| Author |
 Topic  |
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - February 23 2006 : 10:25:44 AM
|
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. Why not? If you feel you need to go to defensive tactics and the best locations are in front of you or to the flanks then you move to them and attempt to hold that position. Looking at the map on page 292 of Ten Years With Custer there is a visual defensive tactical position advantage on the right side of the line. Reading page 355 and further you get different impressions on how close to the village and how many indians they were facing when they dismounted. In no version do they make it to the village and drive the indians. Choosing to go from 120 mounted charging troopers to 75-90 troopers on foot indicates to me they were making a defensive maneuver and were unlikely to offensively enter the village. Moving any direction a few hundred yards would not necessarily indicate offense or defense. My guess is that some, you pick the number, indians were in front of them enough for Reno to feel as he stated that he was on the defensive. He decided to deploy skirmishers to use the longer ranged Springfields since the troopers apparently could not deploy them from 120 mounted troopers. The horses were put in a relatively safe location. The indians were still in front of them at some distance so they could move up. They moved up with some troopers using the prairie dog mounds for breastworks. To me the key was the horses if they were going to make an offensive attack on the village the horses would be at a safe distance but moving with them. Certainly they weren't going to leave the horses several hundred yards behind with 30 horseholders and indians flanking them.
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 multiple 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. When the world advanced past the military advantage of charging on horseback the Cavalry as mounted horsemen was doomed and replaced by motorized vehicles. The horse still can be used in military application but not large cavalry units charging.
I would agree that the Springfield carbine was chosen as the primary long range weapon. This single shot long range weapon could only be deployed on foot to any degree of effectiveness without extensive training mounted. Once on foot the Springfield rifle would be a better choice. Mounted infantry used the rifle. Some rifles were used by the 7th at LBH so it was not impossible for troopers to transport them mounted.
A clue, surely, unless you contend the cavalry was expected to fail and go on the defensive. I would agree not "expected" but the results were the same. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 23 2006 : 11:19:26 AM
|
"Indicates to me", "unlikely to", doesn't even have the surety of "assume." Nobody in their right mind is going to advance on a huge village with hopes of finding a defensive position. They'd immediately be surrounded, burned out, cut off, doomed. Further, I fail to see how advancing on the village and firing suggests a defensive attitude. I'd suppose it's the 19th century equivilant of climbing inside the Bradley rather than riding on the top where everyone is such an elevated target. And of course, he expected support any second now.
It's true you get different stories about the nearness of the village and number of foes, and who did what. That sounds truthful, since my experience reading reports and memories is that when complicated events emerge in lock step they're all lying. Fine.
But we're talking about whether a weapon by itself is either offensive or defensive. I've said that the cavalry's role had expanded from just dramatic charges into the more realistic and versatile, and that the Springfield was the primary weapon of the 7th, and since they were going to attack a village it's odd that Custer - ol' Defensive Granny George - and everyone else made sure that the heavy cartridge for the supposed defensive carbine outnumbered pistol ammo at least 4 to 1. Obviously, he didn't consider it defensive. This is silly.
And just like Wild goes from Military/Legal Definition and fails, then substitutes Military Environment and fails, and then keeps renaming stuff, you're doing the same thing by substituting Long Range for defensive. They're just weapons, and can be used effectively either on the offensive or defensive, and the Springfield was used for both. The argument against me has gone from the Springfield not being the primary weapon, then the Springfield being exclusively a defensive weapon, to the Springfield being the only the primary long range weapon, without anyone admitting that clearly the Army and the men considered it the primary weapon period, the distribution of ammo proves it, and it certainly was considered an offensive weapon. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on February 23 2006 11:33:00 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 23 2006 : 1:21:30 PM
|
[]"Indicates to me", "unlikely to", doesn't even have the surety of "assume." The joys of debating DC. I would rather evaluate something for indication of intent then assume without looking at anything ( not implying you do that). Reno's words again "As I neared the village the Indians came out in great numbers and I was soon convinced I had at least ten to one against me and was forced on the defensive." If he said that it would "indicate to me" his assessment of the situation when was in when he dismounted.
Nobody in their right mind is going to advance on a huge village with hopes of finding a defensive position. He didn't continue to advance. They dismounted formed a skirmish line and moved to another position which from your map looks more defensible. As far as state of mind why dismount rather than retreat when face with overwhelming odds.
