| Author |
 Topic  |
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
 Posted - March 30 2006 : 02:42:56 AM
|
The Sharpshooters at Wa****a,
They were in a support role
Reno at LBH,
Not proven
Wounded Knee.
A brawl.
However, to the point, had such worked, it would have devolved into Indians having to be driven from cover along the river or the high ground in the west at distance with the carbines after the shock (I feel so like a soldier when I can use these words....)of the charge had dissipated, if it actually existed.
The shock would have penetrated only a limited distance.
McKenzie with a force exceeding 1000 men caught Dull Knife's village [no more than 150 lodges]unawares and although he burned the village to the ground Dull Knife fought his way out with his women and children and gave Mckenzie a bloody nose.
|
  |
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 31 2006 : 12:41:24 AM
|
Wild wrote:
"McKenzie with a force exceeding 1000 men caught Dull Knife's village [no more than 150 lodges]unawares and although he burned the village to the ground Dull Knife fought his way out with his women and children and gave Mckenzie a bloody nose."
Are you sure you are not talking about Reynolds?
Billy |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 31 2006 : 11:26:01 AM
|
Billy
Are you sure you are not talking about Reynolds?
MacKenzie,Col.Ranald S[part time looney] CO. 2ND 3RD 4TH 5TH Cav under Gen Crook.
Dull Knife Cheyenne
Red Fork / Powder River
Novermber 25th
Temp -30
Other casualties 11 babies froze to death in their mothers'arms.
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 01 2006 : 10:00:12 AM
|
AZ
In Robert M Utley's Bluecoats and Redskins there is a photograph of Miles and his staff overlooking a village after the general surrender.It is absolutely huge.
I once thought that if Custer had charged with his entire command into the village he stood some chance of success.Looking at this photograph it is easy to see why Reno halted and why Custer just froze in his tracks.5 coys could charge through this village and 3/4 of the residents would not have noticed. Again Wild well said. Custer and Terry were on mission impossible and didn't know it. I don't think pinching off a portion of the village and taking prisoners would have worked either. With the village that large and ready to fight they did not have to react as though the knew the cavalry was in the vicinity. In fact whether strategy or not it was better for the village to appear surprised and draw the military in closer. Reno if he had a offensive tactical plan of fighting on foot with the carbine would have been destroyed within the next several hundred yards and still not have reached the village. Indians waiting in ambush were disappointed that Reno didn't advance on foot. I believe that Reno went on the defensive as he stated and tried to hold the Indians for time enough for Custer to support in whatever manner Custer chose. Even if Custer came up behind Reno as Reno believed there was still enough Indians in ambush to handle the additional 5 companies. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 01 2006 : 10:16:11 AM
|
Many make a big deal of Custer's tactics and argue them endlessly without discussing whether it was, in the case of the LBH, rather foolish for the assignment ESPECIALLY considering the size of a combined village many times bigger than Wa****a where Custer outnumbered the Cheyenne and still took hours to pull it together. Really, isn't it awfully complicated for the job? Pointlessly so? As if beating Indians wasn't enough, they had to be seen to be outthought as well.
However, to the point, had such worked, it would have devolved into Indians having to be driven from cover along the river or the high ground in the west at distance with the carbines after the shock (I feel so like a soldier when I can use these words....)of the charge had dissipated, if it actually existed.
It would appear that there is common ground in this thread. There was not a tactic or strategy that would have worked given the size and determination of the village and Indians. The Springfield carbine was not the reason for Custer's defeat. The Indians were the cause of the defeat. The difference in commands is that Crook went fishing when there was to many Indians.
DC--your inner soldier is coming out.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 01 2006 : 1:10:26 PM
|
Yeah. That'll happen. Right after my inner nuclear physicist, syncopated swimmer, and/or Lance Armstrong appears. I'd wisely suggest that nobody's future campaigns count on the arrival of this Caesar for the Ages.
