User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:51:41 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
actually there were at least two Indian scouts that survived the day. More than half the regiment survived. ETA: Served in 4th Squadron, 7th Cavalry 1988-1990. Division reconnaissance squadron for 3AD (they're back in Korea now). We had a "Battle of Little Bighorn" battle streamer on our squadron colors…..creepy as hell the first time I saw it. I couldn't help myself….I had to touch it 
GARRY OWEN! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:51:48 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a myth that the Lakota and Cheyenne all had repeaters. They had a few for sure, but most had muzzle loaders, bows and melee weapons not buying that. it was common for all those Natives to have had the technology at that time in the west. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:54:10 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Enough of this horseshit. How would a Calvary deploy a Gatling gun? Early tech and was essentially useless other than in implaced forts. Few historians fault him for leaving them. Just an FYI: Calvary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvary Cavalry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:54:50 PM EDT
[#4]
Jim Bridger seemed to think fucking with them was a bad idea.
He spoke with General Custer and said, "Listen, yellow hair,
The Sioux are a great nation, so treat 'em fair and square. Sit in on their war council, don't laugh away their pride," But Custer didn't listen. At Little Big Horn, Custer died. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:57:43 PM EDT
[#5]
Death wish?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:03:14 PM EDT
[#6]
all you need to know about Custers Last stand/Battle of Little Bighorn can be found here
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:04:40 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I blame it on Benteen (cowardice and vengeance) and Reno (incompetence) More this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:07:07 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Death wish? I don't think Bronson was there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:07:46 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So Custer was a Democrat, then? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Under estimated the number of warriors against him. And their willingness to attack with fury. Over estimated his ability. gd So Custer was a Democrat, then? of course he was, he was a baby killer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:07:57 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Another interesting fact was that Custer HAD Gatling guns, but choose not to deploy with them. I am always surprised when someone bring that up. Gatling guns would have been totally ineffective in the area where they fought. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:09:07 PM EDT
[#11]
He got what he deserved.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:09:34 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Death wish? Custer? Unlikely. Delusions of grandeur, more likely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:10:11 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
all you need to know about Custers Last stand/Battle of Little Bighorn can be found here
<a href="http://s425.photobucket.com/user/svh19044/media/IMAG0207_zpsf2dfa85c.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i425.photobucket.com/albums/pp333/svh19044/IMAG0207_zpsf2dfa85c.jpg</a> Nope. Needs LOTS more Indians.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:11:54 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. Needs LOTS more Indians.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
all you need to know about Custers Last stand/Battle of Little Bighorn can be found here
<a href="http://s425.photobucket.com/user/svh19044/media/IMAG0207_zpsf2dfa85c.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i425.photobucket.com/albums/pp333/svh19044/IMAG0207_zpsf2dfa85c.jpg</a> Nope. Needs LOTS more Indians.
How much more in the field scalping do you want? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:12:13 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am always surprised when someone bring that up. Gatling guns would have been totally ineffective in the area where they fought. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Another interesting fact was that Custer HAD Gatling guns, but choose not to deploy with them. I am always surprised when someone bring that up. Gatling guns would have been totally ineffective in the area where they fought. and wasting ammo trying to hit non formation riders in mass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:15:19 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How much more in the field scalping do you want? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
all you need to know about Custers Last stand/Battle of Little Bighorn can be found here
<a href="http://s425.photobucket.com/user/svh19044/media/IMAG0207_zpsf2dfa85c.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i425.photobucket.com/albums/pp333/svh19044/IMAG0207_zpsf2dfa85c.jpg</a> Nope. Needs LOTS more Indians.