They'd immediately be surrounded, burned out, cut off, doomed. Further, I fail to see how advancing on the village and firing suggests a defensive attitude. I'd suppose it's the 19th century equivilant of climbing inside the Bradley rather than riding on the top where everyone is such an elevated target. And of course, he expected support any second now. Reno was expecting Custer to shortly arrive and the defense would have reverted to offense. Didn't happen and he pulled out. Reno at best went 100 yards forward moving toward to a bank on his right side illustrated on the map you had me look at. I assume it was a bank where the indians could not flank Reno on that side. If a trooper is using prairie dog mounds as breastwork they are not exactly moving forward at a rapid speed.
It's true you get different stories about the nearness of the village and number of foes, and who did what. That sounds truthful, since my experience reading reports and memories is that when complicated events emerge in lock step they're all lying. Fine. We both agree in that respect. From doing lots of interviews I believe that a person can actually believe they saw something that wasn't really there or occurring and can repeat this event as they perceive over and over. Also true on the lie the stories are exactly the same. One of the ways we use to break that is separation and asking questions relating to the incident but not included in the shared made up lies.
But we're talking about whether a weapon by itself is either offensive or defensive. I've said that the cavalry's role had expanded from just dramatic charges into the more realistic and versatile, and that the Springfield was the primary weapon of the 7th, and since they were going to attack a village it's odd that Custer - ol' Defensive Granny George - and everyone else made sure that the heavy cartridge for the supposed defensive carbine outnumbered pistol ammo at least 4 to 1. Obviously, he didn't consider it defensive. This is silly. I don't think I have stated that a weapon is by its nature offensive or defensive. If so I stand corrected. I used the definition of artillery to illustrate the same weapon could be described either by use. Primary use or designed use may be offensive or defensive in nature is my position. A land mine has little offensive nature and more defensive nature. A derringer to me is a defensive weapon in nature but could be used as as a offensive weapon. I also agree that there was an expectation of the expanded role of the cavalry. Unfortunately expectation and implementation are not the same. The 7th did train for mounted use of the sabre and revolver but I find nothing about shooting from a horse or offensive tactics with the Springfield carbine. I believe the difference in training for the mounted infantry was that they received basic infantry training including use of the rifle while dismounted. The cavalry emphasized horsemanship ( the horse was part of the offense in partnership with a trooper) and the infantry marksmanship (the horse was transportation). The primary weapon of the mounted infantry was the rifle. I am not convinced that the primary weapon of the cavalry is a single shot carbine. I believe it might have been expected in the "expanded role" as another weapon to be utilized in a multipurpose soldier.
And just like Wild goes from Military/Legal Definition and fails, then substitutes Military Environment and fails, and then keeps renaming stuff, you're doing the same thing by substituting Long Range for defensive. Could the 7th have trained and become effective using the carbine mounted offensively? Yes I believe they could but didn't. Also they could not be expected to maneuver effectively at LBH on foot offensively without training. The description of them grouping up rather than staying a proper intervals with Reno demonstrates the lack of training.
My question to you is what offensive advantage did Reno gain by dismounting?
They're just weapons, and can be used effectively either on the offensive or defensive, and the Springfield was used for both.
Agreed
The argument against me has gone from the Springfield not being the primary weapon, then the Springfield being exclusively a defensive weapon, to the Springfield being the only the primary long range weapon, without anyone admitting that clearly the Army and the men considered it the primary weapon period, the distribution of ammo proves it, and it certainly was considered an offensive weapon. The primary deployment at LBH was defensive.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 23 2006 : 2:09:44 PM
|
"My question to you is what offensive advantage did Reno gain by dismounting?" The 7th couldn't survive under fire any better than they could perform dressage. They'd right off lost a man or two with a shot or 'uncontrollable' horse. Riding in they were a huge target. Again, put the men in the Bradley and shoot from some protection, and not riding on the top and sides, I suppose.
I also fail to see why marksmanship is a sign of defense and infantry and not offense and cavalry, but I'm a civvy and think things like "actually hitting something" would be a benefit in either role.
Further, I don't get why moving forward three football fields while shooting is a sign of defense. That map tells nothing much and is, in any case, a guess, I'd wager.
In any case, I still don't agree that the Springfield in the hands of the cavalry was exclusively a defensive weapon. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 23 2006 : 10:10:17 PM
|
"My question to you is what offensive advantage did Reno gain by dismounting?" The 7th couldn't survive under fire any better than they could perform dressage. They'd right off lost a man or two with a shot or 'uncontrollable' horse. Riding in they were a huge target. Again, put the men in the Bradley and shoot from some protection, and not riding on the top and sides, I suppose. It is much harder to aim at horsemen bearing down at you then a standing or kneeling trooper. You also get more shots at an advancing man on foot then an advancing horseman due to the difference in speed. Do you think Reno planned to walk his skirmishers into the village and leave his horses behind? If as Reno said he was outnumbered ten to one was his plan an offensive attack on foot against them in a wide open river bottom?
