modern firearms at The Battle of Little Bighorn

[Glock22]

So what kind of firearms could have turned the battle of little bighorn into a battle where at least a few soliders survive? and what kind of firearms could have turned it into a victory for the cavalrymen? I think that it would take modern automatic firearms to turn it into a victory. But what do you think?

 

[sparky2726]

If they had had something comparable to the Winchester Mdl94, they would have had a fighting chance. IIRC, the army was armed with the trapdoor springfield, and the indians had repeaters of several types.

Sparky

 

[Valkman]

As outnumbered as they were they probably would've needed M16's, but at least they needed repeaters. The Indians had all sorts of great weapons including several types of repeaters.

 

[JimmyC]

Claymores....lots and lots of claymores....

Oh, and a couple of M-60s and M-79s just for good measure.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Or even just contemporary . . .

Evidently, there were better weapons (or at least rifles with more firepower) available at that time, but what went into battle was the single-shot Springfield carbine.

Oddly, it may not have been primarily the weapons.

Here's an interesting discussion of Custer's weapons on the day:
http://www.historynet.com/magazines/wild_west/3035316.html

George A. Custer's 7th Cavalry had Springfield carbines and Colt .45 revolvers; the Lakota and Cheyenne Indians had a variety of long arms, including repeaters. But were the weapons used on June 25, 1876, the deciding factor in the famous battle?

During the battle, the 7th Cavalry troopers were armed with the Springfield carbine Model 1873 and the Colt Single Action Army revolver Model 1873.

Although repeating rifles such as the Spencer, Winchester and Henry had been available, particularly in the post-Civil War years, the Ordnance Department decided to use a single-shot system. It was selected instead of a repeating system because of manufacturing economy, ruggedness, reliability, efficient use of ammunition and similarity to European weapons systems. Ironically, the board of officers involved in the final selection included Major Marcus A. Reno, who would survive the 7th Cavalry's 1876 debacle on the Little Bighorn.

But here's the one that got me:

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.

But when we get right down to it:

What, then, was the reason that the soldiers made such a poor showing during the West's most famous Army-Indian battle? While Custer's immediate command of 210 men was wiped out and more than 250 troopers and scouts were killed in the fighting on June 25-26, the Indians lost only about 40 or 50 men. The explanation appears to lie in the fact that weapons are no better than the men who use them. Marksmanship training in the frontier Army prior to the 1880s was almost nil. An Army officer recalled the 1870s with nostalgia. "Those were the good old days," he said. "Target practice was practically unknown." A penurious government allowed only about 20 rounds per year for training--a situation altered only because of the Custer disaster. And the 20 rounds of ammunition often were expended in firing at passing game rather than in sharpshooting. The 7th Cavalry was not hampered by new recruits, for only about 12 percent of the force could be considered raw. What handicapped the entire regiment, however, was inadequate training in marksmanship and fire discipline.

There's a lot more. The analysis concludes that

When it came down to one-on-one, warrior versus soldier, however, the warrior was the better fighter.

Mindset, mindset, mindset.

It's a bad idea to do bravery, honor, and posturing while your enemy is doing killing.

 

[Glock22]

I was thinking some kind of battle rifle chambered in .308 so you can take down a horse better. and then highcapacity large caliber handguns, like Glock 21 or 20. Glock 18's wouldnt have hurt either.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Also Note

It's also worth noting that the bulk of the battle took place at relatively long range.

Simply substituting the .45-70 would have solved a lot of that.

If a more modern design could have been used, the M1 Garand would have been all they needed.

It has more range than anything else on the field. It has more hitting power than anything else fielded that day. It has a higher effective rate of fire than anything then available.

My vote? The M1 Garand. It's all the rifle you need (™).

 

[STAGE 2]

Winchesters instead of trap door rifles, don't separate the troops, and don't leave the damn gatlings behind. Those three things, or maybe even the last 2 would have ensured some survivors.

 

[tellner]

Sounds like a great idea!

If the Lakota and their allies had only had selective fire metallic cartridge firearms there would have been many fewer brave warriors killed before they finally squashed that monster like the psychotic bug that he was.

