| Author |
 Topic  |
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - February 28 2006 : 09:05:39 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? Good question Smcf. There were rifles carried by the 7th to LBH. I believe Custer had one. I know they had at least one that they used at Reno-Benteen against the Indian sharpshooters. The carbine is lighter and the shorter barrel allows it to be carried easier on horseback. Shooting buffalo at point blank range is a lot different than being accurate at 100 yards at a gallop. Range of motion requires right hand carbine shooters to only shoot the left of the horses head for about 90 degrees. Left hand would be just the opposite. To see what I am talking about while sitting at your computer simulate that you have a carbine to your right shoulder and supporting it with your left hand. Try turning to the right and maintain alignment. That is why the manual says to halt and shoot to the left of the horses head accuracy and range of mobility. If you are being charged by carbine carrying cavalry with right hand shooters then flank them on their right side and watch them drop, an actual command, the carbine and draw the revolver. Or they have to turn 180 degrees. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
  |
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 28 2006 : 09:30:51 AM
|
| Buddha- Good post and welcome. The .50-70 Springfield as you posted was the transition to cartridges. It was produced from 1865, First Allin, to the last model in 1870 which was not a conversion. The .45-70 was first produced as the model 1873. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on February 28 2006 09:34:13 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 28 2006 : 10:09:30 AM
|
Cavalry, like airborn, have the option of a specific act/tactic others do not. That they do not utilize it does not make them not-cavalry or not-airborn. The lack of a mounted charge does not mean that cavalry is necessarily on the defensive. A cavalryman firing his carbine is not necessarily on the defensive. These are arbitrary definitions that have no real world meaning.
If anyone insists it is only a defensive weapon and viewed as such, than you are left with the only offensive weapon for the 7th was the pistol, and that the 7th, on an offensive mission, took four times the ammo for the defensive weapon for an offensive. Clearly neither Custer, his officers, nor the Army thought the carbine was, as Wild put it, solely a defensive weapon in the hands of a cavalryman who, after all, has immediate propulsion to retreat.
This has been silly beyond the norm. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 28 2006 : 10:40:43 AM
|
Cavalry, like airborn
Don't be silly DC there is no comparison one is a form of transport the other a form of attack.
The army issued the cavalry with sabres for a reason.The weapon situation resulting from Custer's decision to jettison the sabre did not bestow on the carbine primacy.Your assumption is false.
This was a one off opperation--catch the village napping and charge with revolvers. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 28 2006 : 9:31:14 PM
|
The lack of a mounted charge does not mean that cavalry is necessarily on the defensive. A cavalryman firing his carbine is not necessarily on the defensive. These are arbitrary definitions that have no real world meaning. DC I am not sure if you are only addressing Wild or not. In my post approximately 85 percent which included defensive and offensive tactics for the carbine which would make the carbine overall the primary weapon. Even some mounted firing from a skirmish line is used as an offensive tactic. The charge is the only offensive tactic that the sabre and revolver are the primary weapons. The charge is what separates other mounted units from the cavalry.
As far as the lack of a mounted charge does not mean that cavalry is necessarily on the defensive if you are referring to Reno as in an earlier post than I would stand by Reno's words to Rosser. Reno charged for 3 miles. Then he states in the letter "I was soon convinced that I had at least ten to one against me and was forced on the defensive." |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 01 2006 : 3:37:52 PM
|
...and on foot that last 100 yards (eh...) of his advance before retreating on the defensive.
But I'm still kicking the prostrate corpse of Wild's assertion that the carbine was only a defensive weapon in the hands of cavalry, etc. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 01 2006 : 7:13:18 PM
|
...and on foot that last 100 yards (eh...) of his advance before retreating on the defensive. Reno's statement refers to why he stopped the charge.
But I'm still kicking the prostrate corpse of Wild's assertion that the carbine was only a defensive weapon in the hands of cavalry, etc. I think you have got him on that one. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 02 2006 : 04:15:29 AM
|
But I'm still kicking the prostrate corpse of Wild's assertion that the carbine was only a defensive weapon in the hands of cavalry, etc.
A swordsman of your undoubted ability kicking? My my how the mighty have fallen.
and on foot that last 100 yards (eh...) of his advance before retreating on the defensive.
