| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - March 12 2005 : 4:34:14 PM
|
This is from the report of the Chief of Ordnance, Oct. 23, 1866 as it appeared in the Army and Navy Journal, January 19, 1867.
"No arms have been manufactured at the Springfield armory during the past year, the operations of this post having been confined to cleaning and repairing arms which were turned in after the war, and to making necessary preparations for converting the Springfield muskets into breech-loaders. About five thousand muskets have been converted into efficient breech-loaders, and the conversion will be continued as fast as practicable. It is believed that two hundred of these muskets will be turned out daily in February."
Also, to address DC's earlier questions about powder stores was this tidbit.
"It was demonstrated during the war that with an abundant supply of nitre on hand gunpowder may be manufactured rapidly enough to meet any emergency that may arise; and as the care and preservation of gunpowder is always attended with danger, and the powder is subject to deterioration, while nitre may be kept for any period of time without impairing its quality and with perfect safety, it would seem to be wise policy to keep a very large supply of nitre and but little powder on hand."
Billy
|
  |
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2005 : 4:40:13 PM
|
On the coincidental front. The commanding officer, based upon the regimental rolls, of the 2d Cavalry when Lt. Bingham was killed on 12/6/1866 and when the remainder of the company accompanied Fetterman on 12/21/1866 was George W. Yates. Yes, later captain in the 7th Cav.
Lt. Yates was stationed at Ft. Laramie while Bingham had the detachment up at Ft. Phil Kearny.
Small world ehhh?
Billy
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2005 : 7:20:26 PM
|
Everyone,
I have in my possesion 5x A4 sheets about Trooper John.S.Hiley.
He was a member of E troop,and he was killed in the Deep Ravine.
His real name was John Stuart Stuart Forbes,and was a son of an Edinburgh Banker.
The article was researched by a Leslie Hodgson 1997,and I pressume done in conjunction with the CAGB.
I dont have a scanner,but will try my best to get it on the board. |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2005 : 9:26:00 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
Yates was commanding the 2nd Cavalry as a lieutenant? Or do you mean just Bingham's company?
There are two photos of Bingham here:
http://firstmn.phpwebhosting.com/SearchResults.php3?ID=1125
R. Larsen
*blush* Good catch Larsen. My bad. Yates was the commander of company C, 2d Cav., not the entire regiment. Preceding Yates, although on leave of absence after the Civil War, was Wesley Merritt.
Billy |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2005 : 9:32:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by hunkpapa7
Everyone,
I have in my possesion 5x A4 sheets about Trooper John.S.Hiley.
He was a member of E troop,and he was killed in the Deep Ravine.
His real name was John Stuart Stuart Forbes,and was a son of an Edinburgh Banker.
The article was researched by a Leslie Hodgson 1997,and I pressume done in conjunction with the CAGB.
I dont have a scanner,but will try my best to get it on the board.
Hunk if unable to find someone with a scanner, feel free to mail copies of them to me and I will scan, post and attribute you as the contributor.
Is he the one whom, when going through the dead's personal effects, that he had left England under somewhat of a cloud and in his effects there was discovered a recent letter from his mother stating that all had been cleared up and he could go back home?
I saw it mentioned in either Graham or Hammer's book of Camp's notes.
Billy |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2005 : 05:55:50 AM
|
I am putting the original links here along with the transcript of page 2 of the article.
The links are:
Small version
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~familyinformation/fpk/berdanmod_s.jpg
Large version
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~familyinformation/fpk/berdanmod.jpg
Page 2.
