| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - November 28 2004 : 6:01:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Real obligation? None. If Grummond had disobeyed orders, Fetterman could have just let him reap his fruits, except that in practice one would try to help somebody, even if they put themselves in a bad position --- particularly against an enemy like the Plains Indians. Ten Eyck, for example, was sent over Lodge Trail Ridge once Carrington realized that Fetterman needed support, no matter that this was not something he had desired. When Weir went off towards Custer, also without orders, rather than letting him reap his own fruits Reno and Benteen went out in support of him. I think Fetterman acted with the same mindset. The situation is what it is, and Grummond has put himself in a situation that requires help if he is going to get out of it. By that point, the Indians had given up on the train, which had broken corral and was proceeding back to the fort, so it was no longer really an issue; which makes the resulting disaster sadder, since it all could have ended there, but as soon as one problem was gone Fetterman had another one once the cavalry broke after the decoys.
As for Elliott, Custer did search for him. He sent Myers off to locate him, and Myers apparently did a two-mile search, but turned up nothing. Benteen's angry letter has created the perception that Custer did nothing, but the perception is not true, though because Elliott's fate was left undetermined there were many who thought he did not do enough. Ten Eyck received similar criticism for not accounting for all of Fetterman's detachment on December 21; about 14 bodies (including Grummond) weren't located until the next day.
Pointless, stupid, not coldly rational, sure. And I don't think this stuff at the Wa****a, Phil Kearny, or Little Bighorn ever would have been an issue had the soldiers been fighting somebody from Europe. But they weren't, and in the Indian wars, you just didn't cut off somebody without trying to do something --- even if it involved significant risk often to no military point. And that didn't happen at Phil Kearny, it didn't happen at Wa****a, and it didn't happen at Little Bighorn. Other bloody screwups of the time were precipitated by the military trying to help somebody who had gotten himself into trouble, even if it served no major purpose and had little chance of accomplishment. In the Nez Perce War, for example, the Rains Massacre happened because an advance party of 12 soldiers sent off to locate a man named Charles Blewett (who had been attacked by Nez Perce, and was probably dead, but let's see what we can do anyway) was cut off and cut down by a Nez Perce war party. All killed.
Read Benteen's published letter about the Wa****a and I think you can understand the mindset of these officers about just cutting off some of their own, even if those people had put themselves, through their own negligence, into their position. He's emotional and angry and exclamatory: "But does no one think of the welfare of Maj. Elliott and party? It seems not". Stupid, and militarily pointless, and not coldly rational or factual, but we're talking about human beings here, who did not think that you could always behave in icy military terms against an enemy who took no prisoners; and people who did, or were perceived to, such as Custer, were viewed by many with hatred or disdain. "What if I **** up? What is somebody going to do for me?" seems to be the thought lurking behind many of these censures; it couldn't help but be on people's minds who had to fight with a non-prisoner-taking group such as the Indians, and that anxiety often surfaces in documents like Benteen's Wa****a letter.
So I say again that I'm extremely skeptical that Fetterman acted with superaggression. I think he behaved with the same mindset as Myers, Reno/Benteen in pursuit of Weir, Rains. Which is not exculpatory; like Rains, he acted too imprudently in getting beyond support himself, but it's different from the standard point of view, and in my own opinion likely more accurate. I'm not trying to puff Fetterman up into the hero of the day.
R. Larsen
|
  |
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - November 29 2004 : 03:50:48 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Larsen/Anonymous Poster8169: Trying to attribute a general evaluation of the mounted plains warrior to one inexperienced source shows how little research you do!
That was what you were trying to do, Warlord, not me. To say that Indians are (or were) considered by most military authorities the best light cavalry in the world is nonsense, and the proof is in your spluttering replies.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 29 2004 : 09:10:45 AM
|
quote:
He goes onto talk about the glorious trapdoor Springfield as an excellent carbine and more accurate than a rifle at 200 to 500 yards! Utter rubbish! The extractor was inadequate, and after around 30 shots it jammed! In reality it was a cobbled up mess by cutting down a 1863 Springfield muzzle loader, placing a cheap liner in the barrel, first 50-70 than 45-70. Than adding a cheap swinging breech block screwed onto the barrel!
