|
Post by wild on Nov 27, 2011 16:30:42 GMT -6
Gordon Gallantly debated. Stay well
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 27, 2011 16:33:44 GMT -6
Rosebud: You know that's a very good question. By Winchesters I assume you are refering to all of their repeating long arms, regardless of type, model or manufacturer. While someone is coming up with this answer, I wish that answer would include where were they getting the ammunition also.
Now I suspect some of both was obtained by the same methods irregular forces have used throughout the ages, arming themselves through the good offices of their enemies, but certainly not all.
This could prove to be very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Nov 27, 2011 21:44:18 GMT -6
In the latter 60's the Indian agents in Kansas were handing out cw surplus Henry's and some other trade guns. Don't know about the 70's and the agents in the Dakotas.
The NAs traded regularly with civilians all the time. Plenty of opportunity to buy winchesters and ammo.
bc
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on Nov 28, 2011 2:33:48 GMT -6
How....When....Where did the Indians receive their Winchesters? I have heard many stories but not sure what to believe. And a related question, how did they maintain them? I would imagine that the relatively complex and delicate repeating mechanism would be more susceptible to damage compared to the usual breach- or muzzleloaders. This might be especially relevant when considering that according to the archaeological data a significant fraction, and probably even the majority of the repeaters at LBH were first generation .44 RF weapons. If the Indians were able to maintain the repeaters for several years, one source might have been the Bozeman Trail conflict. How many civilians were killed/robbed there? 100, 200? Those would probably have armed themselves with the very best in firearms technology available to them. At least that was the result of the analysis Unruh did for the Oregon Trail, and there the Indian thread was mostly imaginary compared to the Bozeman Trail.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Nov 28, 2011 7:46:02 GMT -6
Why is there an assumption that muzzleloaders did not have to be maintained? Seems any black powder firearms needs to be cleaned to me. How many rounds do we think that Indians put through the lever action firearms?
|
|
jag
Full Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Nov 28, 2011 8:33:32 GMT -6
In the latter 60's the Indian agents in Kansas were handing out cw surplus Henry's and some other trade guns. Don't know about the 70's and the agents in the Dakotas. The NAs traded regularly with civilians all the time. Plenty of opportunity to buy winchesters and ammo. bc That's the answer. And also what they obtained on their raids. As for the maintenance question. What maintenance? How delicate do you think those rifles were? How intricate? You might want the savages to be deaf, dumb and ignorant. But evidently they had performed enough "maintenance" on their guns on June 25, 1876 or you wouldn't be here talking about it.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Nov 28, 2011 9:01:42 GMT -6
In the latter 60's the Indian agents in Kansas were handing out cw surplus Henry's and some other trade guns. Don't know about the 70's and the agents in the Dakotas.
I would think there should be a paper trail describing the guns that the agents were to be handing out to the Indians. Who would get the gun? Would every warrior that was the head of the house be able to have one?
Did the government do away with the evidence that they furnished the Indians with repeating rifles?
Yes I also know about the Bozeman trail. Even if they killed 300 whites on this trail, it would not mean they would be getting many repeating rifles. That is making an assumption that most had repeating rifles.
In the movies, everyone has a repeating rifle. I think the most common rifle on the wagon trains was a shotgun. I don't think the shotgun was ever a weapon of choice by the Indians.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Nov 28, 2011 11:51:48 GMT -6
Let's look at the weapon issue from another angle. A very generous view of Indian arms in 1876 is 25% repeaters, 25% muzzle loaders, and 50% bows.
Yet between the arms issued by US Indian agents, and arms sold by US traders, you would expect 100% repeaters. The Indians could afford the rifles, post ACW prices were low, the equivalent of selling a single pony.
So I think the argument on Indian weaponry is completely wrong. Between Indian agents and US traders and even whacking invading civilian miners, the Indians remained poorly equipped. US agents focused on friendly Indians, the ones least likely to join the hostiles.
Ohhh, Indian agents did leave records. I saw many original documents of weapon issues, listing weapons issues to Indians by name. This was at the library at Fort Leavenworth. There was a very good historian employed by the school, who showed me these. I think his name was Robinson, but I have CRS syndrome.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Nov 28, 2011 12:17:53 GMT -6
Hunk has proposed a culture theory that US racial theories blinded them to the realities of Indian warfare. Now this is certainly true of LTC Custer, and Sheridan and Miles.
Just a reminder. I live 800 meters from a base used by King Philip, 1 mile from one of his battle sites, and within 10 miles of 20 skirmishes from King Philips wars. The US war against Indians lasted 300 years. My ancestors fought in these wars from the 1640s, thru WWI (My grandfather was on Indian duty til he deployed to WW!).
So to say US Army officers were clueless on how to fight Indians is nonsense. This is the LBH problem. You focus only on LBH and only on LTC Custer and extrapolate nonsense.