How much more in the field scalping do you want? Sitting Bull's answer: All of it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:15:27 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
not buying that. it was common for all those Natives to have had the technology at that time in the west. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's a myth that the Lakota and Cheyenne all had repeaters. They had a few for sure, but most had muzzle loaders, bows and melee weapons not buying that. it was common for all those Natives to have had the technology at that time in the west. "There were 2,361 cartridges, cases and bullets recovered from the entire battlefield, which reportedly came from 45 different firearms types (including the Army Springfields and Colts, of course) and represented at least 371 individual guns. The evidence indicated that the Indians used Sharps, Smith & Wessons, Evans, Henrys, Winchesters, Remingtons, Ballards, Maynards, Starrs, Spencers, Enfields and Forehand & Wadworths, as well as Colts and Springfields of other calibers. There was evidence of 69 individual Army Springfields on Custer's Field (the square-mile section where Custer's five companies died), but there was also evidence of 62 Indian .44-caliber Henry repeaters and 27 Sharps .50-caliber weapons. In all, on Custer's Field there was evidence of at least 134 Indian firearms versus 81 for the soldiers. It appears that the Army was outgunned as well as outnumbered." Battle of the Little Bighorn: Were the Weapons the Deciding Factor |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:18:16 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"There were 2,361 cartridges, cases and bullets recovered from the entire battlefield, which reportedly came from 45 different firearms types (including the Army Springfields and Colts, of course) and represented at least 371 individual guns. The evidence indicated that the Indians used Sharps, Smith & Wessons, Evans, Henrys, Winchesters, Remingtons, Ballards, Maynards, Starrs, Spencers, Enfields and Forehand & Wadworths, as well as Colts and Springfields of other calibers. There was evidence of 69 individual Army Springfields on Custer's Field (the square-mile section where Custer's five companies died), but there was also evidence of 62 Indian .44-caliber Henry repeaters and 27 Sharps .50-caliber weapons. In all, on Custer's Field there was evidence of at least 134 Indian firearms versus 81 for the soldiers. It appears that the Army was outgunned as well as outnumbered." Battle of the Little Bighorn: Were the Weapons the Deciding Factor Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's a myth that the Lakota and Cheyenne all had repeaters. They had a few for sure, but most had muzzle loaders, bows and melee weapons not buying that. it was common for all those Natives to have had the technology at that time in the west. "There were 2,361 cartridges, cases and bullets recovered from the entire battlefield, which reportedly came from 45 different firearms types (including the Army Springfields and Colts, of course) and represented at least 371 individual guns. The evidence indicated that the Indians used Sharps, Smith & Wessons, Evans, Henrys, Winchesters, Remingtons, Ballards, Maynards, Starrs, Spencers, Enfields and Forehand & Wadworths, as well as Colts and Springfields of other calibers. There was evidence of 69 individual Army Springfields on Custer's Field (the square-mile section where Custer's five companies died), but there was also evidence of 62 Indian .44-caliber Henry repeaters and 27 Sharps .50-caliber weapons. In all, on Custer's Field there was evidence of at least 134 Indian firearms versus 81 for the soldiers. It appears that the Army was outgunned as well as outnumbered." Battle of the Little Bighorn: Were the Weapons the Deciding Factor Yep. It amazes me that people still argue after that report was done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:19:58 PM EDT
[#19]
It would have been easy for the Indians to obtain those types of weapons. There were quite a few traders and trading posts willing to sell them anything they wanted for the right price
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep. It amazes me that people still argue after that report was done. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's a myth that the Lakota and Cheyenne all had repeaters. They had a few for sure, but most had muzzle loaders, bows and melee weapons not buying that. it was common for all those Natives to have had the technology at that time in the west. "There were 2,361 cartridges, cases and bullets recovered from the entire battlefield, which reportedly came from 45 different firearms types (including the Army Springfields and Colts, of course) and represented at least 371 individual guns. The evidence indicated that the Indians used Sharps, Smith & Wessons, Evans, Henrys, Winchesters, Remingtons, Ballards, Maynards, Starrs, Spencers, Enfields and Forehand & Wadworths, as well as Colts and Springfields of other calibers. There was evidence of 69 individual Army Springfields on Custer's Field (the square-mile section where Custer's five companies died), but there was also evidence of 62 Indian .44-caliber Henry repeaters and 27 Sharps .50-caliber weapons. In all, on Custer's Field there was evidence of at least 134 Indian firearms versus 81 for the soldiers. It appears that the Army was outgunned as well as outnumbered." Battle of the Little Bighorn: Were the Weapons the Deciding Factor Yep. It amazes me that people still argue after that report was done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:20:36 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