"...copper cap, which is water-proof, inserted in a cup formed in the head of the shell, the cap being exploded by driving it against a teat formed of the bottom of the shell and raised against the centre of the cap. The fact that these cartridges can be used several times, will make them as cheap as paper cartridges for use in peace. Guns are being altered according to BERDAN'S system, at COLT'S armory, and by Messrs. REMINGTON & SONS, of Ilion, New York, and sample guns are being sent to nearly every government of any size in the world. Colonel BERDAN'S system of alteration has been submitted to a Board of officers, appointed by the Governor of the State of New York to examine breech-loading arms, and has met with considerable favor with them. Colonel BERDAN is so well satisfied with the performance of his present gun, that he proposes to make new guns with his peculiar method of closing the breech. The BERDAN gun, in its present form, is certainly entitled to a high place on the strength of its merits, while the chances of its being largely adopted seem to be very good."
|
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2005 : 10:19:31 AM
|
Thanks very much for rest of Berdan article Billy.
Looks like I lucked out on the breech loading trials however, I'd already read the text version at
http://www.researchpress.co.uk/firearms/blus1866.htm
If you are interested, the lead up article is at
http://www.researchpress.co.uk/firearms/bltussa18660609.htm
On the firearms topic, Custer was involved in the trialling the first military bolt action produced in the US - the Ward Burton Rifle, Model 1870 (or 71?). Apparently it was field tested by Custer on Gen. Stanley's Yellowstone expedition of '73. At least thats the rumour I've read. I've been trying to hunt down references, but without success so far
I'm guessing the Department of the Platte was the nearest military district they could send firearms for actual combat usage, because I've read that Custer, or rather the 7th, got to test a British rifle in '76. I'm guessing it was probably a Martini Henry - or a close derivitive. Whatever the story was, none of the guns seem to have been used in the Great Sioux War. |
Edited by - dave on March 13 2005 10:35:29 AM |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - March 14 2005 : 05:48:25 AM
|
A very long opinion piece written on the weapons used at the LBH and deficienties in US military policies of the time by Major General Hoyt S. Vandenberg, Jr. USAF (Ret)
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official_s&selm=3370a7d2.0%40news2.ibm.net&rnum=2
Reproduced are the first few paragraphs to help you work out if you are interested or not.
GIVE 'EM WHAT THEY NEED by Hoyt S. Vandenberg, Jr. Major General
USAF (Ret) (from an article in the newsletter of the Little Big Horn
Associates April 1995)
"Legend has it that the American fighting man has always been provided with the finest, latest, technological weaponry to aid him in protecting democracy.
"Sometimes this is the case; often it is not. During WWII for example, the semi-automatic (which fires a round every trigger pull) M-1 Rifle was deemed by General Patton as "the greatest battle implement ever devised."
"However, we suffered from undergunned tanks in WWII, a lack of adequate US made field artillery in WWI. More recently and close to home for me, was the lack of an internal cannon on the F4C aircraft I flew in Vietnam.
"The reasons these inadequacies show up are never changing. First, is the prevailing feeling that every war is out last, which leads to the syndrome that federal dollars are always better spent on non-military programs. Finally, it has become obvious, that in a historical sense, fools in Government make critical decisions.
"I maintain that these problems played a part in Custer's demise at the LBH in 1876.
"The equipping of the US Cavalry regiments with the singe-shot .45 caliber Springfield carbine ranks as the worst simgle decision made in an era famous for its disregard of troop welfare, safety and morale.
An interesting usenet post on the decision to adopt the Allin conversion Springfield
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official_s&selm=5kp7pi%24esk%40mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net&rnum=1
|
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 14 2005 : 10:14:49 AM
|
quote:
Cartridges exploding in the magazine!!!!! These guns were firing the same
round as the Trapdoor Springfield, a much more powerful cartridge than the
Model 1866 and 1873 Winchesters. The recoil would cause the nose of a
bullet in the magazine to hit the primer of the cartridge in front of
it!!!
Ouch!!! Talk about ruining your day!
Great finds Dave!
Billy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 14 2005 : 2:51:47 PM
|
There's no evidence the arms used were any detriment at LBH. The 7th wasn't well trained in any weapon, anyway. That's just wishful thinking.