I am not a gun expert by any stretch of the imagination (my idea of shooting is you point and squeeze and hear the bang!) but....The liner and Allin was used in modifying the Springfield Rifled Musket to the breech-loader used by the Army in 1867, significantly at the Wagon Box and Hayfield fights. I believe I read that beginning in 1870 that new Springfield carbines were manufactured which used the Allin breech-loading mechanism but the barrel was chambered correctly therefore not needing the .58 to .50 caliber sleeve you are referring to.
Here is a link to information regarding Allin and the conversion process.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_4_50/ai_113853250
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 29 2004 : 09:20:06 AM
|
quote:
BJ: Once again a so-called military analyst scrambling thoughts and nomenclature. Gen. Merrit either writes of little he knows of or he has had his writting changed.
Well, I am unsure who you are calling an armchair analyst. If me, well, I have never made that claim and would hesitate to do (I always get beat in Risk!). If Gen. Merritt, I think you are dead wrong. Since he fought and commanded troops in battles we only read about, I am more inclined to take HIS opinion than that of another armchair analyst. Now whether he was misquoted in the article? I don't know but will check a couple of subsequent issues to see if there was any feedback from him. And yes, the article was published in 1880. As a matter of fact, it was Vol. 1, No. 1.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 29 2004 : 10:22:52 AM
|
"A revolver which will fire half as many times,
This ment that the troops were only half as likley to kill each other.
Do I get a prize? |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 29 2004 : 5:05:08 PM
|
quote:
This posting has something fundametally wrong with it because he appears to be talking about a pistol using more cartridges that the revolver which he says is much better.
I think he is using the term pistol generically for revolver as the words Colt revolver are specifically mentioned after pistol. As I said, I will check subsequent issues to see if there is any clarifications/corrections by either he or the editors.
In regards to the Allin conversion. OK, I understand that step, i.e., converting musket loader to breech-loader. Please clarify for me whether both rifle and carbine's caliber were downsized from .58 to .50 or only the carbine's? I am more interested in that from the FPK perspective than I am LBH.
Speaking of Spencer carbines. I was reading in either the Army and Navy Journal or another journal of the period (1866-67) about a modification for the Spencer that was being put into effect. In essence, it kept the marksman from using the bullets within the tube forcing him to use the carbine in a single-fire breech-loading mode until a small lever was switched at which point the shooter could use the bullets within the tube.
I think you are looking at the range/accuracy thing with totally modern eyes rather than from the perspective of the time. At the time this was going on, the American army had just evolved from a Napoleonic-era point in the direction of the enemy and pull the trigger shooting technique to one where aimed marksmanship with the more accurate rifled muskets of the period could cause an attacking force horrendous casualties.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 30 2004 : 08:24:00 AM
|
WL, thanks. That was an excellent summation. Now I can call it a day as I have learned my daily facts.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - November 30 2004 : 09:47:09 AM
|
Thanks for the fascinating article Billy.
Like you I found it interesting that the army had already formed an accurate assessment of the Indian casualties.
I'm perhaps the most poorly read of all the people contributing to this forum, but the one Custer/LBH book I have read was written by Col. Graham which covered a fair amount of material thrown up by the subsequent inquiries. I would have to say that given the time period, I did think the US army displayed a fair amount of professionalism in the way they conducted the investigation. Not perfectly by any measure. But maybe we shouldn't be too surprised that they had a good idea of the Indian losses.
What I would be curious about is; did they assess the likely losses based on the reports of the officers involved in the battle, or did they conduct interviews with the Indians after they had been rounded up back onto the reservations?
