| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - February 15 2006 : 8:19:27 PM
|
quote:
DC I believe you are correct that the officers did not believe in to much practice. I read somewhere that the officers were still debating volley fire rather than individual aimed fire. Maybe Vern can enlighten us on the Army's change from volley to individual aimed fire. He mentioned the formation of the NRA (your favorite Group) of which I am member being formed around this time.
Volley fire went the way of the dodo long before the Little Big Horn. It was sometimes used, but the nature of warfare in America dictated more individual action. The indians didn't march up in serried ranks to exchange vollies. The correct approach was to assign men or squads sectors and have them spot and engage targets as they appeared.
The next year, 1877, Civil War veterans would form the National Rifle Association and bring about a marksmanship revolution in the Army. |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 15 2006 : 8:42:45 PM
|
Since Mrs. Nash had pointed out the teal Gortex Official '76 Campaign Custer Tour 7th Cavalry Fanny Pack and Ammo Bag (issued to all participants in lieu of incidentals like sufficient training or horses)clashed with Army blue (so they were all left with the band to hold lip balm and moisturizer; a few still show up on Ebay) I believe we can assume whatever the ammo was carried in was relatively exposed, dirty, and an adventure for the men who'd had little need for it before. But even if each cartridge was in sealed plastic, by the time the palsied claws of the soldiers touched one after days holding reins, wiping the mouth and mustache and all, to load it, there would be an exciting and scientifically stimulating variety of foliage, leather, mucous and horse hair to challenge the finely engineered interior of the weapon. Godfrey said the ammo was kept in saddle bags, and I think that probably says it all.
While it is correct to say that any problem this produced wouldn't have shown up in relatively sterile testing, it certainly would have shown up in anything approaching training/practice in the field which is why I think it more important to appreciate that it didn't matter what weapon of the time they were given: they wouldn't have been trained sufficiently with it anyway, and if not one thing it would be another that would provide a new annoyance to soldiers already enjoying a rash of new and meaningful experiences to deal with simultaneously.
I also think it important to also appreciate that in any endeavor a certain percentage of failure is always human failure, whether by cluelessness or panic, and while I can't prove it I cannot but think the solely mechanical failure rate of Springfield and Colt is even lower than current figures suggest, in fairness. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 15 2006 : 9:00:33 PM
|
"Volley fire went the way of the dodo long before the Little Big Horn. It was sometimes used, but the nature of warfare in America dictated more individual action. The indians didn't march up in serried ranks to exchange vollies. The correct approach was to assign men or squads sectors and have them spot and engage targets as they appeared".
I will have to let it go for now but I believe I read but can't find it right now that cavalry officers remaining from the civil war were discussing the merits of each during the 1870's. It stated it ended with the formation of the shooting contests in the Army and formation of the NRA. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - February 16 2006 : 08:53:01 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by BJMarkland
Dave, good to hear from you!
From my lurking around, I have noticed that he has been relatively restrained of late. Old age getting to him or just sore feet from tap-dancing around?
Hi Billy
You should start posting here again (work and family permitting of course). We're badly needing a good quality poster. As you've probably noticed, the topics are getting a little circular here. I think we can do without the 353rd repeat of whether Springfields jammed or didn't. I used to enjoy your research topics, it was interesting to read, particularly the original material.
I'm almost (but not quite) feeling sorry for DC. I think he's a bit upset that the rest of us are so apathetic regarding Custer. We need a Custerphile or two to enliven proceedings.
Maybe I could write a "Dear Autie" post on how Custer was the greatest cavalry general since Alexander the Great, how he epitomised the best of American manhood etc etc. I'm sure DC would bite with the greatest delight. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 16 2006 : 11:03:01 AM
|
Vern
For purposes of comparison, it would be better to describe the British of the Zulu War of '79, not the British Army of the Boer War of 1899-02. The latter was fought with smokeless powder repeaters and fairly modern artillery.
