|
Post by jodak on Jun 15, 2016 7:12:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jun 20, 2016 15:54:55 GMT -6
jodak,
you should have been in Rapid City, the Director of the Fur Trade Museum(a PHD) confirmed that the NA's were better armed, gave a breakdown of the weapons, and the repeaters were only a part of that.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 21, 2016 10:29:06 GMT -6
I find it hard to believe the Indians were better armed than the soldiers. There may have been a number of warriors with Winchesters but the vast majority of then would have had inferior weapons, let alone decent enough ammunition as the soldiers.
The Indians didn't have enough ammunition to waste on practicing their shooting let alone the type of ammunition for a particular weapon.
This may be another excuse to explain why the military failed and the Indians won. How could "wild savages" beat a organzied, well trained and supplied western military command led by the most famous (not best) Indian fighter unless they had superior weapons. They couldn't have won because of intelligence, bravery, love of family and culture. There is always an excuse when a major defeat is suffered. Rather than blaming themselves they look for excuses.
I always get perturbed when someone tries to explain why Custer lost rather than why the Indians won and it wasn't about who had better weapons.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Jun 21, 2016 14:50:43 GMT -6
I don't know a lot about the weapons used at Little Big Horn but tend to believe the quality of the individuals fighting was titled to the Native Americans. Their skill craft, hunting and tracking, the absolute need for bringing home game along with traditional stories of warfare would qualify them to run circles around the average trooper of the 7th. I would say that I believe Tom would not have posted the info about the Indians being better armed if he did not believe it as well as the PhD (Piled higher Deeper) who had the info. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Ammunition
Jun 21, 2016 17:41:11 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by edavids on Jun 21, 2016 17:41:11 GMT -6
crzhrs & dave, Wen defending hearth and home, whether white, red, or black, the betting should always be on the defender, unless there is overwhelming force from the attacker. It's psychology, not who is more equipped with superior weapons. We are discussing the LBH, NOT MODERN WARFARE. Regards, Pequod Army of Northern Virginia a great case in point. Their worst defeats were at Antietam and Gettysburg; attempts to invade the North. Chancellorsville and Fredericksburg, genius on one side, stupidity on t'other. Best, David
|
|
|
Ammunition
Jun 21, 2016 21:35:11 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by edavids on Jun 21, 2016 21:35:11 GMT -6
jodak, you should have been in Rapid City, the Director of the Fur Trade Museum(a PHD) confirmed that the NA's were better armed, gave a breakdown of the weapons, and the repeaters were only a part of that. Perhaps a dash of the NAs being much more adept close quarter combat and better equipped for same had something to do with the debacle?
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jun 22, 2016 7:11:58 GMT -6
czhrs,
30 % had the 50-70 early version of the trapdoor, Henry, 1866 Winchester, a few Spencer's and even a few Model 73's. Beyond that there were percussion ACW trade guns and pistols. So we have better than 60% with firearms, and that is a low estimate. You do the math. That still amounts to more guns than the 7th, no matter how you count the NA's.
How's the growing season going for you.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Jun 22, 2016 10:25:46 GMT -6
Maybe some clarification is in order as to what is meant by “better armed”. Tom is making the point that the Indians had more firearms, perhaps even more modern firearms, so in that sense they could be construed as being better armed. For the sake of argument let’s assume that there were 4000 warriors present, if we accept Windolph’s estimate, which most seem to, that ½ were armed with bows, ¼ with older firearms, and ¼ with modern firearms, that amounts to around 1000 with modern firearms, which was greater than the soldier total. However, where I take exception is the notion that, on an individual basis, the Indian repeating rifles were superior to the army Springfields simply by virtue of being repeaters. In any discussion that we have about the matter it seems as if that is always the contention, along with questioning why the army did not also utilize repeaters and the underlying assertion that they were incompetent or stupid for not doing so. As the article that I linked a few days ago details, the Springfields were chosen after a detailed selection process that deemed them superior in many facets, not least of which was the question of ammunition expenditure, which directly relates to the original question of this thread about ammunition resupply. On a strategic level every round that was expended and had to be replaced was at the end of a 2000 mile, often tenuous, supply line, so the army was naturally very concerned about the effective use of ammunition and did not want it being liberally sprayed around, as would have been more the case with repeaters. Keep in mind that we have often discussed the apparent inadequacies of the soldiers’ fire control discipline, which would undoubtedly have been worse had they been equipped with repeaters, so, on an operational level and going back to Montrose’s initial questions about effective resupply during engagement, that problem would have been magnified.