I also fail to see why marksmanship is a sign of defense and infantry and not offense and cavalry, but I'm a civvy and think things like "actually hitting something" would be a benefit in either role. The infantry seemed to practice more at different ranges with a rifle. The rifle would shoot flatter and hit harder with the 45-70 load. Wouldn't they have more time to practice hitting things since they didn't have to deal with horses? You are correct in thinking it is important to hit something but we also agree that the 7th didn't spend much time or ammunition in training to hit things.
Further, I don't get why moving forward three football fields while shooting is a sign of defense. That map tells nothing much and is, in any case, a guess, I'd wager. I thought a football field is 100 yards. Page 354 Custer's Luck, Captain Moylan insisting the line progressed about 100 yards after it was deployed. So I can ignore your map reference since it is where I observed a bank along their right flank where they advance too.
In any case, I still don't agree that the Springfield in the hands of the cavalry was exclusively a defensive weapon.
I don't disagree with that only as it relates to the 7th up to LBH.
Maybe we can agree that the offensive use of the carbine was not trained for by the 7th just like the rest of the lack of training. If we can agree to that then maybe this would follow -- The lack of a sufficient offense leads quickly into defensive tactics when engaged with the enemy.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on February 23 2006 10:26:05 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 24 2006 : 09:04:30 AM
|
This is only about whether the carbine was viewed by the Army as the primary weapon of the cavalry. Wild said in the hands of cavalry it was only defensive. That isn't true. What Reno thought, I cannot venture, but he was advancing into increased numbers, that isn't defensive. The sharpshooters, so called, at the Wa****a weren't defensive, and the Army didn't automatically view dismounted cavalry as defensive, and I can't believe it's being contended.
You're correct about the football field, my error. Rather stupid of me, in fact.
Explain why of the three weapons for an offensive operation, the 7th left the sabers, and gave so little ammo to the pistol and so much to the carbine? If they thought the carbine was only defensive? The contention is false and as silly as my three stride football field. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 24 2006 : 5:27:43 PM
|
DC
The primary weapon of the cavalry is the horse.
Dismounted cavalry men could be compared to dismounted tankers.
No creditable attack can be made by dismounted troopers dragging horses after them.Horses rule out all agressive manuevers.
The sharpshooters, so called, at the Wa****a weren't defensiveIn actual fact they were.All attacks require two elements.One to attack and one in a supporting/defensive role.It is known [in all the best company offices]as keeping one foot on the ground.Custer had everything in the air.
Explain why of the three weapons for an offensive operation, the 7th left the sabers, and gave so little ammo to the pistol and so much to the carbine? If they thought the carbine was only defensive? The contention is false and as silly as my three stride football field
I would not use Custer's actions as proof of something being silly.
Why did he order his units to charge with a weapon which could fire only one shot and then at greater danger to his own forces than the Indians.
Whatever about an attack failing a defence failing just could not be contemplated.
24 Rounds was sufficient for one attack.600 men attacking at once should have/could have done the job.
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 24 2006 : 9:42:31 PM
|
I had to refresh my memory on how we got here. I don't see Wild stating a defense only weapon rather how it was used in the hands of the cavalry.
Wild Posted –“The weapon being discussed here and described as the main armament of the 7th was a defensive weapon. It did nothing more than give a limited defensive [don't let them get too close]capibility to the cavalry.The 7th had nothing more than their revolvers with which to attack.”
Vern Posted- “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.”
DC Posted- "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."
Maybe there is some confusion as to what constitutes cavalry tactics in the offense. Cavalry fights from the backs of their mounts. Infantry traveling by horse and fighting on foot are instead known as mounted infantry or dragoons. The primary weapons would be the revolver and the sabre for the cavalry.
Can someone can show me that the cavalry trained to shoot the Springfield between 1874 and 1876 up to LBH from the back of the horse? If not it was not a cavalry offensive primary weapon.
The expanded role of the cavalry to deploy mounted infantry or dragoon type offensive tactics is DC's point. I don't know of any training by the 7th in this expanded role.
