|
Post by redwhiteman on Nov 23, 2005 19:19:48 GMT -6
There has been much speculation about how the outcome of the Battle of the Little Bighorn could have been different if Custer had taken the gatling guns. It has also been written that Custer didn't want to take them because he thought they would slow him down. Whether this is speculation or he actually said this doesn't change my thoughts on the topic. If it is speculation, I disagree with it. If he really said it, I think he knowingly misled the other commanders as to why he didn't want them. If my judgement of Custer is correct, I believe that it was not his idea of a "fair" fight to just shoot down hundreds of warriors like it was no big deal. There was no sport in it. It wasn't in his makeup to want to fight this way. If Custer was going into battle, he wanted to do just that, battle. Not hang back and let someone crank out hundreds of bullets a minute. Again, there just was no sport in it. Very unexciting for a guy like Custer.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Nov 23, 2005 21:33:45 GMT -6
Connell covers the subject rather well. The guns gave Reno fits on his scout, and were drawn by condemned cavalry horses. At times, they had to be unlimbered and moved by manpower. The person operating them was a sitting duck, and they weren't exactly a proven weapon.
And as Connell pointed out in an interesting story, chiefs were taken back to Washington and many different weapons were displayed in their "honour", mostly to intimidate them with the might of the US military. A coastal gun was fired, sending a shell several miles down the Potomac. All the chiefs agreed it was an impressive gun, but that no Indian would sit on a horse in front of it. The same goes for the Gatling guns.
Custer did consider them, thinking the guns would make short work of a village. Herendeen or Gerard suggested a 12 pound howitzer, apparently. Either way, no artillery was taken.
Now, if Custer was fighting the Zulus, the Gatlings would have come in handy. The Brits used them to some success against the Zulus, but they could also count on rifle fire against the African warriors. They fought in ranks, and Zulus had little care for life, and threw wave after wave of densely packed regiments at the Redcoats. But the Lakota and Cheyenne didn't fight this way, and a Gatling gun would have served little purpose.
It is interesting to wonder if Custer didn't think it a sporting weapon. Reminds me of Robert Shaw's Custer and his rejection of the "tank"...
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Dec 1, 2005 9:49:27 GMT -6
Not that this necessarily throws any light, but ... it does seem as if somebody, not necessarily Custer, thought Gatlings were going to be useful in the Hancock campaign. I've just been re-reading the Benteen-Goldin Letters. Where Benteen talks about Custer decamping back to Libbie (p. 249) he describes his own journey to rejoin Custer's command at Fort Wallace thus: "I was held back [at Fort Hays] with party until news from Custer was gotten, then I was to take a four-gun battery of Gatling guns to the regiment, which I did, joining at Fort Wallace, Kans."
Presumably this was Hancock's idea, not Custer's, as they were still awaiting "news from Custer". And whether the guns were for an offensive in the field, or for defence of Fort Wallace and/or stage stations, we don't know. (Maybe the order for them is still on record?) Clearly it's moot, as the whole thing immediately ground to a halt thanks to Custer's arrest and the hopeless condition of his men and horses. The terrain in Kansas was very different, of course; but this does indicate that there was a Gatlings-vs.-Indians mindset around in 1867 ...
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 1, 2005 10:04:05 GMT -6
Does anyone know if Gatling guns were ever used in any on-the-march campaign? They were probably better suited for a fixed position, a la fort, camp, or base as opposed to being carted around.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Dec 1, 2005 12:15:10 GMT -6
Somewhere I have read that McKenzie used Gatling guns with success on, I think, the Red River campaign.
Billy
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 1, 2005 13:52:53 GMT -6
<but this does indicate that there was a Gatlings-vs.-Indians mindset around in 1867 ... >
Which just goes to show that the military still hadn't learned anything about fighting Indians . . . maybe it was the Fetterman "Massacre" that got them thinking that. "If only they had gatlings with them . . ." may have been brandied about. But in reality there must have been someone who knew that hauling gatling guns around in rugged territory and chasing Indians would not have been a good mix. Possibly they would have come in handy at a fort, but how many times did Indians attack forts?
The Civil War would have been an excellent use of gatling guns, but they had just been developed around 1862 and there may have been a lot of "bugs" to be worked out.