With regard to Col. Merritt's comments regarding the revolver. I think he was referring to the rapidity with which the revolver could be fired. He could have been saying that he wanted a revolver which could be fired only half as fast, so that the troopers would have to choose their targets more carefully. Anyway, its the only thought which seems to make any sense to me at the moment.
I had a bit of snigger at his comments about the Springfield. I can't help but wonder if that comment doesn't reflect a certain degree of political correctness. I like how he says, yes its a great gun, but I really like the Sharps, and hey, I wouldn't mind a magazine gun while we're at it. I note that after the Civil War, the rifle that the army really wanted, was the Peabody, instead they got the Springfield.
See
http://www.researchpress.co.uk/firearms/bltussa18660609.htm
I would be fascinated to learn what the problems that beset the Spencer during Indian Wars were. |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - November 30 2004 : 11:08:20 AM
|
| Warlord: I make no claims to be being an expert, but two references I have both state that the 45/55 load was for the carbine, while the 45/70 was used in the rifle. Considering the felt recoil would be greater in the lighter carbine and the shorter barrel might not burn all the 70 gr charge, this seems logical to me. |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - November 30 2004 : 1:39:00 PM
|
| "They" being the army or the Indians? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 30 2004 : 4:13:01 PM
|
| Merritt seems to be comparing the Springfield carbine of the cavalry only to the (Springfield) rifle of the infantry, not rifles in general. And if, as Varnum says, the 7th used rifle ammo in the carbine, page 347 Graham, perhaps all the cavalry including Merritt's did and there wasn't all that much difference between rifle and carbine for the distances generally involved fighting Indians. Since the 7th didn't seem to spend a lot of time at practice anyway, I'd doubt changes in arms would have made much difference at LBH or elsewhere. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - November 30 2004 : 6:06:05 PM
|
| I agree they were as well off with carbines as with rifles. I know of Varnum's statement, and you would think he should know, but according to the archaeology, 45/55 ammo was used. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 30 2004 : 6:54:08 PM
|
| Well, Varnum implies he doesn't know for sure, although that zip/zing descripition sounds convincing. Again, the field sounds like it was picked clean at some junctures between the battle and today, and who knows who fired what when? Which is to say, archaeology can only do so much. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - November 30 2004 : 7:15:43 PM
|
| Well Col Varnum may not have been sure about the ammo the indians were using, but it must have been what they captured. However , he was clear that the 7th used 45/70. He must have been mistaken or all the archaeology is wrong. Like you I am skeptical about some of the conclusions based on archaeology, but I can't believe they are that wrong. |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - December 01 2004 : 11:05:53 AM
|
Warlord, I know that the only difference was the powder charge,but there must have a marking somewhere that distinguished the two loadings. If I understand you, the Army loaded all cartridges with only 55 grains, but that does not agree with my sources,which are American Rifleman and United States Firearms. Both say the 45/70 was for rifles and the 45/55 for carbines, though they were interchangleable.
|
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - December 01 2004 : 4:35:20 PM
|
| I read on another website that they were stamped with a C or an R. I have never heard of markings on the cases at LBH, but they are all ways identified as 45/55 by Fox and others. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 01 2004 : 11:14:43 PM
|
How? If what Warlord says is true, and they have no markings to indicate load, how do they know they were .45/55 and not .45/70? Varnum says they had the heavier load; he'd know, you'd think.
On the other hand, what possible overall difference would it make if the soldiers couldn't hit much anyway? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 02 2004 : 08:17:46 AM
|
I have almost the exact opposite view. It was probably irrelevant to the Seventh, and I find it interesting only because it would mean that those who lay down and worship at the shrine of forensic science have to now deal with a major evidentiary presentation error by those above crossexamination. This is dependent upon you, Warlord, being correct, and I do not know if you are. Record is not good.