 

[crashresidue]

Now maybe I was smokin' the wrong pipe - but I think that Custer either had or was authorized a couple of Gatling Guns - but either he didn't want them or they were in the "other" column that got there in time to bury the remains.
I think those would have made a huge difference - had they been deployed.
Custer was an IDIOT EGOTIST.
IF you ever get the chance - go to the battlefield. It's "spooky" - like Gettysburg.

cr

 

[Zoogster]

Sounds like a great idea!

If the Lakota and their allies had only had selective fire metallic cartridge firearms there would have been many fewer brave warriors killed before they finally squashed that monster like the psychotic bug that he was.

He was not a great guy. Many wrongs were done to both natives and to settlers. The modern BS spewed in support of anyone that is a minority including natives now however is misleading. I saw polls taken for every war(during the time period of the wars) and the 'Indian Wars' had a higher percent of American support than any other war previously or since, including the Civil War, WW1, and WW2. Some natives were vicious.
Standard tactics included silently raiding a farm when the farmers went out to take care of the animals at sunrise. Killing the men outside with the guns, leaving the women indoors defenseless quite often as many househoulds could only afford an arm or two which were likely with the already dead men. They would then proceed to rape/abduct and/or kill the women. Babies they would swing by thier feet and crack open thier skulls on the side of the building. They would usualy use genital mutilation on the farm animals especialy cows as they particularly hated cows as they saw them as unnatural and hideous beasts unique to white men. Genital mutilation was in many native cultures the ultimate sign of disrespect. They would steal items and set the farm on fire. Most beds and such used feather filled matresses at the time and homes were small on the frontier. So what responding neighbors (that usualy lived over a mile away) would arrive to was popped baby heads, since fire create an upward draft of air..constantly twirling and falling feathers everywhere from the beds, and men dead (possibly scalped, women dead(possibly scalped) or missing, and cows and farm animals with seriously twisted and sick things done to thier bodies that made no sense to the white settlers.

Anger would be high, revenge and justice important. Many viewed Indians as Indians and did not differentiate between tribes and guilty vs non guilty. Soldiers would be called to retaliate and hunt them down, they would often hunt down and attack the wrong tribe. The wrong tribe now wants revenge for wrongful killings of it's own people and did not differentiate between the soldiers and the "white man" settlers. So the cycle of killing was endless and worked both ways unlike modern sympathy creating liberal history designed to make society treat minorities better in the wake of the civil rights movement (yes it is for a good purpose, yet it is still manipulated history told for political purpose). It was the most supported war in our history, and for good reason. Everyone did wrong things, it is easier to blame the winning side and root for the underdog, but it does not change the facts: both did horrendous things.
Try reading some history books printed prior to 1950 and you will see much more detail on accurate battles and history in our country. I have picked up many modern textbooks and found up to a third of them focusing on very short periods in our history such as the civil rights era, and wrongs done to minorities, which while definately worth mentioning and important are not a third of our nation's history, so it gives you some perspective on the purpose of the literature. To use history as a medium to shape public opinion of political and societal goals. One of the main goals was smooth integration of every member of society, even if it meant modifying and telling history from a new perspective that concentrates on creating sympathetic views to those that are seen as needing all the help they can get integrating:minorities.
It was effective. We are now integrated. However an obviously unforseen outcome is a strong sense of entitlement and a reversed hatred from the minorities after being raised with this new perspective and emphasized history. Are they now going to tone it down and once again modify history to create a desired society perspective?
Don't be so naive Tellner. The fact that we are a culture as are the English that like to constantly criticize our own history and decide what would have been perfect as humans in retrospect is unique in the world and is a testament to how much more inclined we are to see wrongs than other cultures.

The spaniards for example unfairly and ruthlessly slaughtered the Aztecs, a society of warriors. Yet you hear a lot about how unfair such slaughter was and nothing about the normal Aztec sacrifices, or cannibalism practiced by many native cultures. Nothing about how slavery and treatment of slaves by natives is far worse than anything compared to American settlers. We were just more advanced and accomplished what we did do on a wider scale, good and bad. Would you rather live in a world where the natives were victorious? Where life was short, family or you was sacrificed, and people were eaten? I don't think so. Many cultures, even modern american natives try to hide some aspects of thier own culture like cannibalistic rituals as they are ashamed. While such things were more common in the Caribean (named after cannibal caribs) and South America, it existed in North American as well.

