Home Main Category Clubhouse

Should Custer have taken the GatlingGuns with him to the Little Big Horn?

JayhawkerJayhawker Posts: 18,355 Senior Member
Much to do is made about Custer's decision not to take a battery of Gatling guns with him to the Little Big Horn onthe premise that they would slow him down.
We now know, that Custer was right...Reno took the guns...and they slowed him down. Interestingly the 7th and 2nd Cavalry were short of horses in June 1876 and the horses assigned to the batteries were condemned cavalry horses - not fit for service. As Reno's column advanced, the guns lagged behind, one overturned, several times, the crews had to break the guns down and haul them across gullies and once, they got lost and had to abandon the guns on the plains until daylight.....taking all that into consideration, Custer probably SHOULD have taken them...and might not have ended up the the pickle he found himself....
Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
«1

Replies

  • 1965Jeff1965Jeff Posts: 1,650 Senior Member
    Any amount of extra firepower would of helped out the doomed troopers. Fighting with single shot springfields vs. repeating rifles they were under gunned and over powered by the sheer numbers of the enemy. After they abandoned their mounts they lost any ability to move rapidly anyway and the guns left at the wagons would have been useful until ammunition supplies gave out, perhaps even breaking the attack brought on by the OPFOR. It's all conjecture, but hindsight is always 20-20. When the enemy closed within 200 yards, the soldiers lost any weapon advantage - accuracy, they had. FWIW.
  • Gene LGene L Posts: 12,815 Senior Member
    I don't think he should have. Gatling guns weren't mobile enough to do any good against highly mobile Indians. They took a crew of three or four (maybe more) to operate them and were not for inexperienced cavalry troopers. They did well against massed targets when they weren't subject to attack from behind, which wasn't the case with Custer. He was surrounded.

    Of course, they might have intimidated the Indians, so it's hard to say absolutely no. And since he lost, there's always the claims "If he only had....".
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • KSU FirefighterKSU Firefighter Posts: 3,249 Senior Member
    Not to mention it might have changed his tactics in dividing his force, trying to coordinate an attack between those forces and communicating between his forces. Hubris will get you every time. Scouting his opponents forces and positions would have been a good idea. Again easy to say from the 20-20 of history.
    The fire service needs a "culture of extinguishment not safety" Ray McCormack FDNY
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Posts: 14,103 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Any idiot that would send under 300 guys against a force of over 5,000 does not have enough brains to utilize ANYTHING effectively...

    300-workout-pic.jpg
    Meh.
  • 1965Jeff1965Jeff Posts: 1,650 Senior Member
    Custer in his prior skirmish with the Indians lost the advantage and let them slip away, he was too fired up to save face by not engaging on this opportunity and
    "poorly led" enemy, his rush to close with them before they "got away" was his undoing. His desire for more write ups in the papers clouded any fair judgement he had of the situation. The widow Custer made it the rest of her life's mission to glorify her husband's demise.
  • jaywaptijaywapti Posts: 5,114 Senior Member
    What I never understood was why the army didn't issue the Win. 1868 or 1873 instead of the single shot Springfield's .

    JAY
    THE DEFINITION OF GUN CONTROL IS HITTING THE TARGET WITH YOUR FIRST SHOT
  • PFDPFD Posts: 1,898 Senior Member
    There's a bumper sticker that is popular on Indian reservations:

    "Custer Had It Coming"
    That's all I got.

    Paul
  • Gene LGene L Posts: 12,815 Senior Member
    They lacked the range of the Trapdoor. Same reason the acceptance of the M 16 raised so much objection over the M 14. History has shown these objections to be wrong, of course. Firepower always wins close up battles over accuracy and long range.

    Plus, they'd be really hard to clean shooting BP. Can't disassemble one easily. And they'd be a lot more expensive and slow to reload.

    I believe the Turks are the only one that used lever guns in battle. 1895 Winchesters, I believe. Which could be reloaded with a clip, IIRC.