The gatlings didn't really come into play until the Spanish American War.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Dec 1, 2005 17:01:45 GMT -6
Elisabeth, thanks for the nudge to my decrepit memory cells. I recall that Godfrey at the Medicine Lodge Treaty was officer-in-charge of what I seem to remember were Gatling guns. Perhaps they were howitzers? Somewhere I have his reminisces of the Medicine Lodge Treaty council and will try to dig it up...which may come sooner than later as my four rolls of film FINALLY arrived from the National Archives (I had to get them before the price increased 91%) so I now have to make room down here in my office area for the microfilm reader. *sigh* No more using any available flat area, floor included, as a storage area...
Billy
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Dec 1, 2005 22:11:31 GMT -6
I know this is WAY off topic, but Billy's comment about his microfilm reader prompts me to ask if anyone has purchased a reader that enables you to view and save pages on your computer. I googled it and got even more confused by the choices. Any product recommendations (or warnings) would be appreciated.
Now you can go back to the Gatling guns. ;D
|
|
|
Post by stevewilk on Dec 1, 2005 23:03:02 GMT -6
An interesting incident where the Gatling was employed in battle with Indians was at Birch Creek, Idaho, 8 July 1878. The steamship Spokane was converted into a makeshift gunboat, armed with cannon and a gatling gun. The ship, with 19 soldiers and 42 volunteers engaged Bannock warriors along the banks of the Columbia River, shelling and strafing the hostiles, driving them from their positions entrenched among rocks along shore.
Had the Gatling been a much lighter weapon, able to be transported on mules and mounted on tripods, it most likely would have seen more action in the field. As it was, the gun was more suited to guarding depots and base camps, giving the small details stationed there some psychological assurance of added defense and firepower.
|
|
|
Post by stevewilk on Dec 1, 2005 23:20:44 GMT -6
correction....this occurred in Oregon, not Idaho.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 2, 2005 8:41:14 GMT -6
I got this off a forum regarding Gatling Guns:
Not the Plains but a Gatling was used near Chilicoot Pass in the early 1880's. There were some natives who had been giving the whites who were prospecting a hard time. The Revenue Service (todays Coast Guard) brought a Gatling ashore and demonstrated it. No more trouble .
|
|
|
Post by markland on Dec 2, 2005 8:59:47 GMT -6
I know this is WAY off topic, but Billy's comment about his microfilm reader prompts me to ask if anyone has purchased a reader that enables you to view and save pages on your computer. I googled it and got even more confused by the choices. Any product recommendations (or warnings) would be appreciated. Now you can go back to the Gatling guns. ;D Off-topic, that is my life! Diane, the LDS Library at Salt Lake City have them for genealogists. The can read the microfilm normally and save the pages to a CD-R. I will do some checking around to see what I can find. Just in case I beat out Crab and win the Powerball one day. Billy
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Dec 2, 2005 12:01:24 GMT -6
one of the earliest know uses of gatlings on the plains was by the 7th against a buffalo stampede in Kansas. In fact, the Army sometimes used the guns just for that -- fast food.
But the Army didn't see the guns as offensive weapons.
The Navy put them to good use on their earliest battleships aas early as 1880's, IIRC. The US Navy had the first fully electrified ships and used an electric powered motor to run gatlings to get 3000-6000 rpm out of them. This was a perfect marriage as a battleship could carry a number of gatlings and all the heavy ammo.
Today's machine gun and especially the Vulcan still use the same gatling technology.
Ref Gatling Gun: 19th Century machine gun to 21st Century Vulcan by Joseph Berk, 1991; Has an entire chapter devoted to the LBH campaign gatlings.
And remember "condemed" cavalry horses meant they were unfit to carry a rider and gear, but they could still pull.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Dec 2, 2005 14:32:18 GMT -6
And remember "condemed" cavalry horses meant they were unfit to carry a rider and gear, but they could still pull. While still being able to pull, the combination of the Gatlings and the horses were not a good one. The horses may have still have had some life in 'em, but they weren't the cream of the crop. And the Gatling guns were a hindrance. It wasn't all the fault of the beasts of burden, but it couldn't have helped.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Dec 3, 2005 1:21:35 GMT -6
Is it possible it was partly a question of what the aim of the mission was? If it had been extermination, the Gatlings would have made short work of a village. They'd have mown down a pony herd pretty effectively too. So their absence perhaps reinforces the idea that it was more of a rounding-up mission than a punishment one?
|
|