It appeals to those who fought a losing war themselves to blame the equipment and the civilian government. They're sometimes correct - they were about Vietnam - but not here. It's one of the great attractions of the LBH that people who wish to feel betrayed themselves - by others or fate, and seldom with justification - can find solace aligning themselves with a heroic Custer, and so it's mandatory that he be viewed as betrayed as well - if not by subordinates, at least by equipment. His existing job is to stand for them. This role, something he never sought, has had a corrosive effect.
Not given to naming tanks for living generals who'd be commanding them, the US Sherman and Grant tanks of WWII were inferior to the Germans' but way superior to the Japanese crap(not that it mattered) and nobody had as good a tank as the Russians. Even Speer thought so. Didn't seem to matter much, overall. Patton made them work against the Germans, it looks like. Montgomery, too. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 14 2005 : 3:14:00 PM
|
An off-topic but interesting link dealing with WWII furnished to me by members of the 8th Inf. Div. mail list.
http://www.lonesentry.com/
In particular, check out the Intelligence Bulletins. Fascinating reading. Also, please bear in mind the caveat expressed at the beginning of each before jumping on my back.
Billy |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 15 2005 : 01:09:04 AM
|
quote:
The indians reported the soldiers trying to free up rifles than throwing them away and fighting with their revolver's in several book's. Wooden leg's is one I believe.
Have you considered that it was one story picked up by several authors? Nah, doubt it.
Read the criteria for the Board in Dave's second link. Speed of firing was one of the criteria. The author of that mail pointed out that the Springfield won out, even over magazine weapons. As he pointed out in his synopsis of the report, the speed of loading a magazine off-set any advantage it may have had over the single-shot. Since you likely will come back with references to the Spencer, let me point out that something happened with Spencers to set the establishment against them. Was it Merritt who's paper I posted who mentioned that?
Dave, old buddy, can you find out what the shortcomings of the Spencer were beyond the troops firing all shots too rapidly (they put an arrester or some such on it to stop that)?
Thanks,
Billy |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - March 15 2005 : 08:17:41 AM
|
Yes, it was Merritt. The arrester device was called a Stabler cutoff, its simply a piece of metal which slides over breech end of the magazine, stopping the bullets from being loaded when the action is worked.
Unfortunately I'm not much help with the Spencer's problems Billy. Going through various websites I found the following.
- The 1866 US army board convened to recommend the adoption of a breech loader identified the Spencer's extractor as being deficient. This point is covered in the article you posted on your website on the breech loading firearms trials
http://www.researchpress.co.uk/firearms/blus1866.htm
The experience of the late war, as well as all experiments by this board, proved that the Spencer magazine carbine is the best service gun of this kind yet offered. The board's experiments detected a defect in the arrangement of the extractor, which has been corrected by the manufacturers, upon the suggestion of the board, producing, in the opinion of the manufacturers themselves, a decided improvement in the arm, and one that will lessen much the liability to become disabled in service. It is believed, however, from models and from experiments of the board, that the magazine arm is capable of further improvement; and the board would, therefore, recommend some delay in adopting definitely a pattern for future construction of carbines for cavalry service. Should new carbines be previously needed, it is recommended that the Spencer carbine, with the modified extractor, be used.
- During the Fenian invasion of Canada, Canadian militia reported the Spencer as being generally inaccurate at ranges over 200 yards
http://www.civilwarguns.com/9410b.html
Ensign Andrew McIntosh's Canadian militiamen exchanged their Enfield muzzloaders for Spencers and were roundly whipped by Fenians (There go those Irishmen again!) carrying a hodge-podge of Smith and Sharps carbines and surplus rifle muskets. McIntosh, who regretted the gun trade, dismissed the Spencer as "a very poor thing…at any distance over 200 yards." Should I take the ensign's word on the Spencer? After all, he was there and I wasn't!
- A New Zealand website says that the gun was generally unreliable under adverse weather conditions when compared to other weapons of similar age
http://www.gunsmithsociety.com/remington-lee.htm
The author can vouch that Spencer carbines are troublesome. As Armourer for the Film "Utu" filmed under adverse winter mountain weather conditions in Hawkes Bay including rain, frost, snow, dirt and high humidity, the Spencer carbine used in the film gave nothing but trouble compared to the Sniders, Tuparas and muzzle loaders
This website also quotes some of Brigadier-General James W. Ripley (Chief of the US Ordnance in 1861) reservations about the Spencer.
