| Author |
 Topic  |
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - May 20 2006 : 10:02:25 AM
|
Wild I would agree in the short time it took the Indians to get there. As far as the markers I am not sure if they represent where the soldiers actually died. Did the Indians not move any bodies? Maybe they arranged them in a formation. Maybe they were buried in a different spot than found. I find it hard to believe these untrained troops to the last main were maintaining a proper military interval. At Reno's charge and dismount we know they bunched up.
If given even one minute horses can line out according to their maximum speed so even in a short time the fleeing formation could evolve. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
  |
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 12 2006 : 10:15:49 AM
|
| Assuming that the Springfield Carbine is functioning and the troopers are adequately trained is there a limitation to the ratio of trooper:warrior because of the rate of fire of the carbine? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - July 12 2006 : 12:27:13 PM
|
| Speed of travel is the key element.Not enough troopers firing at a high enough rate to keep the numerically superiors warriors at bay.A mounted warrior could travel 100 yards before a trooper could get off his third round. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 12 2006 : 11:31:56 PM
|
| Wild -- I would agree that speed of travel, and the large number of indians are factors. I believe in Custer's location the terrain itself was a major factor. The sole advantage of the Springfield was it longer range accuracy. The terrain allowed the indians to close in and use their speed and numbers. The lack of training was a factor but its evident on Reno-Benteen that Indians were suppressed with the same level of trained troopers. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - July 13 2006 : 04:13:02 AM
|
its evident on Reno-Benteen that Indians were suppressed with the same level of trained troopers.
No comparison between Custer's situation and Reno-Benteen's---6 troops closed up in a defensive position fighting as units under good leadership and with good fire control.Also Indians were more interested in celebrating than getting themselves killed in a battle already won. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 13 2006 : 10:16:25 AM
|
quote:
its evident on Reno-Benteen that Indians were suppressed with the same level of trained troopers.
No comparison between Custer's situation and Reno-Benteen's---6 troops closed up in a defensive position fighting as units under good leadership and with good fire control.Also Indians were more interested in celebrating than getting themselves killed in a battle already won.
My comparison was between the level of training of Custer's and Reno-Benteen troopers which should be about the same. It was my point Wild that the different situations created the problem and not Solely the untrained troopers. There is no way for cavalry to win with the odds against them in the terrain from MTC and around LSH.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 30 2006 : 10:44:02 AM
|
| Did the terrain after MTC take away any advantage that the Springfield Carbine had? Also did the terrain enhance the negatives of the Carbine? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - July 31 2006 : 11:42:35 AM
|
| AZ, good to see you back here. My answer would be yes to both questions. The broken terrain allowed the warriors to move within range of their repeaters. At some point even within bow and arrow range. The Springfields had power and accuracy, but with their rainbow trajectory, I can't see that their effective range would be that great. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 01 2006 : 12:51:29 AM
|
| Prolar-- Good to see you also. That was my thought also. A single shot would be better at some distance with sights adjusted properly. It would be at a disadvantage up close with lots of Indians closing in. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Glenn V.
Recruit
Status: offline |
Posted - August 16 2006 : 4:37:07 PM
|
The Springfield was a longer range weapon than the lever actions most civilians used, having a larger bullet and slightly more powder than, say, a 44-40.
Army doctrine called for the enemy to be engaged at 300 yards, beyond accurate range of the lighter weapons.
There were several Indians with repeaters (henry's) that moved within 200 yards of Keogh's position, and when they began to shoot, they had more firepower than the army could take. Keogh's men fell back, with only a few firing back, towards the next position toward LSH. Many died along the way. Immediately after, or at the same time, more Indians moved to attack that position and Custer.
Custer's halt, either to await Benteen or to scout a route to a river crossing, allowed the Indians to infiltrate over the uneven ground to positions within that 300 yard range, where their repeaters could provide heavier fire, and all their weapons were reasonably accurate- even arrows can be arched in.
Custer, whatever his thinking, allowed himself to be pinned down and overwhelmed by numbers.
With his horses in bad shape, he might not have done any better if he kept moving though.
|
your servant,
Glenn Valis |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 18 2006 : 09:24:51 AM
|
quote:
The Springfield was a longer range weapon than the lever actions most civilians used, having a larger bullet and slightly more powder than, say, a 44-40.
Army doctrine called for the enemy to be engaged at 300 yards, beyond accurate range of the lighter weapons.
Hello Glenn
Wasn't the .44-40 the most powerful of the lever actions available anywhere? Neither the Springfield or the Winchester compares to the Sharps for long range and they were available to civilians.
I am curious about the army doctrine you state. Where can I find that?
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 31 2006 : 09:47:52 AM
|
Given the amount of ammo a trooper carried how long could they last if outnumbered and had to maintain sustained fire with the Springfield.
My attempt at estimating is a rate of 4 per minute ( I've seen my higher rates preformed with training) with the 60 rounds carried would be 15 minutes without the ammo on the horse. With the additional 40 rounds from the horse another 10 minutes or a total of 25 minutes.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - September 01 2006 : 10:18:07 AM
|
| That rate of fire would render the carbine too hot to hold |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 02 2006 : 11:40:06 AM
|
Only if you touch the barrel. I've seen M60 barrels glowing red and working.
