| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - November 18 2005 : 7:00:55 PM
|
quote:
Where do you get that?
From the following
"Custer would never do that! He'd never leave us!" In a New York Minute he'd leave them, and they knew it. He'd done it before
and
And certainly the men on Reno's Ridge were convinced Custer had run off and left them. He had done it before.
And that's true. The men on Reno's ridge -- all those who left behind testimony or written accounts -- say they believed he had gone on to join with Terry and Gibbon.
And it's also true he had left men behind before.
quote:
and all eyewitness testimony agrees.
Not independent witnesses.They may have been feeling a little embarrassed at their inability to follow Custer's orders.Thus a story about being abandoned may have eased the conscience.
Now you're attacking them, questionning their veracity with no evidence. .
quote:
How do you know what he thought?
By deduction.1 He ordered Benteen and the ammo forward.2 He did not adopt a defensive posture.He was maneuvering his forces into position to attack from the North of the village.Thus as I have said he thought he had a chance of victory.
But that's not the issue. You gave a detailed statement of what he thought -- including the assumption that somehow he knew Reno had failed, and had produced a plan to succor him indirectly.
quote:
The men with Reno and Benteen thought he had gone on to join Terry and Gibbon. That's a fact. None of us here said he did that.But you interpreted that as abandonment and running off which it is not.
Your quarrel is with men who have been dead for at least three-quarters of a century, not with us.
No it is with those who would unquestioningly support the view that Custer would have abandoned his regiment on the field of battle.
That would be Benteen, Reno, et al. No one on this board has said Custer ran off to join Terry and Gibbon.
quote:
Do you have to make this personal?
Heavens no, just sometimes the debates get a little robust.
Then it would be better to not attack people for stating historical facts. |
  |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 19 2005 : 4:37:15 PM
|
The men on Reno's ridge -- all those who left behind testimony or written accounts -- say they believed he had gone on to join with Terry and Gibbon.
There is no problem with that, it was a reasonable tactical option but you and DC have embellished this with " Custer would never do that! He'd never leave us!" In a New York Minute he'd leave them, and they knew it. He'd done it before
and
And certainly the men on Reno's Ridge were convinced Custer had run off and left them. He had done it before."
I presume when you say He had done it beforeYou mean the incident envolving Elliot at the Wa****a.
Elliot had command of three troops at the Wa****a and he took off with a handfull of troopers leaving his command leaderless in persuit of as he was heard to say" a brevet or a Coffin".And who was it who put it about that Custer had abandoned his men?Why the ever loyal Benteen.
But that's not the issue.
I was just answering your question
You gave a detailed statement of what he thought -- including the assumption that somehow he knew Reno had failed,
There is evidence that he knew Reno's attack had faltered.
and had produced a plan to succor him indirectly.
In fact I said the very opposite.
That would be Benteen, Reno, et al. No one on this board has said Custer ran off to join Terry and Gibbon.
Are you telling the board that there is written testimony that the feeling among the troops was that Custer had run off and abandoned them? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 19 2005 : 6:16:19 PM
|
Wild,
This is what I hate about Custerland. "Running Away" has to be elevated to "a reasonable tactical decision." People can't say "common sense", "for the best in the long run." Everything has to be supposedly elevated with prissy military terminology as if it made the action more impressive. I'll assume, being you, it's sarcasm.
Custer was convicted at courtmartial of what, Wild? Desertion of his unit. That is, he left his men in Indian territory and, by the by, lied about it. It's hardly a stretch to think such a commander might see better days ahead by running to big brother. He was never brought up on the Eliott issue, but he did leave those men without a particularly exhausting search, spending his time shooting stock at leisure. Nobody ever contradicted Benteen about Elliot, because Custer HAD left him. Nobody ever contradicted Reno and Benteen about the thought Custer had gone off to Terry, either. In any case, it wasn't just Benteen and Reno who thought Custer would have gone on to Terry, or that he may have been justified in doing so after a battle of his own, by the by. Didn't Godfrey, among others, think that possible as well? Seems lots of folks on Reno Hill wondered where Custer was that night, and why he hadn't supported them.
