Little Big Horn with Krags

[Jeff]

Nothing less than 8" would have helped

[John Dudek]

Nothing less than 8" would have helped

 

81mm mortars would have been a nasty surprise to the Indians who were hiding in the coulees and waiting for the "go signal."

[TonyE]

Or a platoon of Waffen-SS?

 

Marines!!

[Sardaukar]

Only needs the sure winner against natives:

 

Hilaire Belloc:

 

Whatever happens, we have got

The Maxim gun, and they have not.

[Marek Tucan]

Davy Crockett! (M388)

[WRW]

Davy Crockett! (M388)

 

one badly trained bagpiper

[Colin Williams]

Some Welshmen firing Martini-Henrys and singing Men of Harlech!

[Bob B]

The Twilight Zone did an episode where an M5 Stewart goes through a time warp and ends up at the Little Big Horn.

 

Enjoy.

 

Part 1:

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3eari_tw...ig-h_shortfilms

 

Part 2:

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/related/5705982...ig-h_shortfilms

 

 

Part 3:

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/related/5705898...ig-h_shortfilms

Edited April 18, 2008 by Bob B

[shep854]

-->

QUOTE(Bob B @ Fri 18 Apr 2008 2224) 560206[/snapback]

The Twilight Zone did an episode where an M5 Stewart goes through a time warp and ends up at the Little Big Horn.

 

Enjoy.

 

Part 1:

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3eari_tw...ig-h_shortfilms

 

Part 2:

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/related/5705982...ig-h_shortfilms

Part 3:

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/related/5705898...ig-h_shortfilms

 

The things you run across on TankNet!

[zraver]

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?

 

Depends on the unit and commander. For one the infantry is less likely to cut his force into threes or leave companies behind so probably would have had more mass. The slower marching pace of the infantry also probably means Gatling's and plenty of ammo. Also the infantry might well have been using volley fire giving them mass to counteract poor marksmanship and in any event a man on the ground can fire faster than a man mounted so the US starts with a many times heavier volume of fire. Finally the bayonet on the end of a rifle could be very effective, but was it more effective than saber and pistol?

 

If I am right then its 763 US Army infantry (assuming a unit of the same size) facing between 900 to 2000 warrior light cav. Thats a fight the infantry can win given mass, and volume of fire.

[DougRichards]

Depends on the unit and commander. For one the infantry is less likely to cut his force into threes or leave companies behind so probably would have had more mass. The slower marching pace of the infantry also probably means Gatling's and plenty of ammo. Also the infantry might well have been using volley fire giving them mass to counteract poor marksmanship and in any event a man on the ground can fire faster than a man mounted so the US starts with a many times heavier volume of fire. Finally the bayonet on the end of a rifle could be very effective, but was it more effective than saber and pistol?

 

If I am right then its 763 US Army infantry (assuming a unit of the same size) facing between 900 to 2000 warrior light cav. Thats a fight the infantry can win given mass, and volume of fire.

Or perhaps Custer had simply forgotten, or perhaps never learnt, the lessons of the ACW when it came to cavalry, either that or had the mistaken ideals of cavalry superiority burned into his brain.

 

Compare Custer with Buford at Gettysberg. Buford saw the situation that faced him more clearly, that is his cavalry would have to act as dragoons, that is mounted infantry, using horse for mobility but fighting as infantry en masse, aided by the fact that his troopers were armed wih breech loading carbines, like Custer's troopers, or with Spencer repeaters.

 

Buford didn't try a cavalry charge against the advancing Confederates, but held his ground defensively, not using dash and elan, but infantry tactics. Custer apparently only thought cavalry.

 

In the ACW mounted cavalry was good for raiding, recon and against opposing cavalry at the charge, but the idea of cavalry against infantry, except in situations like those that Buford had to deal with, was apparently not tried.

Edited April 19, 2008 by DougRichards

[Marek Tucan]

My understanding is that Buford's tactics was actually converted into SOP for US cavalry and that Custer used it at Little Big Horn as well (well, atleast Reno did for sure, so my guess is Custer as well) - upon or before contact, cavalry dismounts, one man in four (or in eight) holds the horses, rest deploys in a skirmish line and fights from the ground until it's needed to use horses for movement again.

The trouble at LBH wasn't AFAIK that Custer tried cavalry charge, but that his badly deployed, weak and not-shooting-straight outfit was rolled over by enemy with good numbers, good marksmen and good position (theoretically Custer's defence on hilltop was great, practically not much so as hilltop was bare but indians were able to hide in bushes below).

Edited April 19, 2008 by Tuccy

[DougRichards]

My understanding is that Buford's tactics was actually converted into SOP for US cavalry and that Custer used it at Little Big Horn as well (well, atleast Reno did for sure, so my guess is Custer as well) - upon or before contact, cavalry dismounts, one man in four (or in eight) holds the horses, rest deploys in a skirmish line and fights from the ground until it's needed to use horses for movement again.

The trouble at LBH wasn't AFAIK that Custer tried cavalry charge, but that his badly deployed, weak and not-shooting-straight outfit was rolled over by enemy with good numbers, good marksmen and good position (theoretically Custer's defence on hilltop was great, practically not much so as hilltop was bare but indians were able to hide in bushes below).