    Edit: I agree Custer was not a nice guy. He virtually slaughtered an Indian village at Washita, in now OK. Peaceful Indians, as well. Not a loss of a single Trooper. The circumstances were kinda similar to Little Big Horn in that he attacked a village, although the end was not at all what happened at Washita. Maybe he had this in mind at Little Big Horn.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Posts: 14,103 Senior Member
    It was the Russians who used the 1895. In 7.62x54R, with a stripper clip guide.

    As to the lever actions, one has to remember that for the longest time, the Army was worried about people wasting ammo. I mean, 1903 Springfield rifles has a mag cutoff to prevent them from being used as a repeater unless it was "necessary."
    Meh.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • Gene LGene L Posts: 12,815 Senior Member
    For good reasons were they worried about wasting ammo. It was horse-days for transportation, and moving ammo up to the front was a challenge. In "British Snipers and Equipment" the author says Headquarters had only about 180 rounds per soldier at most (at all levels up to warehouse level.) This was during WW I, where the basic load was 60 rounds at the front.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Posts: 18,355 Senior Member
    I was recently reading the account of Rain-in-the-Face, a Lakota who was present at the battle, and is likely the one who killed Tom Custer (and cut out his heart, took a bite and spat it in the dead Custer's face)....while contemporary accounts list somewhere between 36 and 125 Lakota & Cheyenne killed in the battle....he claims there were 16, 26 if you count the 10 Cheyenne... The press at the time discounted these numbers because the public HAD to believe that the "gallant" Custer and his men had slaughtered the savages in droves...

    I also found of interest that it was the belief of Reno that there was no "Last Stand"...that after his arrival at the scene the following day, from the disposition of most of the dead enlisted men, scattered out as they were, that the fight had turned into a rout.

    Also, a notable character, First Sgt John Ryan, M Troop, 7th Cavalry was with Reno when they tangled with the Lakota and Cheyenne...First Sgt. Ryan had toted along his personal 15 pound Sharps with a telescopic sight in "Caliber .45" (I can't find if this was a .45-70, but suspect that it was) and used it to good effect to keep the Indians at a distance. There are those who believed that Ryan should have been received the Medal of onor for his service that day... for more on First Sgt. Ryan
    http://csharpsarms.com/famoussharps-article/14/First-Sergeant-Ryan.html
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • Gene LGene L Posts: 12,815 Senior Member
    There was a show today on the American Heroes Channel about Custer's last stand. It was found by forensics that the troop split into three sections along a ridge, about a mile from one end to the other. So in effect, it was a Last Stand or Three Last Stands.

    Poor command, pisspooer tactics, and over confidence on Custer's part.

    BTW, the Turks used Winchester Model 66s against the Russians when the Russian and the Ottoman Turks were waring. They lost the battle but inflicted huge casualties on the Russians. The Russians did use the Model 95s in 7.62 x 54 Russians.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Posts: 18,355 Senior Member
    jaywapti wrote: »
    What I never understood was why the army didn't issue the Win. 1868 or 1873 instead of the single shot Springfield's .

    JAY

    This would fall on the shoulders of the "Chief of Procurement" James Ripley, who, through the civil war, fought the acceptance of repeating firearms tooth and nail (The Spencer and the Henry). believing them to be "Newfangled gimcracks" and would do nothing but waste ammunition. Also he could buy a percussion musket for $18.00, a Spencer was $40.00
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Posts: 18,355 Senior Member
    1965Jeff wrote: »
    Fighting with single shot springfields vs. repeating rifles .

    Rain-in-the-Face and other warriors accounts downplay the repeating rifle theory...they attest that at the end they did most of the killing close in with clubs and tomahawks....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Posts: 10,932 Senior Member
    300-workout-pic.jpg

    Now they could have used some Gatling guns
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Posts: 18,355 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    I don't think he should have. Gatling guns weren't mobile enough to do any good against highly mobile Indians. They took a crew of three or four (maybe more) to operate them and were not for inexperienced cavalry troopers. They did well against massed targets when they weren't subject to attack from behind, which wasn't the case with Custer. He was surrounded.

    .

    The Gatling Gun battery was manned by infantrymen from the 20th Infantry on detail as artillerymen.....This was a three-gun battery, each gun manned by 8 men...the battery went afield with 2 Officers, 24 NCOs and enlisted men and each gun and ammunition caisson was pulled by a 4 horse hitch of condemned cavalry horses....

