|
Post by conz on Oct 24, 2007 8:17:51 GMT -6
The use of the word "ordered" is somewhat interesting, as opposed to "authorized" which might be the more common usage [ask Clair]. If I recall correctly, this may have been a means of paying Herendeen for two boats that were lost previously - anyway it seems to me that Herendeen had something to do with these [or other] boats. I think that's how he came to be there in the first place. Off topic a tad, but there you go. You know, that is very perceptive of you. Yes, "authorized" would normally be used. The use of "ordered" makes me feel that the quartermaster was in a fight with Herendeen over this, and the later appealed to Terry, who gave the QM an ORDER to do it! And in writing, too...as perhaps the QM demanded to justify his books to any later inquiry. The penurious Army in that day was quite picky about such things... (well, still are, as any officer who has gone through a change of command inventory or Inspector General's audit will attest ). How'd you like to pay for a tank you lost out of your own pocket?! Some officers have.... Clair
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Oct 25, 2007 13:37:09 GMT -6
Bradandlaurie's our Gatling expert, so maybe he could confirm whether the broken tongue would have any effect. (Wish we knew how/if they repaired it. They had blacksmiths along in each company, but presumably nothing they could use. There'd be enlisted men with carpentry skills; maybe they'd have been able to splint it together with horseshoe nails? Or even simply lash splints to it with rope. Or cut a new one from green wood. They clearly did something to get the thing moving again.) To this non-expert, it seems unlikely they'd have continued to drag it around if it was completely useless; more sensible to cache it, or even send the team back to base camp with an escort, rather than going to all that trouble. But we'll see what the experts say.
By dint of having friends in high places and some heavy duty grovelling I now have a copy of the 1977 Reno Scout article by Hardorff from which I have gleaned the following:- "Near the mouth of the Rosebud.....the Gatling battery had been hauled, its mobility achieved mostly by the physical efforts of the artillerymen. However, all forward progress had come to an abrupt halt at the edge of a steep bluff. Here the carriage was the abandoned due to complete exhaustion of the crew. Nevertheless, Lieutenant Kinzie indignantly rejected Major Reno's proposal to cache the gun[italics mine]; and on the following morning a special detail was sent back with ropes to lower the battery from the bluffs." This ties in with Reno's dispatch to Terry of June 19th, "...and I had given orders to cache the [Gatling] gun, but [Lt.] Kinzie is coming in all right." So it appears that the 'battery' refers to the gun+carriage ensemble and that it was with Reno's scouting command at the end of the scout, but perhaps irreparable. One further bit of information from that article relates to your comments about the state of the mules. "Most crucial to the physical condition of the right wing was the twice-traveled route between the Tongue and the Rosebud - sixty-six miles over the worst terrain imaginable. Inevitably Reno's command had to pay the price, which consisted of physically exhausted troopers, faded horses and debilitated mules, of which thirteen of the latter broke down completely."[italics mine] Hunk
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Oct 26, 2007 3:25:20 GMT -6
Thanks for the heavy duty grovelling, Hunk -- well worth it!
Yes, there's no doubt that all the livestock must have been pretty well tired out by the end of the scout. Thompson says the horses had become "quite jaded", and there's a letter Yates wrote to his wife saying his horse was almost played out and that he himself had lost twenty pounds in weight. Thompson says they found good grazing at their camp-site on the 19th, however. The question is, I suppose, how long it would take the animals to bounce back from that kind of ordeal.
What sources is Hardorff using for the Gatling story, and indeed for everything else in the article? I'm aware of De Wolf's diary, plus there's Thompson, plus Reno's brief report; is there anything else? For instance, did Kinzie ever write anything about it?
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Oct 26, 2007 3:47:11 GMT -6
The basis Hardorff uses is the itinerary of Sergeant James Hill, a man who apparently had some technical knowledge of geology and had struck up an acquaintance because of it, with the Chief Engineer, Lieutenant Maguire. Hill was thus appointed the thired itinerarist for Reno's scout. Hardorff states that Hill's account is authentic and 'not only tallies closely with Dr. DeWolf's diary, but also agrees exactly with the miles as stated in Major Reno's dispatch on June 19, 1876.'