it would not have mattered. period. one of the largest party of plains indians gathered for war? that bastard had no chance. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I blame it on Benteen (cowardice and vengeance) and Reno (incompetence) it would not have mattered. period. one of the largest party of plains indians gathered for war? that bastard had no chance. Bullshit. If Reno had held his good position in the woods and Benteen followed Custer orders, it could have been a bloody battle, but certainly not such a massacre. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:22:20 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
not buying that. it was common for all those Natives to have had the technology at that time in the west. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's a myth that the Lakota and Cheyenne all had repeaters. They had a few for sure, but most had muzzle loaders, bows and melee weapons not buying that. it was common for all those Natives to have had the technology at that time in the west. Wake up son. It's a historical fact. Custer didn't face an army of 1866 and 1873 Winchester repeaters. It is believe that not even one in 5 native had them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:24:03 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would have been easy for the Indians to obtain those types of weapons. There were quite a few traders and trading posts willing to sell them anything they wanted for the right price Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would have been easy for the Indians to obtain those types of weapons. There were quite a few traders and trading posts willing to sell them anything they wanted for the right price Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's a myth that the Lakota and Cheyenne all had repeaters. They had a few for sure, but most had muzzle loaders, bows and melee weapons not buying that. it was common for all those Natives to have had the technology at that time in the west. "There were 2,361 cartridges, cases and bullets recovered from the entire battlefield, which reportedly came from 45 different firearms types (including the Army Springfields and Colts, of course) and represented at least 371 individual guns. The evidence indicated that the Indians used Sharps, Smith & Wessons, Evans, Henrys, Winchesters, Remingtons, Ballards, Maynards, Starrs, Spencers, Enfields and Forehand & Wadworths, as well as Colts and Springfields of other calibers. There was evidence of 69 individual Army Springfields on Custer's Field (the square-mile section where Custer's five companies died), but there was also evidence of 62 Indian .44-caliber Henry repeaters and 27 Sharps .50-caliber weapons. In all, on Custer's Field there was evidence of at least 134 Indian firearms versus 81 for the soldiers. It appears that the Army was outgunned as well as outnumbered." Battle of the Little Bighorn: Were the Weapons the Deciding Factor Yep. It amazes me that people still argue after that report was done. The paragraph right after that one... "Survivors of the remaining seven companies of the 7th Cavalry asserted that the Indians were equipped with repeating rifles and mentioned Winchesters as often as not. Major Marcus Reno claimed: 'The Indians had Winchester rifles and the column made a large target for them and they were pumping bullets into it.' Although some white survivors claimed to be heavily outgunned, Private Charles Windolph of Company H was probably closest to the truth when he estimated that half the warriors carried bows and arrows, one-quarter of them carried a variety of old muzzleloaders and single-shot rifles, and one-quarter carried modern repeaters." Even with only 25% carrying repeaters that would be 4-5X the number of US troops on the field. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:25:12 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"There were 2,361 cartridges, cases and bullets recovered from the entire battlefield, which reportedly came from 45 different firearms types (including the Army Springfields and Colts, of course) and represented at least 371 individual guns. The evidence indicated that the Indians used Sharps, Smith & Wessons, Evans, Henrys, Winchesters, Remingtons, Ballards, Maynards, Starrs, Spencers, Enfields and Forehand & Wadworths, as well as Colts and Springfields of other calibers. There was evidence of 69 individual Army Springfields on Custer's Field (the square-mile section where Custer's five companies died), but there was also evidence of 62 Indian .44-caliber Henry repeaters and 27 Sharps .50-caliber weapons. In all, on Custer's Field there was evidence of at least 134 Indian firearms versus 81 for the soldiers. It appears that the Army was outgunned as well as outnumbered." Battle of the Little Bighorn: Were the Weapons the Deciding Factor Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's a myth that the Lakota and Cheyenne all had repeaters. They had a few for sure, but most had muzzle loaders, bows and melee weapons not buying that. it was common for all those Natives to have had the technology at that time in the west. "There were 2,361 cartridges, cases and bullets recovered from the entire battlefield, which reportedly came from 45 different firearms types (including the Army Springfields and Colts, of course) and represented at least 371 individual guns. The evidence indicated that the Indians used Sharps, Smith & Wessons, Evans, Henrys, Winchesters, Remingtons, Ballards, Maynards, Starrs, Spencers, Enfields and Forehand & Wadworths, as well as Colts and Springfields of other calibers. There was evidence of 69 individual Army Springfields on Custer's Field (the square-mile section where Custer's five companies died), but there was also evidence of 62 Indian .44-caliber Henry repeaters and 27 Sharps .50-caliber weapons. In all, on Custer's Field there was evidence of at least 134 Indian firearms versus 81 for the soldiers. It appears that the Army was outgunned as well as outnumbered." Battle of the Little Bighorn: Were the Weapons the Deciding Factor 143 Indian firearms...? Big deal... There was prolly 2000 warriors that day (even though that number shrinks a lot since 1876) ... That not even 1 firearm for 10 warriors. Again. They might have faced repeaters... But they didn't lose this battle technologically, but tactically. Nope, Custer men's didn't face 2000 better equipped warriors... At best, the same number was equally or better armed than them. They were massacred because Custer was left (by Reno's incompetence during the first engagement and Benteen will to not follow order and regulations) to fight alone nearly all the warriors at the camp that day,. That doesn't imply that custer's plan to seize the "civilians" to force the warriors to surrender wasn't flawed to begin with... This wasn't the 1860's anymore... