|
Post by sherppa on Aug 11, 2008 20:53:48 GMT -6
Greetings, I am new to this site so please bare with me if this should be else where.
I made my first trip to LBH last week and in listening to the Rangers give their presentations, of which I was able to hear two, both made mention of the Warrior's limited use of repeating arms, (which is another question for later). They also spoke of the Warriors extensive use of bow and arrow and gave strong indication that they were used largely as an indirect fire weapon. Firing from the cover of the ravine and arching their arrows en-mass onto the exposed Troopers.
Please relate your thoughts.
thank you,
sherppa
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Aug 11, 2008 22:26:19 GMT -6
sherppa:
Welcome to the forum.
That arching arrow fire is generally accepted by most observers as being credible, because it makes sense, and there are a few accounts which mention it. Whether or not the preponderance of the evidence indicates that such was the case is a horse of another color, and I'll leave it up to you to decide for yourself, once you have dug around a while.
As to the limited use of repeating arms, it might well be noted that the troops had less than the warriors, except in the form of their revolvers. As the fights progressed, the superiority of the warriors' firepower increased, as they took possession of the dead or wounded soldiers' weapons. Very few of the government personnel carried repeating rifles or carbines.
If you are really interested, you might consult the archaeology-related books published since 1984, including They Died With Custer, and see how many of the remains uncovered showed evidence of arrow wounds.
You should always be more interested in facts rather than peoples' thoughts, in my opinion FWIW. There are many strange or illusory thoughts expressed by posters on this forum, as you will see when you have had a chance to read through some of the threads - and they are not all under Broken Sword's Nut House.
Clouds of arrrows makes a nice mental image, however.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 12, 2008 7:10:50 GMT -6
<Clouds of arrrows makes a nice mental image, however>
Remember the scene in SOMS near the end of Custer's demise . . . when a shot of hundreds of arrows were flying through the air?
The use of arrows fired from concealment may not have been effective in finding a target . . . then again if hundreds of arrows were fired the odds of some hitting someone/thing may have taken it's toll, or at least kept soldiers from revealing themselves to take careful aim at warrior positions.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 12, 2008 7:35:58 GMT -6
It would be helpful if people dumped all memory of LBH novels, TV shows, and movies, especially terrible ones like SOTMS where the tubercular thin and chinless Custer is portrayed by as strapping giant and Benteen looks like a longhaired hippy using current lingo. "Mistakes were made." It bore no resemblance to the book except title.
It would be hard to believe that friendly fire wasn't a major factor on that field with the dust and missed shots from one area plowing into another.
And it's worth repeating: all archaeology can do is announce an item manufactured before the battle was found at a certain location. It cannot prove who fired it at what, that it was fired at the battle, that it was ever fired at the field. The field saw other fights, it was salted by staff and probably others, it is the Heidi Fleiss of battlefields.
The primary sources for description of the bodies mention lots of arrows. Whether fired in battle or after by children into the dead is unknown and remains so.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 12, 2008 7:58:12 GMT -6
Is there accounts of Indians practicing indirect fire? I suspect that it more of cover/concealment fire with a quick look at the target and then arching the arrow from cover/concealment. Just below the crest of a ridge for example.
What was an effective range for arrow fire using the maximum elevation capable of producing the maximum distance by the Indians at LBH?
d = v^2 * sin(2*a) / g
Maybe some of our Google map experts could come up with locations adjacent last stand hill that would have available cover to deploy indirect fire. I think here would be sweet spot range that would be more effective and could define the location. I think it would be hard to hit some with indirect fire within 50 yards of the archer also there has to be some maximum that would be impossible say X yards or less.
The old saying where there is lead there is hope could apply to arrows also.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 12, 2008 11:31:17 GMT -6
Something like this, I'd imagine...
|
|
walkingstar
New Member
Life is but a dream...
Posts: 39
|
Post by walkingstar on Aug 12, 2008 11:59:05 GMT -6
Fox, "Archeology and History" writes of an Indian infiltration via Calhoun Coulée which endangered Calhoun's "led" horses. As a result, "C" troop (or a portion thereof) was ordered, by Keogh, ordered to that position to clear the infiltrators. He further writes that a number of warriors dug in at Greasy Grass Ridge possessed firearms, including "carbines captured from Reno's command."