You miss the point.The tactics of hit and run as used by the Boers were similar to those of the Indians.The Zulu used European tactics [if not firearms].They confronted the Brits with armies of 20000 or more and unlike the boers and Indians were foot soldiers.
The British Martini-Henry had no safety -- a deficiency that had some bearing on the death of the Prince Imperial.
The prince was escorted by the Natal Horse who were not armed with the Martini-Henry but with the Westley=Richards
The '73 Springfield was by no means a defense-only weapon. While the preferred attack for Cavalry is the mounted pistol attack, infantry with identical weapons (except for barrel length) were a very effective attack force.
In the hands of cavalry it was a defensive weapon. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 16 2006 : 7:58:54 PM
|
You should start posting here again (work and family permitting of course). We're badly needing a good quality poster. As you've probably noticed, the topics are getting a little circular here. I think we can do without the 353rd repeat of whether Springfields jammed or didn't. I can't imagine why they keep posting about Springfields in a thread named Springfield Carbines.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 17 2006 : 08:48:48 AM
|
"In the hands of cavalry it was a defensive weapon." No it wasn't. A firearm not cemented in place is neither offensive nor defensive. It can be put to either use. In the hands of cavalry under MacKenzie and Miles and Custer and everyone else for about 99% of engagements with Indians, they were in the hands of cavalry on the offensive.
At the point when grown men are discussing the lack or inclusion of a safety on a certain weapon used or not used by a body guard for a delusional royal prancing around Zululand at war, and this offered as the contributing or specific reason for that worthy's fate, you have lost all common sense and need to hit the bar for a refreshing beverage and get a grip. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 17 2006 : 2:31:05 PM
|
In the hands of cavalry it was a defensive weapon." No it wasn't. A firearm not cemented in place is neither offensive nor defensive. It can be put to either use. In the hands of cavalry under MacKenzie and Miles and Custer and everyone else for about 99% of engagements with Indians, they were in the hands of cavalry on the offensive.
The fact that cavalry are an offensive unit does not make a single shot carbine an offensive weapon.In fact the only drill for the mounted carbine was for ranks of cavalry to halt fire and then withdraw while the next rank fired.And Miles's success against the sioux was due in large part to his use of infantry and artillery. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 17 2006 : 7:32:39 PM
|
Miles success against the Sioux was that they were starving and he had more than he needed for military victory. He could have used Bill O'Reilly's loofahs and won at Wounded Knee.
The only defensive 'weapon' is a shield. A firearm, even a single shot derringer, can be either defensive or not, as Lincoln can attest. The carbine was no more a defensive weapon in the hand of the cavalry - who primarily operated as dragoons and on the offense - than Miles' artillery. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 19 2006 : 10:24:17 AM
|
| "The only defensive 'weapon' is a shield. A firearm, even a single shot derringer, can be either defensive or not, as Lincoln can attest. The carbine was no more a defensive weapon in the hand of the cavalry - who primarily operated as dragoons and on the offense - than Miles' artillery." Most 'weapons' can be used for for either I would think. I don't see a shield being a 'weapon' anymore than a helmet. As far as the any rifle deployed by the army it was deployed mostly off the horse. I have a hard time distinguishing role and function differences in deployment of skirmishers between cavalry and mounted infantry. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 19 2006 : 2:23:36 PM
|
The only defensive 'weapon' is a shield. A firearm, even a single shot derringer, can be either defensive or not,
Most 'weapons' can be used for for either I would think.Gentlemen please if we could just stick to military definations and not legal definations.
Up until the carbine was issued to cavalry units they had no defensive capibility.
Cavalry on the offensive have but one tactic and that is the charge in which the carbine might get off one unaimed shot.
Cavalry as infantry/dragoons have a very limited role which is based on the skirmish line which is not an offensive formation although it could support genuine infantry.
He could have used Bill O'Reilly's loofahs and won at Wounded Knee.Wounded Knee was as much a battle as Mi Lai [with the greatest of respect] |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 19 2006 : 4:28:08 PM
|
Oh good! MILITARY definitions. Provide us with the MILITARY definition of an exclusively defensive personal firearm, and how a carbine qualifies as such exclusively in the hands of cavalrymen. Just nonsense, Wild. And WHAT legal definitions have you noted?