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Custer charged, but that he had the attitude of the charge, that is cavalry sweeping all before it, as if all he had to do was ride into battle and he would win, rather than the infantry idea of dogged slogging.

[shep854]

Who was the cav commander the Sioux mousetrapped by faking a rout and sucking his command into a kill zone? Wasn't that pre-LBH?

[Colin]

Where the trooper equipped with spades to dig in?

[Old Tanker]

Threadjacker 2000.3 :

 

The LBH was not the worst defeat of the U.S. Army by American Indians.

 

The Battle of the Wabash in 1791 near present day Ft. Wayne Ind. was.

Fed losses were 952 out of 1000. NA losses were 61.

[John Dudek]

Where the trooper equipped with spades to dig in?

 

What few shovels that were available were with the mule pack train.

[Unreal John]

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.

 

Horses and weapons would be valuable loot ("Battlefield salvage" for the PC). I have always been surpised that even one horse was found running loose when the relief force arrived a day later.

[Ol Paint]

Who was the cav commander the Sioux mousetrapped by faking a rout and sucking his command into a kill zone? Wasn't that pre-LBH?

Possibly Capt. William Fetterman, although his force was a mix of 18th Infantry & 2nd Cavalry. Some pictures of the terrain where he got suckered in: http://home.comcast.net/~theangle/RedCloud/fetterman.htm And an interesting article: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa39...i_n9464906/pg_1 I don't know much detail about the Fetterman Massacre, so can't vouch for the veracity of the article.

 

Douglas

[shep854]

Possibly Capt. William Fetterman, although his force was a mix of 18th Infantry & 2nd Cavalry. Some pictures of the terrain where he got suckered in: http://home.comcast.net/~theangle/RedCloud/fetterman.htm And an interesting article: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa39...i_n9464906/pg_1 I don't know much detail about the Fetterman Massacre, so can't vouch for the veracity of the article.

 

Douglas

 

That's what I had in mind. The BNet article was very interesting; I was going on the traditional story, which BTW, Wiki recounts in its article "Red Cloud's War."

[John Dudek]

Or perhaps Custer had simply forgotten, or perhaps never learnt, the lessons of the ACW when it came to cavalry, either that or had the mistaken ideals of cavalry superiority burned into his brain.

 

Compare Custer with Buford at Gettysberg. Buford saw the situation that faced him more clearly, that is his cavalry would have to act as dragoons, that is mounted infantry, using horse for mobility but fighting as infantry en masse, aided by the fact that his troopers were armed wih breech loading carbines, like Custer's troopers, or with Spencer repeaters.

 

Buford didn't try a cavalry charge against the advancing Confederates, but held his ground defensively, not using dash and elan, but infantry tactics. Custer apparently only thought cavalry.

 

In the ACW mounted cavalry was good for raiding, recon and against opposing cavalry at the charge, but the idea of cavalry against infantry, except in situations like those that Buford had to deal with, was apparently not tried.

 

Except that Reno, by dismounting his battalion to fight on foot reduced his combat effectiveness by 1/3, as one man in four would be detailed to hold the horse's reins while the other three fought on the skirmish line. Cavalry's greatest basic natural weapon was the frightening shock and awe value of an unexpected charge against an unprepared enemy. This has been amply demonstrated all throughout history and even during the Indian Wars on numerous occasions. Reno gave up this weapon to fight on foot. Custer and the 7th Cavary suffered for it.

 

American Plains Indians were notoriously lackdaisical about posting security guard details to guard their villages and had Reno's Battalion charged the largely unprepared and sleeping camp as ordered, they probably could have stampeded their pony herds and sent the village inhabitants fleeing wildly to the four compass points, leaving Custer to attack from the other side of the "Big Village."

[MiloMorai]

Except that Reno, by dismounting his battalion to fight on foot reduced his combat effectiveness by 1/3, as one man in four would be detailed to hold the horse's reins while the other three fought on the skirmish line.

 

Typo? 1 in 4 is 1/4.

[John Dudek]

Typo? 1 in 4 is 1/4.

 

Yup. Me and my ten thumbs!

[FITZ]

How might the battle of the Little Big Horn have gone if Custer and his men had Krags or even Lee-Enfields?

 

I doubt very much that the outcome would have been dramatically different. Perhaps a few more native casualties but that is about it.

 

Contrary to popular myth, archeological evidence seems to indicate Native American forces possessed only a small number of repeating rifles and that while Custer was outnumbered somewhere between 3-1 and 9-1 the majority of warriors probably did not even have firearms at the beginning of the battle. Testimony from multiple battle veterans indicates Cavalry firearms were captured in increasing numbers as the battle wore on and turned on their previous owners, gradually increasing the amount of fire Custer's men had to endure. Had these been repeating rifles things would have gone decidedly worse for the exposed Cavalry troopers.

 

It seems likely to me that many Cavalry casualties were probably inflicted by bow and arrow firing from defilade and thus relatively safe from return fire combined with natives popping up to fire rifles and then duck behind cover again. A large number of trooper bodies apparently had arrow wounds which supports this. The natives knew the land they were fighting on and could take advantage of terrain features better than the Cavalry could. Native forces then reduced one skirmish line after another with clear evidence of increasing panic among the remaining troopers until they were apparently overhwelmed in a final charge.

 

So, given likely native tactics and the rapidly deteriorating situation among the troopers I don't see where repeating firearms would have changed much.