This is only about whether the carbine was viewed by the Army as the primary weapon of the cavalry. Wild said in the hands of cavalry it was only defensive. That isn't true. What Reno thought, I cannot venture, but he was advancing into increased numbers, that isn't defensive. The sharpshooters, so called, at the Wa****a weren't defensive, and the Army didn't automatically view dismounted cavalry as defensive, and I can't believe it's being contended. (See above) I don't see defensive only rather the only role that they trained for its use. An example would be the forming a skirmish line slowing down the advancing indians as the rest of the troopers retreat. As far as Reno I believe he moved forward to engage and hold a defendable position but not further an offensive tactic. He was not going to attack the village on foot and leave the horses behind. Reno expected to be cheering Custer shortly as the 5 companies charged into the village in support of Reno. It didn't happen and he retreated. Reno said he charged. This was in the opposite direction of the village so was it offense or defense?
Explain why of the three weapons for an offensive operation, the 7th left the sabers, and gave so little ammo to the pistol and so much to the carbine? If they thought the carbine was only defensive? The contention is false and as silly as my three stride football field. I "assume" there were troopers with Custer that had the same question regarding the sabre. Again DC I don't see Wild saying what the 7th thought about the Springfield rather how the deployed it. If they had trained in their new multipurpose tactics and knew how to deploy offensively on foot then they didn't demonstrate it. Reno's advance on foot 100 yards with the troopers firing as fast as they could and bunching together was not a demonstration of a great offensive tactic. Other than Benteen charging to clear indians in front of his defensive position I don't know of any other action that would qualify as an offensive tactical use of the Springfield. I don't know any offensive use of the Springfield from the back of a horse.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 24 2006 : 10:30:37 PM
|
This is now, officially, absurd.
Cavalry were hypothetically trained to do many things, among them charge on horseback in various formations to meet various targets. That ability alone distinguishes them from mounted infantry, and since the reality was that there was decreasing need for that, they were trained for fighting on foot, as dragoons, guerillas, whatever. But because they have that trained ability for the charge, they at no time are less than cavalry. For you to say that unless in the saddle and shooting the Springfield wasn't an offensive weapon is silly. Cavalry was certainly expected to go into battle on foot when needed. If anyone seriously thought the pistol was their prime weapon, then no doubt at some point there is evidence of soldiers with both weapons being issued more pistol ammo, if that was the PRIMARY weapon.
To imply that if "they momentarily fought as infantry" means they weren't cavalry is even more silly. They, again hypocthetically, had the ability to switch roles and remount to ride to attack. Or retreat. Or whatever. This is apparently what the Army thought. See: AMMO DISTRIBUTION
Airborne units are sometimes/often deployed into battle as mere infantry. They do not cease being airborne. While serving as infantry, their status does not change. A weapon that they can't jump with but with which they are trained is not, ipso facto, a defensive weapon in their hands.
This is PRECISELY the sort of prissy distinctions without point that drive me bananas. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on February 24 2006 10:31:04 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 25 2006 : 02:51:48 AM
|
For you to say that unless in the saddle and shooting the Springfield wasn't an offensive weapon is silly. It would be silly if someone said that, but you left out the word primary completely changing what I said. An alternative or secondary weapon can also be and is in this case an offensive/defensive weapon. Our debate is the order and not the use.
Being mounted refers to primary use of cavalry not to weapons or offense/defense tactics.The following that I used is a explaination I found and not my own concoction. Cavalry fights from the backs of their mounts. Infantry traveling by horse and fighting on foot are instead known as mounted infantry or dragoons. Here is what I said. Can someone can show me that the cavalry trained to shoot the Springfield between 1874 and 1876 up to LBH from the back of the horse? If not it was not a cavalry offensive primary weapon.
You are correct if the cavalry's primary tactic at LBH was to get close to the enemy and deploy on foot as skirmishers. If that was the plan to attack the village on foot then I stand corrected. My position is if they had trained properly they could have deployed mounted as skirmishers and had 30 more carbines deployed with Reno. With the whole regiment they could have advanced within charging distance using the carbine firing as a mounted skirmisher then they could have charged through the village with 600 revolvers discharging 3600 rounds. If it didn't work and any trooper were left they could retreat deploying skirmishers with the carbines keeping the indians at a greater distance then a revolver could.
Cavalry was certainly expected to go into battle on foot when needed. Yes they did both offensively and defensively. They still had to be able to protect their horses. How far could Reno go on foot without losing his horses?
If anyone seriously thought the pistol was their prime weapon, then no doubt at some point there is evidence of soldiers with both weapons being issued more pistol ammo, if that was the PRIMARY weapon. 3600 rounds revolver should have been enough
To imply that if "they momentarily fought as infantry" means they weren't cavalry is even more silly. They, again hypocthetically, had the ability to switch roles and remount to ride to attack. Or retreat. Or whatever. This is apparently what the Army thought. See: AMMO DISTRIBUTION Cavalry's primary offense was a charge and fighting mounted. How you interpret that we are saying they had no other offensive tactics baffles me. My point is simply I believe the primary weapon would be used in the primary offensive tactic. There can be many other tactics and weapons of choice. I guess you could say there is a primary weapon for each tactic and then they would all be primary weapons.
