modern firearms at The Battle of Little Bighorn
- Thread starter Glock22
- Start date
- Status
"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."
If this is true, then they'd probably need something full auto - and semi-auto shotguns for the close encounters.
I love the Garand, but a single shot rifle wouldn't do much good if the shooter misses the mark 9 times out of 10.
If this is true, then they'd probably need something full auto - and semi-auto shotguns for the close encounters.
I love the Garand, but a single shot rifle wouldn't do much good if the shooter misses the mark 9 times out of 10.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Full auto wasn't feasible with black powder weapons -- they foul too quickly. There was no doctrine for the employment of such weapons (and none would emerge until WWI) and hand-held full auto fire has never been effective in combat.
With the proliferation of full automatic weapons, the miss rate has risen to 999,999 times in 1,000,000.
BigFatKen
Member
To those who would "bunker down"
Klingon tactics 101.
Klingon tactics 101.
carebear
Member
Sure, if you're facing Klingons. 
There are very few actual incidences of tribal opponents, even with a massive numbers advantage, defeating formed and organized troops with decent cover.
The Zulu were regularly defeated by the Boers, even when the Boers were using muzzleloaders. That continued for them, and the Matabele even as they got firearms of their own.
It was much the same with the Plains Indians. The Wagon Box fight, Adobe Wells etc.
Being warriors rather than soldiers, and with a leadership more of consensus than of discipline, they often lacked the will and ability to push home attacks against the massive casualties involved. Oftentimes afterward the surviving defenders stated they could not have held against one more push.
Heck, even soldier vs. soldier, a sufficiently stout defense can win the battle of morale against odds and materiel. Little Round Top springs to mind.
As the Klingon maxim states, you can't win playing defense, but it can keep you from losing in the short term until you can go on the offensive. The indians (and Zulu and Matabele and 'insert tribe name here') couldn't play defense at all and lost.
There are very few actual incidences of tribal opponents, even with a massive numbers advantage, defeating formed and organized troops with decent cover.
The Zulu were regularly defeated by the Boers, even when the Boers were using muzzleloaders. That continued for them, and the Matabele even as they got firearms of their own.
It was much the same with the Plains Indians. The Wagon Box fight, Adobe Wells etc.
Being warriors rather than soldiers, and with a leadership more of consensus than of discipline, they often lacked the will and ability to push home attacks against the massive casualties involved. Oftentimes afterward the surviving defenders stated they could not have held against one more push.
Heck, even soldier vs. soldier, a sufficiently stout defense can win the battle of morale against odds and materiel. Little Round Top springs to mind.
As the Klingon maxim states, you can't win playing defense, but it can keep you from losing in the short term until you can go on the offensive. The indians (and Zulu and Matabele and 'insert tribe name here') couldn't play defense at all and lost.
Mauserguy
Member
Custer lost for tactical reasons, not due to his weaponry. Had he attacked in concert with Reno, and kept his command together, things would have been very different. Instead, he attacked with the premise that the indian camp was a fraction of it's actual size, thus he yielded his every advantage.
It's tactics, not guns.
Mauserguy
It's tactics, not guns.
Mauserguy
Vern Humphrey
Member
Both correct. In addressing the first quote, this illustrates something I used to teach -- "Robust tactics." The opposite, "Fragile tactics" assume that everything will go as you plan -- and if anything doesn't, you lose.
Robust tactics assume that almost nothing will go as you plan -- so your plan is to deal with the unexpected when it happens. Robust tactics call for all around security, careful and thorough reconnaissance, thoroughly briefing subordinates on your intentions, maintaining a reserve, and balanced dispositions (meaning keeping your forces disposed so you can react with maximum combat power in any direction.)
The situation as Custer understood it, called for an attack. And his orders did indeed anticipate offensive action. But he should have kept his regiment concentrated -- and when he sent Benteen off to the left flank, he should not have initiated an attack until Benteen was back. He could have used the time to have scouts go forward and see what was in the valley of the Little Bighorn.
carebear
Member
Given the circumstances and decisions made, it was almost inevitable the attack would have ended badly. Which is just sad, not funny. If not for the loss of life, then for the piss poor performance.
In this case, Custer's men died due to his poor decisions. Soldiers deserve better leadership, so that when they die, as is expected in the business, it at least served a purpose.
