|
Post by George Armstrong Custer on Jun 1, 2005 16:55:04 GMT -6
Very well done sir! Also, Godfrey has been termed "golden" when it comes to information on the 7th Cavalry. But I have found some of his statements are, at best, questionable. Or at least the people who quoted him may have heard what they wanted to hear. Walt Evening, Walt! Sorry - I missed you post between posting the two parts of mine! Yes indeed, Godfrey is not above criticism on matters of veracity - or even changing his mind! However, his letter to Paxson about Custer's pistols on 25 June is a matter of purely technical observation of some rather prepossessing equipment by a soldier, and I'm very inclined to accept that he knew what he was taliking about on this. Regards, George
|
|
|
Post by guidon7 on Jul 4, 2005 12:43:36 GMT -6
And, while on the subject of Custer's guns, what did he and the Seventh Cavalry carry at the Battle of the Washita?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Wilk on Jul 4, 2005 21:39:40 GMT -6
Spencer carbines and, I am assuming, Colt cap and ball revolvers.
|
|
|
Post by guidon7 on Jul 7, 2005 15:48:19 GMT -6
I can just see the joy on the faces of those cavalry troopers when they turned in those old Spencer repeaters for the great new single-shot Springfields. With their scant regard for our military, the government shortchanged the army even in the 1870's and was a major contributor to LBH, due to lack of firepower. So what else is new?
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Jul 7, 2005 18:49:47 GMT -6
I don't really agree. The Springfield works fine for an organized fighting force. The soldiers were never intended to fight 1 on 1 with the Indians. Disciplined, controlled delivery of their firepower was the idea. The Indians were never supposed to be able to get close enough to make their advantage in rapid fire count. But they did.
Even then, I don't think the repeaters did in Custer's battalion. Poor training along with bad timing did them in. The right wing seems to have mostly been annihilated without putting up much of a struggle.
The way I see it, it wouldn't matter what weapons they had from that time period. If the warriors got in that close, they were done. Besides, give those troopers 16 shots per go, and you'd have Custer's battalion wiped out much quicker, just after those scared soldiers waste their rounds in quick flurries.
|
|
|
Post by guidon7 on Jul 8, 2005 16:51:12 GMT -6
Do I read you right claiming that there were repeating rifles with the 7th, other than those a couple of officers carried? New one on me.
If the long arm of the 7th Cavalry were Spencer repeaters, (1) they would have received fire control training for this repeater you can be sure, and (2) additional ammo would have been carried by each trooper in this case.
Hypothetical Situation: Trooper El Crab is bound for Little Big Horn with his regiment. You have the option to choose your weapon of carry, which is, either: (1) the single-shot Springfield carbine, or (2) the 16-shot Spencer repeater. Which one will it be?
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Jul 9, 2005 19:23:24 GMT -6
They didn't seem to get much training in firing their Springfields, so why would they now? And they did have Spencers before. So unless there's proof of fire control training previous to receiving new firearms, you can't say that.
I'd be curious to know how much ammunition they were allocated when on campaign with the Spencers. I'd actually guess it was less than 100 rounds for their carbines at, say, Washita or Kansas.
As for Trooper L. Crab, the Spencer didn't hold 16 shots, only 7. But I know what you meant. I don't know if I can answer that. Hindsight says I'd need a repeater. But who knows how many troopers could afford to buy their own weapons and ammunition. Personally, I'd want an AR-15 and about 2,000 rounds of ammunition.
I never said anything about troopers with repeaters. I think it was a misconstrued statement. I think you misread when I said:
"Even then, I don't think the repeaters did in Custer's battalion."
I meant I don't the repeaters that the warriors had did in Custer's battalion. The warriors were able to close in on the soldiers because the soldiers did not maintain discipline. It wouldn't have mattered if all of the warriors had only bows and arrows, they would have killed the soldiers when they panicked.
I have read that one soldier in I Company had a shotgun at LBH, though.
|
|
|
Post by guidon7 on Jul 10, 2005 7:50:53 GMT -6
I assume the 7th Cavalry were issued Spencer repeaters at the regiment's inception following the Civil War and carried by them in all engagements with the Indians until they were replaced by the Springfield single-shot in 1873. In all of these actions I am not aware that the soldiers ever shot away their Spencer ammo in panic, including the Battle of the Washita, the one fight most similar to LBH. Supposing that the Spencers had never been replaced, I don't see where there would have been a noticeable difference in the soldiers' fire controls (meaning shooting away their ammo in panic) using the familiar Spencers at Little Big Horn.
I would also be interested to know what the Cavalry ammo allocation for Spencer carry was.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Jul 10, 2005 10:25:55 GMT -6
Good point, and it doesn't appear soldiers in Custer's battalion shot away their ammunition in panic at LBH, either.
What I am saying is the firearms Custer's troops had fit their needs. Soldiers were not expected to fight hand to hand with the Sioux. The Sioux were not particularly known for getting in close when soldiers were unrouted. The soldiers were equipped to fight at a distance, and the Springfield works fine for that.
