| Author |
 Topic  |
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - October 11 2004 : 8:35:05 PM
|
I believe Keogh carried a non-regulation revolver. And its probable other officers did the same.
I think the easiest question is:
Is there info that points to Harrington carrying a .44 rather than a .45 Colt? |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
  |
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - October 12 2004 : 4:35:49 PM
|
| Sorry to have caused any confusion folks. I can't remember my source for Harrington possibly firing a .44 bullet, so I've changed that wording on the website. We do know that officers of the 7th Cavalry were allowed to use weapons of their choice, and many did just that. |
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 12 2004 : 5:47:17 PM
|
Okay, I don't know one way or the other, so forgive me. But because officers were allowed to use weapons of their choice, what is the basis for saying "many did just that?" Some, maybe. Many? That implies at least half.
If so, what was the advantage of standard weapons if not commonality of ammo and replacement parts and all that? At least one non-com (Ryan)and two officers (Custer and French) brought their own rifles as extras along with the Springfields. If "many" officers/non coms brought their own guns, given the extra space needed for all this extra/duplicate ammo on propulsion that has to be fed, isn't that sort of thing a poor decision by the Army? Of course, they were hardly overtrained anyway.
Really, given the training and existing marksmanship, if the pistols had been .38 snubnoses or Buntline Specials and the rifles .22 would the results have been worse? Better? Whatever you're given, you have to practice and hit your target and these guys apparently did not and could not, counting on the shock of the charge .....or something. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 19 2004 : 3:17:09 PM
|
| Did you mention incompetent handling of his command in close contact with the enemy.In other words he still had a chance but for the fact his command were all over the country.Or as DC believes he was shot. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 20 2004 : 04:38:52 AM
|
However, even if he had the two hundred some trooper's all togeather there appears to be no indication the outcome would have been different.Benteen and Reno faced the same predicament,same odds[worse in fact as Reno had been defeated and the indians were now victorious],same ground but survived.
Handled properly the command would still have been resisting when Benteen reached Weir point. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 20 2004 : 3:59:17 PM
|
The Indians fought as individuals.No command and controll.Benteen/Reno did not have to face a single concerted attack on their position.Most of the engagement was fought at distance ,the only time the Indians got close they were driven off quiet easely.
If the ground was not as favourable for Custer as it was for Reno/Benteen then it was just as bad for the indians.Holding a defensive circle with good fire control,volley firing into massed ranks of indians would have inflicted huge casualties,kept them at bay and demoralised them.
Remember it was only when Reno ran that he suffered most of his casualties.Same happened to Custer when he allowed the Indians get amoung his troops. |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - November 20 2004 : 5:33:37 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Wild: I am one who is always quite interested in how combatants survived an overwhelming force in battle. It very literally is at the heart of martial arts. Unfortunately the ground was not the same. Reno enjoyed a natural defensive position, the single bluff (hill) he was able to attain. Dished out on the top. The supply train joined him as did Benteen prior to the main indian attack. No water though. Custer was on open ground and easily surrounded. Reno also had the time to dig in using knives, tin plates and cups. Of course the simple answer is Custer should never have divided his command from the first. However, if we use his apparent attempted river crossing at the indian villiage to the top of Custer Hill what would or could have been done different to allow even a partial unit survival?
The answer to the latter part is nothing,I think once MC came about that was it.
Even if Benteen had passed by Reno and went straight for GAC he would have arrived when Calhoun Hill was being overrun,and Custer Ridge swamped with Indians,and would not have made it through to GAC,and in all probability the only outcome would have been another 125 grave markers |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - November 20 2004 : 5:45:54 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
The Indians fought as individuals.No command and controll.Benteen/Reno did not have to face a single concerted attack on their position.Most of the engagement was fought at distance ,the only time the Indians got close they were driven off quiet easely.
If the ground was not as favourable for Custer as it was for Reno/Benteen then it was just as bad for the indians.Holding a defensive circle with good fire control,volley firing into massed ranks of indians would have inflicted huge casualties,kept them at bay and demoralised them.
Remember it was only when Reno ran that he suffered most of his casualties.Same happened to Custer when he allowed the Indians get amoung his troops.
Dont agree,the indians used the ravines to good effect to shoot at soldiers with no cover,and by the time of CH there ecertainly was no cohesive volleys,they were totally surounded and it was over in minutes,although a few ran towards the village,but they were cut down easily and they were probarbly the last to die. |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2004 : 05:31:22 AM
|
I believe there were simply too many indians for a defensive perimeter to work.
It worked for Benteen/Reno.
Dont agree,the indians used the ravines to good effect to shoot at soldiers with no cover,
The soldiers had no cover because Custer allowed himself to be caught in the open scattered all over country.
In this scenario we are giving Custer 5 minutes to deploy before he is hit.Some of those ravines you speak of are now occupied by the troopers.Sectors of fire are allocated.Ammo is taken from the horses and using a few good men they are stampeded back towards Benteen.Should draw off some of the Indians and allow all of the troops to take their place in the firing line.Custer now has command and control and a fire system.What he may not have is time and ammo but he has now given his command a fighting chance.