Meanwhile, I've been called, in absentia, a sociopath on the LBHA, which has deeply wobbled my self worth and severed all reasons for going on. My inner child struggles to be born.....again. No, wait, that's Victor Hugo. I'm in here somewhere.......... |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 03 2006 : 12:20:59 AM
|
Yeah. That'll happen. Right after my inner nuclear physicist, syncopated swimmer, and/or Lance Armstrong appears. I'd wisely suggest that nobody's future campaigns count on the arrival of this Caesar for the Ages.
Meanwhile, I've been called, in absentia, a sociopath on the LBHA, which has deeply wobbled my self worth and severed all reasons for going on. My inner child struggles to be born.....again. No, wait, that's Victor Hugo. I'm in here somewhere.......... At least you know someone is reading your posts. There was also a similar reference to the whole board. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 04 2006 : 12:45:50 AM
|
| Many make a big deal of Custer's tactics and argue them endlessly without discussing whether it was, in the case of the LBH, rather foolish for the assignment ESPECIALLY considering the size of a combined village many times bigger than Wa****a where Custer outnumbered the Cheyenne and still took hours to pull it together. Really, isn't it awfully complicated for the job? Pointlessly so? As if beating Indians wasn't enough, they had to be seen to be outthought as well. Good point DC. I wonder that myself not which tactic to use but could any work. The army had to believe that the Indians would run or as you state "rather foolish for the assignment ESPECIALLY considering the size of a combined village beyond a reasonable doubt". That still mystifies me that at MTC and beyond, Custer should have known it was a large village and they were willing to fight. Was his perception so far off because of the firm belief the Indians will run? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - April 04 2006 : 10:38:55 AM
|
AZ
it was a large village and they were willing to fight.
The very worst tactic was to catch these people napping.You did not want these people cornered especially when you were outnumbered 4 to one and armed with peeshooters.
Indian fighting was brawling and the Indians were the Waffen SS of brawling.Man for man he was far superior.He needed no leadership,killing to him was as natural as eating his dinner.Custer's scouts mocked the cavalry for their style of fighting.Add to the size of the village and the willingness to fight the fighting quality of the Indian.Your average trooper like soldiers of all civilized armies did not want to kill nor did he want to be killed.This was domesticated man against wild man.No contest. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 04 2006 : 11:39:54 AM
|
AZ
The Army's/Terry's strategy was fine; it's Custer's division of forces to no clear purpose based on no hard info that I find far too complicated to the point of his mission, even had it worked.
And I suspect it was so at the Wa****a, as well. That was a small village, why not an attack from one direction? How well did Custer's plan work above a monodirectional advance? Well, look at the Indian casualties, and how low the warrior count was. They destroyed stock and village, but couldn't that have been accomplished by a simpler plan?
At LBH, he apparently tried a similar thing, only this time on a huge, rested and well fed village without surprise, in the middle of a summer day, without coordination.
Custer seems to me insecure about his smarts, and his wife remained sensitive to that all her life. Because when you sit down and think about it, the surround deployment in the winter greatly increased the liklihood of discovery, and if the Cheyenne had been remotely on the ball, it could have been bad for Custer. Again: the secret of success is a lousy opponent.
Without a central command structure or anything like it, expecting large forces of Indians to be fooled as a coherent (or at least a Confederate) unit, to be 'fooled' and overcompensate and send reinforcements here and there was without real life basis. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 05 2006 : 12:19:45 AM
|
AZ
it was a large village and they were willing to fight.The very worst tactic was to catch these people napping.You did not want these people cornered especially when you were outnumbered 4 to one and armed with peeshooters.
