|
Post by conz on Oct 24, 2008 7:34:55 GMT -6
Good questions AZ...let's work on them a bit... I would think each individual would have to look directly at the target and they could withdraw slightly behind cover and fire based upon direct observation of the target. If they had practiced this then it would be more effective than indirectly firing without having seen the target. If you're firing for plunging effect it doesn't matter whether there is cover or concealment to the technique. The person shooting is firing based upon experience for elevation and direct observation for range and direction. My intuition tells me that they fired much as you describe above...from a small gully within 150 yards of the flags on LSH, they peeked over the edge to guage the distance and the angle of their fire, then ducked a bit and launched arrow after arrow...hundreds of them, all landing in a circular area target on the SW bank of LSH. Place must have looked like a pincushion within 10 minutes...not a square foot without several arrows sticking out of the ground, or anything else, in that circle. I think the only place it could be effectively used was LSH (and perhaps E Co in the gully?)...it is the only incident where the cavalry was massed in a tight circle and the Warriors were already in close proximity to that formation...no need to go through "fields of fire" to get within bow range. In this fight, I can see such a tactic being the DECISIVE reason F Co and the Hq were destroyed. Not sure what you mean here, but I don't think it applies to the LSH scenario finale. True, if the targeted force wasn't already surrounded, dismounted, and fighting for its life, in a tight circle, trying to keep the hundreds of Warriors around it at bay with their carbine fire. The Warrior dilemma is how to get close to this tight knot in mass? They can't just run through the fire...they don't do that. They would take dozens, if not hundreds, of casualties. So first they fill that knot of men with arrows. THEN they rush it, when the fire slackens. BTW, bravery runs have the tactical purpose of gauging the enemy's fire strength and positions, and also helps use up the enemy's ammunition. It wasn't just foolish bravery...it was a practical military tactic of all ages. We still use it today in some form or fashion. In WWII it was said that we marked the German defensive positions by sending out cavalry scouts and seeing the burning hulks of their light tanks and armored cars... Clair
|
|
|
Post by wild on Oct 24, 2008 12:09:04 GMT -6
The Warrior dilemma is how to get close to this tight knot in mass? They can't just run through the fire...they don't do that. They would take dozens, if not hundreds, of casualties. So first they fill that knot of men with arrows. THEN they rush it, when the fire slackens He has a tactical choice. A fire fight bow against carbine of at least 30 minute duration or a 1 minute charge against a flank of half a dozen troopers. The bow would be out ranged and far less accurate.Warriors would have to reveal themselves to fire.Ya cant really hide your best pony and ya have only 2 dozen arrows anyway.And there are at least 700 warriors going hell for leather what sort of sissy is going to dismount and hide?
|
|
jody
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by jody on Oct 24, 2008 12:27:44 GMT -6
sherppa, I like the "steely-eyed" comment! However, deafness is the attribute of most mortarmen. The Gunner and Loader both have their heads about a foot away from the muzzle when it fires. And it doesn't go "thunk" like in the movies. It goes "ka-BOOM!"
|
|
jody
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by jody on Oct 24, 2008 12:51:25 GMT -6
Conz, as Wild says, direct and indirect fire is all about targeting. If the gunner can see the target and adjust his aim at his weapon, it is "direct fire". Whether he uses a low angle of fire to reach the target or high is immaterial. If the gunner can not see the target and his fire is directed and adjusted by an observer elsewhere and the gunner changes the azimuth and elevation with reference to an arbitrary line, it is an "indirect fire".
Can a mortar ever be a direct fire weapon? Yes. In extreem conditions the mortar can be positioned by the gun crew, fired and adjusted in view of the target without an observer. There are crude open sights on the weapon to allow this. However, it puts the crew at great risk because if they can see the target, the target can also see them.
In you castle seige example, it is direct fire even though a high angle of fire is used. The catapult or ballista or whatever gunner adjusts his weapon by directly observing the target and the fall of his shot himself. "Ed, a couple of more turns on the rope. That last cow splattered on the wall. This time it's right over into the courtyard for old Bossie!"
|
|
|
Post by sherppa on Oct 24, 2008 19:49:21 GMT -6
jody,
check!, lima charlie
sherppa
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 25, 2008 7:18:36 GMT -6
Love all the artillerists and mortarmen around here! Thanks...
Now from this track-head, when I called for my Cav mortars to hit something behind cover, I would tell the section leader..."I want some indirect fire on that target." Sometimes more specific, but usually he knew what I wanted.
Didn't matter that the mortar tracks were right behind me, and could see the target themselves. I just wanted "indirect fire."