A co-incidental link - GAC and the Spencer Carbine, reproduced from
http://www.mmcwrt.org/2000/spencer_carbine.htm
Possibly the best example of a commander whose career was made by Christopher Spencer's guns is George A. Custer. At the battle of Brandy Station, in June of 1863, Colonel Custer participated in one of his first charges. It passed over a mile up Fleetwood hill. Beyond support and mounted on fast tiring horses, the operation quickly degenerated into a stampede with great loss. A week later at the battle of Aldie, he again participated in one of the grand charges that would become his trademark. The Confederate center was the point of attack. Although this operation covered less distance, it still lacked support and his troops took a terrible pounding 3.
There had been no Spencer armed troops in either battle. However, after Aldie, the Spencer armed 5th and 6th Michigan Cavalry were taken from picket duty in the defenses of Washington and assigned to Custer's brigade.
On July 3rd, 1863, Irvin Gregg's Cavalry Corps once again met Jeb Stuart's Confederate troopers. The venue was just east of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The Confederates were attempting to flank the Federal army in support of Pickett's ill fated charge. This time the ambitious Michigan commander put together a grand cavalry spectacle. The difference was that the Michigan troopers were dismounted as skirmishers in support of Custer's mounted attack. The southern cavalry was finally stopped by a bold federal charge. That evening, Lieutenant Farnsworth, who was every bit as bold as Custer, was killed in a similar charge against the south end of the Confederate line. None of his troops had Spencers, and none were dismounted in support. These sorts of tactics relied heavily on the firepower of repeaters for any hope of success. In fact, Custer remarked in a letter to the Spencer company that, once his entire command had been armed with repeaters, he would not hesitate to engage the enemy when outnumbered almost two to one. |
Edited by - dave on March 15 2005 09:08:59 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 15 2005 : 10:29:41 AM
|
Again, Warlord, we hold similar opinions of each other. Sorry you have no other places to try and instigate conversation about yourself and your alleged history of familiar sounding tales and personal qualities. For my needs, you do provide the perfect illustrative example of those using the Custer dead to elevate themselves by constant forced metaphor, so it's not all wasted. I myself have no interest in you but can't speak for anyone else. It's a forum about the LBH, though, not a Rorschach test for wannabes.
In any case, what difference all this talk about the details of the weapons? The 7th as a unit simply wasn't trained well in the use of any weapons, it doesn't look like. The operating theory seemed to be that the charge would disperse, the Indians always ran. If you aren't going to practice, or if you aren't given ammo to practice, or if nobody thinks it that important given the short ranges generally involved, what possible difference does variations in ejection mechanisms make in considering the LBH? According to those who walked the field, Custer's men didn't fire off enough to have it an issue anyway. Hardly any casings.
Again, Crook didn't have these supposed immense problems, and his battle was longer with far more shells fired. Unless you can explain that, French's knife work story is either exaggerated or due to poor training of the 7th's troopers. Or both.
There was a brief moment of shared indignation when people were going to provide evidence of meaningful amounts of shooting training and practice in the 7th. That vanished, utterly, probably because no such evidence exists because it did not happen.
That being the case, when Custer was stopped to allow his horses to be shot or stolen, absent air support there was nothing he could do to fight his way out of a foolish and poor situation because his soldiers weren't good enough to repel an attack based on their shooting alone. He had to know that: optimism and unit faith don't trump his sure knowledge of the men under him. Once stopped under attack without cover, he was a goner, because his mounts surely were. That's truly why I don't think his appearence on LSH was a decision but a reaction, and not of Custer's. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2005 : 08:06:32 AM
|
I always thought that the LBH was the greatest defeat inflicted on US forces by the Indians.This appears to be yet another myth about the LBH.