Wasn't Reno's troopers going back for ammo in that short time they were the skirmish line? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on September 02 2006 12:09:48 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 10 2006 : 08:35:34 AM
|
| Is there any Indian accounts of throwing away Springfield carbines because of stuck cartridges? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 21 2007 : 10:57:01 AM
|
| Is there a minimum number of carbines needed to maintain a defense against much greater odds? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 25 2007 : 1:25:15 PM
|
A question for you fellows, the cartridge used was of a copper alloy. When
the rifle heated up, would it cause the catrige to expand and jam in the
barrel. I noticed in Sarf's book on the LBH, That Major Reno reported that
out of 380 carbines used by his command's survivors, six displayed a radical
defect. Failure of the breech block to close causing the extractor to tear
into the cartridge during enjection, leaving a casing in the chamber. Soldiers
had to pry out the cartridge with a knife, which were corroded or dirty copper
shells, and became stuck in heated chambers. Indians on Custer's field found
rifes with shell stuck fast in the chamber. My othe question I would like to
ask is, how hard would it be for a soldier to load and fire the carbine from
the shoulder while standing. And the carbine could fire 15 RPM would this be
possible with a copper alloy shell, or possible at all in combat conditions. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - October 30 2007 : 09:53:06 AM
|
A lot has been made of the jammed carbine theory, much of it in this thread. The same theory appears in efforts to explain the British Isandlwana defeat, but the relatively low incidence of reported failures at Reno Hill (and Rourke's Drift - same day as Isandlwana debacle) leave me to believe it to be an insignificant factor. I think it was Godfrey who claimed the cleanliness of the ammo to be the only factor in jamming - not the normal propensity of the weapon itself.
From recollection of a documentary, I thought the rate of fire to be around 12 per minute in free fire, with the weapon easy to load, aim, fire, re-load etc. In volley fire, the rate would be much lower, of course. |
Edited by - Smcf on October 30 2007 09:58:39 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 30 2007 : 1:19:13 PM
|
If true, that's a huge 1.58% of the carbines failed. By 1876 standards, that's good. Maybe by today's standards as well.
Reno did say that the carbines 'loosened up' after repeated firings, something that should have been noted in the two years since the 7th began receiving them had they practiced and trained with live ammo. Apparently, they did not, which is damning in itself. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 30 2007 : 5:18:32 PM
|
I would have to say that one comes to the conlusuion, of the overwelming
odds and the tactics of Indians, plus their superior fire power, that the
Sprigfield was not very effective weapon at the LBH. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 31 2007 : 05:57:25 AM
|
DC: I can tell you that M-16 failure in Vietnam was almost exactly proportional to the soldiers ability to keep the weapon (and ammo) clean. Most likely that held true in 1876.
Should add tho that some weapons (like the M-1, even the M-14) had to get a LOT more dirty than an M-16 to actually fail.
Would be interested to know what the "dirt level" was for the Springfield---. And I'm guessing the ammo back then probably wasn't produced under the strict manufacturing process we have today. |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - October 31 2007 : 06:40:19 AM
|
| It was noted at the time, so some sort of basic weapons maintenance training must have been in evidence, unless they were all stupid. Reno himself was partly responsible for the decision to equip with Sprinfield weapons, so they must have been considered to be the best at that time (a couple of years earlier if my memory is correct) - or maybe (gulp) the best value for money. |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 31 2007 : 08:49:32 AM
|
| I guess the the maintenance training was probably there, but getting the men to actually DO it was the hard part!! |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 31 2007 : 10:57:34 AM
|
I've read that in any human endeavor, human error hovers somewhere between 3 and 5%, so if that is so or close to it, than virtually ALL of the Springfield problems weren't the fault of the weapon or ammo. In any case, the Winchester and Henry and other alternatives failed a lot quicker, having a lot more that could go wrong, and whatever the maintenance issues the soldiers had, they can safely be said to be exceeded by those of the Sioux.
There were lots of reasons for choosing the Springfield. Everyone liked the carbine: it was light and accurate and did what it was supposed to do. Reload speed issues, but so what? "Fire control is everything." Stolid officers would lead. Of course, they didn't train to need.
The class striated military in western nations - admitted or not to greater or less extent - feared the bozos in the ranks would waste ammo with rapid fire weapons. Also, they didn't cotton to colored troopers with rapid fire weapons. This lasted to the end of WWII, in both the American and British Army. Haig, before WWI, thought one (1) machine gun was sufficent per battalion and cavalry was the key. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 31 2007 : 11:11:14 AM
|
Brent, brings up a good point. Over the many miles the regiment travel to
the LBH, where the men cleaning and maintaining their weapons. I am sure
there was a great deal of dust that they had to deal with. And I am sure
Brent knows as well as I do, that Our weapons were checked daily, and ammo
as well. But what of the poor soldiers themselves, they were fighting an
enemy that could fire several more shots at you, and you could only fire
one at a time. I would hate to find myself in that position. I t must have
been very unnerving for those men. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Springfield Carbine
