|
Post by rch on Feb 2, 2006 14:46:08 GMT -6
The enlarged photo of the Black Hills Expedition crossing the Heart River appearing on pages II-III of Exploring with Custer by Grafe and Horsted may offer some insights into the Gatling Gun detachment that marched from Ft. Lincoln and part of which marched with Reno on his scout.
1. Although two of the Gatlings appear to be attached to limbers, neither they nor the field piece is accompanied caissons.
2. The guns and limbers are pulled by four horse teams. In fact the second gun appears to be pulled by three horses, which may explain the unharnessed horse beside the wheel horses pulling the 3" Ordnance Rifle.
3. The left hand or near horses are being riden by drivers.
4. The gun crews are dismounted, and there are obviously not enough seats on the limbers for the full crews.
Might not the same things obtain for the Gatlings of the Dakota Column? The movement of the guns could have been slowed because the horses had to pull the limder, the gun, the spare parts, all the ammunition, and two of them would also have to carry riders. Walking gun crews might be able to switch off on the limber and two men could ride the right hand or off horses in a pinch, but that would have only increased the burden on the horses.
Is it possible that the Dakota Column gun crews were issued horses as were the men of the horse artillery during the Civil War?
|
|
|
Post by keithpatton on Apr 15, 2019 14:06:23 GMT -6
The big thing here is that the US Army did not really know how to use the Gatling to it's full potential. There was no real doctrine. The Gatling and later the machine gun were considered Artillery. The main form of employment of the Gatling was in barrage fire. That is, they fired at high elevation and "dropped" their projectiles in an area out to as far as 1100-1200 yards. This is how the Navy, the largest purchaser intended to use them too. As late as 1898 in Cuba, the Gatling was used like artillery to lay barrage fire over the heads of the dismounted cavalry of the 10th Cav and the 1st Volunteer cavalry (T. Roosevelt's Rough Riders.) The impression Hollywood has conveyed in all it's movies is that it was used as a machine gun for direct fire. That is a fantasy. After the Maxim gun (both the Maxim and Gatling were competitors in the later market place) supplanted the Gatling there was still no clear knowledge of how to use it. Witness that the US Army, the British Army and the French Army went into WWI with only a handful of MGs. It took the Germans to teach them how to use them and then they couldn't get them fast enough. Still, their primary employment was in barrage fire. Projectiles plunging at nearly 45 degrees can still hit you if you are hiding behind cover. It was an aerial denial weapon, multiple guns would have over lapping zones of "beaten ground." This is where the writers came up with the phrase, "hail of lead" to describe the plunging storm of bullets that soldiers in places like the Somme had to walk through. WWI machine gunners didn't even aim. They fired in a designated arc of front coverage and moved the gun from side to side by using their free hand to "tap" the receiver to move the gun a degree or so moving the muzzle across the designated field of fire. If they started firing at 1200 yards how long would it take an encumbered infantryman to cover 12 football fields under fire? The British Marines used barrage machine gun fire as late at the Falklands war where it was used on the Argentine trenches on the Heights above Goose Green. Thousands of rounds were fired from two or three machine guns during the attack, firing over the heads of the advancing Marines. Having said all that, Custer and for that matter Terry probably had no real idea how to employ them effectively against Indians. They could have used them to drive the Indians from the village by firing from the heights overlooking the river. They could have used plunging fire to drive them back and make them evacuate the village. This is kind of the approach the 7th later employed at Wounded Knee with successful albeit with high collateral costs. They could have beaten back any attempts by the mounted or dismounted Indians to infiltrate up the ravines as they did in the actual battle. Pre-WWI tests were made to sell the MG to the army by comparing the guns firepower to that of a company of soldiers firing bolt action rifles. Not only did the MG fire far more projectiles down range but it was more accurate out to the greater ranges. They were using sold banners of man high cloth stretched across the company front at different ranges. Hits were later counted after a time period of sustained firing. The MG was (and by extension the Gatling could have been) the hands down winner. Another thought is they could have used them on the pony herds in a more effective way than even Col. McKenzie did against the Comanche at Palo Duro Canyon. How far would the Sioux and Cheyenne have gotten if most of their herds had been killed or dispersed and they were on foot leaving their teepees and belongings behind? It goes to show that an excellent weapon is good for nothing if no one knows how to effectively use it. The Germans taught the Brits and French that in WWII in 1940, when they defeated the French and caused the Brits to turn tail by their more effective use of lesser weapons (their tanks were pathetic compared to the better French and British tanks) against better weapons with lousy doctrine. The fiction of Blitzkrieg was a British invention to cover up their embarrassing defeat. They believed their own propaganda and it scared them the rest of the war. Read more: lbha.proboards.com/thread/5425/custer-gatling-guns-lbh?page=1#ixzz5lCFPvANR