I want to say the 7th was given 60 rounds per man for their Spencers. I could be way off, but that number jumps into my head.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Wilk on Jul 10, 2005 10:49:31 GMT -6
If I recall correctly, the "Blakeslee" cartridge box, slung over the troopers shoulder/back, carried seven Spencer tubes, seven rounds each. So this was 49 rounds on the person, dont know about extras in saddle pouches.
Regarding fire control, an interesting bit from Michno's _Encyclopedia of Indian Wars_ tells of a skirmish in the Sierra Enmedio mts of Mexico on 28 Apr 1882. It mentions that two troops of 6th Cavalry (39 men) shot away 800 rounds in four minutes. This equates to roughly twenty rounds per man, five rounds per minute. At this pace a fifty round belt is empty in ten minutes, and this was with single shot Springfields. Can you imagine how fast an excited soldier, adrenaline pumping, would have exhausted his Spencer repeater rounds? Thus the need for fire control, which apparently was lacking at LBH, at least among the last stand group. Calhoun was able to hold his hill with proper fire control until most likely they ran out of ammo.
In addition to fire control, marksmanship training was virtually non existant. If one is a poor shot, having a repeater is meaningless. You'll just miss your target quicker! And how many rounds per minute, given proper fire control, would a repeater yield? You still have to mark your target, sight the weapon etc. Not much more than a single shot unless you are just spraying rounds in the general direction.
The Springfield was chosen for its superior range and firepower. It saw 25 yrs of service on the frontier and into the Spanish American War. Not many commanders complained about it. It was a good weapon. Look at photos of warriors in the field with Geronimo. Most of them have single shot rifles and carbines. Repeaters were often used in studio shots; my guess is they were photographer props.
Lack of training was a great contributor to Custer's defeat. If the Civil War had not happened, the US Army would have had fifty years of continual Indian fighting. They never adopted any special tactics, doctrine or training specific to Indian warfare. It is interesting that the Jacksonian democrats wanted to abolish West Point, feeling that its officers were not trained to fight Indians, the primary foe of the army at the time. The conflicts on the frontier definitely could have spawned some type of ranger type battalions such as were employed in the French & Indian War.
|
|
|
Post by Cavalryman on Aug 13, 2005 16:44:38 GMT -6
I cannot imagine anyone trying to argue the superiority of a single shot rifle compared to a repeater when dealing with large numbers of enemy charging at medium to hand to hand range! Yet, I continually see it!
To fly in the face, of what appears here, to be conventional wisdom the Spencer and the Henry were superior weapons and did demonstrate this fact, time and again in the civil war!
Most effective combat involving rifles, actually occurs under 200 yards! Usually well under! The longer range of the .45-55 against, say a .44-40 is moot! Plus a uselessly long cartridge filled with a paper wad was being carried! Useless weight!
The 1873 Springfield was obsolete when it was issued. It had problems with it's extractor and it's initial ammunition allotment. which was the one Custer was issued. When issued to Cavalry Troops it was issued in.45-55 (actually a .45-70) with defective copper cases. This situation caused many jams that were difficult to clear because the case often broke in the chamber rendering the carbine useless. The trooper than had to rely on his Colt which was empty in 6 shots and was very slow to reload. If he was being over-run he was unarmed in a hand to hand situation. Numerous authorities have blamed this situation as a root cause of the massacre.
Fire control is usually a unit commanders problem. But, when you are surrounded by thousands, and only have a hundred cartridges I cannot see anyone wasting ammunition!
The marksmanship program implemented is more difficult to address. In 1872 the army allocated 90 rounds per soldier per year for marksmanship training. This translated into poor field performance. Emory Upton with President Grant's assisstance implemented a very much upgraded marksmanship training program The Official Army Tactics Manual on 8-1-67. Upton's training program become a standard training program annually and provided more ammunition for practice. He recommended "that men fire, at a minimum, ten rounds each at ranges of 100,150, 200, 250, 300, 350, and 400 yards. He recommened next that soldiers were to fire 5 rounds at targets 500,600, 700. and 800 yards away. Army officers should also allocate an additional 40 rounds to fire in squad, platoon, and company formations and maneuvers. It was also recommended new recruits to fire 60 rounds before going on any campaign." P.58 "US Army in The Plains Indian Wars 1865-91" by Clayton Chun. Immediately after the civil war there were ammunition allotment problems that certainly began to be cured after the new regulations were implemented. Anyone who reads about Custer knew he liked to shoot. It is unlikely his command did not follow army regulations.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Wilk on Aug 13, 2005 22:53:10 GMT -6
The Springfield's infamous extractor malfunction has been overblown by authors for years. Reno's post battle report to the Chief of Ordnance stated that only six out of 380 carbines had this problem defect occur. Often it was caused by failing to keep the copper cartridge cases clean, not a problem with the weapon.