In 1791 a column of 1400 US troops out of fort Hamilton under the command of St Clair and supported by artillery was ambushed by the Shawnee Indians and defeated in a 3 hour battle suffering casualties amounting to 623 dead.In addition to the dead 271 ot St Clair's men were wounded.All artillery was lost along with all the columns supplies and 200 camp followers. A defeat dwarfing that of Custer's. |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2005 : 08:46:37 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
I always thought that the LBH was the greatest defeat inflicted on US forces by the Indians.This appears to be yet another myth about the LBH.
In 1791 a column of 1400 US troops out of fort Hamilton under the command of St Clair and supported by artillery was ambushed by the Shawnee Indians and defeated in a 3 hour battle suffering casualties amounting to 623 dead.In addition to the dead 271 ot St Clair's men were wounded.All artillery was lost along with all the columns supplies and 200 camp followers. A defeat dwarfing that of Custer's.
The Dade massacre during the Seminole wars was almost as bad as LBH, 105 soldiers dying from detachment of 108.
http://www.geocities.com/rodent70/html/Dade.html
|
Edited by - dave on March 16 2005 10:02:28 AM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2005 : 11:37:19 AM
|
Interesting link Dave.Ya know the entire conflict offers so much more than the Custer episode.
I know nothing of the history of Oz regarding the aborogines.I don't imagine it was in any way similar to the Indian conflicts? |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2005 : 2:30:16 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
I always thought that the LBH was the greatest defeat inflicted on US forces by the Indians.This appears to be yet another myth about the LBH.
Well, it is the greatest in the sense of, "everybody killed." With St. Clair one could also mention the Creek attack on Fort Mims in 1813; I think about 400 people, mostly militamen, were killed in that.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2005 : 9:33:54 PM
|
| I've seen nothing about Crook's soldiers having excessive problems with their Springfields at the Rosebud. You? If you or anyone has information they did, share it. It's only the 7th, far as I can tell, that claimed it and then only after they lost. Huh. Go figure. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 17 2005 : 07:30:42 AM
|
Major Reno complained to the army chief of ordnance that six carbines had been rendered unserviceable during his part of the battle due to a faulty ejector mechanism.
Note that these weapons were rendered unserviceable what I 'm wondering is how many jammed but were cleared?Were those those 6 carbines just the worst cases? Were there in fact "24" incidences of carbines jamming?Similar figures at the LSH would have caused return fire to slacken resulting in loss of confidence in the defending troops and allowing the Indians to get in close. |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - March 17 2005 : 08:26:30 AM
|
Wild,
I was going to give you a long answer, but here's a shorter one instead.
Australian aboriginals were treated similarly to the American Indian. The main difference was that the aboriginals were less advanced and weren't as numerous. As a consequence, we didn't have any battles on the scale of the those of the Plains Wars or the earlier battles of the eastern woodlands.
Apart from a few small exceptions, the aboriginals were never able to form an organised resistance to the European settlers. Most of the violence which took place between colonist and aboriginal was waged by settlers or squatters (illegal settlers) protecting their flocks from the aboriginals. Military actions involving soldiers were generally a rare occurence (at least they were in Western Australia, which is the state I hail from).
The lowest point of aboriginal-white relations was the complete annihilation/removal of the Tasmanian Aboriginal population. The entire aboriginal population was exiled (excluding those who were murdered that is) to an island in the Bass Strait, where they became completely extinct by the 1870's.
In Western Australia, we had one battle, or more accurately skirmish. The battle of Pinjarra. Twenty five settlers and soldiers, including Governor Stirling attacked a band of approximately 70 - 100+ aboriginals, killing 20 - 30 individuals.
http://www.walkabout.com.au/locations/WAPinjarra.shtml
http://www.sydneyline.com/ARB%20reply%20April%2001.htm
http://www.militarybadges.info/brits/eras/05-the1830s.htm |
Edited by - dave on March 17 2005 08:54:51 AM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Research Locations