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 15, 2019 19:50:28 GMT -6
It goes to show that an excellent weapon is good for nothing if no one knows how to effectively use it. The Germans taught the Brits and French that in WWII in 1940, when they defeated the French and caused the Brits to turn tail by their more effective use of lesser weapons (their tanks were pathetic compared to the better French and British tanks) against better weapons with lousy doctrine. The fiction of Blitzkrieg was a British invention to cover up their embarrassing defeat. They believed their own propaganda and it scared them the rest of the war. Very good post and I agree with you... mostly. Even understanding how the Gatling should be employed, however, I do not believe they would have been an effective weapon once Custer began moving up the Rosebud. As for the German versus the French and British, I mostly agree the Allies were better "armored" in 1940, though the French Char B could hardly get out of its own way and the earlier heavy Char 2C (?) was virtually useless, especially at 69 tons. The Germans had a variety: their Mark I, which was nothing more than a machine-gun carrier; the Mark II with a 20mm cannon (hell, we had hand-held 40mm grenade launchers in Vietnam!!!), and the fine Skoda T-38... which was also lightly armored. The Mark IIIs and IVs were damn good tanks, especially the 75mm Mark IV. It became an extremely good weapon when they upgraded the gun to a long barreled 75 in 1942. I believe they also upgraded the Mark IIIs 50mm to a long barrel as well. Really good post; I enjoyed it. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Apr 16, 2019 5:08:13 GMT -6
I don’t know about embarrassing defeat Keith, as you stated the British had to withdraw because the French got hammered, which caused us to move or get cut off. Just look at the US Army in 1939/40 and see that their tanks were just as bad as everyone else’s. If the USA would have sent over an expeditionary force to France in 1940, it would have suffered the same fate as the British did. The Blitzkrieg was a combination of armour, artillery and air support, but it was the efficiency of the German tanks which they beat the allies plus you have to remember that the Germans would rather beat your armour with anti-tank guns rather than tank v tank. The French tanks had only one-or two-man turrets, the Germans Mk. IIIs and IVs had three, the British cruisers also had three but these kept breaking down. The Germans mounted a short 75mm on their Mk. IVs, and the Americans saw this, which made them decide that their next medium would have a 75mm in a fully revolving turret and a turret crew of three. The Americans could now start their designers and their industrial might to start mass production. The British on the other hand, could not simply stop producing tanks and start afresh, we knew our Cruiser tanks where unreliable but we had to keep making them otherwise we would have nothing until our designers and factories could start building the new bunch. British tactics were out of date, but we gradually got better, we had to because we were the only nation to actually start WW2 and fight right through until the end in 1945, remember the USSR and the USA, were forced into the war because they got attacked. Fred is correct, the German Mk. IIIs and Mk. IVs were up-gunned, the Mk. III started with a 37mm, then a short 50mm, and later a long 50mm, but it was the final mark (Ausf N) which had the heaviest gun, the 75mm L/24 KwK 37 Gun. This was the same weapon which started life on the early versions of the Mk. IV, before it received the excellent 75mm L/43 KwK 40. The Mk. III N, started life as a support tank for the early Tiger companies. linkPz. Mk. III Ausf Ns arriving at either Bizerte or Tunis between November and December 1942. 12 x Tiger Is and 16 x Pz. Mk. III Ausf Ns were shipped over the Med during that period, just some of the consignment which arrived in north Africa in November 1942 and part of the Axis buildup of 176 x tanks, 131 x artillery pieces, 1,152 x vehicles, and 13,000 tons of supplies. Some irrelevant data, the last known Pz Mk. III Ausf F, mounting a 37mm gun to see action was in Normandy June 1944, it was serving with the 116th Panzer Division and was captured, shipped back to the states and resides in the Patton Museum, Fort Knox.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 16, 2019 5:55:07 GMT -6
Ian,
Beautifully done!!!