Did the Army still give Brevet rank in 1868? Thought that died with the Civil War, but don't know. If it had, the canned remark by Elliot seems questionable. In any case, Elliot himself was being brought up on charges regarding shooting deserters when he returned. And Custer had an unpleasant experience with relatives of those he'd had shot a decade before without trial while he was back East(again without leave)before LBH. Serving Number One was never far from Custer's career arc.
Having seen much of the village, I doubt Custer thought Reno had "failed," but he probably knew he was in the trees and in need of help. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 19 2005 : 6:28:57 PM
|
quote:
The men on Reno's ridge -- all those who left behind testimony or written accounts -- say they believed he had gone on to join with Terry and Gibbon.
There is no problem with that, it was a reasonable tactical option but you and DC have embellished this with " Custer would never do that! He'd never leave us!" In a New York Minute he'd leave them, and they knew it. He'd done it before
and
And certainly the men on Reno's Ridge were convinced Custer had run off and left them. He had done it before."
The bolded words are mine -- and yes, the men on Reno's Ridge were convinced he'd left them, and he had done it before.
quote:
I presume when you say He had done it beforeYou mean the incident envolving Elliot at the Wa****a.
Elliot had command of three troops at the Wa****a and he took off with a handfull of troopers leaving his command leaderless in persuit of as he was heard to say" a brevet or a Coffin".
And Elliot and those with him were abamdoned.
quote:
And who was it who put it about that Custer had abandoned his men?Why the ever loyal Benteen.
You have something against Benteen?
He did save what was left of the regiment -- and the survivors always credited him for it.
quote:
But that's not the issue.
I was just answering your question
You gave a detailed statement of what he thought -- including the assumption that somehow he knew Reno had failed,
There is evidence that he knew Reno's attack had faltered.
and had produced a plan to succor him indirectly.
In fact I said the very opposite.
Then what is your claim? In your opinion, did Custer know Reno's attack failed or not?
quote:
That would be Benteen, Reno, et al. No one on this board has said Custer ran off to join Terry and Gibbon.
Are you telling the board that there is written testimony that the feeling among the troops was that Custer had run off and abandoned them?
You bet your blue booties there is!!
The first two members of the defenders of Reno's Ridge to link up with Terry were Lieutenants Wallace and Hare. Their first questions as they afterward said were, "Where is Custer? Have you not seen him? Why is he not with you?"
|
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - November 20 2005 : 05:55:32 AM
|
| I have been offline for a few days. Seems strange to find Wild I defending instead of defaming Custer. Dark Cloud is still harping on the ammo loading for the carbine. I would call to his attention that one reason for the reduced load was that the short barrel of the carbine did not allow all the 70 grain powder charge to burn. Just loading rifle ammo in the carbine did not give it rifle ballistics. Much of the extra 15 grains of powder went out the barrel unburned.Even the rifle did not have the range claimed by DC. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 20 2005 : 09:52:16 AM
|
All I've said is the carbine is sighted to 1000 yards, so someone thought it had that effective range, else no point. I don't claim loads mean anything, quite the opposite. I only bring up all the contradictory information regarding the firearms and ammo we continuously get on this board to prove we don't know much at all about what the 7th carried or what their skills with them were, except it could not have been high, proof being in the pudding. When you subtract out a reasonable assumption for friendly fire from the equally iffy assumptions of Indian dead, it's pretty pathetic for a supposed elite unit.
What range have I claimed, Prolar, that the rifle did not have? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 20 2005 : 1:36:45 PM
|
This is what I hate about Custerland. "Running Away" has to be elevated to "a reasonable tactical decision."
DC you throw words about like snuff at a funerial with little or no regard to their meaning."Running away" is indicitave of cowardice.The manner of terminology used by yourself and Vern would suggest Custer was in fear of his mortal hide.Neither you nor Vern have yet produced the evidence that Reno's men accused Custer of "running off" and "abandoning them".I have used the term "reasonable tactical decision"not for some prissey effect but to maintain some semblance of historical reality.
Custer was convicted at courtmartial of what, Wild? Desertion of his unit.
