|
Post by pastmaster on May 17, 2008 10:42:16 GMT -6
Realize that am green at this site but am having a problem locating any discussion on the ammunition cartridges. In modern times the 45/70 and other cartridge cases are made of brass which is harder than copper. In the period of 1875 the cartridge caseswere made of copper which being softer caused many problems in the extractors " throwing out " the spent cartridge cases properly. This situation especially in the heat of battle and the need for as rapid a fire as possible might have been at least a contributing factor to battlefield problems. Has anyone here any further information in regards to this situation ?
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on May 17, 2008 13:25:14 GMT -6
pastmaster:
Go to the Board labeled Battle Basics; slide over to page two, and you will find a thread called Cavalry Weapons. Disregard all the crap about elite units, and you will find good info on the Springfield and its ammo.
Gordie
PS If you use the search function at the bottom of the page and enter Springfield Carbine for LBHA proboards search, you will find additional links to posts.
|
|
|
Post by pohanka on Jun 7, 2008 18:25:31 GMT -6
One other thing. In reality the "extractor" problem was negligible. I can find nothing that attributes the defeat of the 7th. calvary to this particular problem. Ironically, with the exception to reports of "volley" discharges from Custer's command, firing by the troopers appeared to be, for the most part, high, sporadic, and ineffective. undoubtedly there were some cases of extractor problems but, not enough to determine the outcome of this battle.
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Jun 7, 2008 19:26:49 GMT -6
pohanka:
You are absolutely correct. I posted part of Reno's report to the Chief of Ordnance on this subject somewhere on these boards, as part of one of numerous discussions on the topic [things tend to get repeated as new people join the forum]. If you dig around, you'll likely find it. Probably under my harpskiddie persona.
Regards,
Gordie
|
|
zak
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by zak on Jun 15, 2008 19:13:07 GMT -6
Has there ever been an independent test or tests done, to find out if the Springfield often malfunctions after heavy use? The army is supposed to test these things, but they were also supposed to test the M-16s on their way to Nam, same deal. Many battles, not many reports of jammed weapons, but how many battles were close combat after more than an hour of firing? Honest question, I just started researching this full go.
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Jun 15, 2008 19:54:27 GMT -6
zak:
There was an extensive testing program undertaken by an Army selection board, before the Springfield was adopted as the official long arm of the service. Thousands upon thousands of rounds were put through the test weapons [which included Winchesters and others], and, of course, every individual weapon was proofed at the armory before being shipped to the troops in the field.
Whether you call that independent testing,is up to you.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 15, 2008 20:47:06 GMT -6
Calhoun's company, at least, had it for two years before LBH. If the 7th did any training worthy of the name, any practice with the weapon like sustained fire, the supposed deficiencies would have shown up before hand.
Since they apparently did not, any problem was not the weapons but the training of the soldiers with them.
|
|
|
Post by pohanka on Jun 19, 2008 17:46:16 GMT -6
"Sometimes the demands of campaigning did not allow a training period, and replacements almost completely ignorant of horsemanship and marksmanship were sent out against the hostile."
Forty Miles a Day on Beans and Hay Page 86.
This chapter goes on to discuss Jacob Horner who rode with the seventh Cavalry. He and other recruits had not been trained in horsemanship and none had had been trained in the use of their arms prior to the battle where, "several died with Custer, June 25, 1876."
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jun 20, 2008 11:06:03 GMT -6
" Sometimes the demands of campaigning did not allow a training period, and replacements almost completely ignorant of horsemanship and marksmanship were sent out against the hostile."Forty Miles a Day on Beans and Hay Page 86. This chapter goes on to discuss Jacob Horner who rode with the seventh Cavalry. He and other recruits had not been trained in horsemanship and none had had been trained in the use of their arms prior to the battle where, "several died with Custer, June 25, 1876." Hmmm...just like the Army we won WWII with, right? I've got dozens of stories of men who were sent over without have fired their rifles, shot their tanks, etc. We fought the last year of the war against Germany with replacement tank drivers who were trained as cooks and clerks...going into battle without ever being trained to drive the tank...very akin to not being able to ride a horse, eh? Now our replacement 'cruits fought in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan with extensive training...see how much better those wars went than WWII! So I'd have to ask...what is point? Clair
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 20, 2008 14:32:10 GMT -6
There are such stories. Whether entirely true, like your other stories often aren't, is the continuing issue.
|
|
|
Post by pohanka on Jun 20, 2008 16:58:58 GMT -6
Here's the point. Training for our Armed forces have steadily improved since the end of the Civil War. The nature of, and complexity of combat, the ramifications therein, and the heretofore ignored or mis-understood consequences of post-trauma stress are now better understood and competently treated.
Studies have shown that the level of "line firing" is commensurate with the level of training received by the recruit. This military equation was not understood in the latter part of the nineteenth century, as it is now. In fact, soldiers were often commanded to fire low as they normal shot their weapons extremely high.
