|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 24, 2016 11:50:37 GMT
Hi everyone, since Tom has started the ball rolling, I thought I would create a thread regarding one of my favourite American battles (or skirmish) outside the BLBH and Fetterman. This engagement was known as the “Wagon Box Fight”. It involved only around 32 soldiers and civilians and over 1000 warriors. It lasted around six hours and it has all the trappings of a classic western movie with a small number of soldiers and a brave officer aided by a few civilians (no leading lady though, I would have picked Jane Russel myself but never mind), fighting in a rudimentary position made from wagons and besieged by hundreds of hostiles. In reality this was true apart from Jane Russel of course. Many say the reason they managed to keep the Indians at bay was down to the soldiers being issued with the new Springfield rifle (not carbine) and had about 7000 rounds of ammo. Apparently these soldiers had just received these weapons and had little or no training with them. The officer commanding the small detail was Capt. James W. Powell, his second in command Lt. Jenness was shot through the head and killed. Like all classic movies the defenders were rescued by Maj. Benjamin Smith, who led 103 soldiers from the 27th infantry and ten wagons plus a light howitzer in rescue attempt from fort Phil Kearny. Apparently after failing to breech the compound the Indian’s were deterred by howitzer fire and packed up and did a runner. The Indian casualty figures are anyone’s guess as they total between the modest six and the absurd 1.500, the soldiers who fought the battle claim that the ground was littered with dead and wounded, the Indians say that they actually won the battle, because they killed ten white men and captured many horses. When the dust settled, each man got a slug of whiskey from a keg brought along by the fort doctor (he must have thought that they would need a drink for medicinal purposes, of course).  Yan. |
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Feb 24, 2016 12:13:28 GMT
This battle took place a day or so after the Hayfield Fight. Not only were the soldiers armed with the new Springfield conversions some number of the civilians had Spencer repeaters. Crazy Horse was involved here and some say that Red cloud was there as well. The battle location is roughly an hour away from the LBH just off I-90.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824 
|
Post by azranger on Feb 24, 2016 15:44:30 GMT
It is right near Story Wyoming which is a beautiful location with Pine Trees. There is a Lodge there that had good food.
Steve |
|
|
|
Post by sgttyree on Jul 18, 2017 5:55:55 GMT
Hi everyone, since Tom has started the ball rolling, I thought I would create a thread regarding one of my favourite American battles (or skirmish) outside the BLBH and Fetterman. This engagement was known as the “Wagon Box Fight”. It involved only around 32 soldiers and civilians and over 1000 warriors. Went there several years ago. Made a day of it at Ft. Phil Kearny, Fetterman, Wagon Box, and Hayfield. Good trip. Not as interesting as LBH but still a good trip. |
|
|
|
Post by sgttyree on Jul 18, 2017 6:06:36 GMT
It lasted around six hours and it has all the trappings of a classic western movie with a small number of soldiers and a brave officer aided by a few civilians (no leading lady though, I would have picked Jane Russel myself but never mind), fighting in a rudimentary position made from wagons and besieged by hundreds of hostiles. Ft. Phil Kearny was a wood burning machine. It was not easy to winter in northern Wyoming and wood was the fort's life line like water in the southwest. The wood cutting area was called "The Pinery" and was about five miles from the fort. When the fort was first established details of soldiers did the wood cutting but later civilian contractors did the cutting under Army protection. A protection detail might stay out with the wood cutters for several days or even a week or so. Before the Wagon Box Fight, the protection detail had unbolted the wagon boxes from the wagon chassis and made a circle of the boxes on the ground. Then logs were stacked on the chassis for the trip back to the fort. Some of the wagon boxes on the ground had the canvas up for soldiers to sleep under. |
|
|
|
Post by sgttyree on Jul 18, 2017 6:16:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sgttyree on Jul 18, 2017 6:17:51 GMT
When the dust settled, each man got a slug of whiskey from a keg brought along by the fort doctor (he must have thought that they would need a drink for medicinal purposes, of course). Thanks, I had not heard about that!  |
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 18, 2017 13:22:43 GMT
Your welcome Tyree. That's what we are all here for to learn something new every day.
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 20, 2017 16:10:14 GMT
Lieutenant Jenness was not in command at the Wagon Box Fight.
Captain James W. Powell was in command and the soldiers were from Company C, 27th Infantry.
The 27th Infantry had its beginnings as 2nd Battalion, 18th Infantry, which was redesigned late in 1866 as the 27th Infantry. Later in 1869 the 27th Infantry was absorbed into the 9th Infantry Regiment ( a unit I was once assigned to) due to an Army wide reorganization of the Infantry which reduced the army from 45 to 25 Infantry regiments by consolidation of those regiments mostly on a one to one basis. The 27th Infantry of today has no historical connection with the 27th Infantry of 1867.
All one needs to do is look at the painting of the Wagon Box Fight, done as one of the earliest in the U S Army In Action series of military art. It is readily available for viewing on line. and at one time it was near mandatory wall dressing for every orderly room in the Army. That painting clearly shows the Infantry bugle atop a soldier's kepi surrounding the number 27. It also shows Captain Powell.