I know how much you like the manuals but I did find in the 1873 cavalry manual which included the instructions on how to handle the carbine while mounted. First the soldiers are trained on the ground in sabre, revolver, and carbine.
The first training mounted is sabre. The second is the carbine and presented here:
Advance, Carbine Grasp the piece at the small of the stock with the right hand; raise it and place the butt upon the thigh, barrel to the right muzzle as high as the eye and in front of the right shoulder
Squad, Load lower the muzzle toward the left, grasping the piece at the band with the left hand muzzle in front of the left shoulder TwoOpen the chamber with right hand ,remove the cartridge case if necessary, take a cartridge from the the cartridge box, insert in the chamber , pressing it home with the thumb, close the chamber, and grasp the small of the stock with the right hand Three Take position of Advance Carbine
Squad, Ready Take the position of the first motion of load: cock the piece, resume the position of advance carbine
Aim Drop the carbine into the left hand. Raise it with both hands , carry the butt against the shoulder, supporting the carbine at the band by the thumb and forefinger of the left hand, the other fingers closed on the reins, the thumb of the right hand on the stock, the forefinger on the trigger, and aim well to the left of the horse's head.
Fire Pull the trigger and fire, remaining at the aim .
The extent of the requirements are to do the above at the halt. When executed at the halt they are required to be able to load while marching at a walk, and to advance and drop carbine at all gaits. The aim and fire are only at the halt in the manual.
The third weapon training is the revolver. Here is all it states:
Same as when dismounted.
The revolver training included shooting directly over the horses head, to the right,left, and rear. It was done at the halt, walk, trot, and Gallup. The targets started at 10 yards with up to 50 yards for the revolver.
The carbine from the halted horse to left side of the horses head was fired at the beginning of training at 50 yards and extended to 200 yards.
Looking at what was required in training to use the carbine for anything other than on-foot tactics either offense or defense I don't believe the 7th cavalry was trained to use Springfield proficiently mounted.
In total more carbine rounds were fired defensively than offensively. At least by the 7th. The charge and driving the indians from the village never occurred so the revolver was used defensively. The primary defensively used weapon was the carbine.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on February 25 2006 03:00:01 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 25 2006 : 08:43:42 AM
|
| The short version.The constraints I used were the 7th cavalry and the Springfield carbine within the time period they received them till LBH. Troopers can fight unmounted or mounted. If the plan was to fight on foot then the Springfield was the primary offensive weapon.If the plan was to charge the village since the sabre was not present the revolver would be the primary offensive weapon. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 25 2006 : 11:47:36 AM
|
AZ, first let me say how much I enjoy your posts although, as with Dave and Prolar (the other gun enthusiasts,) my eyes sometime glaze over at the fine details which are so important to accurate shooting. Anyway, you had this question/request:
"Can someone can show me that the cavalry trained to shoot the Springfield between 1874 and 1876 up to LBH from the back of the horse? If not it was not a cavalry offensive primary weapon."
Someone had mentioned that before and I had decried the idea until I did some research, after which I had to eat humble pie (the poster was DC's evil twin, Warlord :)) I can't find it now but I think it was Upton's rewrite of Cavalry tactics which included firing while as a mounted skirmisher. Whether that constitutes defense or offense is open to interpretation as, in my humble opinion, it depends upon the task laid upon the command. What was unclear in what I read was whether it was pistol or carbine but logic states that it had to be carbine due to range considerations. I will try to find it sometime this weekend or upcoming week.
Later,
Billy
|
Edited by - BJMarkland on February 25 2006 11:48:54 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 25 2006 : 1:33:40 PM
|
You can't redefine the argument. Of COURSE the carbine was the primary defensive weapon of the 7th that day. I'm not, and you originally weren't, arguing that. I'm saying, yet again, the primary weapon of the 7th was the carbine. Not the pistol, not the damned sword. The carbine. Defensive or offensive. In fact, with the several methods of attack open to the nimble, flexible US cavalry (in theory), the carbine remained the primary weapon.
Custer did not leave the Yellowstone bursting and lusting for a defensive battle. He left the bozo and pointless sabers because his men could program a VCR with more surety than wield one of those babies. Hand to hand fighting with weapons takes serious training which the Sioux had. He loaded his men with the heavy cartridges and the carbine, MORE than he allocated for the pistol, his supposed "offensive" weapon. If the pistol was designed to be the primary weapon, they'd have issued two apiece and kept the effeminate, defensive carbine with the pack train, knowing he was going to attack and all.
