Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How about had he waited for Gibbon's column or brought the gatling guns along? One recent History Channel account suggest Custer knew Reno had been routed and still charged into the indian camp (or towards it anyway, as he never made it to the camp)?
What if, instead of having single shot rifles, the cavalry had winchesters or even henry/spenser rifles?
If you want a what if, what if wiley Yamamotto had realized the US were reading the IJN-25 codes and deliberately used that to ambush the American fleet at midway (rather than being ambushed).
And some of Sitting Bull's tactics were copied by our Armed Forces-----------much to the dismay of Hitler and Tojo
What tactics would those be? I see nothing original in Plains Indian tactics which were pretty much pretty primitive light cavalry stuff; open skirmishing, avoiding close contact unless victory is assured, attempts to draw enemies into ambushes. They hadn't even reached the tactical level of Eurasian horse archers of 2000 years earlier.
What tactics would those be? I see nothing original in Plains Indian tactics which were pretty much pretty primitive light cavalry stuff; open skirmishing, avoiding close contact unless victory is assured, attempts to draw enemies into ambushes. They hadn't even reached the tactical level of Eurasian horse archers of 2000 years earlier.
Primative perhaps; but Bull's tactics were effective.
How about had he waited for Gibbon's column or brought the gatling guns along? One recent History Channel account suggest Custer knew Reno had been routed and still charged into the indian camp (or towards it anyway, as he never made it to the camp)?
What if, instead of having single shot rifles, the cavalry had winchesters or even henry/spenser rifles?
Well Custer's orders from Terry seem ambiguous but I think he was correct in seeking the hostiles and attacking as soon as possible before they could scatter.
Bringing the Gatlings would've slowed him down a great deal and I think he was correct to leave them behind. But he did err in not bringing along several troops of another cavalry regiment he was offered.
The trap-door Springfield was a very capable weapon with excellent range and quite accurate. It's comparable to the Martini-Henry rifles with which about 120 Brits defeated several thousand Zulus (a people considerably more martial and disciplined than Plains Indians) at Rorkes Drift. But those British troops were well handled and the 7th wasn't.
Which brings up the discipline and handling of the 7th which I think seems to have been pretty bad. When one tours the battlefield one sees by the placing of the monuments where the troopers were found that there was a breakdown of order. Some soldiers were killed fighting in clusters and others were scattered all over the place. To me this indicates bad leadership in the regiment, bad leadership which evidenced itself in other ways too such as Reno's funking and Benteen's refusal to support Custer.
To sum it up I think a well led regiment such as MacKenzie's 4th wins that fight.
Primative perhaps; but Bull's tactics were effective.
I can't even identify any tactics I'd attribute specifically to him. And at the Little Big Horn the actual tactical leaders of the Indians were others fellas such as Gall and Crazy Horse and I think they were swarming to the fight and taking advantage of the situation as it developed, which was smart of them of course.
And the Indians were greatly helped by the 7th's poor performence.
Well Custer's orders from Terry seem ambiguous but I think he was correct in seeking the hostiles and attacking as soon as possible before they could scatter.
Bringing the Gatlings would've slowed him down a great deal and I think he was correct to leave them behind. But he did err in not bringing along several troops of another cavalry regiment he was offered.
The trap-door Springfield was a very capable weapon with excellent range and quite accurate. It's comparable to the Martini-Henry rifles with which about 120 Brits defeated several thousand Zulus (a people considerably more martial and disciplined than Plains Indians) at Rorkes Drift. But those British troops were well handled and the 7th wasn't.
Which brings up the discipline and handling of the 7th which I think seems to have been pretty bad. When one tours the battlefield one sees by the placing of the monuments where the troopers were found that there was a breakdown of order. Some soldiers were killed fighting in clusters and others were scattered all over the place. To me this indicates bad leadership in the regiment, bad leadership which evidenced itself in other ways too such as Reno's funking and Benteen's refusal to support Custer.
To sum it up I think a well led regiment such as MacKenzie's 4th wins that fight.
Regards
Respectfully I disagree. The camp was the largest ever seen on the plains, well led and with weapons that were commonly as good as the soldiers (one of the ironies of the battle is that some of the sioux had repeating rifles while none of the cavalry did). The fighting was in a hilly wooded area where native Americans could quickly come to grips with the soldiers, negating their mobility. No single regiment then existing could have defeated it, however well led. Its doubtful that any officer but Custer would have even attacked it given its size.
The point of the campaign (which Custer knew) was to unite three seperate columns not attack on his own. Had he waited for the additional troops he might have defeated the camp, he certainly would not have been destroyed.
The henry rifle, like the winchester that came from it, was far superior to any single shot rifle be it American or British. It could shoot 12 rounds and then be easily reloaded. The firepower stunned rifle armed confederates in the civil war and was even more devestating against those not so armed.
The situtation at rork's drift was very different than the Big Horn. Rather than attacking with cavalry into a wooded area that limited their lines of fire, they were defending a small fortified permineter with highly trained riflemen with excellent lanes of fire. US cavalry rarely practiced with their rifles to save money, they were notoriously poor on defense. The zulu, unlike the sioux charged in densely packed formations with effectively no rifles (yes I know they took them from the battle Isawana, but accounts agree they did not know how to use them and achieved little).
Virtually none of the defenders of rork's drift were British - they were Welsh.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
