|
Post by miker on Oct 6, 2023 11:56:47 GMT
The soldiers were supposed to have carried 50 rounds on their person and 50 in their saddle bags. 24 rounds for their pistol.
According to Upton, the soldiers were supposed to alternate firing between odds and evens. I suspect the few officers and NCOs did not try to control the fire of the troops.
For the Reno-Benteen fight, there was more control because, as I recall, sometimes they had most of the troops not fire and only the best marksman shot.
If the soldier fired as fast as possible they could run out of ammunition in 5-10 minutes. But this is no different than today. Each soldier usually has 6 or 7 30 round magazines for 180-210 rounds and he is supposed to have 90-120 in his rucksack for a total of 300. More is carried in their vehicle, if they have one, or in the trains.
Ammunition probably wasn't the immediate problem,but lack of leadership, discipline, and training, closely followed by a target rich environment, especially in the Custer Battalion.
Note, we have no information about how much ammo the Indians had. But they may have been more stingy than the 7th. They might have had to go back to the village when they ran out. Arrows can be picked up and reused.
Interestingly, there is evidence that the Germans were running out of ammunition on Omaha Beach, machine gunners only having 5000 rounds. This, plus individual Initiative, allowed the 1st Division to get off the beach.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Oct 6, 2023 14:57:44 GMT
Ian: If you expect your adversary to fight the way you expect him to fight, then you might also expect to lose. Steve should know better than to fill your head with nonsense, and it is nonsense to think all Indians, all tribes all individuals will meet some templated mental pattern of expectations. Human beings do not work that way. Some are casualty adverse, as you point out, others particularly our eastern tribes would make Berserkers think they these Indians were the real Berserkers. Read about Oriskany sometime and Braddock. No no QC, I dont think they would have taken these Indians for granted, I certainly wouldnt have, but to be able to give your enemy a bloody nose from the on set would set the scene for any further assaults. I don't really like going down the rabbit hole of modern weapons used in 1876 etc, its just the realms of fantasy to me, but wouldnt you thinks that the Indians would be surprised and shook up by a 100 soldiers with the capacity to lay down a large volume of fire in such a short space of time which totally cleared the beaten ground in which they assaulted? Take this little fracas for instance, small amount of men with modern weapons for the time and got good results against the same foe link
Ian
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 6, 2023 15:13:11 GMT
Taking them for granted is what has been talked about in this forum and others so dedicated as long as the internet has existed Ian. Indians will run. Indians are casualty adverse. Cavalry firepower trumps Indian maneuver. All these are forms of taking the Indians for granted.
A large volume of fire that would suppress maneuver (except in very small isolated places) at LBH is unachievable. The terrain is much to broken. Could a 100 men armed with single shot Springfields, firing at Indians on a perfectly flat football field stop an Indian frontal attack. I am sure that is quite possible. The terrain at LBH is far from a football field.
It does not seem like fantasy. It is fantasy. The point was even with a modern semi-automatic weapon, having only the forty rounds in my example was the limiting factor, not the weapon.
No, what I would expect is the Indians would find a work around to the flanks or rear, and negate the fire from your 100 soldiers. That would force those same soldiers into an all round defense, thus negating the mass of fire factor.
|
|
|
Weapons
Oct 6, 2023 17:01:08 GMT
via mobile
Post by miker on Oct 6, 2023 17:01:08 GMT
I’m not disagreeing with you Chuck.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 6, 2023 18:41:16 GMT
Didn't think you were Mike.
|
|
|
Weapons
Oct 7, 2023 8:45:59 GMT
via mobile
Post by yanmacca on Oct 7, 2023 8:45:59 GMT
One thing is for sure, we will never know for certain.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 7, 2023 16:19:03 GMT
Au Contraire. I think in this instance we do know, and it is probably the only thing we know with a great degree of certainty.
All combat comes down to only three factors at the lowest common denominator Ian. Those factors are firepower, maneuver, and the resources necessary to do either one, or both simultaneously. They all apply on both the offense and the defense. They are the constants of the battlefield. Custer had none of the above in the fight up north. Defeat of those five companies was as inevitable as the sun rising tomorrow morning. His adversary had taken away the ability to maneuver against them both offensively and defensively, and he had neither of the resources available to him to conduct either offensive or defensive operations, including counter attacking to restore what he had lost after being halted.
"In the final analysis, luck comes only to the well prepared" Helmuth von Moltke the Elder.
von Moltke the Elder was a contemporary of Custer. Another indication that Custer was neither well read, or very bright .
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Oct 7, 2023 18:04:30 GMT
Sorry but I can’t get involved in “Amen” conversations as our kitchen has just been ripped out and I need to paint it before the new one comes in on Monday, but can I cast your mind back to a post you written on the other board quite a few years ago, you said that give me two .30 M1919s and two 60mm M2 mortars and you would destroyed that village. So having 200 men in the valley and another 200 on the bluffs with modern automatic weapons they would have still failed, which sounds really strange. The point about ammo also came up, well see that these are cavalry, they could carry more magazines, so the damage done to the warriors brave enough to close in on them would be catastrophic.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 7, 2023 18:24:48 GMT
Oh, I agree and I stand by my previous statement 100 percent.
You will notice though that I said I could. I did not say Custer could. The difference between Custer and I is that first I would not have managed to get myself surrounded, and secondly I would have provided for enough ammunition to accomplish what I set out to do. Custer did neither Firepower, maneuver, and resources. They go together like bacon lettuce and tomato.
I still don't think you are getting the point I am trying to make here. Ammunition, not the weapons, was the limiting factor in the circumstance where they were surrounded.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Oct 7, 2023 19:20:31 GMT
Okay QC, thats fine by me
|
|
|
Weapons
Dec 1, 2023 18:52:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by Elwood on Dec 1, 2023 18:52:07 GMT
I have a Uberti 1873 in 45 Long Colt, and a Winchester 1873 in 38/357. Both are wonderful guns. They see regular use in cowboy action shooting and perform very well. They are also easy to take apart for cleaning and any needed repairs. I don't have an original 1873, which was chambered mainly in 44/40. I am having troubles locating an Uberti ‘73 in .357 caliber. I have a couple of revolvers and several boxes of .357 which is why I want that caliber in the Uberti. Went back to Cabelas and they only had the 45 colt. Should have bought that .357 when I saw it a few months ago. Guy at Cabelas said I could order online but their site said .357 not available at this time. I will have to hit a gun show in Ft. Worth or Dallas next time I’m in. Of course some gun store may carry it but thats very hit and miss, mostly miss.
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 439
|
Post by colt45 on Dec 3, 2023 13:34:26 GMT
Elwood, you can try gunbroker.com and search for uberti there. They generally have all calibers available. Gunbroker is an auction site. I have bought from there and have had good luck with the site and the sellers there.
|
|
|
Post by Elwood on Dec 3, 2023 16:21:49 GMT
Thank you. I will give that a look.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Dec 19, 2023 13:34:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Elwood on Dec 20, 2023 21:46:03 GMT
Thank both of you for your assistance. I looked at both sites. However I walked into Cabela's in north Ft. Worth yesterday and got lucky. Found the caliber, .357, I was looking for. $1,400 and got 10% off, Christmas special. Good deal I thought. A really beautiful firearm. 20 inch barrel. 10+1 round capacity. 1873 Winchester, the gun that won the west, so they say. Here is link to Uberti and pic of the model I got, Special Sporting Short Rifle: www.uberti-usa.com/cartridge-rifles/1873-rifle-and-carbine
|
|