CLEARLY, the Army and the 7th viewed the carbine as their primary weapon in general, offensive, defensive. This is SILLY. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Buddha
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - February 25 2006 : 1:53:24 PM
|
Hi. I'm new to this forum, so let me say a little about myself before I begin commenting. I spent some time in the Infantry and learned tactics formally at the Infantry School. I have also spent alot of personal time learning about the weapons of that period. Finally, I have studied the enigma of what happened to Custer for years, and even made it to LBH a few years ago. After reading a few of the pages of comments up to this point, I would like to say a few things that may be a little out of order at this point, but might be helpful, IMO.
The 50/70 that was referred to early on was the cartridge fired in converted Civil War .50 caliber muzzleloaders. A man at the Springfield Armory named Allin figured out how to install a 'trapdoor' in a muzzleloader and convert it to a breechloading, cartridge firing rifle. That was called the Allin conversion and it was issued as a transition weapon at a time when even the Army recognized that the faster firing breechloaders were the wave of the future. The same trapdoor ended up on the 1873 Springfield.
The effective range of an infantry rifle, per the Army, is the range at which 50% of rounds fired are hits, on paper targets, calm, rested, perfect conditions. No one ever did that in the real world, but the definition remains. FWIW, the 45-70 is the most popular cartridge used in target shooting out to 1000 yards using period weapons. The barrel elevation required to hit at that range is 5 degrees, determined by using counterbattery radar. Despite it's energy on paper, all of the old cartridges firing big lead bullets have much greater knockdown power than it appears.
The weapons weren't an issue, but 1/3 of the man of the 7th were new recruits, with 6 months of service, and there was no basic training in those days. With 2 months on the campaign trail, they had 4 months to learn to put on a uniform, salute and make a bunk, march, ride a horse and care for it, learn mounted formations and practice them, use a sabre, use a pistol and a rifle, and all of the other assorted ash and trash that the military loves. At this time, officers paid for the ammo their troops shot. So, some troops very likely fired their first shot at LBH.
Copper cartridge cases swell when fired as someone said, and stick in chambers. There was anthropological evidence of this found at LBH, as well as knives with broken tips, assumed to have been used to pry out stuck cases. This wasn't likely to be something the troops had encountered before. Not having a useful weapon had to be scary when it meant your life.
If you look at the unit rolls and see civilian occupations listed after the names, that indicates the ones who were civilians prior to their last enlistment. Many were foreign and spoke little or no English. That's why Trooper John Martini (Giovanni Martini) was given a note to carry. His English couldn't be depended on. Put poor training together with inexperience and poor English and mix it with what seemed like all of the Indians in the world, and an orgainzed response of any kind from these men would be a big thing.
The 1873 Springfield would have been the primary weapon of the Infantry and the Cavalry just because the Army said so. The military philosophy was to engage an enemy at long range and with a weapon that conserved ammunition and expenses, so singleshots prevailed until the Krag was adopted. Even then, it's speed of fire was considered a negative by some in authority. By tradition, the Calvary was armed with rifles that shot lighter loads than muskets of the day. While the case may not have been marked differently, the lighter bullet would have a different appearance. Anthropologists can see the differences when they dig up the bullets on the battlefield.
Napoleonic tactics with their lines of massed men ended in the 1860's. So did volley fire in this country.
Custer had his men remove their sabres as part of a noise discipline program. All loose pots and everything else that banged and clanged was tied down or put away days before. Prior to doing that, the long column could be heard for 2 miles in the dark, and Custer did alot of travelling in the nights just before they found the Indian village. He was afraid that the column would be heard and the Indians would leave, once alerted.
Custer's apparent plan of attack was a hammer and anvil attack. Reno was told to attack. Putting myself in his shoes, he did and quickly saw that the Indian response was so great that he couldn't advance, dismounted to gain more accurate firepower while losing some volume of fire as 1 man in 4 held horses. The Indians kept coming so he pulled back to a more defensible position than the open field he was in. For Custer, this was enough, to keep the Indians engaged while he went around to their flank. That's why he could wave his hat to Reno from Weir Point and keep going.
Okay. Enough. If I sound a little abrupt, no offense intended, but this could become way longer if I let it.