Exaggeration again.Custer was charged with leaving Fort Wallace without permission which was a bit of a joke really because his CO had actually wished him bon voyage as he left.
And Elliot and those with him were abamdoned.
Why put the mission and command in jeopardy searching for an officer who should have remained with his squadron?In battle time is of the essence and cannot be squandered on mercy missions.
Then what is your claim? In your opinion, did Custer know Reno's attack failed or not?
Boyer had watched Reno's attack falter.Boyer reached Custer and in all probability informed Custer of Reno's position.
You bet your blue booties there is!!
You will produce it of course. |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 20 2005 : 3:16:15 PM
|
quote:
This is what I hate about Custerland. "Running Away" has to be elevated to "a reasonable tactical decision."
DC you throw words about like snuff at a funerial with little or no regard to their meaning."Running away" is indicitave of cowardice.The manner of terminology used by yourself and Vern would suggest Custer was in fear of his mortal hide.Neither you nor Vern have yet produced the evidence that Reno's men accused Custer of "running off" and "abandoning them".I have used the term "reasonable tactical decision"not for some prissey effect but to maintain some semblance of historical reality.
I cited two eye witnesses who expected to find Custer with Terry and Gibbons.
quote:
Custer was convicted at courtmartial of what, Wild? Desertion of his unit.
Exaggeration again.Custer was charged with leaving Fort Wallace without permission which was a bit of a joke really because his CO had actually wished him bon voyage as he left.
And Elliot and those with him were abamdoned.
Why put the mission and command in jeopardy searching for an officer who should have remained with his squadron?In battle time is of the essence and cannot be squandered on mercy missions.
And how would this "put the mission in jeopardy?"
quote:
Then what is your claim? In your opinion, did Custer know Reno's attack failed or not?
Boyer had watched Reno's attack falter.Boyer reached Custer and in all probability informed Custer of Reno's position.
Then Custer did know -- by your own admission -- that three companies were in mortal danger.
quote:
You bet your blue booties there is!!
You will produce it of course.
Look at the part of my response you cut out. |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 20 2005 : 3:21:03 PM
|
quote:
All I've said is the carbine is sighted to 1000 yards, so someone thought it had that effective range, else no point.
Even today, shooting modern rifles, hitting a man-sized target at a thousand yards is very difficult. And that's on a target range under ideal conditions.
Hitting a man galloping by on horseback, using the tiny sights of the 1873 carbine at any range much beyond a hundred yards was probably beyond the capability of almost all of Custer's troopers. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 20 2005 : 3:34:12 PM
|
I cited two eye witnesses who expected to find Custer with Terry and Gibbons.
Once again I state that I have no problem with Reno's men believing Custer was with Terry [it was the best tactical option]but You and DC have twisted that into "they believed Custer had run off and abandoned them" all indicative of cowardice and that charge is not justified.And I still await proof that that terminology was used in relation to Custer's non appearance.
Then Custer did know -- by your own admission -- that three companies were in mortal danger.
In a word yes. |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 20 2005 : 3:42:56 PM
|
quote:
I cited two eye witnesses who expected to find Custer with Terry and Gibbons.
Once again I state that I have no problem with Reno's men believing Custer was with Terry [it was the best tactical option]but You and DC have twisted that into "they believed Custer had run off and abandoned them" all indicative of cowardice and that charge is not justified.And I still await proof that that terminology was used in relation to Custer's non appearance.
Pardon my French, but you are seeing things that are not there. I have stated that the men on Reno's Ridge thought Custer had left them and gone on to join Terry an Gibbon. That's a fact, and I backed it up.
I have stated that he abandoned men on the battlefield before -- and that's a fact, too.