Indian fighting was brawling and the Indians were the Waffen SS of brawling.Man for man he was far superior.He needed no leadership,killing to him was as natural as eating his dinner.Custer's scouts mocked the cavalry for their style of fighting.Add to the size of the village and the willingness to fight the fighting quality of the Indian.Your average trooper like soldiers of all civilized armies did not want to kill nor did he want to be killed.This was domesticated man against wild man.NWild I would agree to the point that the best of the Indians were a match or better against the average US Army trooper. That is not the same as the best of both sides in an even match. There are many examples of the "domestic" man in a much smaller force but with firearm skills and determination coming out the winner. When you attack a village you get the whole range up to the best of fighters. The US Cavalry was not filled with the best of the domestic fighters. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - April 05 2006 : 12:43:01 PM
|
AZ,
the vast majority of Army or civilian success against a larger Indian force was mostly due to having cover ie The Haystack fight,Adobe Walls and Beechers Island etc etc.
You also have to consider that the Indian was disadvantaged at not having fire arms[until the latter part of the plains war]in order to successfully attack fortified positions.
Individually I would say that the Indian was superior to the soldier in hand to hand fighting as this was there forte.The acquisition of firearms certainly hindered the army till the conclusion of the wars.
|
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
Edited by - hunkpapa7 on April 05 2006 12:57:06 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 06 2006 : 09:37:28 AM
|
AZ,
the vast majority of Army or civilian success against a larger Indian force was mostly due to having cover ie The Haystack fight,Adobe Walls and Beechers Island etc etc.
You also have to consider that the Indian was disadvantaged at not having fire arms[until the latter part of the plains war]in order to successfully attack fortified positions.
Individually I would say that the Indian was superior to the soldier in hand to hand fighting as this was there forte.The acquisition of firearms certainly hindered the army till the conclusion of the wars.
Hunk -- I Believe we are saying the same thing. My point was that the soldiers did not represent the best of the 'domestic" man fighters. Jeremiah Johnson types come to mind when hand to hand skills are involved. Today we have special forces which are small subsets of the military. There were no special forces units and the army didn't even have highly trained troops. Even if you weren't skilled in hand to hand combat you should have been able to at least take out one Indian as they closed in for the final hand to hand combat.Even if the Indians won but suffered 500 dead and even more wounded than you could say the 7th made a good showing but that didn't happen.
I would also agree that the Indians skills on average were higher than troopers in regards to hand to hand combat. The army didn't need to fight hand to hand if they were proficient with their firearms. For a long time I believed that the 7th was the best the of the best and it was hard to explain what happened. As I said before the village had their best fighters there and the "domestic intruders" did not. A regiment of 700 men with the average skills of Buffalo Bill for riding, Wild Bill for revolver use, and Jeremiah Johnson for hand to hand combat and the outcome would be different. Unrealistic yes but my point was the best 700 out the total US population was not at LBH and with fewer exceptions the best of the northern tribe Indians were there. Looking more closely at the composition of enlisted men and the extent of training I have reached a different conclusion. Taking pride in your Regiment is not the same thing as being a proficient fighting unit.
A question to you then. When Reno went to the timber they had cover yet they felt they couldn't stay there. Why? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 06 2006 : 09:47:37 AM
|
AZ
The Army's/Terry's strategy was fine; it's Custer's division of forces to no clear purpose based on no hard info that I find far too complicated to the point of his mission, even had it worked.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that Custer had to believe the Indians would run and splitting the Regiment was to turn those trying to escape to the flanks.
At least one officer in RCOI stated that Custer told him they were to drive the Indians toward the Yellowstone. If he had any idea they would stay and fight then I agree with you that it made no sense to split up the regiment. Instead he could have sent a small group of the best mounted individuals to a high point and discover the size of the village and form the strategy based upon that information.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on April 06 2006 09:48:36 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 07 2006 : 09:26:26 AM
|
| The question of the Springfield Carbine being the choice of cavalry as the long arm. Was it a good choice? The weapon itself was not faulty and did not cause the defeat of the 7th. My question is about the best use of cavalry. Would a repeater have been a better choice? Cavalry was by it nature a striking force and rapid fire would be more advantages. If fighting in Dragoon style, on foot using horse as transportation, then the rifle would be a better choice. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 08 2006 : 10:57:52 AM
|
Well, this is the heart of my beef with Custerland, and that's no snide slam against AZ. But it's training that's the issue, not the specific weapon.