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:26:43 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am always surprised when someone bring that up. Gatling guns would have been totally ineffective in the area where they fought. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Another interesting fact was that Custer HAD Gatling guns, but choose not to deploy with them. I am always surprised when someone bring that up. Gatling guns would have been totally ineffective in the area where they fought. Please explain? The ridge line, if my memory serves me right has a pretty good angle for fire. Are you basing it on the ability to maneuver the weapon and the time to deploy it? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:28:11 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not to mention, the Native Americans were better equipped! They had repeater rifles, to the Cav's single action. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The only survivor was a horse. Yes, it was Custer's ego that got him killed, and another Captain's choice not to back him up. And a shit load of Indians. Any truth to the fact Indian scouts told Custer "You don't have enough bullets for al those Indians"? Not to mention, the Native Americans were better equipped! They had repeater rifles, to the Cav's single action. Yup. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:30:39 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep. It amazes me that people still argue after that report was done. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's a myth that the Lakota and Cheyenne all had repeaters. They had a few for sure, but most had muzzle loaders, bows and melee weapons not buying that. it was common for all those Natives to have had the technology at that time in the west. "There were 2,361 cartridges, cases and bullets recovered from the entire battlefield, which reportedly came from 45 different firearms types (including the Army Springfields and Colts, of course) and represented at least 371 individual guns. The evidence indicated that the Indians used Sharps, Smith & Wessons, Evans, Henrys, Winchesters, Remingtons, Ballards, Maynards, Starrs, Spencers, Enfields and Forehand & Wadworths, as well as Colts and Springfields of other calibers. There was evidence of 69 individual Army Springfields on Custer's Field (the square-mile section where Custer's five companies died), but there was also evidence of 62 Indian .44-caliber Henry repeaters and 27 Sharps .50-caliber weapons. In all, on Custer's Field there was evidence of at least 134 Indian firearms versus 81 for the soldiers. It appears that the Army was outgunned as well as outnumbered." Battle of the Little Bighorn: Were the Weapons the Deciding Factor Yep. It amazes me that people still argue after that report was done. something else to think about was that alot of the evidence had been scavenged over the years by Native American and Historians alike. I've heard different ideas on the subject. I know that the Native Americans would have cherry picked anything they could as "Big Medicine" from the field. those items ( and empty hulls would certainly count) would have been very highly regarded for fetishes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:31:52 PM EDT
[#27]
Little Big Man survived, at least in the movie.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:32:50 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The only survivor was a horse. Yes, it was Custer's ego that got him killed, and another Captain's choice not to back him up. And a shit load of Indians. Any truth to the fact Indian scouts told Custer "You don't have enough bullets for al those Indians"? Not to mention, the Native Americans were better equipped! They had repeater rifles, to the Cav's single action. Yup. Again.. Only a marginal number of native warriors had repeaters. As someone mentioned up here. They have found only 143 different "native" firearms by the spent shells... Let's say that this number is off by a factor 2, that's only 286 firearms... (Among them, repeaters of course).... Less than Custer companies guns that day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:34:30 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
something else to think about was that alot of the evidence had been scavenged over the years by Native American and Historians alike. I've heard different ideas on the subject. I know that the Native Americans would have cherry picked anything they could as "Big Medicine" from the field. those items ( and empty hulls would certainly count) would have been very highly regarded for fetishes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's a myth that the Lakota and Cheyenne all had repeaters. They had a few for sure, but most had muzzle loaders, bows and melee weapons not buying that. it was common for all those Natives to have had the technology at that time in the west. "There were 2,361 cartridges, cases and bullets recovered from the entire battlefield, which reportedly came from 45 different firearms types (including the Army Springfields and Colts, of course) and represented at least 371 individual guns. The evidence indicated that the Indians used Sharps, Smith & Wessons, Evans, Henrys, Winchesters, Remingtons, Ballards, Maynards, Starrs, Spencers, Enfields