Anyone who has the misfortune to engage you in debate will know that you argue to the Nth degree ,in this case an alleged advance on foot of 100 yards.This advance you present as an offensive maneuver on the grounds that it was a movement towards the enemy.You of course fail to tell us the purpose of this manuever so here are one or two suggestions.1/To cover the withdrawal of the horses.2/To use the terrain to better advantage.3/to straighten the line.
A cavalry skirmish line was just that,a stationery defensive line.
To prove your point you must find an example of a cavalry unit dismounting and advancing on the enemy on foot armed with the single shot Springfield carbine. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 02 2006 : 8:08:17 PM
|
| An interesting side note. Search for Fredrick Remington's Cavalry Charge and see what weapon he chose to illustrate. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 02 2006 : 8:54:59 PM
|
| He chose the weapon they used, not the one today's Miniver Cheevy's lust to see in use, in painting or mind's eye. I'd imagine the 7th would feature a fair number involved in such an unexpected activity wrapped around the horse's neck at that speed. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 04 2006 : 12:20:21 AM
|
| He chose the weapon they used, not the one today's Miniver Cheevy's lust to see in use, in painting or mind's eye. I'd imagine the 7th would feature a fair number involved in such an unexpected activity wrapped around the horse's neck at that speed. More probably falling off the rear of the horse. At least you noticed the revolvers? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 04 2006 : 11:32:40 AM
|
| Well, sure. Pistols and not sabers or carbines, but nobody thought carbines would be used in a mounted charge, and even Custer thought them annoying at that point. But.....a mounted charge is only one form of attack open to cavalry back then. They can charge or advance on foot as well with carbines in their flexible role as dragoons, and in fact they quite often had this opportunity more than the dramatic charge atop their horse. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 05 2006 : 7:17:57 PM
|
Regarding packtrains, Crook, et al. Since most don't believe me. Compare and contrast to Mr. Humphrey's statements regarding training time for pack mules, et al.
THAT issue, so boring compared to analysis of firearm trivia, is far more important. Just saying. I would agree with you and think that I did. It took several years for the Army to adopt Crook's methods. Since they worked it was finally adopted.
I am sure you couldn't help but notice also the discussion about light cavalry and mounted infantry. If not I am sure Wild will notice. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 05 2006 : 9:35:18 PM
|
I did see it. And, here we go........
If we had "light" cavalry, what was "heavy?" There must be a needed distinction, otherwise why the adjective at all? In fact, the term had no meaning once lances and armour went away, did it? Did we have light and heavy cavalry during the CW? In 1876?
We also had no formally mounted infantry units in 1876, did we? Where infantry was trained to ride with their rifles and all but not in mounted combat? Crook threw his on mules like they were packs. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 06 2006 : 10:13:45 AM
|
If we had "light" cavalry, what was "heavy?" There must be a needed distinction, otherwise why the adjective at all? In fact, the term had no meaning once lances and armour went away, did it? Did we have light and heavy cavalry during the CW? In 1876?
Once again DC for your edification.The federal army line of battle comprised not only regular cavalry but Lancers,dragoons and mounted rifles.A little light perusal of Arms and Equipment of the Unionmight help you in this matter. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 06 2006 : 11:31:54 AM
|
Fascinating. Previously, you've drawn a distinction between cavalry, either heavy or light, and dragoons and mounted infantry. Here, you include them as some sort of cavalry. Of them, which are you including as light cavalry, which as heavy? What was the reality? And, more important, the point?
Which battle can we look at to see those lancers in action? There was a brief early period when the state units dressed in insane French outfits with kepi and cape until it was all brought under Federal control.
Military units can be called anything, seen by today's 'cavalry' with no horses. I think the British, the nation that routinely whipped various Irish delusions of military adequacy, still has units called 'lancers' but outside the ceremonial, they don't train as such. It's to be doubted that even the most effete and prancing mama boy southerner with lace hanky who got to design his own units uniforms would be so stupid as to lead a lance charge against rifled infantry. But who knows?