If the 7th wasn't going to train or be trained, what POSSIBLE difference do weapon details make? Repeaters are relatively more complicated weapons, and have their own issues, but since the 7th claims surprise their carbines "loosened up" after - wait for it - FIVE ROUNDS fired quickly, it certainly does not bode well if they had weapons with much more to "loosen up." Inexperienced if not panicked soldiers rapidly working lever actions would jam them almost automatically.
This is what I mean when I say this is trivia in relation to the LBH. Any other contemporary weapon in the 7th's untrained hands wouldn't have made much difference given their overall horsemanship and shooting skills.
No matter how you slice it, or who was supposed to actually teach the soldiers, it was the ranking officer's responsibility to make sure it's done, or at least beef to DC that they need serious practice ammo, or at the very least demand they know how to ride. Yet the Seventh marched a hundred men to where some were to get their first horse, ever, on their way to fight the Sioux. Fortunately, in yet another area of incompetence that rather defies comment, the horses weren't there. A cavalryman's first duty is to his horse, but it's someone else's duty to get him one, preferably broken in. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 08 2006 : 3:27:46 PM
|
Well, this is the heart of my beef with Custerland, and that's no snide slam against AZ. But it's training that's the issue, not the specific weapon.
DC--I don't disagree about the training with whatever weapon they choose. Training in general was lacking in the 7th. I reread my post and I don't see where it says the untrained 7th would be better off with repeaters. In fact untrained troopers would have fired at ranges to long a distance for effectiveness and ran out of ammunition quicker. The point of my question is that assuming you could have trained troopers what would be a better weapon for cavalry. Since cavalry were usually used in close proximity of the enemy the lack of effective range and the increased rate of fire would be advantages. This goes to the thinking of those who made the the decisions for weapon choice including Terry and Reno to some degree. I believe they thought "if we have untrained recruits and new troopers which have no fire discipline" then give them single shot carbines and slow their rate of fire. In other words Terry had prior knowledge of the lack of training in general of the army. Given the lack of training the 7th would lose with any weapon and the weapon was not the blame for the loss.
If the 7th wasn't going to train or be trained, what POSSIBLE difference do weapon details make? Repeaters are relatively more complicated weapons, and have their own issues, but since the 7th claims surprise their carbines "loosened up" after - wait for it - FIVE ROUNDS fired quickly, it certainly does not bode well if they had weapons with much more to "loosen up." Inexperienced if not panicked soldiers rapidly working lever actions would jam them almost automatically. None Which is my position.
I would disagree that the Winchester was more complicated to use than the Springfields. What training did the Indians receive in using the Winchester?
This is what I mean when I say this is trivia in relation to the LBH. Any other contemporary weapon in the 7th's untrained hands wouldn't have made much difference given their overall horsemanship and shooting skills. No it goes to prior knowledge that untrained troopers were sent to LBH.
No matter how you slice it, or who was supposed to actually teach the soldiers, it was the ranking officer's responsibility to make sure it's done, or at least beef to DC that they need serious practice ammo, or at the very least demand they know how to ride. Yet the Seventh marched a hundred men to where some were to get their first horse, ever, on their way to fight the Sioux. Fortunately, in yet another area of incompetence that rather defies comment, the horses weren't there. A cavalryman's first duty is to his horse, but it's someone else's duty to get him one, preferably broken in.