and Forehand & Wadworths, as well as Colts and Springfields of other calibers. There was evidence of 69 individual Army Springfields on Custer's Field (the square-mile section where Custer's five companies died), but there was also evidence of 62 Indian .44-caliber Henry repeaters and 27 Sharps .50-caliber weapons. In all, on Custer's Field there was evidence of at least 134 Indian firearms versus 81 for the soldiers. It appears that the Army was outgunned as well as outnumbered." Battle of the Little Bighorn: Were the Weapons the Deciding Factor Yep. It amazes me that people still argue after that report was done. something else to think about was that alot of the evidence had been scavenged over the years by Native American and Historians alike. I've heard different ideas on the subject. I know that the Native Americans would have cherry picked anything they could as "Big Medicine" from the field. those items ( and empty hulls would certainly count) would have been very highly regarded for fetishes. This makes sense. But they would have picked "white" shells as much as "native" shells... By comparison we can deduce that there weren't that many firearms (and repeaters) as initially thought. Nope. Custer didn't fight 2000 winchesters... Anyway. To the point. I don't think that the native won this battle because of superior equipment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:36:57 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not if he was anything like what was portrayed in Little Big Man.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I like Custer. Not if he was anything like what was portrayed in Little Big Man. LOL, what year did you see that movie?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:38:00 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Custer? Unlikely. Delusions of grandeur, more likely. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Death wish? Custer? Unlikely. Delusions of grandeur, more likely. I think he was trying to negate all the black marks on his reputation with a glorious victory because his political ambitions were in the toilet. I don't think that would have been enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:38:35 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bullshit. If Reno had held his good position in the woods and Benteen followed Custer orders, it could have been a bloody battle, but certainly not such a massacre. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I blame it on Benteen (cowardice and vengeance) and Reno (incompetence) it would not have mattered. period. one of the largest party of plains indians gathered for war? that bastard had no chance. Bullshit. If Reno had held his good position in the woods and Benteen followed Custer orders, it could have been a bloody battle, but certainly not such a massacre. I'm Choctaw, no dog in the hunt- but I have talked to direct decendants of some of the Natives at Red Earth and have always found their family versions of the encampment and battle fascinating. Custer is considered a Demon on earth here in Oklahoma. everything I have ever heard regarding the Natives at LBH was that it was the largest gathering of warriors in history and no matter who had operated in Text Book Fashion it still would have been a slaughter. more soldiers to die- more scalps to have been taken. the Natives knew what Custer stood for and would do. they had made their plans to remove him as soon as possible along with the troops with him, with lever guns, Sharps, Muzzle Loaders, Lances, Arrows, War Clubs and the knife. they knew their tribes survival depended on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:39:11 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. Custer didn't fight 2000 winchesters... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. Custer didn't fight 2000 winchesters... And nobody said that he did. Anyway. To the point. I don't think that the native won this battle because of superior equipment.
It was a combination of much better tactics, overwhelming numbers, and in some cases, better equipment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:40:09 PM EDT
[#34]
To think after the civil war the US army dumped Spencer rifles and went with a trapdoor which was a huge step backwards . The Gatling guns could have changed the war in the area of Custer potentially would have been slower moving and made different decisions .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:40:30 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I blame it on Benteen (cowardice and vengeance) and Reno (incompetence) Custer shares some of that blame for initiating the attack in the first place. It was ill conceived. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:42:56 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Enough of this horseshit. How would a Calvary deploy a Gatling gun? Early tech and was essentially useless other than in implaced forts. Few historians fault him for leaving them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The only survivor was a horse. Yes, it was Custer's ego that got him killed, and another Captain's choice not to back him up. And a shit load of Indians. Any truth to the fact Indian scouts told Custer "You don't have enough bullets for al those Indians"? Not to mention, the Native Americans were better equipped! They had repeater rifles, to the Cav's single action. Another interesting fact was that Custer HAD Gatling guns, but choose not to deploy with them. Enough of this horseshit. How would a Calvary deploy a Gatling gun? Early tech and was essentially useless other than in implaced forts. Few historians fault him for leaving them. He didn't choose, he was ORDERED to use pack mules rather than wagon train by an idiot. He could have used gatling guns from wagon trains. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:43:10 PM EDT
[#37]
BA in History here. That puts me on the first floor.
