Would Custer's 7th really been better off if armed with Spencers & Schofield

[Doug.38PR]

Would that have really made a difference as is so often claimed?

The Trapdoor .45-70's advantage of shooting beyond the range of the Indian's bow and arrow and lever action rifles.

But then we are still talking about 4000 Souix and Cheyenne braves against 200 something odd American troopers.

[St. George]

Go to the 'Spencer Shooting Society' forum, and look this one up.

Topic: Thoughts on Spencers back in 1868...56-50 vs 50-70  (Read 5268 times)

Scouts Out!

[Mean Bob Mean]

Would that have really made a difference as is so often claimed?

The Trapdoor .45-70's advantage of shooting beyond the range of the Indian's bow and arrow and lever action rifles.

But then we are still talking about 4000 Souix and Cheyenne braves against 200 something odd American troopers.

A huge difference, the difference would be that they'd be finding .56-50 brass on the field today instead of .45-70.

[yahoody]

No matter they were armed short of the gatling guns I suspect the issue would have boiled down to not enough ammo on the US side to get the job done in the end.

They carried "100 rounds of Springfield ammunition and 24 rounds of Colt "

124 x 200 = 24800 pieces of lead and 4000 Indians to shoot at.  6+ rounds per, aint gonna do it even for very well trained shooters.

[St. George]

If you read the threads in SSS, you'll find the Army's rationale for using a hard-hitting single-shot.

That said, nothing can beat thorough training, and in order to do that, you have to be able to back it up with funding for ammunition, amongst other things - something that the frontier Army just didn't have.

Custer's Seventh - like every other Frontier Army outfit - was filled with newly-arrived immigrants and men trying to get to the gold fields while eating Army rations.

They weren't elite, well-trained, highly-motivated, agile, mobile, and hostile troopers by any stretch of the imagination.

Custer was conventional Cavalry combat-experienced, and an experienced leader of men - ask the Michigan Wolverines - but he was also hungry for glory and a chance to redeem himself - and he - like everyone else - seriously underestimated his foe's capabilities.

Never before - and never since - would American troops encounter the number of Indians in one place and cocked, locked and ready to rock - and they reminded the Army that there were still lessons to be learned on the modern battlefield - lessons we would take to heart.

It would take Crook's implacable Infantry to bring the Indian Wars to a close - but there was no way John Ford could add 'romance' to hard-campaigning dogfaces who pursued in winter, so that part of the truth is always left to the dust of history.

Scouts Out!

[Will Ketchum]

Having walked the battlefield my opinion is that Cuter held the best tactical ground available to him.  There just wasn't any ground good enough to be held with a hasty defense against overwhelming superior numbers.  I don't think a modern equipped infantry platoon would have had any better luck.

Again, just my opinion.

Will Ketchum

[yahoody]

"It would take Crook's implacable Infantry to bring the Indian Wars to a close - but there was no way John Ford could add 'romance' to hard-campaigning dogfaces who pursued in winter, so that part of the truth is always left to the dust of history."

War was over by winter of '75.  Buffalo were gone. Horse slaughters were common. Those and the germ warfare pretty much took care of it prior to the ground pounders.

Not offended by the tactics used in a historical context but might as well put some of the other parts to that story out there to chew on.

20 to 1 is tough odds but it has been done before and since.

Here is a good write up on the weapons used @ LBH.

http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm

[Gus Walker]

    After reading and watching everything i could about Custer and the last battle. I dont think that battle was winnable . at least not without artillery or gunship support.     

[Stu Kettle]

"It would take Crook's implacable Infantry to bring the Indian Wars to a close - but there was no way John Ford could add 'romance' to hard-campaigning dogfaces who pursued in winter, so that part of the truth is always left to the dust of history."

War was over by winter of '75. . .

Um, wrong. Wasn't over til winter of '90, & Custer's command got their ass whipped summer of '76.

[yahoody]

Um, wrong. Wasn't over til winter of '90, & Custer's command got their ass whipped summer of '76.

Ya we can agree to disagree on that one.  Big killing off the buffalo was winter of '73 and '74 iirc.  Once the buffalo was gone the way of life changed drastically for all the plains Indians.  No wonder there were 4000 pissed of Indians hanging out on the little Bighorn.

Nez Perce (Fall of '77) and Apache ('86 or 1924 depending on who you talk to) wars continued for some time but the battle was won years prior IMO.

Hides and bones that went out on the rail road in '73/'74 was staggering.

Good read here:
http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/buffalo.htm

Old rule about fighten, "can't move, can't fight", can't see, can't breeth ect.

Top of the list should be can't eat, can't fight.  Buffalo did that.  Horse kills, on the plains, in Texas and the NW intentionally were done to stop the Indians from moving and fighting.  Good tactics in the day for the US Army and whites in general.     

http://www.spokaneoutdoors.com/horsesc.htm

http://jeffreyskerr.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58:killing-a-thousand-horses&catid=1:jeff&Itemid=3

My take is war stops when men fighting men stops.  After that is aint a war.  It is something else.
Good quick history lesson on the indian wars here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars

[Stu Kettle]

Don't need any lessons from Wikipedia. Students in the classes I teach know better than to trust a "source" that they can edit themselves.

The only things I disagree with you about are how to tell when a war is over and when the war was over between the U.S. and the Sioux.

A war isn't over until parties involved stop killing each other.  This doesn't usually happen until one side is completely wiped out or looses either the will or the ability to fight. 