Hope you, Susan, and the "Gang" are doing well.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 28, 2019 10:08:44 GMT -6
Letting by gones be by gones Ian Other nations who started and fought through the second world war Canada, India, South Africa ,New Zealand, Australia , and the Finns and Italians fought on both sides for good measure. And technically the Poles fought for longer. Best Richard
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 28, 2019 10:25:00 GMT -6
Hi Keith just a point of information. camparing the accuracy of a machine gun to a rifle is not comparing like with like....the MG being an area weapon while the rifle is a point weapon. Best Regards Richard
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 31, 2019 13:39:57 GMT -6
No bygones to let Richard, the British commonwealth countries fought with the British army, they answered the call for the motherland as good allies do, that is why I placed them all under the same mantle. Poland was invaded and had no choice but to fight but after 1939 they ceased to exists, so any military personnel how did escape fought with the British military. The Italian army surrendered in 1943, you did get small units which fought on both sides but they had no government at all, the Finns too got involved because the Russians invaded them, after that they used the Nazi’s to help get their land back. You can name ad hoc units from all the places in Europe, but these probably fought along with either Britain or Russia. Britain declared war on Nazi Germany along with the French and the French got knocked out of the ring leaving Britain all alone.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jun 1, 2019 7:08:59 GMT -6
Hi Ian It is the use of the term "nation" in the singular that is at issue. The mantle "British" is often used to describe the forces of the commomwelth and Empire but they are multi national conglomerates. Your use of "we were the only nation" is unfair to your allies of the time.
India would not see Britian as the mother country. I am reminded of the head lines in an English paper stating "FOG IN CHANNEL. EUROPE CUT OFF".
After 1939 Poles fought in the Battle of Britian, in North Africa,captured Monte Cassino ,covered and saved the British paras at Arnhem and in 1944 rose up in Warsaw and fought the Germans for a month while Stalin and the allies looked on. And for good measure supplied Blechfield with a captured enigma machine on which allied intelligence depended. And for all of that they were abandoned to Stalin and to please uncle Joe they were barred from the allied victory parade in London.
Mussolini lasted nearly as long Hitler with his forces holding the Gothic Line.
The BEF lasted about 2 weeks before evacuation at Dunkirk (covered by the French). The Poles stood for close to 5 weeks before being stabbed in the back by Stalin.
Love your items on armour Ian. We had a couple of Swedish L60s and a dozen or so of the Landsverk armoured cars. They were still in service with reserve units up to the 70s
Best Richard
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jun 1, 2019 8:07:03 GMT -6
Richard, you must stick to the point, Poland, France and whoever else who had been overrun in Europe had no country or proper government to fall back on, only Britain stood alone with a government in situ and still in control. Soldiers from many of these countries sought sanctuary here because Britain was still intact and fighting. At this time Britain was surrounded by either Nazi controlled countries, countries that didn’t like us or fascist nations, but we were a magnet to any one who wanted to fight on and rid Europe of the Nazi’s. We even took about over 120.000 French troops with us back to England, a point over looked by the Vichy and a lot of French too by the way.
Would India have helped us if England had fallen? The Aussies and Kiwis plus the Canadians, Kenyans, Rhodesians and South Africans all came to our aid, which speaks volumes for our great commonwealth.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jun 2, 2019 9:22:33 GMT -6
Hi Ian When the United Kingdom declared war on Nazi Germany at the outset of World War II it controlled to varying degrees numerous crown colonies, protectorates and the Indian Empire. It also maintained unique political ties to four semi-independent Dominions—Australia, Canada, South Africa, and New Zealand[1]—as part of the Commonwealth.[2] In 1939 the British Empire was a global power, with direct or de facto political and economic control of 25% of the world's population, and 30% of its land mass.[3]
The contribution of the British Empire and Commonwealth in terms of manpower and materiel was critical to the Allied war effort. From September 1939 to mid-1942 Britain led Allied efforts in almost every global military theatre. Commonwealth forces (United Kingdom, Colonial, Imperial and Dominion), totalling close to 15 million serving men and women, fought the German, Italian, Japanese and other Axis armies, air forces and navies across Europe, Africa, Asia, and in the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic, Indian, Pacific and Arctic Oceans. Commonwealth forces fought in Britain, and across Northwestern Europe in the effort to slow or stop the Axis advance. Commonwealth airforces fought the Luftwaffe to a standstill over Britain, and its armies fought and destroyed Italian forces in North and East Africa and occupied several overseas colonies of German-occupied European nations. Following successful engagements against Axis forces, Commonwealth troops invaded and occupied Libya, Italian Somaliland, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, and Madagascar.[4]
The above from wikipedia Ian.
Add to that the support of the US with oil,food, munitions and dozens of lend lease destroyers.
That Britian was "alone" is the stuff of Battler Britian and such boys own comic books. It was Churchillian propaganda to influence the the Yanks to join the war.
I'll go further and I think I'm right in saying that Britian had the largest navy in world and in the Spitfire a world beater , and in the field of radar and sonar was years ahead of the Germans. And best of all a natural moat that defied the efforts of all including King Philip and Napoleon.
Best Richard
|
|