For me, as a yellow-leg, not a red-leg, what I really meant was I wanted an indirect fire weapon to service the target, rather than my direct fire tanks.
So if I wanted indirect fire weapons to fire, I called for "indirect fire," even if the fire wasn't going to be indirect.
Got it? <g>
Clair
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 25, 2008 8:20:15 GMT -6
Quote:How could fire from unknown positions cause skirmish lines to be formed and then maintained. Did they take hours trying to figure out where are those arrows coming from? I would think skirmish lines were formed for visible Indians and would move if the Indians disappeared. Not sure what you mean here, but I don't think it applies to the LSH scenario finale.
So you think plunging fire was only used at the LSH?
Quote:If thousands of arrows come from behind a hill that should be a clue that they are close and numerous and it is time to move. So unless there was a greater visible threat why not move out of range.
AZ Ranger
True, if the targeted force wasn't already surrounded, dismounted, and fighting for its life, in a tight circle, trying to keep the hundreds of Warriors around it at bay with their carbine fire.
The Warrior dilemma is how to get close to this tight knot in mass? They can't just run through the fire...they don't do that. They would take dozens, if not hundreds, of casualties. So first they fill that knot of men with arrows. THEN they rush it, when the fire slackens.
BTW, bravery runs have the tactical purpose of gauging the enemy's fire strength and positions, and also helps use up the enemy's ammunition. It wasn't just foolish bravery...it was a practical military tactic of all ages.
We still use it today in some form or fashion. In WWII it was said that we marked the German defensive positions by sending out cavalry scouts and seeing the burning hulks of their light tanks and armored cars...
Clair
If you think the plunging arrow fire was only used at last stand hill isn't there more areas where direct firearm fire could be depolyed more effectively. They would have many carbines to put in to use by then. I beleive it insignifcant to the event on how tactically they finished the small remaining groups. Its is how they got to that point to begin with. Arrow fire from behind cover/concealment does not seem to me to be of significance.
When did they, in terms of your model , see Indians riding around and shooting into the ground from Weir. Would a cloud of hundreds of arrows in the air be visible above the smoke and dust from a distance?
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 26, 2008 18:19:24 GMT -6
If you think the plunging arrow fire was only used at last stand hill isn't there more areas where direct firearm fire could be depolyed more effectively. Not if the defenders were behind their horses. Also, you use "area fire" when you are too far for direct fire to be effective. So their direct fire with a bow may have been effective at 50-75 yards, but their "indirect fire" may have been effective 100-200 yards if you used this saturation method. But firing at point targets using direct fire at over 75 yards wouldn't get you much, and the Trooper's carbines would eat you alive...no bowmen are going to get that close to fire, certainly not en masse. BTW, Last Stand Hill is the only place where I see any Warriors getting close enough to the Cavalry formation to use their bows at all. I think all fire at the other companies was a small amount of rifle fire...hardly more, or even less, than the Trooper's own volume of fire. IOW, I think most of Custer's companies outgunned their Warrior opposition in their respective firefights. The Natives had no "firepower superiority." Since most of the Warriors had probably never fired a carbine before, I don't think this is much of an issue. It only affected the few familiar with firearms, and the extra ammo was the most important thing...the weapons less so. It would be very significant if you thought you were behind a good barrier of dead horses and largely immune to Warrior fire, until the sky became filled with a cloud of arrows coming almost straight down on you, and everything around you. Seen from Weir when? When CPT Weir saw them, or when CPT Benteen saw them? When Weir first got there, I think Keogh was still alive and fighting for his life, Calhoun just leaving Calhoun hill. I think Weir may have even seen him leave the hill towards Custer. By the time Benteen got there, I think he saw after the Native saturation of LSH, and them closing in on F Troop and the Hq, in the act of overrunning them, and the finishing off of E Co. I think E Co may have held out even after Reno retreated back to his hovel. Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 29, 2008 19:56:37 GMT -6
Studying some cavalry history, as I am wont to do most evenings, ran across this in an Osprey book by Antony Karasulas on the Mounted Archers of the Steppe 600BC-AD 1300:
Bow Range We are able to know something of the range of ancient bows, thanks to chance archeological finds and recorded feats. On the Genghis Khon Stone, dating from the early 13th century AD, the archer Esukhei is recorded as having fired a distance of 335 ald in competition in the year 1225, this being around 1,759ft (536m).
One and a half thousand years earlier, also using a bow of composite type, a similar result was achieved, at the site of ancient Olbia, a Greek Black Sea colony.
...However, an effective range of around 175m was more realistic, and at a distance of 50 to 60m, deadly accuracy could be expected.
