p620346 Posted April 15, 2008 Posted April 15, 2008 How might the battle of the Little Big Horn have gone if Custer and his men had Krags or even Lee-Enfields?
Colin Posted April 15, 2008 Posted April 15, 2008 I think the position sucked if I recall, on a small grassy knoll. If they had time to build defensive works they might have survived longer, but I am not sure if would have only delayed things. I doubt that there was any help coming soon.
Guest aevans Posted April 15, 2008 Posted April 15, 2008 I think the position sucked if I recall, on a small grassy knoll. If they had time to build defensive works they might have survived longer, but I am not sure if would have only delayed things. I doubt that there was any help coming soon. Yep -- they were on the topographical crest of a pair of convex hillocks. Not a very tactically sound position, especially if you're relying on rifle fire for your combat power.
DKTanker Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 How might the battle of the Little Big Horn have gone if Custer and his men had Krags or even Lee-Enfields?7th cav had gatling guns available to them...chose not to bring them along that day. May not have helped, they certainly couldn't have hurt.
whyhow Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 (edited) how about that trick in Lonesome Dove, killing your horse and using the carcass as a breastwork. Would that have helped? Edited April 16, 2008 by whyhow
Archie Pellagio Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 how about that trick in Lonesome Dove, killing your horse and using the carcass as a breastwork. Would that have helped? Weren't the horses trained to do that anyway?
EvanDP Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 how about that trick in Lonesome Dove, killing your horse and using the carcass as a breastwork. Would that have helped?I remember reading somewhere that's what they did. They used the carcasses of their dead horses as breastworks. I think only one live horse was recovered.
thekirk Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 About the only thing that would have saved the 7th Cavalry would have been for Custer to have not been in command. Remove him from the equation, and it's pretty unlikely that they would have been there, in that situation as it developed. Custer made the fatal error of dismissing his enemy as being a bunch of primitive tribesmen. Sadly, they were actually better armed than his troopers, and were likely better horsemen, to boot. Had Custer had any respect for the Souix whatsoever, he wouldn't have gone barreling into their encampment the way he did. Even if he'd had the Gatlings with him, they'd have been ineffective. Between his command being totally separated and unable to provide mutual support, supplies spread all over hell's creation, and the chaos he generated with his own incoherent orders, not a damn thing was going to save his detachment. Even if they'd had more effective weapons, the Souix would have overwhelmed them with sheer numbers. As is, the Souix put up a hell of a fight, and pretty much handed them their asses. Better weapons might have delayed the end for them, but the end would have come. Unless you're talking about dumping a train-load of modern belt-feds into the equation, that is. I've often wondered if the actions of Benteen, et al., might be explained by the way subordinates will sometimes step back, and let the idiot in command step on it, in order to get rid of him. I've seen that happen, a number of times, over the years, and something feels familiar in the way they studiously failed to read the situation and go to Custer's rescue. They had to have known, and I suspect they did, but something held them back. Maybe it was the 1870's equivalent of fragging an officer they felt was a danger to the unit and themselves? Who knows? But it feels kinda right.
Marek Tucan Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Dunno, Reno was unable to go help Custer from what I've seen due to being too busy surviving himself and Benteen joined Reno as he was the last arriving column of 7th Cav and deemed it too risky to separate both units or to try to charge for Custer's help while they were under pressure and atleast got a good defensive high ground. Maybe too cautious, OTOH I don't think it was "fragging".
WRW Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 What would the scenario be like if it was not the 7th but say a British Cavalry Regiment
Marek Tucan Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 What would the scenario be like if it was not the 7th but say a British Cavalry RegimentWhat was the British cav doctrine and armament at that time?
DKTanker Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 What would the scenario be like if it was not the 7th but say a British Cavalry RegimentIf you mean in numbers, besides the Gatling Guns that were not brought along, Custer also refused an additional two companies of cavalry. Then there is the charge of almost no marksmanship training taking place. IOW, what troopers Custer had, coudn't hit what they were aiming at.
