|
Post by benteen on Dec 21, 2015 23:22:12 GMT -6
Dan I believe you are correct regarding it being Miles. Good to hear from you again. Merry Christmas to you and yours Dan. Regards Dave Dave, Thank you my friend, and the best always to you and for family for a Merry Christmas, and a healthy and safe new year. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 22, 2015 8:49:11 GMT -6
<General Crook at the Rosebud, with a command of some 1,200 men faced an Indian force of similar, if not smaller numbers. Crook's command fired around 20,000 rounds of ammunition inflicting minimal casualties>
I don't think it's that uncommon for a soldier, soldiers or an entire command to fire far more rounds to hit an enemy than needed. Look at WWII films of anti-aircraft fire from battleships and the huge number of rounds being fired to hit a Japanese fighter plane. Then the videos of US soldiers in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere who use automatic weapons and fire numerous rounds. How many of those rounds actually hit anything?
Training always has a part in use of weapons and firing them, but in battle you aren't thinking about how many rounds it will take but firing as much to take out someone/something that is trying to kill you!
It's sorta like a photographer taking dozens if not hundreds of photos to get that one great shot!
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Dec 22, 2015 10:48:41 GMT -6
<General Crook at the Rosebud, with a command of some 1,200 men faced an Indian force of similar, if not smaller numbers. Crook's command fired around 20,000 rounds of ammunition inflicting minimal casualties> I don't think it's that uncommon for a soldier, soldiers or an entire command to fire far more rounds to hit an enemy than needed. Look at WWII films of anti-aircraft fire from battleships and the huge number of rounds being fired to hit a Japanese fighter plane. Then the videos of US soldiers in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere who use automatic weapons and fire numerous rounds. How many of those rounds actually hit anything? Training always has a part in use of weapons and firing them, but in battle you aren't thinking about how many rounds it will take but firing as much to take out someone/something that is trying to kill you! It's sorta like a photographer taking dozens if not hundreds of photos to get that one great shot! Horse, I agree with your main point, but if I am allowed to tweak it a little bit, you are leaving out a very important factor. That is re-supply. All Armies stress marksmanship but I believe that it was more important back in 1876 than the present. In the examples you gave of WW2 and Iran etc, these people in most cases, not all, could be re-supplied either by truck, air drop, helicopter etc. In 1876 all you had was what you could bring with you. Crook is a good example. When he was low on ammo he had to return to his supply base at Goose Creek and give up any gains he had made. Even your example of the photographer deals with supply. Sure he can snap away because he knows he has a box of film, take one out snap another in. But if he only had one roll, the one in his camera with 20 shots in it, he would have to be a lot more prudent. But I get your main point and it is a good one, I agree. Be Well Merry Christmas to you and yours Dan
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 22, 2015 11:47:12 GMT -6
Benteen:
We know the pack animals carried thousands of rounds of extra ammo. Custer to Benteen: "bring packs". I don't think it was a problem of resupply just a matter of getting the ammo to where it was needed. As far as the Reno Fight the soldiers were doing a good job of defending themselves but it was only after Reno ordered his "charge to the rear" did the command suffer heavy casualties. Again ammo was not the issue but a proper "fall back" with skirmishers in place to hold off warriors while the soldiers escaped failed to materialize.
From accounts by warriors we knew they picked up ammo and ammo belts from fallen soldiers so not having enough ammo doesn't appear to be the main reason the command suffered the defeat.
More than likely failure by officers to recognize exactly what was taking place, skilled warriors being able to infiltrate and use whatever arms they had to inflict casualties and separation of commands led to the destruction of Custer's command and the heavy casualties to Reno's command.
Firepower can only be so good when it was used properly, had resolute officers controlling their men and not running in the face of an enemy.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Dec 23, 2015 5:40:25 GMT -6
I recall ordering for just 25 officers and each thought something that cost $100 was not asking for much. I told them they had to multiply it by 25. The same holds in reverse with the ammunition on the pack train. 24,000 cartridges is 40 rounds per trooper. Which is around what some troopers with Reno fired in less than one hour.
They were transporting 100 rounds per trooper or around 60,000 rounds with them.