 

[tellner]

Of course. There were good people and bad people on all sides during the conquest of the Americas. George Armstrong Custer was one of the bad ones by pretty much any standard I can think of. It's a shame so many soldiers under his command had to die at the Greasy Grass.

 

[gunny1022]

Interviewing Indians after the battle showed that up to 50% of the soldiers commited suicide. Archeologist recently wrote a book about metal-detecting and digging surveys of the battle field and found that only small group even fired their rifles very much.

 

[Vairochana]

Perhaps they needed a handful of Welshmen and Martini-Henrys

 

[adobewalls]

the answer is simple, and it ain't modern:

One Maxim - Beltfed, watercooled

If the indians had Sharps rifles, and knew how to use them... no wonder. But I also think the the warrior mindset is critical because there were numerous other events during the day where a few men, completely determined not to sell their lives cheaply held off superior numbers - remember the Battle of Buffalo Wallow.

 

[armoredman]

George Custer was the youngest man breveted to general during the Civil War, and was known as a brilliant man. He left brilliance at home that day, with his three Gatlings. Set up as a three corner firebase, with soldiers being issued a shovel with which to dig in,(and a little time to do so), the Gatlings could have easily turned the tide.
Modern firearms? F-16. One pass, and whatever Indians survived would be pell mell on maddened horses, for whatever hills were handy.

 

[John-Melb]

If it's a miracle Colour Sergeant, it's a short chamber Boxer Henry, point 4.5 caliber miracle.

And a bayonet Sir! With some guts behind it!

At least the Welshmen had bayonets.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Rather, what if Custer and the 7th Cavalry had the Civil War period Spencer 7- shot Repeaters they carried just one year before as well as the Gatlings he left behind.

 

[Fosbery]

Cover, discipline and training. It worked for 92 English, Welsh and Scot soldiers (despite the film, in truth most of the soldiers were English) versus 4,000 zulu warriors, it could work for Custer.

But if we must talk about weaponry, then some AKs. Simple, reliable, repeating, large capacity.

 

[Boom-stick]

A-10 Tank Buster.

Or man mounted mini-guns (Predator style).

But if you're just looking for a few more survivors then only one word springer to mind,


Kevlar.


Well, it is make believe question after all

 

[El Tejon]

Firearms, heck I'd want a radio and a battree of 155s attached.

 

[nbkky71]

While Gatling guns did provide a high volume of firepower, I don't believe that they would have made a difference at the battle. The gatlings of the time were mounted on wheeled carriages and drawn by horses... not very favorable to rapid deployment (or redeployment) in such a fluid battle as the Little Bighorn.

I second the idea that better training and organization would have probably made a difference in the outcome of the battle.

Superior weapons aren't always the answer. The British relied on superior firepower at the battle of Isandlwana (zulu wars) and were wiped out. However, the British detachment at Rorke's Drift held off a vastly superior force using nothing but single shot Martini-Henry rifles & bayonettes

 

[Arc-Lite]

Custer made ALLOT of bad choices, and in a fire fight, that gets you dead....and that applies even if you have better weapons then your foe !! Keep in mind, that if Custer had better weapons, then the chances are good..so would the Indians.

 

[Pilgrim]

Superior weapons aren't always the answer. The British relied on superior firepower at the battle of Isandlwana (zulu wars) and were wiped out. However, the British detachment at Rorke's Drift held off a vastly superior force using nothing but single shot Martini-Henry rifles & bayonettes

A number of factors contributed to the British defeat at Isandlwana. The Zulus attacked Lord Chelmsford's camp guard, which was completely surprised and unprepared. The British never really had the time to form into their famous infantry square formations, and fought as scattered isolated small groups.

The numbers given for Isandlwana show 1,700 British and native ally troops against 20,000 Zulus. The British had artillery, but never had a chance to employ it.

At Rourke's Drift, about 100 British soldiers stood off 4,000 Zulus. Probably the biggest difference between the two battles is at Rourke's Drift the British knew the Zulus were coming and had time to prepare.

Pilgrim

 

[DogBonz]

What did they need?

two words... Ma Duce...

nuf said