholes did not develop stoppages from dust or dirt. It has been in almost constant action for as much as a week without cleaning or lubrication." Of course, that was in hot Asia. What about in cold weather? General Patton, who fought in Europe, reported to the Ordnance Department on January 26, 1945 (after the Bulge, which was frosty going): "In my opinion, the M1 Rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised." No mention of frozen weapons. Were both of these guys lying, Dave, victim of indebtedness to the armory or something? Patton? MacArthur?
http://www.olive-drab.com/od_other_firearms_rifle_m1garand.php3
Are there any examples of our soldiers throwing away frozen weapons as we attack and win in cold weather, or is this failure of bad design something that only appears, as it does with the Springfield, after humiliating defeats like Chosin against an enemy primarily of a different race which we preferred to think inferior, coincidently providing a fallback for public consumption? We didn't get walloped, see, our weapons failed. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on January 24 2005 10:45:45 PM |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 24 2005 : 10:52:01 PM
|
| DC; The M1 Garand rifle is not the M1/M2 carbine that Dave was writing about. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 24 2005 : 11:53:56 PM
|
I stand corrected. Stupid and lazy error.
However: "The simple fact was that the M1 carbine was never designed to be a front-line battle weapon, but it was used as such anyway for logistical (as opposed to practical) reasons. Although the M1 Garand was the US military's standard-issue battle rifle, as with all weapons systems the supply never really caught up with the demand."
That doesn't sound like the Army/Marines wanted to send it into Korea, but
had to.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on January 25 2005 12:03:45 AM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 25 2005 : 03:24:28 AM
|
| The RUC were issued with the M1 carbine as recently as 10 years ago. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 25 2005 : 07:47:42 AM
|
DC
When we win the battles, how many of the same weapons failed under similar conditions?
Victory has many fathers.Defeat is an orphan.
The defeat of the British and Commonwealth forces at Dieppe was attributed to the armour becoming bogged down on the beaches.
On D-Day the armour never made it to the beaches.Every tank sank like a stone.But it was a victory.All was forgiven and whereas the desaster with the armour at Dieppe is well known ,it is only from such sources as the secret history of WW2 will you find mention of the D-Day tanks.
The British defeat at Arhnem was attributed the fact that the troops were dropped too far from their objectives.On D-Day the 82nd were scattered all over the place.But no big deal.The day was a success so all was forgiven.
Defeats always have postmortems.Victories have celebrations.We pickover every possible fault of Custer's actions at the LBH but his actions at the Wa****a we use only as a reference.
Weapons and systems fail both in victory or defeat.We only take notice in defeat
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Indian Casualties
