|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 10, 2020 14:16:33 GMT
….decline the Gatling guns offered to him by General Terry?
Look, we could go on and on about several factors that led to the disaster at Little Big Horn (not waiting for the rest of the army, not bringing their sabers, dividing the regiment into thirds, et cetera), but for now I'm thinking about the guns. They were big and heavy, mounted on an artillery carriage, and they couldn't move as fast as cavalry, and the hostiles could not be depended on to stand in front of them and be shot as in the European school of thought. They also had a healthy respect for infantry and usually avoided battle with them.
What the cavalry needed were lighter machine guns that could be packed on the back of a horse, like the kind used in the Russo-Japanese war, but these would not be available for another thirty years.
My understanding is that Benteen's column was forced to move more slowly than Custer's and Reno's because his was the one with the mule train. If the Gatling guns had been with him would that have made any difference? I don't see how. By the time he arrived it was all over but the crying.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on May 10, 2020 21:53:04 GMT
Custer's arrogance was his downfall. He wanted to win all the glory and not share it with Gibbon or Crook. He wanted speed so he could win the battle on his own. The Gatling guns certainly would have helped but asking him to wait would have been like asking him to wait until Gibbon and Crook showed. Separating his column into three parts was not the best decision. Not only did Custer want a victory, he wanted a Napoleonic victory. I'm not sure keeping Reno and Benteen would have mattered in the end. Crazy Horse and Gall massively outnumbered Custer and were very capable commanders. All it would have done was lengthen to casualty lists.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 10, 2020 22:18:31 GMT
Custer's arrogance was his downfall. He wanted to win all the glory and not share it with Gibbon or Crook. He wanted speed so he could win the battle on his own. The Gatling guns certainly would have helped but asking him to wait would have been like asking him to wait until Gibbon and Crook showed. Separating his column into three parts was not the best decision. Not only did Custer want a victory, he wanted a Napoleonic victory. I'm not sure keeping Reno and Benteen would have mattered in the end. Crazy Horse and Gall massively outnumbered Custer and were very capable commanders. All it would have done was lengthen to casualty lists. Someone told me once that the 7th was not only outnumbered but outgunned as well, as the hostiles had Winchester and Henry rifles that were supplied to them by Indian agents to hunt buffalo with. As I recall General Crook's infantry clashed with Crazy Horse on the way there, but Crook did not follow through.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on May 10, 2020 23:03:27 GMT
Custer's arrogance was his downfall. He wanted to win all the glory and not share it with Gibbon or Crook. He wanted speed so he could win the battle on his own. The Gatling guns certainly would have helped but asking him to wait would have been like asking him to wait until Gibbon and Crook showed. Separating his column into three parts was not the best decision. Not only did Custer want a victory, he wanted a Napoleonic victory. I'm not sure keeping Reno and Benteen would have mattered in the end. Crazy Horse and Gall massively outnumbered Custer and were very capable commanders. All it would have done was lengthen to casualty lists. Someone told me once that the 7th was not only outnumbered but outgunned as well, as the hostiles had Winchester and Henry rifles that were supplied to them by Indian agents to hunt buffalo with. As I recall General Crook's infantry clashed with Crazy Horse on the way there, but Crook did not follow through. "Of the guns owned by Lakota and Cheyenne fighters at the Little Bighorn, approximately 200 were repeating rifles corresponding to about 1 of 10 of the encampment's two thousand able-bodied fighters who participated in the battle". Most of the rest were armed with CW era muskets. There was a debate about the Gatling guns. They certainly would have helped but they were awkward to move across the broken terrain around the Little Big Horn river. Custer opted for speed. Once again, he fatally underestimated the Lakota, both in numbers and fighting ability.
Sitting Bull had 1500 - 2500 in his camp, but no one knows how many were combatants. Custer had less than 700.