The arrival of Benteen/reno would now be seen as reinforcements coming to the aid of undefeated troops and not as more meat to the grinder.
I also believe there are numerous records about charges by the indians at Reno entrenchment
I'v read many accounts but have never come accross any descriptions of charges.
Having said that, I have always been an admirer of the English Army's performance at Roark's Drift.
The locals had no fire arms at Rourke's Drift, my granny could have beaten them.
So you got me interested Wild, would you be interested in providing a little more elaboration on how this could be done!
The drill you describe might be ok on the fields of Waterloo but not on the broken ground of LBH.Custer's troops should have used the ground as best they could with volley firing being done by sections.
|
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2004 : 08:20:11 AM
|
Of course "volley fire" takes trained troops to render it accurate and effective. And a "massed" enemy force to volley at!! From what I gather, a # of Custers troops had little idea which end of the gun the bullet came out. And I don't believe the Indians at LBH were in any way such good targets as the Zulu's presented at the Drift.
And as for sabers--again, training. Sabers in Custers command would probably have only produced some "self-inflicted" wounds and more battle souveniers for the Indians.
Aside from all the theories on tactics, one thing seems to stand out from what I've read--Custers 7th was hardly a well-oiled fighting machine--they performed pretty badly at LBH and were (tactics aside) outfought. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2004 : 10:24:24 AM
|
Aside from all the theories on tactics, one thing seems to stand out from what I've read--Custers 7th was hardly a well-oiled fighting machine--they performed pretty badly at LBH and were (tactics aside) outfought.
They were ok on the skirmish line,they were ok in the timber and they were ok in the Reno/Benteen defensive position.The huge advantage the Indians had in numbers only came into play when they ran.
In a defensive position under the control of experienced civil war officers they had a chance. |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2004 : 5:38:12 PM
|
I believe there were simply too many indians for a defensive perimeter to work.
It worked for Benteen/Reno.
As far as Reno was concerned,I believe the indians knew he wasn't a threat,he was beaten,and for that time being only needed watching.
|
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2004 : 6:37:58 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Aside from all the theories on tactics, one thing seems to stand out from what I've read--Custers 7th was hardly a well-oiled fighting machine--they performed pretty badly at LBH and were (tactics aside) outfought.
They were ok on the skirmish line,they were ok in the timber and they were ok in the Reno/Benteen defensive position.The huge advantage the Indians had in numbers only came into play when they ran.
In a defensive position under the control of experienced civil war officers they had a chance.
they we ok at the skirmish line,till they were attacked and outflanked.they were ok in the timber till it got rough,and panicked or was it the right time to get out.true when they made a break for it the casulties was at its highest.After that under 2 officers they were rooted to the hill,being picked off by snipers,and couldnt/wouldnt move for fear of attack as in Weir.My own conclusion is they thought[as did GAC] it was going to be a buffalo shoot,and when the buffalo charged instead of running they were in trouble.Even troops that hav't been trained to well are under no pressure when they are shooting at someone running,but its a hell of a lot harder when being shot at and charged at the same time. |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 22 2004 : 10:36:54 AM
|
This brings up the crux of the problem of the rifleman. He must have the ability and the willingness to use his rifle. It appears not enough of either seem to be present on this field.I may be labouring the point but these troops held their own on the skirmish line,in the timber and the Reno/Benteen defensive position.Why would Custer's troops, having been given time to form a defence not behave just as well?
Look at the problem from the Indian point of view.They have no leadership to exploit any weakness in the Custer position.They crowd forward masking each other's fire.What ammo have they got?And there is another force of 300 troops approaching.As can be seen they react rather than act.They reacted to Reno although they were aware of Custer because Reno was the immediate threat.Instead of pursuing Reno they reacted to Custers attempted attack .Now faced with a resolute Custer defence and an approaching Benteen I think there is a good chance they would have run. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 22 2004 : 10:40:24 AM
|
| PS.Also because they have no fire control I can imagine a lot of blue on blue. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 22 2004 : 4:21:46 PM
|
| There was no onslaught. The Custer battalion was nickel-and-dimed to death, except when they ran. By the time defense was probably even thought of, it was too late. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 22 2004 : 4:59:17 PM
|
There was no onslaught. The Custer battalion was nickel-and-dimed to death,
Because Custer had his troops in nickel and dime packets all over the field.
What I'm saying is that given as little as 5 minutes to organise a defensive perimeter and knowing that the Indians were only really effective when the troops ran Custer could have lasted until Benteen arrived.
|
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 22 2004 : 8:02:25 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
There was no onslaught. The Custer battalion was nickel-and-dimed to death,
Because Custer had his troops in nickel and dime packets all over the field.
What I'm saying is that given as little as 5 minutes to organise a defensive perimeter and knowing that the Indians were only really effective when the troops ran Custer could have lasted until Benteen arrived.