Anything you read into that beyond what I have said is your imagination. |
|
|
|
Aolain
Recruit
Status: offline |
Posted - November 20 2005 : 9:22:54 PM
|
| Jumping here. I am not an expert--at all-- of 19th cen weapons. Nor am I more than a neophite re: LBH. One thing to consider, however, when evaluating the springfield and LBH is the problem of identifying targets. Whether or not a weapon can hit a target at 1000 meters is rather immaterial. What is material is can targets be identified at that range. There was good reason in the 1980s for the battlesight zero of the good old M-16 being set at 250 meters. Studies have shown that individual targets are rarely identifiable on the the battlefield beyone 250 meters. Anyway, gist for the forum mill. |
"Next to a battle lost, the saddest thing is a battle won." Arthur Welleslay, First Duke of Wellington |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 20 2005 : 10:03:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Vern Humphrey
quote:
I cited two eye witnesses who expected to find Custer with Terry and Gibbons.
Once again I state that I have no problem with Reno's men believing Custer was with Terry [it was the best tactical option]but You and DC have twisted that into "they believed Custer had run off and abandoned them" all indicative of cowardice and that charge is not justified.And I still await proof that that terminology was used in relation to Custer's non appearance.
Pardon my French, but you are seeing things that are not there. I have stated that the men on Reno's Ridge thought Custer had left them and gone on to join Terry an Gibbon. That's a fact, and I backed it up.
I have stated that he abandoned men on the battlefield before -- and that's a fact, too.
Anything you read into that beyond what I have said is your imagination.
Vern--
Don't mind DC. He is a professional annoyance and lives to bash, although I tend to empathize with his assessment of the Boy General. I'm wondering if the training with the Springfield was even less consistant (if one could actually use that term) when Reno assumed "technical" control of the Seventh whilst Custer was making an idiot of himself in Washington during the spring of 1876. I seem to remember that TWC also had a big hand in the preparations for the summer campaign. But I'm not a weaponry person at all--I'm more into the personalities behind the guns.
Glad to see a fellow Arkansan is posting here ... woo pig, etc., etc., huh?
Hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on November 20 2005 10:04:58 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 20 2005 : 10:34:41 PM
|
I doubt that many of the Seventh had time to adjust their sights to make hits. Under the circumstance they found themselves in they probably muzzle indexed and pulled the trigger. This happens a lot under stress and explains a low number of fatalities and wounded.
I agree with prolar that the ammunition used in the carbine in regards to grains of powder was of little consequence. Once a certain amount of black powder was used in the cartridge of a carbine any extra amount would be a waste.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2005 : 03:52:05 AM
|
Vern
And certainly the men on Reno's Ridge were convinced Custer had run off and left them. He had done it before.
And
I have stated that he abandoned men on the battlefield before
In French or any other language the above is a particular spin you are putting on the opinion the men on Reno's ridge had regarding Custer's actions.If there is proof that that was the interpretation the men placed on Custer's nonappearance please post it. |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2005 : 04:56:03 AM
|
If Private Windolph is typical of the thinking of the men on Reno Hill, then they believed Custer had abandoned them, but they couldn't understand why "... where was Custer, why had he abandoned us?". If anyone thought Custer had come to harm, then no-one was saying.
I agree that when Custer's men were involved in heavy firing, the "targets" must have been in close range. Either that or the fire was a signal. The only other reason could be to dissuade an imminent attack by "sound and fury", a signal to the Indians perhaps.
@MRW - Thanks for that, as Reno was heavily involved in choosing the Springfield Carbine in the first instance, then it comes as no surprize to discover he was involved in a technical capacity for the campaign. That, for me, would include procurement of the right ammo for the job. |
Edited by - Smcf on November 21 2005 05:08:47 AM |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2005 : 07:26:43 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
I have been offline for a few days. Seems strange to find Wild I defending instead of defaming Custer. Dark Cloud is still harping on the ammo loading for the carbine. I would call to his attention that one reason for the reduced load was that the short barrel of the carbine did not allow all the 70 grain powder charge to burn.
I'd suspect the real, or at least major, reason for reducing the charge was to spare the troopers shoulder. Still if you know better, I'm always interested in expanding my knowledge.
quote:
Just loading rifle ammo in the carbine did not give it rifle ballistics. Much of the extra 15 grains of powder went out the barrel unburned.Even the rifle did not have the range claimed by DC.
Actually Prolar, I'm the person who stated the longest range for the Springfield, not DC.