    Custer, as it turns out, also refused an additional 4 troops from the 2nd Cavalry...probably a good thing for those troopers considering who was leading them....the death toll would have been larger....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • BufordBuford Posts: 6,724 Senior Member
    If only they could have bought the tank around.

    Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Posts: 18,355 Senior Member
    Buford wrote: »
    If only they could have bought the tank around.

    Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

    ....and a gunship....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • samzheresamzhere Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    300-workout-pic.jpg

    Yes, but look what happened to them.
  • NNNN Posts: 25,235 Senior Member
  • shushshush Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    ......... the Turks used Winchester Model 66s against the Russians when the Russian and the Ottoman Turks were waring......


    ''According to sources the Turkish army defending the front along the River Danube at Plevne(today in Bulgaria) aginst the Russians in the Turco-Russo War 1877-78 Turkish army had 2 kinds of rifles.

    a- the long range 45 inch one -shoot- rifle called Peabody Martin produced by USA company Providence Tool Company, Rhode Island

    b- Winchester rifles

    Turkish commander Osman Pasha (later fieldmarchal, free mason and Ghazi) created a new tactic during the war to stop the Russians, He gave every oldier a Martin and a Winchester. As the assoulting Russians were in a range of 1500 meters the Turks fired their Martins. As they were within 150- 200 meters Turks fired Winchesters which had a capacity to hold 17 bullets. Thiis tactic coused the Russians many casualties.''



    Bit of a different slant perhaps, may be of interest, if not seen before.

    ;





    We brought ours along;


    Zulu war 1879.

    84858.jpg

    royal-navy-gatling.jpg
  • Dr. dbDr. db Posts: 1,541 Senior Member
    What Jay said with regard to army ordinance. That guy was around for about 50 years and vetoed every rapid fire weapon there was.
    Second, if they really wanted to win they should have sent Mackensie and the 5th.
    Third, some accounts say when they killed their horses for breastworks the horses fell on the ammo bags and the troopers ran out of ammo. Later cavalry commanders told troopers to put ammo in their pockets.
    Fourth, Custer got by as long as he could with no brains.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    I got a Martini Henry ("Zulu Rifle") .45/.577 and a .577 Snider Conversion at home I plan to shoot someday, maybe next SE Shoot. Ammo is an issue and $$$$, but there are ways to form the brass from brass shotgun shells and someone cast the bullets you paper patch.

    The Turks are good to have on ones side. I read in Korea they did some some very heroic work belly crawling up a hill and using blades on the CHICOMS/North Koreans to good effect.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • Gene LGene L Posts: 12,815 Senior Member
    Custer was an azzhat. Too bad he got all those others killed, along with a bunch of Indians. Worse is the results of the Last Stand on the Indians.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Posts: 14,103 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Incredibly brave, inspiration to many, worthy of admiration... still, NOT that smart...
    I disagree. He made far better use of terrain than Custer did...
    Meh.
  • Gene LGene L Posts: 12,815 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Incredibly brave, inspiration to many, worthy of admiration... still, NOT that smart...

    Brave. Not worthy of admiration in my book. He was an azzhat who got people killed unnecessarily. He LOST. If he had won, he wouldn't be a hero.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • waipapa13waipapa13 Posts: 961 Senior Member
    Custer was a tool, pretty sure he was the goat (bottom of class) at West Point too, he learnt the hard way that stupidity is painful, Gatling guns were unreliable and the Indians had numbers and brains on their side.
  • Dr. dbDr. db Posts: 1,541 Senior Member
    Some of the West Point goats were brilliant but not interested in playing the demerits game some were just stupid. Custer was one of the latter. Lee graduated at the top of his class with no demerits but demerits could be erased by doing extra duty.
  • horselipshorselips Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    Every time I watch a Custer movie, the freakin' Indians win.
    Anyway, the Golden Cavalier is one of my heroes, and his portrait hangs in my den, in my gallery of great Indian fighters, right between Hernando Cortez and Francisco Pizarro.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement