Jimbo
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by Jimbo on Mar 10, 2005 23:08:12 GMT -6
In order to dispel any notion that the American Indians weren't very good marksman at the Little Bighorn Battle or any other battles, I quote a passage from a narrative in the American Heritage publication on page 298 of "The Indian Wars" about the Nez Perces' responce to a frontal charge upon their camp at the Snake Creek Battle in Montana 1877: "A detachment of the 7th Cavalry ran directly into well posted Nes Perce' riflemen whose deadly fire shattered the charge and felled 60 of the horsemen. The marksmen aimed at the leaders and cut down 6 officers & 7 Sergeants. The casualties prompted Miles to call off the attack and settle into a siege, which lasted through 6 days of snow & damp cold." To prove that the fact of jammed shell cases in trooper's carbines was considered a major problem: as per the book "Trapdoor Springfield" by Waite & Ernst, it states on page 48,49,50,55, 161 & 162 that it was determined that the Springfield model 45-70 cal rifle & carbine experienced severe extraction failure due to the extractor cutting through the soft copper cartridge case rim leaving the fired case jammed in the chamber with no other means of extraction by the trooper, other than with a pocket knife, if the trooper happened to have one. so, by a directive order (Armory Post Order no. 51 issued on Jan. 7th, 1877) of the commanding officers, Col. J G Benton & Brig. General Benet to the armory, that in the future," All new model 1877 Springfields be provided with a jointed steel ramrod and headless shell extactor be carried in a milled out compartment in the buttstock of all Springfields thereafter." The Dec. 1986 issue National Geographic has a wonderful analysis of the LIttle Big Horn Battle with excellent graphic illustrations. It indicates from extensive examination and research of artifacts (including many shell casings) studied, especially after the prairie grass fire in 1983, which uncovered a treasure trove of new artifacts, that much of which proved that the indians employed firearms more extensively than previously thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Wilk on Mar 11, 2005 7:30:07 GMT -6
You are correct regarding the Nez Perce, they were excellent marksmen. Except that the there were NO Nez Perce at Little Big Horn. Just because THEY were good shots, does not mean the Sioux and Cheyenne were too. I explained in a prior post that ammunition was hard to come by for most warriors. Anyone who has ever shot a firearm knows you must practice with it to become a good shot. Most plains INdians actually preferred single shot rifles and even muzzle loaders to repeaters; for they could use and conserve ammo and powder as needed for hunting purposes.
Yes, there were the warriors on Sharpshooter Ridge who picked off troopers on Reno Hill; and by the way, these warriors were not using repeaters to do so; but the average warrior was a poor marksmen, for the reasons I stated earlier. If the Sioux were such good shots, you'd better believe the casualty rate would have been even higher for the army; and ol' Benteen would've had his men digging rifle pits on that hill! Most of Reno's KIAs came during the "retreat" from the timber, where Indians simply rode up next to them and pumped their repeaters at point blank range....no marksmenship skill needed there. As for Custer's men; as they began to bunch up they provided easy targets. All a warrior had to do was point at the blue clad clump (what could be seen of it through the dust and smoke) and squeeze....no real need to be a crack shot there either. I believe the bow and arrow was most effective on Last Stand Hill. Those troopers were hunkered down behind dead horses; not much of target for a rifleman to hit. Arrows, however, could be fired from concealment, without the puff of smoke to indicate the attacker's position; it must have rained arrows on those troopers. No way to take cover from that; causing wounds that reduced their fighting capacity, setting them up for the final rush of warriors, who then could employ their repeaters and finish the job.
The Nez Perce were friendly to whites since Lewis & Clark; they routinely traded and acquired muskets and rifles from whites, who certainly must have schooled them in their use as well. The Lakota were almost always "hostile"; not many would be willing to offer them marksmenship training.
|
|
|
|
Post by Plainsman on Apr 29, 2005 12:58:12 GMT -6
I believe the Indians were better marksmen, only by the fact that collectively they had more combat experience than the 7th. Here is a good expo on the weapons used, and the marksmanship at the LBH: www.lonestarrifle.com/Custer.html |
|