|
|
|
|
Post by truecristian on May 12, 2020 4:23:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on May 12, 2020 5:14:35 GMT
….decline the Gatling guns offered to him by General Terry? Look, we could go on and on about several factors that led to the disaster at Little Big Horn (...) Thoughts? It wasn’t a disaster, it was a great victory for the good guys. I visited Little Big Horn once. Interesting place. Obviously when the battlefield was made into a memorial, it was meant to celebrate only the dead white soldiers. Much later they added another section for the Indians.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 12, 2020 17:13:58 GMT
….decline the Gatling guns offered to him by General Terry? Look, we could go on and on about several factors that led to the disaster at Little Big Horn (...) Thoughts? It wasn’t a disaster, it was a great victory for the good guys. I visited Little Big Horn once. Interesting place. Obviously when the battlefield was made into a memorial, it was meant to celebrate only the dead white soldiers. Much later they added another section for the Indians. It was a great disaster for the Grant Administration, losing more than two hundred soldiers to the natives in a single day. Of course, it was a drop in the bucket compared to the carnage of the Civil War, but I suppose the attitude of the time was that these were a primitive people and the casualties were unnecessarily high. I agree with you about the memorial. It should have happened sooner. Glad you got to visit there. I wouldn't mind seeing it too but I'll probably never make it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on May 12, 2020 17:38:00 GMT
It wasn’t a disaster, it was a great victory for the good guys. I visited Little Big Horn once. Interesting place. Obviously when the battlefield was made into a memorial, it was meant to celebrate only the dead white soldiers. Much later they added another section for the Indians. It was a great disaster for the Grant Administration, losing more than two hundred soldiers to the natives in a single day. Of course, it was a drop in the bucket compared to the carnage of the Civil War, but I suppose the attitude of the time was that these were a primitive people and the casualties were unnecessarily high. I agree with you about the memorial. It should have happened sooner. Glad you got to visit there. I wouldn't mind seeing it too but I'll probably never make it. Yeah, it's a pretty remote place. The only reason I visited is because I did a job in Sheridan (Wyoming) once. I flew into Billings (Montana) and drove south to Wyoming. The Battlefield Monument is off the highway between those two cities. I didn't know it was there beforehand, but when I saw the signs for it I just had to stop. I only wish it had been at a different time of the year instead of the height of winter, as everything was covered in snow.
|
|
|
|
Post by truecristian on May 12, 2020 21:43:29 GMT
rude
|
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on May 14, 2020 3:57:04 GMT
He was wrong. He should've taken the guns and maybe he wouldn't have got got.
|
|
|
|
Post by sadsaak on May 14, 2020 14:23:19 GMT
Custer was unlucky.
The Indians were effectively a militia fighting under a joint leadership and regardless of how brave the individual members of such formations are, 9 times out of ten such formations break under the onslaught of regular troops, which is what Custer was expecting. But this was the tenth time.
Something similar happened at the battle of Insandlwana. The British thought that the Zulus would make a few gallant charges and then call it quits. But they didn't. Instead they just kept on coming. Just like the Indians at Little Big Horn
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on May 14, 2020 14:36:33 GMT
Every U.S. decision, large or small, by the government or any of its representatives in the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries toward Native Americans was wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by sadsaak on May 14, 2020 15:49:29 GMT
Every U.S. decision, large or small, by the government or any of its representatives in the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries toward Native Americans was wrong. That may well be, but at the end the whites had railways and gatling guns and all the Indians had was alcoholism and Dee Brown and that was the bit that counted.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on May 16, 2020 3:54:22 GMT
Every U.S. decision, large or small, by the government or any of its representatives in the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries toward Native Americans was wrong. That may well be, but at the end the whites had railways and gatling guns and all the Indians had was alcoholism and Dee Brown and that was the bit that counted. wow.
|
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on May 16, 2020 6:20:21 GMT
That may well be, but at the end the whites had railways and gatling guns and all the Indians had was alcoholism and Dee Brown and that was the bit that counted. wow. Whites have never been alcoholics, dont'cha know?
|
|
|
|
Post by sadsaak on May 17, 2020 14:57:07 GMT
Whites have never been alcoholics, dont'cha know? But the Indians did not have gatling guns or railways.
Try to keep up You_Got_A_Stew_Goin_Baby
|
|
Joanna
Sophomore
@joanna
Posts: 184
Likes: 100
|
Post by Joanna on Jun 1, 2020 0:20:33 GMT
Apparently he was wrong. The odds were against him.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Jun 2, 2020 17:41:28 GMT
Most troll post .
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 5, 2020 22:37:52 GMT
Which one?  If you mean the OP, it was simply about whether or not a tactical blunder had been committed. By the same token, I think the Japanese made a mistake in not bombing the containers of fuel oil on the ground at Pearl Harbor, but to point it out doesn't mean that I'm on their side. |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Jun 5, 2020 23:26:08 GMT
Which one? If you mean the OP, it was simply about whether or not a tactical blunder had been committed. By the same token, I think the Japanese made a mistake in not bombing the containers of fuel oil on the ground at Pearl Harbor, but to point it out doesn't mean that I'm on their side. basically: That may well be, but at the end the whites had railways and gatling guns and all the Indians had was alcoholism and Dee Brown and that was the bit that counted. odd statement. |
|