The Springfield rifle proved itself at the Hayfield Fight, where a mere 27 men held off nearly a thousand warriors, and at Wagon Box where 51 men held off the same number. Granted, in both cases, the men were behind makeshift fortifications. But with such a small number and so vastly outnumbered, the Sioux could easily have overran them, had they been willing to take the casualties, even if they had Henrys or Spencers.
In both these battles, Michno cites the "judicious" fire from the soldier's new Springfield-Allin coversions. By firing by platoon, a common muzzle loading tactic, a steady wall of lead could be directed at an attacking enemy. (one platoon fires while the other reloads) Such judicious fire more than likely was not employed at LBH.
You mention the lengthy reload time of the Colt....but you don't consider the even lengthier reload time of the sixteen shot Henry. The Spencer, of course had the tube which made reloading much quicker. As far as malfunctions, I am no weapons expert, but I would think a lever action repeater would jam far more often than a single shot. The Springfield certainly did not deter Sgt Butler from dispatching "several" warriors before they got him. There is a thread about "600 Custers": can you imagine 600 Butlers? Each killing or wounding several warriors?
Even after the issue of the Spencer, the First and Fifth Cav. both retained the single shot Sharps:
"...The altered Sharps carbine gives great satisfaction, and is preferred by some cavalry regiments to the Spencer. In some respects--particularly in the ammunition, which is the same as the breechloading musket ammunition--it is decidedly superior to the Spencer carbine". (US Army in the West p. 33)
So it seems some of the troopers were not all that sold on a repeater. The majority of the time during the Indian wars, the cavalry was doing the chasing. Hence the "hostiles" they were after were usually beyond the effective range of the Spencer, which was less than 200 yards. The range of the Spencer was not an issue during Civil War combat conducted in the wooded terrain of Virgina, but in the vastness of the Great Plains, a longer ranged weapon was deemed necessary.
As far as hand to hand combat, most all of the troopers carried knives, many probably large Bowie knives. So they were not totally unarmed as you claim. Some claim sabers would have saved the day. In any case the army did no training in hand to hand fighting anyway.
Lastly, Fetterman's cavalry had Spencers...didn't do them much good. Granted, there were less than 30 cavalry at Fetterman's fight but still, the Spencer didn't save any of them, nor did the Henrys of civilians Fisher and Wheatly. Those Sprinfields on Custer Hill, in the hands of well trained troops, would have inflicted many casualties. If that was six hundred INFANTRY attacking Sitting Bull's village, there is a far different outcome. Infantry did not carry a repeater; yet the plains tribes tended to shun encounters with the "walk a heaps"....because of the range of the Springfield rifle.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 14, 2005 6:59:27 GMT -6
I'm no soldier, so this is probably a rubbish observation -- but reloading while mounted and charging can't have been easy. Nor can taking sharpshooter-like aim. (Seven shots before a reload must surely give a better chance of hitting something than just one.) Doesn't the single-shot almost COMPEL fighting dismounted?
There's been a lot of comment from time to time on the supposed folly of fighting dismounted at LBH. People have cited (1) the loss of manpower to horseholders, (2) the ease with which horses (plus the ammo they carried) could be driven off, and (3) the handing-over of the initiative to a mounted foe. But was there any choice? Could it be this -- not jamming, not range, not accuracy, but the need to dismount to shoot effectively -- that was the most critical result of having the Springfields? I just ask the question; more expert posters can tell me if there's anything in this.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Wilk on Aug 14, 2005 7:37:11 GMT -6
Elisabeth, cavalry basically fought dismounted by the end of the Civil War. They fought dismounted with the Spencer as well. Dismounting to fire increased accuracy; forget the movies where guys are firing at full gallop and emptying saddles. As anyone who has fired a rifle knows, it is hard enough to hit a stationary target from a prone or kneeling position. Hitting a moving target while on horseback...fat chance. You know those westerns where the guy is atop a stagecoach at full gallop with a Winchester picking off Apaches who are also at full gallop? Get real.
Mounted charges were conducted with the pistol or saber. Saber charges were more or less obsolete by 1876. The terrain at Last Stand Hill, in particular was not suited for offensive cavalry operations. Too many ravines and gullies.
I wish I could find it, but there is reference in Utley's Lance and Shield book citing an example during Sibley or Sully's (always get them confused) 1864-65 campaign where the Sioux did not want to attack the cavalrymen because they (the soldiers) were fighting dismounted.
I might also add to my last post that Custer's men had Spencers at the Washita....yet Elliott and his 19 men were still wiped out.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 14, 2005 7:53:35 GMT -6
True enough. My own hit-rate on the rifle-range was only ever moderate, and that was indoors, with no wind, at static targets! I guess I was misleading myself by thinking a) of the few people from the Reno fight who talk about bringing down Indians with carbine shots from horseback (which would have been at close range), and b) buffalo hunting -- also usually close range, and a much bigger target!
|
|