Hunk
|
|
|
Post by blaque on Oct 26, 2007 4:14:41 GMT -6
What sources is Hardorff using for the Gatling story, and indeed for everything else in the article? I'm aware of De Wolf's diary, plus there's Thompson, plus Reno's brief report; is there anything else? For instance, did Kinzie ever write anything about it? Elisabeth, According to the Stewart & Luce article on the Reno Scout, Kinzie should have kept an itinerary of the march, but he did not. Lt. Sturgis, as the official itinerist, kept one, but it became another casualty of the LBH. Besides DeWolf’s diary, the Camp interviews to Pvts. McGuire and Thompson, and the latter’s account, Hardorff based his study –as Hunk points out– on the diary of First Sargeant James Hill of B Co. As per Willert, it was a bit more detailed and accurate than DeWolf’s, and a copy of it was submitted to Terry’s HQ.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Oct 26, 2007 4:37:22 GMT -6
Of course. I should have remembered that you posted the full title initially. (Dumb.) That's great. Too often, with this under-reported scout in particular, one gets the feeling that the same few snippets are being endlessly recycled from writer to writer, with no guarantee that they're not gaining dramatic detail with each re-telling. This, from a fresh and, by the sound of it, objective source, must be immensely valuable.
Slightly off-topic, but not entirely: does this make the right wing a rather surprising choice as Custer's own assault force on the 25th? We're often told these were Custer's "favourite" companies, but that seems a poor reason to choose them if they were still suffering from the after-effects of this gruelling scout. (And the "favourite" status is in any case generally deduced from the fact that he chose them, so it's rather circular logic.) Assuming he had any basic common sense as a cavalryman, either the horses had fully recovered by then, or he was aware that they were in poorer condition than others. He chooses Benteen's relatively fresh companies for the scout-to-the-left. He chooses Reno's relatively fresh companies for what looks at the time like a "hot pursuit" mission. Could it be that what he intends for his own battalion is something more like a blocking action rater than anything as taxing as a charge? ------ But no; he takes them a further 4 miles, and at speed, so it looks as if he's not worried about their capability.
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Oct 26, 2007 5:16:19 GMT -6
Hi Elisabeth
Your comment about the relative freshness of Benteen's horses might give an interesting sidelight on the purpose of his mission to the left.
As you know my theory is that Benteen was expected to enter the valley via some potentially arduous terrain rather than have a gentle trot on the left flank.
It is not a conclusive point but one more small indicator that Benteen's mission was a substantial one.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Oct 26, 2007 6:41:24 GMT -6
[quote author=blaque board=basics thread=1193076390 post=1193393681
According to the Stewart & Luce article on the Reno Scout, Kinzie should have kept an itinerary of the march, but he did not. [/quote][/blockquote] In his article Hardorff does say "...while Lieutenant Frank X. Kinzie, also appointed to engineer officer, did not take any readings due to logistical problems (Lieutenant Kinzie was in command of the Gatling battery and was predominately occupied in keeping up with Reno's cavalry.)" Another example of the Gatling guns being a nuisance, this time on two fronts, and perhaps Custer had been reminded of this when he refused the guns after initially accepting them.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Oct 26, 2007 8:46:27 GMT -6
Gray suggests (Custer's Last Campaign, p. 185) that the Gatling may have been fitted with an odometer. This makes sense in the light of the agreements as to mileage. If so, with both Hill and Sturgis on the case, Kinzie may have felt he'd already made his contribution?
Yes, there's definitely got to be some reason for Custer changing his mind on the Gatlings. It seems unlikely he was talking much to Reno on that day -- much less listening -- so presumably it was one of the other right wing officers who warned him. (Maybe even young Sturgis, hence his remarks on the 22nd about accepting suggestions from the humblest lieutenant?) Or perhaps he'd had a chance to read the itinerists' reports by then. He'd surely need to read them before setting off, to know as much as he could of the trail ahead ...
Mike: nice point.
|
|
andym
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by andym on Apr 4, 2008 18:36:13 GMT -6
It has long been my contention that the Gatlings could keep up with the cavalry anytime they wanted. On the Reno Scout, where the Gatling tipped over, is in the west pasture of the L/W Ranch, where I've hunted mule deer for over 20 years. It is indeed, rough country. It's the beginning of Lay Creek, just below Liscomb Butte, which the detachment took to the Tongue River. The carriage tongue was repaired promptly and when Reno crossed from the Tongue over to the Rosebud, it kept up just fine and went up the Rosebud, the same exact route that Custer would take in a few days! This in itself, says that Custer was just using a poor excuse for not taking the offered Gatlings with him, saying they would slow him up. Phooey! He just didn't want anything or anyone else to get any glory. I have said time and again, if Custer would have had Gatlings at the Little Big Horn, there would have been no battle. The Indians weren't a bunch of dummies, they knew they couldn't fight Gatlings, they would have evaporated and fought at a different time and location of their choosing. You don't see them fighting Terry/Gibbon coming up the Big Horn with Gatlings! It's also why Reno didn't see any Indians. The Indians saw Reno with the Gatling and didn't want any part of it, so they didn't let Reno see them. The Army dragged Gatlings around the West for how many years? and you can't find an incident where they made a significant contribution in a battle with Indians. I'll say it again - the Indians didn't want any part of Gatlings.