Archaeology can only do so much, but it can sure institutionalize error because people don't challenge it and buy it whole. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - December 02 2004 : 8:41:05 PM
|
| Dark Cloud: Warlord didn't say there were no markings to indicate load, just that the specific load was not stamped. The R or C marking that I mentioned would be all that was needed. I don't claim personal knowledge that these marks were used, but certainly there was somthing to indicate load and archaeolgists are able to determine this. Giving them this much credit is hardly "buying it whole". |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 02 2004 : 9:01:47 PM
|
Okay. I misread, although it's odd you and not Warlord caught my misreading. My error, and apologies for that. If there is anything on the shell casings to indicate load, I've never heard them mentioned here (or anywhere, but it's not something that grabs me beyond possible evidence archaeology erred in its presentation)(and if wrong, I need to include archaeology and -ists in that apology)(....for that specific error)(.....and absolutely nothing else)that I recall. We're still stuck with Varnum, who thinks virtually all of them grabbed the heavier load, which conflicts with what archaeology has said thus far.
Perhaps Bhist knows, having found casings and worked with the digs, if there was any variation in markings on the Springfield casings. Strange if none of them indicate .45/70, because there's been no contrary testimony to Varnum's, has there? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - December 02 2004 : 10:14:25 PM
|
| DC: I wasn't looking for an apology, your points are valid. I too would welcome input from Bhist. The only data I can find about the two loadings is that the 45/55 had a cardboard spacer to compensate for the lighter load. Supposedly the unfired cartridges found on the field contain this spacer and the fired casings had traces of the spacer. I admit to being skeptical about the traces. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 03 2004 : 06:51:30 AM
|
Interesting conversation. I will post (attempt to post is more correct) a photo of the headstamps of 3 .45-70 cartridges found at LBH. This photo is Archaeological Insights into The Custer Battle: An Assessment of the 1984 Field Season by Douglas A. Scott & Richard A. Fox, Jr. (with contribution by Dick Harmon) page 65.
OK, that didn't work because the file was too large. So, here is the file:
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~familyinformation/Custer/45_70brassneg.jpg
I have converted it from normal view to "negative" view in order to have the potential markings/lettering show up better. I didn't see anything myself but that is my view. Anyone else see anything?
A larger TIFF format of the same in standard B&W is at this location:
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~familyinformation/Custer/45_70brass.jpg
Question and maybe this has already been answered and I missed it: What practical impact would it have had IF .45-70 loads rather than .45-55 had been used? Based upon the little I know of these weapons, it does not seem that it would have made any difference to the weapon except maybe the barrel. Can someone clarify that point?
Thanks in advance,
Billy
Billy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 03 2004 : 09:07:01 AM
|
*dirty word, dirty word!*
Good catch DC. Gotta go now, time for remedial reading class!
Billy |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 03 2004 : 10:09:54 AM
|
Sorry about the goof. Haste makes waste, etc., etc.
Here is a quote from a web page which supports the C vs R argument:
"Originally, both the rifle and carbine rounds were seated to the same overall length and headstamped with a "C" or "R" for identification. However, in 1886 because of the earlier discontinuing of the 405 gr rifle load the 405 gr bullet it was decided to eliminate the over powder wad in the 55 gr loads and to seat the bullet directly on top of the reduced powder charge resulting in an instantly identifiable difference in overall length and the headstamping practice was dropped."
http://home.sprynet.com/~frfrog/springfi.htm
Also found this other supporting evidence for the above with one twist (go down about mid-way of the page till the header of Frankfort Arsenal Miscellaneous Headstamps).
http://members.shaw.ca/cstein0/uscenter.htm
At this site, scroll down to look at .45-70's. Most of his inventory shows headstamps of C or R with F's appearing, it looks like around 1886. That must of been when they removed the cardboard filler from the 55 and sat the bullet directly on top of the powder as I read at one of the other sites.
http://members.aol.com/mg64guy/ammo/cfrifle.txt
I will call the Frontier History Museum over at Ft. Leavenworth to see if they have the .45-55 and .45-70 cartridges in any exhibit. If they do, I will try to get pictures of the headstamps.
Billy
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Responsibility At Little Bighorn