LTC Custer was court martialed for gross incompetence in 1867. He never should have served with troops again in any capacity. As someone who has commanded troops in combat, I don't get it. The man was deservedly convicted.
The core of Hunk's bad theory is that all officers were like GAC.
They were not.
Crook, Gibbons, Mackenzie, Carter, Chaffee, Gatewood, Crawford.
Many officers showed the ability to understand their enemy and the nature of combat against said enemy, and adapt.
There was no single solution. The enemy tribes had many differing combat traits with respect to arms, equipment, terrain, tactics, etc. It was a war of attrition, no single battle in the 3 centuries of Indian wars was decisive. The smart men knew that. The clowns did not.
Here is the most glaring example that the 7th Cav did not understand the art of war.
Plains warfare meant operating far from railroad and river Lines of Communication (LOC). Experience in last 50 years showed that wagons had tremendous difficulty on the Great Plains.
Crook had proved that mule trains were a force multiplier. Mule trains required experienced leaders and packers, and a 2 year training plan for animals.
So GAC's plan for 1876 is to use wagon mules. He had no trained men, no trained mules, nothing. He did the 1940s musical version of Hey Kids , let us put on a show. It was not that he was unaware of Army experience in working with animal trains. He was not blind and could read. He just had no ability to understand it.
This gets back to the culture argument. LTC Custer believed he would win, solely on the views that so called advanced cultures could not lose to savages.
This view cost us a few hundred men in 1876. From 20001 to 2011 it has cost us thousands of dead.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Nov 28, 2011 12:49:59 GMT -6
My aunt and uncle had a farm in Rehobeth where, as my uncle told it, you could still see the burn marks around the ancient fireplace in the living room from when the Indians torched it during the KPW. Cool house and farm where they boarded horses and had an indoor polo arena and good land to ride. We belonged to the Wamsutta Club and the whole Metacom family was recalled in store and street names all over. We were dragged by school or camp to stare at a rock in Rhode Island, I think, where the Indians met to plan the war. At least as moving as Plymouth Rock, where apparently nothing whatever happened of moment.
Ewell said West Point was great for instructing officers and about 50 dragoons to fight Cheyenne and nothing else whatever. There was experience, but whether they learned correctly from it is dubious.
Still contend that the reactions of small villages and huge ones were different in kind under attack. Small villages could run with most everything intact and did. Large ones not so much, and had to fight.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Nov 28, 2011 14:15:04 GMT -6
Let's look at the weapon issue from another angle. A very generous view of Indian arms in 1876 is 25% repeaters, 25% muzzle loaders, and 50% bows.
Yet between the arms issued by US Indian agents, and arms sold by US traders, you would expect 100% repeaters. The Indians could afford the rifles, post ACW prices were low, the equivalent of selling a single pony.
So I think the argument on Indian weaponry is completely wrong. Between Indian agents and US traders and even whacking invading civilian miners, the Indians remained poorly equipped. US agents focused on friendly Indians, the ones least likely to join the hostiles.
Ohhh, Indian agents did leave records. I saw many original documents of weapon issues, listing weapons issues to Indians by name. This was at the library at Fort Leavenworth. There was a very good historian employed by the school, who showed me these. I think his name was Robinson, but I have CRS syndrome.
Any chance they would have the total number of rifles issued? How about the kind they issued? How did they decide who was hostile? How many years before the LBH was this?
I don't agree with you about how easy it was for an Indian to get a repeating rifle. If it was as easy as you say, there would be far more repeating rifles used at the LBH.
But it is a good start. Thanks.
Rosebud
One more thing A very generous view of Indian arms in 1876 is 25% repeaters, 25% muzzle loaders, and 50% bows.
These are manipulated numbers. One thing we are learning in the last 30 years is the logical number of repeating rifles and other firearms. Spent bullets don't lie as much as testimony. If you want more Indians to be fighting than there actually were, It will mean that they will have to be using a BOW AND ARROW.
I do agree that these numbers are used frequently. Not based on fact but they still use them. I seem to recall that they got some of these numbers from surrender counts. Like they really think the Indians are going to turn in all of the rifles? Not on your life.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Nov 28, 2011 17:49:25 GMT -6
Ewell said West Point was great for instructing officers and about 50 dragoons to fight Cheyenne and nothing else whatever. There was experience, but whether they learned correctly from it is dubious. Could this have been a slap/jab at JEB Stuart who was involved in that fight with Cheyenne in Kansas where Stuart was wounded? I don't know if the two got along or not. bc
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Nov 28, 2011 20:36:15 GMT -6
On the Custer battlefield Scott et al found an equal number of Springfields and repeaters. The were many other weapon type found for a total of 215 with the Springfields total of 69.
|
|