So it was Terry's or Sturgis' fault? Actually the horses should have been trained by experienced riders and then given to the new recruits. I doubt that happened also. So untrained horses with new recruits with some having no skills in horsemanship were combined. If one follows the same reasoning as the single shot rifle then they probably bought older horses that were unfit for cavalry duty or barely met the minimum standard. As far as "A cavalryman's first duty is to his horse" again it goes to the general lack of training the new recruits weren't cavalrymen and probably didn't know anything about taking of their horse. "but it's someone else's duty to get him one" Not in the case of cavalry officers. They could purchase their own and were better mounted then the average trooper. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 08 2006 : 3:58:58 PM
|
1. You didn't say that, sorry if I implied you had. What I mean is threads devoted to the carbine and cartridge discussed under the guise of talking about the LBH miss the point. It's the training, solamente.
2. The Winchester had many more moving, bendable parts requiring maintanance which clearly was not part of their training if anything was. And I've said the Indians had to have had worse issues with their weapons because of just that, and all the talk about the 7th being outgunned is academic and silly to boot.
3. I'd say it wasn't Terry's fault. Certainly Sturgis and most certainly Custer, as the field commander, are responsible that their regiment is up to snuff. But how they could ever say this was a hot outfit eludes me. Even their one victory looks both fortunate and badly done. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 09 2006 : 6:10:05 PM
|
1. You didn't say that, sorry if I implied you had. What I mean is threads devoted to the carbine and cartridge discussed under the guise of talking about the LBH miss the point. It's the training, solamente. Based upon the lack of training what is that they thought the 7th could accomplish? Drive the Indians up the LBH to Terry?
2. The Winchester had many more moving, bendable parts requiring maintanance which clearly was not part of their training if anything was. And I've said the Indians had to have had worse issues with their weapons because of just that, and all the talk about the 7th being outgunned is academic and silly to boot.
Until it malfunctions it is easier to operate. Agreed that outgunned is not the issue.
3. I'd say it wasn't Terry's fault. Certainly Sturgis and most certainly Custer, as the field commander, are responsible that their regiment is up to snuff. But how they could ever say this was a hot outfit eludes me. Even their one victory looks both fortunate and badly done.
I brought up Terry because he selected the Springfield. If the issue was reliability and longer range then the decision was OK. If the decision was because they knew that the majority composition of the army was going to be untrained troops and they wanted to control fire discipline by having the single shot carbine then there is a culpable mental state. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 09 2006 : 7:29:40 PM
|
1. Who is "they"? The 7th? The officers had convinced themselves the camp would run, and it didn't really matter that much because they'd destroy their lodges and scatter their ponies and kill enough to do the job.
It's worth noting that the Brits in the form of General Hague thought machine guns were too complicated in WWI, and that one (1) per batallion was sufficient. Also, their own infantry, being taken by draft, was too stupid for things like following advancing artillery barrages, so they stopped their insufficient bombardment and let their men walk in a straight line towards the German trench two years into the war at the Somme, some kicking soccer balls as indicative of the lark they foresaw. A disaster of the first water. Given that, it's not too hard to see, after our CW, how our military really thought Indians couldn't be anything but a joke against our spiffy cavalry, and while they might fight bravely they were clearly no match, etc. etc.
2. If maintained well, easier to operate maybe. The Sioux? What would a Sioux maintanance ritual consist of?
3. But: if they gave them a M-1 and didn't train them, what is the difference? Crappy shooting with a better weapon most weren't all that experienced with IF THEY'D NEVER EVEN FIRED FIVE SHOTS IN QUICK ORDER as the 7th had not with the Springfield. With some hyperbole, they'd have been better off with a Buntline special and chronic and sufficient marksmanship practice than a carbine with none. And cheaper, too. Is all I'm saying. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 10 2006 : 09:53:05 AM
|
1. Who is "they"? The 7th? The officers had convinced themselves the camp would run, and it didn't really matter that much because they'd destroy their lodges and scatter their ponies and kill enough to do the job. From Washington DC to NCOs lack of financial support to train, clear objectives in training before being combat ready, commander expectations before leaving on a mission, officers and NCOs for completing the training.