The rifle using the standard service loading 405 grain bullet backed by 70 grains of BP was good for 2500 yards - 1.5 miles, maybe even a touch more. This was proved by the tests at Sandy Hook.
I don't know what the range of the carbine was, but there are few examples of military firearms which are sighted up to their maximum range. On that basis its probably fairly safe to assume that the carbine was easily able to do 1000 yards (regardless of ammunition), but whether it was able to do 1200, 1500 or 1800 yards is more than I can say.
I'm not claiming that these measurements are the accurate range. They are most definately not. |
Edited by - dave on November 21 2005 07:28:21 AM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2005 : 10:39:13 AM
|
Dave
I don't know what the range of the carbine was, but there are few examples of military firearms which are sighted up to their maximum range.
The heaver charge gave a greater muzzel velocity thus greater accuracy.The increased range was just incidental.No line units in regular modern armies have range practices over 300 yards.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2005 : 11:42:53 AM
|
So, we go off on these trivial issues that don't reveal squat about LBH. On this thread, we now have two opposite claims. One is that the 70 grain didn't burn completely in the carbine and fouled it and didn't give it more velocity because of the short barrel and incomplete burn, and one that it did. Which is correct?
Second, is that relevant? Given we don't know what percentage of each was with the 7th.
Third, is that knowledge relevant if we had it, given that we don't know if the soldiers were trained well enough at anything for it to matter even if the remarkably pathetic 15 rounds between two weapons was true, and it's doubtful. As proof it is not, nobody seemed to know about the carbine's (or maybe the cartridge casings)supposed issues till after LBH. How could this not become apparent in anything approaching regular practice?
Fourth, who else was on the committee to approve the Springfield, and why is Reno singled out for it's alleged failures? What ammo casing was used for the testing, and which was distributed? And were they failures, given its prolonged existence? I'd be shocked to discover that this was merely an attempt to blame Reno and excuse Custer for the debacle. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2005 : 1:27:33 PM
|
On this thread, we now have two opposite claims. One is that the 70 grain didn't burn completely in the carbine and fouled it and didn't give it more velocity because of the short barrel and incomplete burn, and one that it did. Which is correct?
There was a bigger recoil and kick from the 70 grain load thus more powder burned than with the lighter load. |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2005 : 1:31:02 PM
|
| I'll try to make my position clear on these trivial issues that annoy DC so much. To me the maximum effective range of a weapon is the distance that a reasonable marksman could be expected to to be able to hit a man sized target. I believe that this also the Army's definition, but I'm not sure. My opinion is that the 1873 carbine had a max effective range of about 250 yards regardless of 55 or 70 grain loads. The heavier load did not foul any faster than the lighter load, the unburned powder was expelled out the end of the barrel.As I said one of the reasons for the lighter load in the carbine was that the shorter barrel didn't allow all the 70 grain charge to burn, but the heavier charge probably provided a little more muzzle velocity at the expence of greater recoil and muzzle blast. Greater velocity does not necessarily mean greater accuracy.1000 yards is far beyond the effective range of either the carbine or the rifle. |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2005 : 1:41:01 PM
|
| I should have made clear that the above are my opinions. I have reasons for them but others may well have better information. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2005 : 1:49:18 PM
|
| Greater velocity does not necessarily mean greater accuracy.In so far as the trajactory will be flater and the round will spend less time exposed to the elements then it should prove to be more accurate. |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2005 : 3:08:57 PM
|
quote:
My opinion is that the 1873 carbine had a max effective range of about 250 yards regardless of 55 or 70 grain loads.
That's about right -- against stationary targets. Against moving targets, it would be less, and against a mass target, somewhat more.
quote:
The heavier load did not foul any faster than the lighter load, the unburned powder was expelled out the end of the barrel.As I said one of the reasons for the lighter load in the carbine was that the shorter barrel didn't allow all the 70 grain charge to burn,
All the powder burns in the first few inches the bullet travels down the barrel. The rifle (with a barrel 50% longer) achieved greater velocity because the expanding gas continued to accelerate the bullet. |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2005 : 3:38:08 PM
|
| You may be right and probably are about smokless powder, but black powder burns slower. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Springfield Carbine