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 25 2006 : 5:59:27 PM
|
AZ, first let me say how much I enjoy your posts although, as with Dave and Prolar (the other gun enthusiasts,) my eyes sometime glaze over at the fine details which are so important to accurate shooting. Anyway, you had this question/request:
"Can someone can show me that the cavalry trained to shoot the Springfield between 1874 and 1876 up to LBH from the back of the horse? If not it was not a cavalry offensive primary weapon."
Someone had mentioned that before and I had decried the idea until I did some research, after which I had to eat humble pie (the poster was DC's evil twin, Warlord :)) I can't find it now but I think it was Upton's rewrite of Cavalry tactics which included firing while as a mounted skirmisher. Whether that constitutes defense or offense is open to interpretation as, in my humble opinion, it depends upon the task laid upon the command. What was unclear in what I read was whether it was pistol or carbine but logic states that it had to be carbine due to range considerations. I will try to find it sometime this weekend or upcoming week.
Later,
Billy
Billy, I appreciate your comments and the wealth of material you provided on this board and other locations. Between reviewing that and replying to DC I was up way to late last night. In my extra long post last night I actually posted the commands for mounted use of the carbine. So in that respect I stand corrected (DC take note) even through my own research. What was relevant to me is that I have horses and have shot from them. Looking at what it required in training to operate a 1873 Springfield mounted was beyond what I surmise as the training by 7th for horses and troopers. At best the carbine is fired at a halt. You can advance as mounted skirmishers and that would be an offensive tactic using the carbine. Against 10 to 1 odds it would not be a wise choice of an offensive tactic. Reno agreed I believe that is why he dismounted. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 25 2006 : 6:07:53 PM
|
You can't redefine the argument. Of COURSE the carbine was the primary defensive weapon of the 7th that day. I'm not, and you originally weren't, arguing that. I'm saying, yet again, the primary weapon of the 7th was the carbine. Not the pistol, not the damned sword. The carbine. Defensive or offensive. In fact, with the several methods of attack open to the nimble, flexible US cavalry (in theory), the carbine remained the primary weapon. DC I changed at least my part of this discussion with my first post on this topic. 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.
Sorry if you thought I was arguing that Springfield was only a defensive weapon. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on February 25 2006 6:17:00 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 25 2006 : 6:12:31 PM
|
| DC,Wild or other board members. Can the cavalry conduct a charge using the carbine? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 25 2006 : 8:28:43 PM
|
Sure, and they did. Oh, you mean on horseback? Don't know. Three generations of Hollywood stuntmen did. Why not? It's a question of practice and horsemanship. It would be a stupid thing to practice, but at least practice, which would be a step up for Custer's 7th. On the other hand, Peter Thompson claimed that Custer had his hat brim turned up on the right side so Custer could sight his rifle while riding. Page 280, SOTMS. Although I cannot find it at present, there being a joke of an index, somewhere in there he quotes whoever first found cartridges on one of the ridges as spaced as if they were riding.
But none of this is reflective on the issue, which is: was the Springfield carbine the 7th's principal weapon. And of course, on offense and defense, it was, whether or not it was used on a mounted charge, because it's only the option of the mounted charge that denotes cavalry, not some blind necessity for that act. They aren't, as a military arm, limited to it, the ammo distributed doesn't seem to support any other conclusion. The soldiers carried 25 pistols rounds, 100 odd carbine for this attack on the village. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on February 25 2006 8:29:05 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 26 2006 : 2:10:17 PM
|
DC,Wild or other board members. Can the cavalry conduct a charge using the carbine?
In A word no.
Against regular "European" opposion they were obsolete.
Cavalry,Dragoons,mounted infantry what's in a name?
Unsupported by other arms they were useless against all but sleeping villages.
The tactics were as used by Miles.You chase and harry the Indians remorselessly and if they turn and fight you dismount and fight a defensive action with carbine and then you press them again.
Welcome Buddha nice post. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 27 2006 : 09:45:43 AM
|
DC I believe that both you and Wild are correct but are not arguing the same point. For overall including mounted, unmounted, offense, and defense the carbine is the primary weapon. For a cavalry to be effective they must have a mounted charge. A charge is at a gallop the weapon of choice would be sabre and revolver. The 1873 manual posting that I made states the training for the carbine was at a halt. Loading could be done at other gaits. There are lots of things in the manual that the 7th did not train to a high level of competency.
When I post of cavalry I mean 7th and during the time period of formation till 1876. I have read some but not much on the other cavalry units.
Remember that troopers have their carbine attached to their body. It would be harder to shoot front, back, right, left from a galloping horse and any movement would tend to compromise accuracy. Buffalo hunters and Custer did not have their rifles attached to them. They practiced shooting from a moving horse and were competent. Shooting buffalo was usually done at close range when mounted. Even then Custer shot his own horse.