I've walked the battlefield twice, and took my three oldest boys to see a big exhibit, of recovered firearms and projectiles, at Rock Island Arsenal. I'm with Shung on this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:45:03 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He didn't choose, he was ORDERED to use pack mules rather than wagon train by an idiot. He could have used gatling guns from wagon trains. And done what with them? The Indians surrounded his troops in gullies and ravines and showered them with arrows shot at a high angle. They stood to shoot his troops and then ducked down and moved. Gatling guns would have been worthless in such a fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:45:10 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wake up son. It's a historical fact. Custer didn't face an army of 1866 and 1873 Winchester repeaters. It is believe that not even one in 5 native had them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's a myth that the Lakota and Cheyenne all had repeaters. They had a few for sure, but most had muzzle loaders, bows and melee weapons not buying that. it was common for all those Natives to have had the technology at that time in the west. Wake up son. It's a historical fact. Custer didn't face an army of 1866 and 1873 Winchester repeaters. It is believe that not even one in 5 native had them. they didn't have to arm every single brave. to think they did is insane. 1 in 5 is enough...1 in 10 would have still been a blood bath. pure and simple. I know what my family living in Indian Territory had available at that time....I have the guns and pictures. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:45:39 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again.. Only a marginal number of native warriors had repeaters. As someone mentioned up here. They have found only 143 different "native" firearms by the spent shells... Let's say that this number is off by a factor 2, that's only 286 firearms... (Among them, repeaters of course).... Less than Custer companies guns that day. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The only survivor was a horse. Yes, it was Custer's ego that got him killed, and another Captain's choice not to back him up. And a shit load of Indians. Any truth to the fact Indian scouts told Custer "You don't have enough bullets for al those Indians"? Not to mention, the Native Americans were better equipped! They had repeater rifles, to the Cav's single action. Yup. Again.. Only a marginal number of native warriors had repeaters. As someone mentioned up here. They have found only 143 different "native" firearms by the spent shells... Let's say that this number is off by a factor 2, that's only 286 firearms... (Among them, repeaters of course).... Less than Custer companies guns that day. They only identifled 81 US weapons through forensics. Does that mean only 1 in 3 of the dead troopers had a gun, or 1 in 8 of the total troopers there? No, it's just what they identified, no more or less. This one says over 300 seperate Indian weapons indentifed (minimum). Skip to page 110. Interestingly enough, they had forensically identifled 16 specific weapons as being used on the battlefield through firing pin impressions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:47:28 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm Choctaw, no dog in the hunt- but I have talked to direct decendants of some of the Natives at Red Earth and have always found their family versions of the encampment and battle fascinating. Custer is considered a Demon on earth here in Oklahoma. everything I have ever heard regarding the Natives at LBH was that it was the largest gathering of warriors in history and no matter who had operated in Text Book Fashion it still would have been a slaughter. more soldiers to die- more scalps to have been taken. the Natives knew what Custer stood for and would do. they had made their plans to remove him as soon as possible along with the troops with him, with lever guns, Sharps, Muzzle Loaders, Lances, Arrows, War Clubs and the knife. they knew their tribes survival depended on it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I blame it on Benteen (cowardice and vengeance) and Reno (incompetence) it would not have mattered. period. one of the largest party of plains indians gathered for war? that bastard had no chance. Bullshit. If Reno had held his good position in the woods and Benteen followed Custer orders, it could have been a bloody battle, but certainly not such a massacre. I'm Choctaw, no dog in the hunt- but I have talked to direct decendants of some of the Natives at Red Earth and have always found their family versions of the encampment and battle fascinating. Custer is considered a Demon on earth here in Oklahoma. everything I have ever heard regarding the Natives at LBH was that it was the largest gathering of warriors in history and no matter who had operated in Text Book Fashion it still would have been a slaughter. more soldiers to die- more scalps to have been taken. the Natives knew what Custer stood for and would do. they had made their plans to remove him as soon as possible along with the troops with him, with lever guns, Sharps, Muzzle Loaders, Lances, Arrows, War Clubs and the knife. they knew their tribes survival depended on it. I don't doubt the natives will and motivation. I have a lot of respect for the natives. I studied it a little bit. Even learned a tad of Lakota language. But shear numbers had not been a warranty of success for them in the past. That's all. See what happened at the Rosebud, for example. Their only other major victory during the same era/location, is the Fetterman massacre/100 in the hand for the natives. And again. They won that one because of the tactic they employed, and by the mistakes of their enemy. Not just shear number or superior tech. I firmly believe that Reno, Benteen and Custer could have fought and and survived the Natives that day, if only all three of them had not done all those mistakes |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:49:06 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Custer shares some of that blame for initiating the attack in the first place. It was ill conceived. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I blame it on Benteen (cowardice and vengeance) and Reno (incompetence) Custer shares some of that blame for initiating the attack in the first place. It was ill conceived. Maybe.. But if you plan something that is not good to begin with, it's only getting worse if your orders aren't followed and if your lieutenants let you down... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:49:14 PM EDT
[#43]
So, is anyone gonna bring up that Custer was the primary reason why the attempted cavalry flanking during Pickett's Charge failed?