So, the pistol was not a defensive weapon, since you say until the carbine the cavalry had "no defensive capibility." Saber? Apparently not, only offensive.
The Indian wars are distinguished by almost exclusive dragoon tactics by both sides. There are dramatic exceptions, but rare. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 20 2006 : 11:20:36 AM
|
Oh good! MILITARY definitions. Provide us with the MILITARY definition of an exclusively defensive personal firearm, and how a carbine qualifies as such exclusively in the hands of cavalrymen.There is no reason for putting a man on a horse other than to have him charge the enemy.In such a case the carbine was useless as the trooper could only get off one shot and that an unaimed snap shot and at great risk to his comrades.If Dave is looking in maybe he can confirm a unit of mounted diggers charging artillery with bayonets.But the carbine did give the cavalry a defensive role as demonstrated by Bufort at Gettysburg.
And WHAT legal definitions have you noted?Well let me put it this way if you were caught with a shillelagh at closing time in your local hostel it could be construed as being an offensive weapon.
So, the pistol was not a defensive weapon,Naw.With a range of 40 yards me granny could get close enough to lay about her with her handbag.
The Indian wars are distinguished by almost exclusive dragoon tactics by both sidesSure of course get rid of the bloody horse.Myles with his walksaheap made cavalry redundent. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 20 2006 : 11:42:25 AM
|
By paragraph.
1. You brought up and implied a distinction between a legal and military defintion. You can, when pressed, provide neither.
2. See above.
3. See above.
4. Kindly, this only makes sense if you don't know what dragoons are or a horse is. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 20 2006 : 12:08:21 PM
|
"The next year, 1877, Civil War veterans would form the National Rifle Association and bring about a marksmanship revolution in the Army."
Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church.
After being granted a charter by the state of New York on November 17, 1871, the NRA was founded. Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who was also the former governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. Senator, became the fledgling NRA's first president.
An important facet of the NRA's creation was the development of a practice ground. In 1872, with financial help from New York state, a site on Long Island, the Creed Farm, was purchased for the purpose of building a rifle range. Named Creedmoor, the range opened a year later, and it was there that the first annual matches were held.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 20 2006 : 2:00:09 PM
|
You brought up and implied a distinction between a legal and military defintion. You can, when pressed, provide neither
All weapons in a civilian envoironment can be used offensively.
In a military envoironment weapons are defined as defensive/offensive/multi purpose.
The carbine as a cavalry weapon was useless unless fired dismounted .
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 20 2006 : 2:18:43 PM
|
You tried to escape under the gossamer of "definitions", military as opposed to legal, and having failed now try to drape 'environment' over the fiasco in hopes you can escape. You cannot. Did Custer's "sharpshooters" at the Wa****a fire from horseback? Yes? No? Then you try to equate dismounted with on the defensive. Were they on the defensive then? No? Garbage in, garbage out.
Let's make it simple. In 1876, give us the military definitiion - your term - of a defensive and an offensive firearm. In 2006? Blarney. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on February 20 2006 2:19:42 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2006 : 05:44:15 AM
|
Did Custer's "sharpshooters" at the Wa****a fire from horseback? Yes? No?They fought on foot not as cavalry.
Then you try to equate dismounted with on the defensive.Dismounted was the only way the weapon could be used. Cavalry do not attack on foot.You are getting confused between cavalry action and dragoon action.
In 1876, give us the military definitiion - your term - of a defensive and an offensive firearm.
Using military terminology/definition-----Weapons have a purpose depending on the unit/arm.For example revolvers and sabres in the hands of artillery men would be defensive while in the hands of cavalry they would be offensive.Likewise single shot carbines issued to cavalry and only effective when fired on foot were regarded as defensive.Without such a weapon cavalry could not hold ground.