The revolver at gallop can be held the same way you hold a cup of coffee in a truck going on rough roads. I have lots of experience with the coffee cup. The carbine is against the shoulder and bounces with the rider. A full charge 45 Colt delivers more than adequate power at close range. I would chose the revolver with six shots if charging rather than the carbine which is the point I was trying to make. For other tactics I would transition to the carbine.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 27 2006 : 10:05:03 AM
|
"For overall including mounted, unmounted, offense, and defense the carbine is the primary weapon. For a cavalry to be effective they must have a mounted charge." If being on offense or defense, whether mounted or not, isn't being effective..... I don't get that. That seems like a mutual exclusive in real life.
And, anyway, apparently not. The dramatic charge was an option, but cavalry could be highly effective, and win, without it, primarily because it applied in too few cases, risked at great remove from replacement the horses (you didn't run across lodges with eight poles, four inches at the base without risk to the mount's legs) and opened your troopers to 360 degrees of attack requiring a horsemanship and saber or pistol ability utterly absent from recruits.
In any case, this all emerged because I claimed, because the Army claimed, the carbine was the primary weapon of the cavalry. To claim, as Wild did, that the carbine in the hands of a cavalryman was only defensive is silly, clearly not viewed as such by the Army or Custer. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 27 2006 : 8:19:12 PM
|
"For overall including mounted, unmounted, offense, and defense the carbine is the primary weapon. For a cavalry to be effective they must have a mounted charge." If being on offense or defense, whether mounted or not, isn't being effective..... I don't get that. That seems like a mutual exclusive in real life.
For the sake of discussion I will make up some percentages that would be subject to change. First defensive tactics 50 percent. The carbine would be the primary weapon. Offensive tactics 50 percent. Unmounted 25 percent and the carbine would be the primary weapon. Mounted 25 percent comprised of 10 percent fighting as skirmishers with troopers turning horse slightly to right at a halt and shooting to the left of the horses head. Finally 15 percent the charge which only the cavalry does. The primary weapon is sabre and revolver. I have no special interest in the percentages so lets no argue them.
If Custer's plan was not to charge the village what was it? Certainly Reno thought he was charging the village until he felt he had to go on the defensive. The offensive tactic of a mounted charge is what separates the cavalry from other military units at the time of LBH.
The rifle as it became a flat shooting long range weapon was the demise of the cavalry offensive tactic of an effective mounted charge. When the charge became ineffective the need for mounted cavalry no longer existed even though all the other tactics such as fighting on foot both offense and defense remained the horse went and the troopers remained even to this day. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 27 2006 : 8:29:27 PM
|
| And, anyway, apparently not. The dramatic charge was an option, but cavalry could be highly effective, and win, without it, primarily because it applied in too few cases, risked at great remove from replacement the horses (you didn't run across lodges with eight poles, four inches at the base without risk to the mount's legs) and opened your troopers to 360 degrees of attack requiring a horsemanship and saber or pistol ability utterly absent from recruits. I think you and I agree that the lack of training in all aspects was sorely lacking in the 7th. An important factor in determining the outcome. Tripping over lodge poles would be the least of their worries. For Custer and the 5 companies with him the lack of a charge didn't reduce the risks. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 28 2006 : 06:43:50 AM
|
To claim, as Wild did, that the carbine in the hands of a cavalryman was only defensive is silly, clearly not viewed as such by the Army or Custer
The cavalry in this age of machine guns,magazine rifles,high explosive artillery were as relevant as the chariot.Another problem they faced was the unortodox methods of the Indians.So what we have is an obsolete force ranged against an unorthodox foe.
Now the primary weapon [main purpose offensive]according to DC is the single shot carbine.I think it accepted here that it can only be brought into action by the trooper on foot in a skirmish line.In this position the unit is reduced by 1/4,the unit cannot manouver,the horses have to be defended,The horse holders cannot take effective cover,all movements are visible to the enemy,4 horses plus trooper make for a fairly substantial target.Just imagine the nightmare of the 7th fighting a dismounted action ---600 stationery horses?All the carbine allowed was for a dubious defence.
Miles and Crook realised that fighting such a wily elusive unorthodox foe called fortactics not in the rule book.Thus they employed specialists in the business the Indians themselves. |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - February 28 2006 : 07:07:19 AM
|
| Isn't it the definition of a carbine that it is designed to be used by cavalry on horseback? If not, then why not equip the troopers with the more accurate rifles? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Springfield Carbine