Perhaps the best arbitrator of the question as to which was the superior weapon is that I have read that the preferred weapon of the Indians, if they could get their hands on one, was the supposedly inferior Springfield.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Jun 22, 2016 12:01:31 GMT -6
Hammer's booklet, which I cited above, includes the results of a comparison made at Springfield Armory in August, 1876 by one Lieutenant John C. Greer.
Evaluated were the M1873 carbine, using both the rifle and carbine cartridges and a Winchester 1873 in .44-40.
Comparing muzzle velocities the Springfield carbine cartridge produced 1,166.6 FPS; the Winchester 1,127.4 FPS.
Accuracy, measured as "Mean Deviation (inches) at 100, 200, 500 and 900 yards, was for the Springfield: 2.48, 7.97, 19.05 and 36.52. The Winchester gave 2.27, 12.27, 21.46 and "Not obtainable".
At 100 yards the Springfield penetrated 10.075 inches of white pine; the Winchester 4.9.
The take from all this is that the Springfield was a much harder hitting, slightly more accurate at reasonable ranges, slower firing weapon that the Winchester; so no surprises there.
The Winchester's 15 shot capacity is formidable, if you have 15 to begin with. Clearly superior in a close-in rush or for repeated snap shots. But the reload is problematic, requiring repetitive manipulation of single rounds. This would have been even more so for Henry repeaters which lacked a side-loading gate.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 23, 2016 7:46:02 GMT -6
It wasn't the warrior's having more or superior weapons that turned Reno's advance into a retreat. It wasn't more or superior weapons that forced Custer's to fall back. While weapons are always a factor in battle, strategy, determination, fighting skill, leadership come into play.
Not to go off-topic but at Islandwanda the British had superior weapons and huge quantities of ammunition yet were still wiped out by Zulus who used mostly spears and shields. Obviously there were more Zulus than Brits but the British had the huge advantage of firepower.
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Jun 23, 2016 9:01:59 GMT -6
It wasn't the warrior's having more or superior weapons that turned Reno's advance into a retreat. It wasn't more or superior weapons that forced Custer's to fall back. While weapons are always a factor in battle, strategy, determination, fighting skill, leadership come into play. Not to go off-topic but at Islandwanda the British had superior weapons and huge quantities of ammunition yet were still wiped out by Zulus who used mostly spears and shields. Obviously there were more Zulus than Brits but the British had the huge advantage of firepower. Poor leadership by Pulleine, arrogance on Chelmsford and outnumbered anywhere from 6-1 to 12-1. Funny stuff the Zulus chewed on might not have hurt either.
|
|
|
Post by Colt45 on Jun 23, 2016 15:49:19 GMT -6
The question of who had the best weapon or was better armed can't be answered without taking into consideration the terrain the battle is fought on. The Springfield's big advantage was the superior range it held over the repeaters of the day. The 1866 Winchester and Henry rifles had an advantage when the range of a fight was 100-150 yards due to its higher rate of fire. If the battle had been fought totally in the valley, the army would have been "better armed" since the valley afforded longer ranges for seeing targets. The army could have massed fire into the Indians from ranges that were safe from return fire.
However, the battle was fought in broken terrain where the sight distance was in much shorter ranges, in some cases probably less than 50 yards. In this situation, the Indians are "better armed" because the repeaters now have the advantage over the Springfield, plus the fact at those distances the bow and arrow become a very effective form of artillery, using indirect fire to inflict casualties.
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Jul 7, 2016 6:29:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by dave on Jul 7, 2016 10:04:55 GMT -6
jodak Great web site! Thank you. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jul 7, 2016 10:32:44 GMT -6
Interesting article, while I could take issue with the uniformity issue by stating that both Winchester rifle and Colt revolver were chambered for the .44-40 at the time. No need to carry 2 types of bullets, more rapid fire for the cavalry, and they had already seen that in the Spencer, although an inferior weapon, was very effective for cavalry purposes. Just a thought.
|
|