|
|
|
Post by rch on Apr 7, 2008 13:07:56 GMT -6
1. The photos of the Black Hills Expedition show the men of the Gatling Gun and Cannon Detachment walking beside their guns. Since they were walking, it may have been harder for them to keep up. The Lt commanding the gun that went with Reno on his scout was also assigned to provide an itinerary of the march, but according to Lt Maguire he was too busy trying to bring the gun through to work on the itinerary.
2. Why would there be less glory for Custer as the commanding officer of a reinfroced demi-brigade than as the commander of the 7th Cavalry alone?
3. Was a Gatling crank ever turned on a Plains Indian or where Indians just scared of all towed artillery?
rch
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Apr 7, 2008 13:50:07 GMT -6
rch-
Point of personal order: were the Gats considered artillery, or were they seen as an infantry weapons system?
M
|
|
|
Post by rch on Apr 7, 2008 15:39:41 GMT -6
According to Ernest L. Reedstrom in "Bugles, Banners, and War Bonnets" the Gatlings were part of the "artillery arm," and the manual for the Gatling gun refered to the crewmen as "cannoneers."
In fact by 1876 the artillery's manpower had been drastically reduced, and it was mostly concentrated at coastal forts. There were only five light (or field) artlllery batteries in the Army. When the artillery took the field during the Indian Wars they usually went as infantry.
From the Little Big Horn Campaign and the Black Hills Expedition it appears that when Gatling batteries were formed for service in the field, they were made up of men drawn from infantry regiments.
The Gatling gun does not seem to be specifcally an infanrty weapon. They were usually scattered among many posts, and the infantrymen who made up Low's battery were by Custer's orders to receive special training, which may mean that they were no more familiar with the guns than anyone else. And the guns the battery used were the ones that had been posted beforehand to Ft Lincoln and Ft Rice.
In the post Civil War years the cavalry suffered the fewest cuts in manpower, so it sppears the policy was to keep as many cavalrymen mounted as possible, hence the use of infantrymen with the Gatling guns.
rch
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Apr 7, 2008 17:53:58 GMT -6
Gatlings would have been slow even if Dan Patch and Nancy Hanks had been pulling them -- they broke down constantly, tipped over and broke their tree, had to be dismantled to get them acvross ravines.
There are letters and journal entries at the time on the trouble the gatlings were. One of the Doctor's journals talks of men injured by one tipping over. Reno cached them on his scout because they were such a nuisence. And it had little to do with the animals pulling them -- the units themselves were slow to use.
Also, the Army did not think of gatlings in terms of offensive weaponry then. It was seen as defensive. The circa 1872 .50 caliber guns weighed about 1600 lbs each, had to have 10 mules devoted only to that ammo which meant another 6-8 men tied up with the pack train; ammo could not be shared by any other weapon in the regiment; gatlings had to be fired standing up, with no cover, 2 more men were needed to bring ammo and to physically move the unit in order to sweep the field.
Custer was on a fast march, looking for fast-moving "hostiles." Gatlings just weren't Army mindset then
Ironically, one of the first known uses of gatlings on the plains was by the 7th to stop a buffalo stampede (and they ate well for weeks)
I think MacKenzie used them against a Kiowa village in 1874.
I have a book on the Gatling -- 19th century machine gun to 20th Century Vulcan. An entire chapter is devoted to Custer and those gatlings.
As for use against Indians - well you'd have to completely surprise the NA's in order to set up the gatlings. Then stand while firing. 2 more men to help move the gun to sweep the field and deliver more ammo.
alfuso
|
|
|
Post by clw on Apr 7, 2008 20:26:16 GMT -6
It's pretty well documented that the only sign Reno's scouts saw of the Lakota was 2-3 weeks old. Didn't have anything to do with gatlings. They just weren't there.
|
|