In 2006? BlarneyNot sure what you mean by this but in 2006 there are distinct defensive weapons.Anti aircraft,anti sub to mention just two. |
Edited by - wILD I on February 21 2006 05:46:22 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2006 : 10:36:03 PM
|
Then you try to equate dismounted with on the defensive.Dismounted was the only way the weapon could be used. Cavalry do not attack on foot.You are getting confused between cavalry action and dragoon action.
In 1876, give us the military definition - your term - of a defensive and an offensive firearm.
Using military terminology/definition-----Weapons have a purpose depending on the unit/arm.For example revolvers and sabres in the hands of artillery men would be defensive while in the hands of cavalry they would be offensive.Likewise single shot carbines issued to cavalry and only effective when fired on foot were regarded as defensive.Without such a weapon cavalry could not hold ground.
It is grand to watch you two go at it. DC your way with words far exceeds anything I have found necessary in my part of Arizona. In fact your command of language is impressive and I appreciate it when not directed at me. Wild's statement were "Gentlemen please if we could just stick to military definations and not legal definations. and In a military environment weapons are defined as defensive/offensive/multi purpose." not quite the same as a military definition found in the "1876 US ARMY MANUAL" of terms. Wild seems to not care how you ever so slightly change it and plows right into his answer which makes for great post readings. I sincerely appreciate you both.
That being said if I were arguing Wilds point of view I would talk about offensive and defensive tactical use of weapons. There would be more defensive tactics in the use of the Springfield than offensive for cavalry use. Although they may have trained at shooting from the moving horse with the Springfield, I have not heard of it. The revolver and sabre are more likely used for offensive tactics by the cavalry yet the weapons themselves are defensive in nature also in close quarters on foot or retreating.
I found a definition that was interesting in light of offensive and defensive weapons.
Siege Guns - Large, 12, 18, and 24 pounder cannon, along with other artillery, used to attack a fortification. If they were used to defend a fortification, they were called "garrison" guns.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on February 21 2006 10:46:34 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2006 : 07:48:41 AM
|
This is silly.
Cavalry is an offensive unit. It's primary weapon was a carbine. When cavalrymen dismount they are not necessarily on the defensive (Reno at LBH, the Sharpshooters), nor do they cease to be cavalry if they fight as dragoons: mounted infantry. That's how the Sioux mostly fought, and they were considered 'the best cavalry.....' If you are saying it's not cavalry unless it's a horse charge with only one hand free for a weapon, you run aground, for hardly any Indian fights were like that. Not all parachute divisions parachute in, but they're trained for it and they remain paratroopers.
On Nye Cartwright, the original finder described the spacing of cases as reflective of being fired from horses on the move. I foregt the gait he thought. It's in Connell and wlsewhere. I doubt the 7th could do it, but apparently some do.
To keep the syllogism, whether siege gun or garrison gun it's still artillery.
I specifically said fireARMS, and Wild finds it relevant to discuss Bofurs and hedgehogs. Absurd. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on February 22 2006 07:52:17 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2006 : 08:53:32 AM
|
"This is silly.
Cavalry is an offensive unit. It's primary weapon was a carbine. When cavalrymen dismount they are not necessarily on the defensive (Reno at LBH, the Sharpshooters), nor do they cease to be cavalry if they fight as dragoons: mounted infantry. That's how the Sioux mostly fought, and they were considered 'the best cavalry.....' If you are saying it's not cavalry unless it's a horse charge with only one hand free for a weapon, you run aground, for hardly any Indian fights were like that. Not all parachute divisions parachute in, but they're trained for it and they remain paratroopers. "
I believe that Reno changed from offense to defense when he dismounted. He did not order a charge on foot which is a cavalry offensive tactic. He believed the ordered offensive tactic, the charge, would not have the desired effect. The use of skirmishers by Custer's companies appear to me to be defensive tactics.
Buffalo Bill could have taught the cavalry how to shoot a single shot from horseback but I find no evidence that the 7th did any mounted Springfield training before LBH. Your not a paratrooper until you are trained which includes the use of a parachute from the air.