It's no surprise that the "hero" of Gettysburg during the War of Northern Aggression wore all black. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:50:02 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryThey only identifled 81 US weapons through forensics. Does that mean only 1 in 3 of the dead troopers had a gun, or 1 in 8 of the total troopers there? No, it's just what they identified, no more or less.
This one says over 300 seperate Indian weapons indentifed (minimum). Skip to page 110. Interestingly enough, they had forensically identifled 16 specific weapons as being used on the battlefield through firing pin impressions. Nice read, Thanks! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:50:19 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
BA in History here. That puts me on the first floor.
I've walked the battlefield twice, and took my three oldest boys to see a big exhibit, of recovered firearms and projectiles, at Rock Island Arsenal. I'm with Shung on this. LoL, same for History. And same for walking the battlefield twice. Please get out of my life
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:51:55 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And done what with them? The Indians surrounded his troops in gullies and ravines and showered them with arrows shot at a high angle. They stood to shoot his troops and then ducked down and moved. Gatling guns would have been worthless in such a fight. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He didn't choose, he was ORDERED to use pack mules rather than wagon train by an idiot. He could have used gatling guns from wagon trains. And done what with them? The Indians surrounded his troops in gullies and ravines and showered them with arrows shot at a high angle. They stood to shoot his troops and then ducked down and moved. Gatling guns would have been worthless in such a fight. See ? Even you start acknowledging that it might not have been "winchesters and Henry's" to win the fight that day..
There isn't much you can do even behind the cover of your dead mount, if arrows are raining down the sky.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:52:06 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And done what with them? The Indians surrounded his troops in gullies and ravines and showered them with arrows shot at a high angle. They stood to shoot his troops and then ducked down and moved. Gatling guns would have been worthless in such a fight. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He didn't choose, he was ORDERED to use pack mules rather than wagon train by an idiot. He could have used gatling guns from wagon trains. And done what with them? The Indians surrounded his troops in gullies and ravines and showered them with arrows shot at a high angle. They stood to shoot his troops and then ducked down and moved. Gatling guns would have been worthless in such a fight. I don't think that Custer would have ended up in that situation if he was using the supply train system that he was accustomed to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:54:01 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
See ? Even you start acknowledging that it might not have been "winchesters and Henry's" to win the fight that day..
There isn't much you can do even behind the cover of your dead mount, if arrows are raining down the sky.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He didn't choose, he was ORDERED to use pack mules rather than wagon train by an idiot. He could have used gatling guns from wagon trains. And done what with them? The Indians surrounded his troops in gullies and ravines and showered them with arrows shot at a high angle. They stood to shoot his troops and then ducked down and moved. Gatling guns would have been worthless in such a fight. See ? Even you start acknowledging that it might not have been "winchesters and Henry's" to win the fight that day..
There isn't much you can do even behind the cover of your dead mount, if arrows are raining down the sky.... I have seen paintings made by some of the Indians who were there and they show many soldiers with many, many arrows sticking all over them. It must have been horrible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:56:15 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryThey only identifled 81 US weapons through forensics. Does that mean only 1 in 3 of the dead troopers had a gun, or 1 in 8 of the total troopers there? No, it's just what they identified, no more or less. This one says over 300 seperate Indian weapons indentifed (minimum). Skip to page 110. Interestingly enough, they had forensically identifled 16 specific weapons as being used on the battlefield through firing pin impressions. So number are off by a factor 4 or something like that ? Ok.. So that's about 500 firearms for the natives.. Aren't we talking about at least 2000 warriors ? That's one firearm every four warrior... Again. To the point. The technological difference is not what won/lost that battle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:56:23 PM EDT
[#50]
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