In 1876, in a cash strapped army of only 25k, it's to be doubted we had else in mounted units but 'cavalry,' which now also served as dragoons or mounted infantry at need. The Army didn't have enough horses in a land full of them for the 7th, Crook used mules for his infantry, and I don't see where mounted infantry units existed in the place where needed. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 08 2006 : 12:49:22 AM
|
If we had "light" cavalry, what was "heavy?" There must be a needed distinction, otherwise why the adjective at all? In fact, the term had no meaning once lances and armour went away, did it? Did we have light and heavy cavalry during the CW? In 1876? Heavy Cavalry wore armor. US never had heavy Cavalry to my knowledge.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Buddha
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - March 08 2006 : 09:59:08 AM
|
The distinction between light and heavy today is the inclusion of artillery within the unit. Sometimes that distinction is part of the unit's name, sometimes not, like the 10th Mountain Division (Light), and I can't think of one without it, although the 82d is almost light. That distinction was apparently used at the regimental level, but not below.
I believe that the difference between cavalry and dragoons/mounted infantry is how they fought. Cavalry fought primarily from horseback. Other than forming a skirmish line, I don't think they were trained to fight on the ground. Mounted Infantry would not fight from horseback. They would dismount and fight as infantry normally do including walking some distance to attack an objective, leaving the horses behind. Cavalry would normally prefer open terrain to operate in. Infantry would prefer closer or broken terrain that they could hide behind. Infantry could man a defensive line. Cavalry would not.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 08 2006 : 1:48:06 PM
|
The difference in 1876 is how they were trained to fight. Or trained at all. Cavalry in the American West had to be many things, but it always had the increasingly irrelevant ability to charge in line on horseback, although this could only be used against the village, at which point the lines collapsed because the mounts could easily break legs running over the lodges. But they fought as infantry more than not and were expected to as reflected by their primary weapon.
Cavalry also formed defensive lines. AT Gettysburg under Buford, for example.
Again, we have experienced combat soldiers now disagreeing on heavy and light cavalry and the duties of the different types. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 08 2006 : 3:41:18 PM
|
| Again, we have experienced combat soldiers now disagreeing on heavy and light cavalry and the duties of the different types.It would be helpful if the military definitions used were from the correct time period when they have changed and now have a different meaning. I believe Buddha stated he was using a modern definition so we really don't disagree. There were no mechanized cavalry in the 1870's. So lets try to stick to cavalry meaning mounted horse units as defined by role and function of the era. Without going into great detail on cavalry in the 1800's heavy cavalry had armor on rider and horse. It was also used to described a large horse and rider. The US Army never had horse mounted heavy cavalry. Europe on the other hand had both and many combinations in between. Modern terms such as AirCav and mechanized units mean nothing to the LBH. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 10 2006 : 09:09:10 AM
|
| Has anyone seen any data regarding the finding of .45-55 cartridge cases with indication of extraction problems around the perimeter of Reno-Benteen in Indian locations? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 10 2006 : 11:17:42 AM
|
Wild has asserted, and gave a reference, that the Union Line of Battle indeed had lancers, this whole thread utilizes the term "light" cavalry in reference to the US forces, and I don't see the relevance. Wild is a claimed vet. He also offered the theory the carbine was only a defensive weapon in the hands of cavalry, and when given examples of offensive action, he excuses it by saying that they were then fighting "as infantry" as if that removed them from being cavalry. One.
Two, has anyone found data referencing .45-55/70 cases (Varnum fought here, and all his guys had -70....) WITHIN the permimeter of Reno-Benteen? We're told there were so many their best shot could be best utilized clearing the chambers. There must be mounds of them, fired from the same weapons. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 11 2006 : 12:35:30 PM
|
| Two, has anyone found data referencing .45-55/70 cases (Varnum fought here, and all his guys had -70....) WITHIN the permimeter of Reno-Benteen? We're told there were so many their best shot could be best utilized clearing the chambers. There must be mounds of them, fired from the same weapons. DC to be more specific the Indians were using Springfields recovered from Custer. Certainly they didn't clean them before using them against Reno. So there should be evidence in Indian locations around Reno-Benteen of the stuck cartridge problem. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 11 2006 : 3:27:58 PM
|
| I don't think the cartridges found prove much of anything, and their lack proves less given the pillaging - including by Godfrey in WCF, albeit on private land. I've made much the same point, but I don't think this Heidi Fleiss gave away her info a long time ago to unknown end. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Springfield Carbine