If you are saying it's not cavalry unless it's a horse charge with only one hand free for a weapon, you run aground, for hardly any Indian fights were like that. I never said that rather the the charge was the primary offensive tactic of cavalry. That's where Miles comes into play in this discussion. Cavalry was not as effective by itself. The primary offensive tactic by cavalry the charge was not the only offensive tactic needed. The infantry fit the role better for on the ground offensive tactics.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2006 : 10:17:02 AM
|
1. No, Reno advanced in skirmish line towards the village on the offensive. An advance is an offensive move. We don't know what Custer did, but I'd tend to side with you on what his skirmishers were doing.
2. I understand that you're not a paratrooper till you are trained and jumped. You're not a cavalryman till you are trained on horse. But you're still a paratrooper if you didn't jump into a specific battle. You're still cavalry if you aren't, at the second you fire, mounted, and your horse is held behind you.
3. Any time the infantry could advance on plains Indians with artillery, the Indians were obviously too shot for much, since under normal circumstances they could trot away at leisure. That they could not speaks not to Miles' wit but to their disaster, on the cusp of which they'd always lived. Miles was granted all sorts of men and material that, had Custer or Crook had it preLBH, couldn't help but have made a big difference.
Since Wild cannot provide it, perhaps someone else can: name one battle with Miles in charge where the Indians were anywhere near as well fed, rested, and numerous as Crook and Custer faced. One. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2006 : 9:20:24 PM
|
1. No, Reno advanced in skirmish line towards the village on the offensive. An advance is an offensive move. We don't know what Custer did, but I'd tend to side with you on what his skirmishers were doing. Here is Reno's words to Rosser. "As I neared the village the Indians out in great numbers and I was soon convinced I had at least ten to one against me and was forced on the defensive." He says he moves forward but he was on the defensive in his own words when he called for the dismount.
2. I understand that you're not a paratrooper till you are trained and jumped. You're not a cavalryman till you are trained on horse. But you're still a paratrooper if you didn't jump into a specific battle. You're still cavalry if you aren't, at the second you fire, mounted, and your horse is held behind you. My point is you stated the carbine was the primary weapon. How could it be the primary weapon if they trained in shooting revolvers and use of sabre from the horse in a charge but not the Springfield. I should have said your not a mounted Springfield shooter unless you have been trained in it.
3. Any time the infantry could advance on plains Indians with artillery, the Indians were obviously too shot for much, since under normal circumstances they could trot away at leisure. That they could not speaks not to Miles' wit but to their disaster, on the cusp of which they'd always lived. Miles was granted all sorts of men and material that, had Custer or Crook had it preLBH, couldn't help but have made a big difference. I can't speak for the Army Infantry but the apaches could out walk any horse if the stayed after the horse long enough if it was carrying a man.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2006 : 10:00:12 PM
|
On page 292 of Ten Years With Custer, there is a map showing Reno's first psoition, 2nd closer to the village, then the fallback. You don't move towards the enemy on the defensive, do you? Page 354, Custer's Luck, Moylan said the line advanced 100 yards, distinct from the deployment. Page 354.
I have stated the carbine was the primary weapon of the 7th cavalry. That's because it was. The cavalry having advanced beyond Napoleon had mutltiple tasks in the modern age: use in charges as you describe, and as dragoons/mounted infantry. In the west, most fighting was done with the men on foot, primarily because so did the Indians. That's why they got far more ammo for the carbine than for the pistol(100-25 or thereabouts) and didn't carry the saber anymore and, come on, didn't train much with any of the three. A clue, surely, unless you contend the cavalry was expected to fail and go on the defensive.
"I can't speak for the Army Infantry but the apaches could out walk any horse if the stayed after the horse long enough if it was carrying a man." I suppose, and that's why Crook used Apache against Apache, Miles reneged on that, failed with white scouts, used Apaches again, never admitted error, and imprisoned them all in spite. Imagine if we'd done that to the Hu Mong. Oh, wait........ |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on February 22 2006 10:02:02 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Springfield Carbine