[yahoody]

Don't need any lessons ..
The only things I disagree with you about are how to tell when a war is over and when the war was over between the U.S. and the Sioux.

By your account then likely June 26, 1975 was the last battle.

[Stu Kettle]

I consider that a completely different war. It was fought by a different people in a different era using different weapons & tactics.  It was fought by descendants of the earlier war because of the earlier war, much like WWI & WWII.

[Trailrider]

The Lakota and Cheyenne had, by analysis of the cartridge cases found during the archeological dig of the battlefield, had more repeating rifles than Custer's battalion had troops! But the Indians' biggest weapon was a rapid-fire, high trajectory one capable of hitting targets by indirect fire, even behind downed horses...bows and arrows! If Custer's troops had Spencers, they might have lasted a bit longer. Gatling guns might have helped, but they were unwieldy, mounted on gun carriages and pulled by condemned cavalry horses. It is unlikely they could have kept up with Custer. OTOH, what might have helped would have been mountain howitzers with cannister...if the crews could have been protected while servicing the guns!

[yahoody]

...the Indians' biggest weapon was a rapid-fire, high trajectory one capable of hitting targets by indirect fire, even behind downed horses...bows and arrows!...

"It is well-known that Custer's men each brought a trapdoor Springfield and a Colt .45 to the Little Bighorn that June day in 1876. Identification of the Indian weapons is more uncertain. Participants claimed to have gone into battle with a plethora of arms–bows and arrows, ancient muzzleloaders, breechloaders and the latest repeating arms. Bows and arrows played a part in the fight. Some warriors said they lofted high-trajectory arrows to fall among the troopers while remaining hidden behind hill and vale. The dead soldiers found pincushioned with arrows, however, were undoubtedly riddled at close range after they were already dead or badly wounded. The long range at which most of the fighting occurred did not allow the bow and arrow a prominent role."

Another view on what arms and tactics decided the Little Bighorn:

http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm

[Delmonico]

Lots of different little wars.  The southern pains ended mostly by that date, the SW and the northern plains carried on as Stu mentioned. 

[Trailrider]

Regarding the opinion that the Indians with bows and arrows could not hit the soldiers because the Springfield Carbines outranged those primative weapons, that would have been true initially. But Custer's command was flanked by mounted Cheyenne warriors, who could get in among the troopers after they dismounted. As was stated, the individual companies and platoons were spread out. In fact, the Indians did have more repeating arms than Custer had troops with him. It didn't take long for the Indians to have closed with a fast-depleting force of troopers. In addition, the business of the troops shooting high was not only the fault of poor marksmanship training and fire discipline. The Springfield Carbines were set to hit dead on at around 285 yds with .45-55-405 ammo, and the zero was greater if .45-70-405 ammo was issued! The rainbow trajectory of the .45 rifle and carbine ammo resulted in the carbines shooting 15-18" high at 100 yds (which I determined by actual tests with a number of CW and IW military arms), and even a foot high at 50 yds. This, with the M1873 Carbine rear sights set at the lowest notch on the base! With the additional tendency for soldiers under fire to shoot high and probably misjudge the range in the sparse vegetation of the area, plus flinching, and excitement, no wonder they mostly missed. By the time the targets were close enough where shooting high wouldn't make as much difference, the troopers were about to be overrun! If those Indians armed only with bows & arrows then took cover in dips in the ground, they could easily launch volleys into troops down behind downed horses.  Good, concentrated defensive positions made a big difference in the Wagon Box fight, the Hayfield Fight and Beecher Island! Yes, breechloaders and repeating arms helped in those fights. They did NOT help Grummond's company in the Fetterman battle. There were too many Indians and not enough troopers there. Reno and Benteen were able to hold off the attackers in their positions, even with single-shot rifles and Colt's.  So it is certainly a combination of factors that contributed to Custer's defeat at LBH.

[Octagonal Barrel]

Having walked the battlefield my opinion is that Cuter held the best tactile ground available to him.  There just wasn't any ground good enough to be held with a hasty defense against overwhelming superior numbers.  I don't think a modern equipped infantry platoon would have had any better luck.

Again, just my opinion.

Will Ketchum

   After reading and watching everything i could about Custer and the last battle. I dont think that battle was winnable . at least not without artillery or gunship support.     

I'm not sure even a gunship would have solved the problem (even one armed with Spencers).  Thinking about the "Blackhawk Down" incident.  Also thinking about the Romans at Tautoberg.  Underestimating a very large and potentially unstoppable insurgency is a very bad thing.  I agree with those above who say this wasn't winnable.

I think I recall that one of Custer's Native American scouts warned him there were more Native Americans that Custer had bullets.  I think the scout was correct.  Being out of ammo minimizes the difference in stopping power between .56-50 vs .45-70 real fast...

[Trailrider]

Custer's scouts' reports were ignored. Intel is useless unless interpreted correctly, and acted upon accordingly. After all, the scouts were mostly "Indians", and therefore their courage and reliability were "suspect". As William Bendix's character "Chester Riley" used to say on the old-time radio sitcom, "Don't bother me with details, my head is made up!"  (A lot of that going around throughout history, and especially today!  )

[Delmonico]

One thing few take into account, including some well known historians.  They will tell you in one book or even another chaper how the Indian could not do numbers accurately over a 100, no words for it.

OK then the next book or a few chapters later they tell you the same people were trying to tell Custer how many Indians there were down there.  Now to me, I can't figure out how in the next book or a few chapters later they gained this skill.  Something smells fishy there to me and has for a long time.