However, the archer was not always trying to achieve 'one shot one kill.' Studies show that while most arrow strikes resulted in at least temporary debilitating injury, only between one in 50 and one in 100 would be fatal outright.This is not a reflection on individual accuracy, but rather because in large-scale battles most arrow strikes were made at random, by arrows fired in volleys, not by an archer carefully picking his target - though naturally this skill was put into practice whenever possible. Such firing for effect was a common tactic of the mounted archer, whereby a group of horsemen rode to within their outer bow range and began showering their enemy with arrows, which proved very disconcerting and demoralizing to the enemy.
The steppe archers further mastered the technique of shooting at a fairly high elevation, perhaps as much as 45 degrees, so that arrows fell almost vertically onto the enemy. This was very effective especially where the enemy was encamped, fortified, or otherwise massed in one place.
Steppe archers were able to draw and shoot up to 12 arrows a minute, and as they carried anywhere from 30 to 150 arrows to war a group of Scythians, Avars or Turks could bring a lot of arrows to bear on an enemy. As C. de Bridia put it in 1247, talking about the Mongols: 'As soon as their arrows can reach the mark unhindered they are said owing to the density of their fire to rain arrows rather than to shoot them.'
Now while I doubt our Native American archers were up to the above standard, they used similar tactics, with slightly inferior bows.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by wild on Oct 30, 2008 2:42:38 GMT -6
Now while I doubt our Native American archers were up to the above standard, they used similar tactics, with slightly inferior bows. No they did not.With very few exceptions they fought tribal battles with no more than than a few dozen combatants on either side.They never fought anything like a European battle with thousands taking part involving armies of cavalry formations infantry formations and formations of archers.They never fought static battles with warriors standing still under showers of arrows.They fought highly mobile actions of a highly indivualistic nature.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 30, 2008 6:15:38 GMT -6
BTW, Last Stand Hill is the only place where I see any Warriors getting close enough to the Cavalry formation to use their bows at all. I think all fire at the other companies was a small amount of rifle fire...hardly more, or even less, than the Trooper's own volume of fire. IOW, I think most of Custer's companies outgunned their Warrior opposition in their respective firefights. The Natives had no "firepower superiority."
So the reduction of the five companies had nothing to do with arrow fire.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 30, 2008 6:23:17 GMT -6
Since most of the Warriors had probably never fired a carbine before, I don't think this is much of an issue. It only affected the few familiar with firearms, and the extra ammo was the most important thing...the weapons less so
What weapon would they use the ammunition in? They had none chambered for it. I realize they had a few 50-70s and some tried it and ruptured the case but it would not be significant. There were a lot more Henry and 44-40 cartridge cases found than ruptured 45-70s.
The carbines would not bet hard to figure out how to load and unload unless it had a stuck case in the chamber.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 30, 2008 6:32:00 GMT -6
The Warrior dilemma is how to get close to this tight knot in mass? They can't just run through the fire...they don't do that. They would take dozens, if not hundreds, of casualties. So first they fill that knot of men with arrows. THEN they rush it, when the fire slackens.
That would be a major increase in volume of fire and accuracy not demonstrated anywhere else in order to have hundreds of casualties don't you think?
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 30, 2008 10:01:10 GMT -6
Among the many (many....) problems with this is that there was probably no meaningful "knot" of men. When you actually look at the photos from 1877 and 1879 (primary evidence) that give a more accurate representation of burial stakes, themselves iffy indications of where they fell or were found or actually fought, the LSH is pretty thready. It's worse when you take out the Reno dead stakes. There are two vague lines, one running along the ridge towards Keogh's area, another down the hill to the river. The one actual small clump by testimony and account and evidence was at the top where the memorial stone is, and there were officers aplenty. Shot by firearm.
That tells actual military men and combat vets (I've so been lectured....) that they were not in the middle of a defense (because they're on the edge as if riding together) or waging one at all, but had been stopped on their faster horses clearing the hill and fell as they were exposed to those Indians - perhaps waiting, perhaps coincidence - on the north and east. The procession stopped and fought in place. Indications of "bunching" probably indicate the slight cover of a dead horse, whose locations were not marked and whose bodies could not be moved for the burial of soldiers.
LSH does not indicate a defense of duration whatsoever for Indians to implement thrilling military tactics they'd never been taught by 'chiefs' who had no such authority for a battle that didn't require it anyway. Insisting on cramping reality into easily indexed sequential templates of hypothetical battle deforms history and so insults those involved, a slap not erased by capitalizing words.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Oct 30, 2008 11:05:34 GMT -6
Guess I'd like to see a compliation of the 1877 & 79 photos that were taken. I've got the Where Custer Fell book but it doesn't really have many pictures and I know more were taken.
|
|