binder001 Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 I agree with the above posters, no change except for more Indian casualties. Custer dismissed his opponents as simple tribesmen, plus he was working on a false assumption. In many previous engagements the Indians would melt away rather than stay for a pitched battle. That was one excuse for Custer dividing his command, to reduce the Indian options for retreat. He had no concept that he was facing a seriously p%^sed off enemy who was defending a village of women and children. As stated above, the US Army didn't really have organized marksmanship training until the mid-1880's. The Krags (or Martinis or whatever) would have sent more bullets around the landscape but not necessarily into the natives. There are reports of a number of jammed Springfields (the cartridge cases would fail at the rim, leaning a case stuck in the chamber), but the firearms weren't the biggest factor in the massacre. Contrary to popular western movies the Indians didn't all have repeating rifles. The Indians used what they had available in whatever caliber they could get ammo for. There were a number of arrows fired at Little Big Horn also. So, you have the US Army a divided force caught in open ground while the Indians could maneuver in the cover of the coolies, The Army lost the tactical initiative early, the battle was pretty much dictated by the Indians. They were outnumbered without a true firepower advantage. The command also lost cohesion, a number of troops were found in ones and twos around the field. Both sides represented light cavalry forces, but the US Army lost its mobility early in the fight. A couple M240s with extra barrels and lots of ammo might have made a difference depending on the Indian resolve and willingness to take casualties. Otherwise, Custer got himself in a situation from which more modern forces might not escape, even if they weren't commanded by an arrogant fool.
Marek Tucan Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 As stated above, the US Army didn't really have organized marksmanship training until the mid-1880's. The Krags (or Martinis or whatever) would have sent more bullets around the landscape but not necessarily into the natives. There are reports of a number of jammed Springfields (the cartridge cases would fail at the rim, leaning a case stuck in the chamber), but the firearms weren't the biggest factor in the massacre. Contrary to popular western movies the Indians didn't all have repeating rifles. The Indians used what they had available in whatever caliber they could get ammo for. There were a number of arrows fired at Little Big Horn also. There are even reports that Indian gunfire was getting stronger and stronger during the battle thanks to Springfields taken from dead cavalrymen, so the jamming maybe also wasn't that big of a problem.
p620346 Posted April 17, 2008 Author Posted April 17, 2008 About the only thing that would have saved the 7th Cavalry would have been for Custer to have not been in command. Remove him from the equation, and it's pretty unlikely that they would have been there, in that situation as it developed It would seem that the only thing that could possibly have saved Cuser would have been tactical air support by a squadron or two of good old AD Skyraiders or Cobra helicoptor gunships.
Marek Tucan Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 It would seem that the only thing that could possibly have saved Cuser would have been tactical air support by a squadron or two of good old AD Skyraiders or Cobra helicoptor gunships.Nope. What would save him would be if he was mounting Gav!n tracked tank instead of Horse Four-legged Death Trap Beast
TonyE Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 Nope. What would save him would be if he was mounting Gav!n tracked tank instead of Horse Four-legged Death Trap Beast Enough crap, Sport!Blasting them there injuns with grapeshot from 106mm RCLs mounted on Nordenfeldt wheeled mounts would have been the way to go!
Redbeard Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 What about Welsh Archers with long bows What about spreading porn and firewater in heavy amounts - the Siouxs would be too busy to fight... We had a similar plan when we had to defend the coasts of Zeland vs. Soviet invasion (but the defence also included fields of blue jeans and ball pens) - I'm sure it would have worked Regards Steffen Redbeard
DougRichards Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 What about Welsh Archers with long bows Only if supported by a squadron of Mongols
John Dudek Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 There are even reports that Indian gunfire was getting stronger and stronger during the battle thanks to Springfields taken from dead cavalrymen, so the jamming maybe also wasn't that big of a problem. The Springfield 45/70 carbine shell casings were made of soft copper and not sturdier brass. Given that cavalrymen of the day carried their carbine rounds in the loops of a belt bandolier, this could easily subject the shell casings to damage from simple daily wear and tear that would make it difficult if not impossible for the carbine extractors to eject the spent casings. I've read accounts by Indian Warriors telling of seeing cavalrymen using knives to pry spent casings from their carbines. This would not necessarily have been a universal problem, but one that could have figured prominently in the overall conduct of the battle.
rmgill Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 What about Welsh Archers with long bows Mealie bags....and a lot of short chamber, boxer henry .45 caliber. And a bayonet Wiv a bit of guts behind it.
Marek Tucan Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 That bayonet comment gives another interesting question - how would it end if 7th Cavalry was Infantry? IOW what tactics would US infantry chose in such a battle and with hat outcome?
History Buff Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 What about Welsh Archers with long bows Or a platoon of Waffen-SS?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now