Or more accurately, because Custer had his men on the field as the US fought Indians. The Indians fought rather differently, much more like we fight now. If anything, you could blame the tactics of the day for Custer's battalion being nickel-and-dimed. They presented themselves as targets, the warriors usually did not.
If we're getting into the ifs, here's one.
If the warriors wanted to kill Custer's entire battalion in 20 minutes, they could have. If they wanted to kill every last man of the 7th Cavalry, they could have. But that would have required them to fight in a way that they did not. Give me 1500 Sioux with the Zulu combat mentality, and I'd probably wipe the floor with Custer in 20 minutes. But I'd also have a lot of dead Sioux. And this was something they were not willing to accept. The US Military was willing to accept casualties, therefore they fought on the tops of ridges, exposing themselves. Firepower and organization was their protection, their cover. And when that broke down, dead horses were substituted. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 22 2004 : 8:33:55 PM
|
Perhaps it's only being done for the sake of discussion, but I believe there is a feeling here that, had Custer's command been united or had he done things differently, the outcome would have been different.
No, folks. Custer's bunch never could have won a fight there. He was out fought, out "generaled" and, overall, way over-matched. As Americans, we cling to a historical perspective that somebody has to screw up for us to lose. The Indians were better at doing what they were called upon to do, plain and simple.
If attacking from two directions and the element of surprise didn't help him, what else would have? Had he waited for Gibbon, he might have escaped bloodied but alive. That's speculation, but the rest is Custer's reality. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
benteens brother
Corporal
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - November 22 2004 : 9:12:52 PM
|
| Hey, the Zulu's didn't just present themselves as target practice for the 24th regiments riflemen at Rorke's Drift. There was heavy hand to hand fighting in and around the hospital. That's where a number of the VC actions occurred. There was plenty of blood on the bayonets by the end. The redcoats did alright that day. As for volley fire, well it hadn't helped the rest of the regiment earlier that day at Isandlwana. It was the slack handling of resources and overconfidence that did them in, just as it did Custer. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 22 2004 : 11:53:51 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by benteens brother
Hey, the Zulu's didn't just present themselves as target practice for the 24th regiments riflemen at Rorke's Drift. There was heavy hand to hand fighting in and around the hospital. That's where a number of the VC actions occurred. There was plenty of blood on the bayonets by the end. The redcoats did alright that day. As for volley fire, well it hadn't helped the rest of the regiment earlier that day at Isandlwana. It was the slack handling of resources and overconfidence that did them in, just as it did Custer.
Well, those Zulus that engaged in hand-to-hand did present themselves as targets, they just made it far enough to close in with their enemy. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 23 2004 : 06:56:39 AM
|
I think El Crab has it about as I see it. If the Indians had REALLY wanted to, they could probably have wiped out most of the command (given the separation of the 3 main units that day). But they weren't ready to accept major casualties, as a dead or severely wounded Indian was one less person to hunt, etc etc.etc .
And it would be hard to find any more inviting targets than the Zulu's at the Drift(or Isandwlana)!! The Brits fought hard and well that day at the Drift and the hand to hand stuff did take place certainly. But I have this "feeling" about the Drift that had the Zulu's made a super determined effort, they might well have over-run the place-
Now I also believe that had Custer not divided the command (on an uncoordinated basis especially), sent a few scouts to check out Benteen Valley, then charged the encampment with the ENTIRE command, things may have been different. We know that Reno's feeble (albeit unsupported) effort caused initial suprise and confusion--what would a REAL charge by 6oo men led by Custer himself have done??? Mayhem and a general melee perhaps. And I'm not certain the 7th would have "won" in their sense of that term. In the end, perhaps the 7th would have suffered a "Rosebudding" ala Crook.
And about all these " beliefs" of mine--as they say, believing something dosen't make it true |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - November 23 2004 : 09:34:41 AM
|
What fascinates me is that on one hand we have the battles or skirmishes of Beecher's Island, the Wagon Box fight, the Hay Field fight, Buffalo Wallow, the second battle of Adobe Walls and the siege of Reno Hill - in all of which relatively small groups of well armed whites were able to fight off equal or greater numbers of plains Indians.
And on the other hand we have Fetterman's massacre and the LBH.
Obviously very different battles in terms of the calibre of the leaders, the terrain, the numbers involved and a whole host of other factors. But I wonder just how much Fetterman and Custer contributed to their defeats.
|
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - November 23 2004 : 09:50:35 AM
|
Wild:
The Zulu's at Rorkes Drift carried numerous firearms. Almost entirely Tower muskets from what I've read. Tower muskets were a simple generic type of flint lock manufactured in England for the purposes of trading with African (and other) natives.
If you're interested, there is a brief reference to the Zulu firearms at the following URL
http://www.rorkesdriftvc.com/battle/battle.htm
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 23 2004 : 12:54:34 PM
|
| Whoever brought Fetterman's and Custer's guys to indefensibly visible high ground against a much greater number to no military point is the one at fault, although in both cases not necessarily the names associated with the fiascos. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Responsibility At Little Bighorn