While I have no way of knowing, of course, one can speculate that if the ill trained calvary soldier of yesteryear were sent to Iraq against the battle harden insurgents, the results would be catastrophic. Ergo, your supposition, "Hmmm...Just like the Army we won WWII with, right?"is moot. Our troops currently there are fairing much better than the hypothetical Calvary troopers could have because of one, critical factor;modern training in weaponry.
Tank drivers who started off as "clerks" and "cooks" must have received additional training to move tanks or they couldn't have gotten very far.
In conclusion, the various probabilities and possibilities that brought about the lethal outcome of this battle are hinged upon the deplorable lack of training some of the soldiers received. According to my "source" Horner and others receive no training in horsemanship whatsoever. How then did the Army justify this lack of training or, anticipate victory when sending men who can barely stay mounted into combat against the Plains Indians, masters of horses since childhood ?
|
|
|
Post by rch on Jun 20, 2008 17:16:10 GMT -6
Horner and all but 9 or 10 of the 50 or so March and April 1876 recruits were left at the Yellowstone/ Powder River Depot.
rch
|
|
|
Post by pohanka on Jun 20, 2008 17:47:30 GMT -6
Rch, a point of clarification if you will. The footnote in its entirety, page 86.
"Horner and 77 other seventh cavalry replacements went out on campaign with the regiment about one month after enlistment, including one week of waiting at Fort Snelling, Minnesota. None of these men had been trained in horsemanship, and none had received any instruction in the use of their arms. SEVERAL died with Custer, June 25, 1976."
I have no further information. However, is it possible that the "several" who died with Custer, while not specifically Horner apparently, could have been one of the "77" other Seventh Cavalry replacements?
|
|
|
Post by rch on Jun 21, 2008 10:23:50 GMT -6
Pohanka,
Horner died in Sept 1951. He has the complicated distinction of been the last known living 7th Cavalryman to participate in the 1876 campaign, though he was not at the LBH. The distinction of being the last 7th Cavalryman present at the battle went to Charles Windolph who died in March, 1950.
I think the material Rickey was quoting was based on Horner's recollections.
Under the "Indepedent Research" topic Markland has posted links to some great data. In terms of recruits there is a link that will give you the 7th Cavalry Recruit Returns for Oct, 1876 and Apr 1876.
The April return indicates that 63 men joined their companies in April.
One man, Frederick Meier, joined Company C at Ft Lincoln on 16 Apr. He was assigned directly to Company C by the Mounted Recruiting Service at St Loius. He was assigned as the company tailor probably in response to the company commander's request that St Louis provide a tailor. He was previously a tailor. He had enlisted on 24 Dec 1875. He was the only recruit who joined his company in April who can be presumed to have been killed with Custer.
Three companies of the 7th Cavalry were ordered to join the regiment from duty in the South. Companies B, G, and K passed through St. Paul and picked up the 62 men who were waiting at Ft Snelling. 25 men went to Company B, 20 to Company G, and 17 (including Horner) to Company K. None of those men were with Custer. Some of these men were transferred to other companies before the LBH. They included men who had enlisted as far back as 1874 and 1875 and men who were on their 2nd and 3rd enlistments who had enlisted through the recruiting service after what was called in the 1960's a " break in service."
Among the men who rendezvoused at Ft Snelling were most of the men who had enlisted in March and April. I haven't done a break down on the exact figure.
A total of 46 men enlisted for the first time in March and April, 1876. 10 were present at the LBH.
These men were: March enlistees - all to Company B and all on the April return. Barnsantee Callan, T. McLaughlin Clark Davenport
April enlistees on the April return Campbell, Co G Goldin, Co G and assigned to Regt HQ as a clerk H. Criswell, Co B (Assigned at first to Co G but later transferred) Dwyer, Co G
One April enlistee apparently joined the regiment just before it marched from Ft Lincoln in May.
Blacksmith Crump enlisted on 14 Apr 1876, and like most men assigned in a specialty, was assigned directly to Compnay B as a Blacksmith by St. Louis. He was previously a blacksmith. Go figure.
What criteria was used in deciding which of these late enlistees would march with the regiment from the Yellowstone/Powder River Depot, I don't know. As I recall Company K which was short on horses left all men with less than a year of service. I think it is possible that 10 men out of the recruits might have known how to ride before they enlisted. Crump's and Goldin's presence might be explained by the nature of their duties.
The only casualty among the 10 men was Criswell who was wounded. In later years Callan and Goldin received the Medal of Honor.
I haven't checked, but it is possible that some of the late enlistees were left at Ft Lincoln and that not all were left at the Yellowstone/ Powder River Depot, as I stated earlier.
rch
|
|
|
Post by pohanka on Jun 21, 2008 17:26:39 GMT -6
Thanks rch, an extremely informative read!
|
|