It's worth noting that the Brits in the form of General Hague thought machine guns were too complicated in WWI, and that one (1) per batallion was sufficient. Also, their own infantry, being taken by draft, was too stupid for things like following advancing artillery barrages, so they stopped their insufficient bombardment and let their men walk in a straight line towards the German trench two years into the war at the Somme, some kicking soccer balls as indicative of the lark they foresaw. A disaster of the first water. Given that, it's not too hard to see, after our CW, how our military really thought Indians couldn't be anything but a joke against our spiffy cavalry, and while they might fight bravely they were clearly no match, etc. etc. This would support the thinking in general and lead to a culpable mental state that carried down the raw recruits.
2. If maintained well, easier to operate maybe. The Sioux? What would a Sioux maintanance ritual consist of? Shoot until it didn't fire. Get a new as cheap as possible.
3. But: if they gave them a M-1 and didn't train them, what is the difference? Crappy shooting with a better weapon most weren't all that experienced with IF THEY'D NEVER EVEN FIRED FIVE SHOTS IN QUICK ORDER as the 7th had not with the Springfield. With some hyperbole, they'd have been better off with a Buntline special and chronic and sufficient marksmanship practice than a carbine with none. And cheaper, too. Is all I'm saying. Agreed. Didn't Reno conduct or not and have oversight on the training during the time Custer was absent. I wonder what was the condition he thought of the average trooper.
DC-- The lack of training had to be well known from top to bottom. If Washington sends you 20 rounds of ammo for training then they knew that the results of training would not be competent shooters. If Washington on down paid for horses that were received while on the mission then they all knew they had horse transportation but not a competent cavalry horse and rider. On and on........
I think your point very valid on what they thought they were up against. The army needed no complicated plan. The only plan was not to let them escape. If the columns could get near enough the Indians would give up to the army without much fighting. Therefore all of the discussions on who disobeyed orders and the elaborate formations on attacking the village are mute. It wasn't in the thinking before LBH. Afterward many officers realized they had been defeated either in their plan or on the battle field. This was unacceptable because it would mean the Indians won the battle on their own merits. Can't have that. Someone must be the blame on the army's side of the battle. The more blame you place on disobeying orders, strategy pre-battle and during the battle, and/or equipment, horses and condition of horse, pack-trains the less of an outright victory the Indians had at LBH. Isn't it easier and more correct to say the Indians won the battle at LBH but lost the war.
Every decision maker from Washington on down had some role in the 7th not being an efficient combat unit to some degree. Some more than others. By saying the 7th was a top-notch cavalry unit it was either and intelligence ploy to scare the Indians ( I doubt it, didn't work) or they didn't want to be responsible for acknowledging the deplorable facts.
I do like your Buntline analogy. Its probably more correct than you think. You may have started another thread. Twin Buntlines on pommel holsters would be my choice. A really slow horse would help also, unless you were retreating. Maybe an umbrella that stopped arrows. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Lewis Wetzel
Recruit
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 13 2006 : 12:26:19 AM
|
First post - I've been lurking for a couple of days, and am in awe of the knowledge displayed here. Let me add my two cents to Dark Cloud's apt observation about troops skilled with Buntlines being preferable to those with little experience with carbines. I've been rereading Sixguns, by old time gunwriter Elmer Keith. Keith was born around the turn of the 20th Century and, in addition to being supremely skilled with revolvers, pumped Civil War vets, Indian fighters and old lawmen for their thoughts and experiences. He writes,
quote:
During the Indian campaigns on the plains, quite a few cavalry officers who had learned to shoot a sixgun during the Civil War became very expert at long range revolver shooting. Many a time with their horses shot out from under them, they were able to keep enemies out at long rifle range and completely out of bow shot with the old 7 1/2 inch Peacemaker.