As the "C" company filed down Calhoun Coulée, the warriors located there initial withdrew into the recesses until Indian firing from Greasy Grass Ridge halted the impetus of the trooper movement. As the troopers retreated, warriors hovering in the recess opened fire as well
The action described are, of course, examples of direct firing. The Indians were not keen on direct charges and, would have used both styles to their advantage.
|
|
|
Post by crawdaddo on Aug 13, 2008 1:02:17 GMT -6
Thats excellent conz,a picture's worth a 1000 etc.s.....
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 13, 2008 7:32:30 GMT -6
That is very good Conz. Can you take the same image with LSH as a center point and put circle around it with a 200 yard radius. That is my ballpark for arrows at LBH.
Looking into arrow distance fire I can find nothing on Indian bow and arrows. I did find that a 45 degrees angle release provides just about maximum distance and the shocker that an arrow can travel 1,336 yards which is the record for hand held and pulled. 900 yards was possible at the time of LBH. I do not know anything about the capability of the equipment used by the Indians at LBH. I assume a lot less than that distance based upon the length of the bow and arrows that I have seen. I do have experience with compound bows and modern arrows since they are used for hunting.
Thanks
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 13, 2008 7:44:14 GMT -6
Bow hunters know that the closer you are to a target/animal the better chance of hitting it. Bows are not overly accurate beyond close range. It all depends on the hunter/warrior and, of course, the latest types of bows--compound which have great distance capability, but were not even a dream back during the LBH.
In addition Indian bows were far smaller and lightweight making it easier to carry and transport.
Most warriors must have been very good with bow & arrow. Once they acquired firearms the bow probably became less desirable and the gun a "must-have" weapon, still the B&A was an effective weapon in a warrior's hands.
From Indian accounts from the LBH the B&A seemed to be a major weapon used, especially during the Custer fight.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 13, 2008 8:13:43 GMT -6
Fox, "Archeology and History" writes of an Indian infiltration via Calhoun Coulée which endangered Calhoun's "led" horses. As a result, "C" troop (or a portion thereof) was ordered, by Keogh, ordered to that position to clear the infiltrators. He further writes that a number of warriors dug in at Greasy Grass Ridge possessed firearms, including "carbines captured from Reno's command." As the "C" company filed down Calhoun Coulée, the warriors located there initial withdrew into the recesses until Indian firing from Greasy Grass Ridge halted the impetus of the trooper movement. As the troopers retreated, warriors hovering in the recess opened fire as well The action described are, of course, examples of direct firing. The Indians were not keen on direct charges and, would have used both styles to their advantage. I agree completely with this event model. As you say, this was direct fire, and close combat, rather than indirect arrow fire. Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 13, 2008 8:28:26 GMT -6
Here you go...400 yards is stretching it, but still probably used by some. Note that accuracy for these guys is not important, except to get an arrow, shot up in the air, to land almost straight down within a hundred meter circle or so. Also remember that as many rifles as the Natives had, the vast majority (probably two-thirds) used arrow fire, both direct and indirect as the circumstances warranted.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 13, 2008 11:49:53 GMT -6
Thanks Clair
So shifting the center point upward in the photo would have only the two Indian locations from which to be within a 200 yard range and possibly in a cross fire with each other.
The one Indian group in the top left looks too close to use indirect fire at the right end of the group. I think it would be hard to reach only 30 yards distance with indirect fire. It would be a very steep angle. On the other side it looks like if they over shoot the would be landing on their own people. Group on right shooting toward LSH withing high arcing indirect fire.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 14, 2008 2:01:23 GMT -6
Clair, might it be interesting to do the same exercise using, say, Calhoun Hill or Horseholders' Ravine as the centre point? I believe some Indian accounts talk of causing chaos among horseholders by means of this kind of indirect fire. (Makes sense, as they'd be bunched and an easier target.) It could also make sense that there might be more arrow fire in the early stages of the fight, before so many warriors had had the chance to pick up firearms from Custer's dead. Just a thought, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 14, 2008 12:26:35 GMT -6
I'll try that later...won't have time this week, I'm afraid. But I get the sense from reports that the Warriors didn't use a lot of indirect fire on Calhoun, because they couldn't get close enough, and L Co may not have been as "massed" in a tight circle as F Co/HQ was atop LSH.
But its always good to study firing positions on any field...
Clair
|
|