The Wagon Box Fight itself has legendary status within the Infantry Community of the U S Army. Legendary.
Where are the references that support:
These soldiers were not trained in the use of the Springfield Breech Loading Rifle? Chapter and verse if you please.
Soldiers rode from Fort Phil Kearny in wagons. There were several wagons, with some people riding in them, but the idea that 100 plus soldiers rode in wagons from Fort Phil Kearny is ludicrous. Would any of you do that? Keep in mind the site of the wagon boxes were within the observation radius of the fort from their observation post on a nearby hill. I would agree that it is easier to ride than walk. I also think doing something along those lines as described is an act of monumental tactical stupidity. Walking is slower, maybe, but if you jam your men into wagons as suggested, you have no recourse, no flexibility, no place to fall back from - to . It's just plain stupid. If you want to see how it is done pull up an image of the Frederick Remington sketch Protecting the Wagon Train. It is one of his lesser known works but it will get the point across.
The whiskey I believe.
The number of reported Indian casualties ranging into the hundreds to a thousand is just bull shit. Powell's report of 60 Indian KIA is closer to the truth, but still, in all probability, too high.
The Indians did not have the weaponry to conduct a successful assault on a fortified position. That and the Springfield were the deciding factors. These were the same Indians that were so casualty adverse that they would not attack Reno on a hilltop. The idea that they would allow themselves to sustain hundreds if not a thousand casualties in a futile effort defies credulity. Let's get our thinking caps on here folks, and apply what we know.
Those who have been around these boards long enough may remember Billy Markland and I discussing this very subject many years ago. We both reached back into our bags of research and reached consensus. There is no one better than Markland when it comes to document research on the U S Army. |
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on Jul 20, 2017 18:08:48 GMT
Those who have been around these boards long enough may remember Billy Markland and I discussing this very subject many years ago. We both reached back into our bags of research and reached consensus. There is no one better than Markland when it comes to document research on the U S Army. Quincannon is correct. Billy Markland is one of the most knowledgeable posters ever on these boards. He has a web site which is outstanding in research. I had it but when my computer crashed I lost it. Billy hasnt been on the boards in a few years now, but if anyone stays in touch with him it would benefit everyone to have it. Be Well Dan |
|
|
|
Post by sgttyree on Jul 20, 2017 18:37:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sgttyree on Jul 20, 2017 18:40:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sgttyree on Jul 20, 2017 18:50:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 20, 2017 19:42:12 GMT
Appreciate the graphics Kevin, as I am sure the rest do too.
Now to the burning question of why Major Smith (I think that was his name)would ever take wagons with him on a rescue mission just up the road a few miles from the fort.
The people at Kearny were told by those observing the fight from the FPK observation post that hundreds of Indians were attacking the wagon box and had been for some hours. The wagon box as can be seen in the sketch and painting were boxes dismounted from the wagon chassis. They were therefore immobile. There was, because of the ongoing fight, every reason to believe there would be a great number of casualties, and that the horses and mules at the box site would have been run off. There was also the wood issue.
So if you want to recover casualties and salvage whatever wood that had been cut, so you could cook tonight's supper, it would seem reasonable to take some wagons to do it.
So where is the source material, outside Hollywood, that suggests that the approximate two companies of Infantry that comprised the rescue party rode in wagons, vice following the normal practice for moving through a hostile environment.
Show it to me. I am open. Let me see it. If it cannot be produced, or the provenance of the documentation is suspect, we can examine the story for its voracity using common sense. That is what I have tried to do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2017 11:45:58 GMT
1. The Bozeman trail ran south to north skirting the east side of the Big Horn mountains. This is the same area as the LBH and the same Indians.
2. The evolution of weapons and tactics. The Indians were primary armed with bow and melee weapon. They were using tactics designed for these weapons. These tactics failed and failed badly. Mounted rushes work against muzzle loaders (sometimes), but not breech loaders.
3. The Indians aggressively pursued breech loading weapons. It was a major part of the peace treaty and Indians got furious on efforts to give them weapons or sell them weapons. The US cooperated in equipping our enemies for the next fight, which seems to be a US tradition then to now.
4. The Indians also changed their tactics. They relied more on dismounted firepower, looking for an opportunity to close the gap. They sought to maneuver out of range or sight to the rear or flanks. The suicide runs at LBH were lone men looking for gaps, such as the one they found between I and L companies that led to the destruction of both.
5. The US showed an inability to learn. The US rotation and operations meant the same units were not fighting the same Indians. None of the units that fought the Bozeman campaign fought the centennial campaign. The wide variety of Indian tribes, terrain, weapons and tactics between the Mississippi and the Pacific required detailed situational awareness which the Army could not provide.
We can see from LTC Custer's own writings that he had no idea of the tribes near FAL or their capabilities and limitations. He had this romantic and very patronizing views of the Indians.
6. There were unit that adapted and manned, trained and equipped to fight the Indians in their area of operations. the 4th Cavalry makes the 7th look like amateurs and indolent fools. Compare Crook's supply train to Custer's clown show.
|
|