He goes on to recall some very long-range shooting he demonstrated in 1928, using old single actions and ammo that included black powder loads:
quote:
Seven hundred yards across a dry, dusty field I had a target four feet square. By laying on my back with my saddle used for a head and shoulder rest, and shooting with both hands held between my drawn up knees, I proceeded to lob slugs into that target.
He goes on to explain that he observed the impact of the bullets in the dust, and was able to "walk" the rounds onto the target. He stresses the amount of (handloaded) ammo he went through, starting in his youth - and that "[o]nly by such constant daily practice does a man really learn a sixgun and its possibilities."
Of course, it would have been impractical to have troops shoot quite so much - but the point is, take away their carbines and have them shoot twice a week with their revolvers, they very probably would have been more effective than troopers with the 7th's level of practice.
Note his qualifier, "learned to shoot in the Civil War." I get the impression that many of the best units of the Civil War benefitted not so much from good training as from lots of experience. They learned by doing - and that war supplied plenty of opportunities. The rebs, who prided themselves on their marksmanship going into the war, admitted that the Yankees were learning to shoot and to ride by the end. Perhaps the powers that be assumed the same process would take place with postwar Indian fighters - not figuring that the different nature of the fighting meant far fewer opportunities for experience in combat marksmanship that you'd have in, say, the trenches at Vicksburg. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - April 13 2006 : 09:10:41 AM
|
Welcome Lewis.
Very interesting post.
My only experience of longrange shooting with a pistol was trying to hit a large military range target at 100 yards with a .22.To get a hit at that range I had to aim at least 2 feet above the target.
I had a discussion with DC sometime back on the long range shooting of the Boers which he ridiculed and now you say this can be achieved by pistols?
Of course what you describe is individual shooting and not military shooting there is a difference.
700 yards ?Well just as a test I'm going to set out a 4x4 target and check if I can see it never mind try to hit it.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 13 2006 : 10:32:06 AM
|
An interesting name choice, Wetzel.
I'm not entirely convinced by Keith (http://www.handloads.com/articles/default.asp?id=21) or pistol accuracy at 700 yards, 40% of a mile, but I'm pretty ignorant of much weapon stuff. My point is that it's better to be trained well with an inferior weapon RATHER than not be trained at all with the best. I said Buntline, because quick draw wasn't an issue for the 7th and it would have meaningful accuracy for their needs, but for my point I suppose a snubnose would suffice. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Lewis Wetzel
Recruit
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 13 2006 : 4:46:04 PM
|
Wild -
I understand that Boers could regularly hit a target the size of a man's head at 300 yards with their Mausers or captured Lee Enfields under field conditions. With any type of iron sights, that's good shooting.
I should stress that shooting and expecting to hit with the first shot is quite different from the demonstration Keith gave. Keith
1) Took a shooting position that was about as good as a bench rest, but one which might be impractical to assume in combat.
2) He was shooting on ground where it was possible to observe to the fall of shot, and correct accordingly. If the ground isn't dusty or muddy, you might be out of luck, especially considering that the impacts of pistol bullets at that range would be quite small. If a bunch of your pals are also shooting at the same target, telling your puffs of dust from the other guys' could be a problem. Basically, what Keith was demonstrating was "area fire" or "harassing fire," something which could be done with a Mauser at ranges at which you could not even see an individual person.
Dark Cloud - I understand your point on weapon choice. Assuming practice and training are the same, a carbine is a better choice for most combat than a pistol. One cavalryman in the early 1850's said of the newly issued Sharps breechloader, "the horseman needs no pistol, if armed with Sharps' carbine and a light and sharp sabre." I'm not sure which pistol he's dismissing, a single-shot, or the Colt Dragoon revolver, both of which were used by the Dragoons at that time.
btw my choice of name reflects the time and place I'm most interested in, the Ohio frontier during and immediately after the Revolution. Lewis Wetzel was the white border warrior sans peur, though most definitely not sans reproche.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Springfield Carbine