I think the photos are a great example. One roll or even a couple as compared to the thousands I have on my digital camera.
If they had used up the 60,000 the 24,000 might be needed for further engagement while moving back to resupply.
Custers 21,000 rounds were not available to the troopers on Reno/Benteen. Some of the ammunition was being used against Reno.
I agree with Dan that marksmanship is important when at best you have 140 rounds per trooper and the Indians out number you.
At 10% hits the 7th did not have enough ammunition to take out all of the Indians.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Dec 23, 2015 5:50:52 GMT -6
Training always has a part in use of weapons and firing them, but in battle you aren't thinking about how many rounds it will take but firing as much to take out someone/something that is trying to kill you!
I hope that is exactly what the enemy or bad guy is thinking. Just fire and don't aim.
Someone is thinking about how many rounds they need to order to insure there is enough to make whatever percentage it takes to make hits when they order the ammunition.
Wyatt Earp paraphrase --- You can't miss fast enough to win a gunfight
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Dec 23, 2015 8:07:52 GMT -6
1. Collective firing. The point I was trying to raise was that unit firing is more than the individual skill and ability with their assigned weapons. Officers and noncommissioned officers are responsible for determining when to fire, when to cease fire, target priorities, fire distribution, ammunition control etc.
The 7th routinely fired at ridiculous ranges, where they threw fire away. With a limited ammunition supply, this was foolish.
2. Ammunition resupply. I know we say 40 rifle rounds a man, with 60 in saddle bags. Poster Gerry helped me out here, as did other reenactors. The cartridge box only held 20 rounds. So they had 20 rounds on their person, and 80 in saddle bags. This explains why M Company had to send soldiers back to their horses so quickly. It also shows the good sense of French and Ryan in keeping their horse line near their firing line.
The 7th should have ordered 700ish cartridge boxes before the campaign started, so each man could have 40 rounds on his person. Realistic training would have identified this issue. The second cartridge box is kept on the saddle or saddle bag, and taken with the soldier when he dismounts. This is better than grabbing a handful of loose rounds or an unopened box.
3. Supply train ammunition. The purpose of the ammunition in the trains was not, in any way, shape or form, related to an in battle resupply. The intent was to sustain the regiment to continue combat operations after a single engagement. Too often in the Indian wars a unit could only fight one engagement, and then had to leave the operational area due to lack of sustainment. Basically, they were blowing their unit basic load, which was a common term in my career, not sure now. The abbreviation is UBL< which is also what was used for Usama Bin Laden.
Just a reminder, Custer had been criticized for poor tactical command control and tactical decisions with respect to his trains, pretty much in every battle he ever had. At Washita he had his units cache their snivel gear in an unprotected area, quickly overrun by the enemy. He also took away the train guard, and it ended up the trains were heading into enemy occupied areas, with no warning from GAC that he had lost control of this area.
The decision to go from a wagon train to a mule train was new for the 7th. It was made in early Feb, by the purchase orders for the pack systems (I can't remember name of the mule pack systems, begins with an A). I am certain GAC was behind this decision, though the paper trail does not show whether it was him or Terry.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Dec 23, 2015 11:06:17 GMT -6
When I used to deer hunt, each season we would zero our scopes in for 100 yards---live in the hills and forests of North Mississippi---and shoot a box of 20 rounds for practice. After zeroing and practice we needed to clean the rifles since the barrel would get so dirty after firing 20 rounds. When qualifying for the police department, shooting 48 rounds with a S&W 686, 38 +P 145 grain hollow points the revolver was so dirty that the barrel had to be at least brushed to carry out further shooting. I know from experience that if you don't hit what your aiming for you go hungry. Deer and ducks don't fall down when a shot is close only when hit. The soldiers firing at the Indians and not hitting would not stop an attack. Wouldn't their carbines be extremely dirty from using black powder and need to be swabbed during the fight? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Dec 23, 2015 12:58:56 GMT -6
I think it was a Sawbuck or A-Frame system used for the mules.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Dec 24, 2015 6:29:49 GMT -6
Maybe Aparajo
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Jul 29, 2018 5:04:51 GMT -6
Stumbled over this the other day. Turned off half way, and I actually felt sad after watching.
|
|