Custer's death only led to a vengeful response by the Army and US, which almost assuredly led to greater death and destruction for the rest of the campaign.
Who knows, if Custer had pulled off an attack which dispersed the tribes and led to a political solution, much of the following negative interactions may not have been so bad.
But that's all conjecture.
In this case, Custer's men died due to his poor decisions. Soldiers deserve better leadership, so that when they die, as is expected in the business, it at least served a purpose.
Custer's death only led to a vengeful response by the Army and US, which almost assuredly led to greater death and destruction for the rest of the campaign.
Who knows, if Custer had pulled off an attack which dispersed the tribes and led to a political solution, much of the following negative interactions may not have been so bad.
But that's all conjecture.
Vern Humphrey
Member
No, I don't. Those people you call "arrogant SOB's" were American soldiers -- and most of them were low-ranking enlisted men, often recent immigrants doing their duty for their adopted country.
The fact that they served under an incompetent commander doesn't make them "arrogant SOB's," and you should be ashamed of yourself for calling them that.
<"The fact that they served under an incompetent commander doesn't make them "arrogant SOB's," and you should be ashamed of yourself for calling them that.">
I am a decendant of a soldier that died in the battle of little bighorn. I am also a decendant of a slave, a decendant of multiple people who participated in the underground railroad, and a decendant of the Chippewa. I have mixed feelings about these things.
What I believe is that the people who willingly fought in that battle are murderous land grabbers, and that they got exactly what they asked for. People don't take too kindly to their land and property being stolen from them, and having their relatives raped and murdered. (Not to mention having their prime source of food taken from them, then being forced to hike accross the country to live in the desert.)
Any of you who disagree with me should watch Red Dawn. I find the idea that Native American's should be an exception to be laughable, but not insulting. Can't blame you for not researching this stuff. Most schools sure as hell won't tell you the graphic and ugly truth about the "frontier heros".
I am a decendant of a soldier that died in the battle of little bighorn. I am also a decendant of a slave, a decendant of multiple people who participated in the underground railroad, and a decendant of the Chippewa. I have mixed feelings about these things.
What I believe is that the people who willingly fought in that battle are murderous land grabbers, and that they got exactly what they asked for. People don't take too kindly to their land and property being stolen from them, and having their relatives raped and murdered. (Not to mention having their prime source of food taken from them, then being forced to hike accross the country to live in the desert.)
Any of you who disagree with me should watch Red Dawn. I find the idea that Native American's should be an exception to be laughable, but not insulting. Can't blame you for not researching this stuff. Most schools sure as hell won't tell you the graphic and ugly truth about the "frontier heros".
carebear
Member
I love the assumption that folks who have detailed knowledge of the Little Bighorn and US Cavalry of the time are also somehow simultaneously ignorant of the complex history of the interaction between the US and indians.
That's not even logical in its arrogance.
"Can't blame you for not researching this stuff?" Is it windy up there on your high horse?
That's not even logical in its arrogance.
"Can't blame you for not researching this stuff?" Is it windy up there on your high horse?
Stevie-Ray
Member
Not all of us disagree. I'll back you up. I happen to be a Chippewa Indian. Sure, probably most here didn't even know it. That's because I don't live in the past and wallow in self pity because of my ancestry. But I draw the line when I am supposed to have felt bad for these American soldiers simply because they were American soldiers.
carebear
Member
Again, that's an arrogant and incorrect accusation, and a bit despicable because it is preceded by a comment that purports to be conciliatory.
Equivilent to saying something like "I'm sorry you're such a monster".
If we're going to start pointing fingers at US troops for being "murdering rapists who drove others off their land", I'd like you to show me the peaceable kingdom the indians were in prior to the Europeans arriving.
Oh wait, you can't, because it doesn't exist. Most of the tribes in the now continental US were quite happily murdering, raping, thieving and stealing land from each other since they got here from Asia as well.
That said, I don't revel in the deaths of anyone, indian or US Cavalry, at the Little Bighorn or anywhere else. I view all the losses as sad, not "funny", US soldiers or not.
I guess we can agree to disagree. I find the death of all people sad and something of a loss, and you think it's sometimes "funny". I'm not going to argue.
Kaylee
Member
and... that's about enough of that.
-K
-K
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
