Would repeaters have saved Custer?

[dahermit]

There has been a statement posted in another area of this forum to the effect that, if Custer's men had been armed with era repeaters, they would not have succumb to the Native American attack. To this, I enthusiastically disagree for several reasons.
Firstly, a "Trapdoor" Springfield Carbine compared to a repeater of the day was not at a disadvantage in a military setting. Tests have shown that the rate of fire for a repeater actually is slower during sustained fire. While a lever-action may fire aimed shots faster, considering the time it takes to re-load the magazine (when performed at least twice), is significantly slower than a single-shot like the Trapdoor Carbine.
Secondly, Custer's troops were poorly/inadequately trained in marksmanship, Indian fighting, mounted firing, and mounted drill and fighting on horseback. Consider:
"A penurious government allowed only about 20 rounds per year for training–..."
"At the Little Bighorn, about 42,000 rounds were either expended or lost. At that rate, the soldiers hit one Indian for about every 840 shots. Since much of the ammunition was probably lost–Indians commented on capturing ammunition in cartridge belts and saddlebags–the hit rate must have been higher. Yet the results do not speak highly of a supposedly highly trained, ‘crack’ cavalry regiment."
http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-...ing-factor.htm
"Little attention was given to horsemanship. There was virtually no squad drill, and the marksmanship of most troopers was not systematically-pursued to insure excellence within the battle-space. Troopers received fifteen rounds a month resulting in little proficiency with either pistol or carbine, a dismal fact that hardly benefited the regiment on 25 June. City boys, moreover, were not used to horses, and with little weapons' training while mounted, the horses could become uncontrollable when riders fired their weapons. In short, the quality of new recruits in Custer's Regiment was frequently poor."
"In drill, little emphasis given to close quarter combat at this time, nor was there any established doctrine of Indian fighting in the United States Cavalry. "
"The Seventh was a cavalry unit, and the circumstances of the battle, the terrain, and the numbers of the enemy they faced, forced them to dismount and fight in the manner of infantry. Without adequately-trained recruits, lacking cover, with a highly-confused situation that fostered the breakdown of command and control, discipline, and good order, not to mention, panic, it should come as no surprise that the regiment would be doubly-enveloped and destroyed. "
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com...ibleglory.aspx
The ratio of Indians to Troopers killed tells a story in itself. There were 268 Troopers killed with as few as 36 to a high of 100 Indians killed by the troopers with one account indicating 86 Indians killed. "...more than 250 troopers and scouts were killed in the fighting on June 25-26, the Indians lost only about 40 or 50 men."
The relative few Indians killed, despite being a "target rich environment", suggests that the troopers were either not firing their weapons, or likely shooting but not hitting any Indians.
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com...l-monument8258
Thirdly, the quality and mind-set of the Troopers is called into question.
"The recruits came from recent immigrants, many of whom couldn’t speak English, and the dregs of society —
"...an unhealthy mixture of drunks, thieves and murderers. These were men looking for a meal, clothing, weapons and a horse, and many of them soon had thoughts of deserting at the first opportunity. "
http://www.historynet.com/george-arm...can-legend.htm
In all, consider a youth fresh off the boat, unskilled in mounted fighting and having minimal control over his horse, barely speaking English, not knowing what to expect, not having mastered his firearm, first engaged in an ineffective mounted fight, then dismounting and having no cover, is expected to fight effectively as infantry...a job for which he has less preparation than that of fighting mounted. The result is, he becomes panicked (There were Indian reports of troopers attempting surrender by holding out their rifles to the Indians.), and assures the outcome. In short, a repeating rifle would not have made any difference in the outcome...they would not have been able to hit with those either. Most of Custer's men, it would seem, were soldiers in name only.

[us920669]

I made a pretty intensive study of the Custer fiasco for personal reasons, and I don't think even AK or AR weapons would have saved the force, although Indian casualties certainly would have been higher. The same goes for better training or soldier quality. The odds were just too mismatched.
Custer was a very aggressive commander, and that usually worked well during the Indian Wars, but not always.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by us920669

I made a pretty intensive study of the Custer fiasco for personal reasons, and I don't think even AK or AR weapons would have saved the force, although Indian casualties certainly would have been higher. The same goes for better training or soldier quality. The odds were just too mismatched.

Given the circumstances, I think leadership, tactics, and marksmanship had more to do with it than simple odds. Recall the Battle of Rorke's Drift only 3 years later, in which a garrison of only ~150 troops held off 3,000-4,000 Zulu warriors, similarly using breech-loading single-shot repeaters. The main tactical difference was that the troops knew how to shoot, were well-disciplined, and were led by skilled officers who prepared an effective defense.

Of course, another very important factor was that those officers correctly recognized the extremely dire nature of their situation.

Originally Posted by us920669

Custer was a very aggressive commander, and that usually worked well during the Indian Wars, but not always.

I will offer no argument.

IMHO the main factor that led to this fiasco was that Custer was totally unprepared mentally to face an organized and determined attack in force. I think he simply believed that the tribes wouldn't try it, and that the engagement would become a series of skirmishes followed by ragtag pursuits, as he was accustomed to. He didn't adequately prepare for a pitched battle because he believed there wouldn't be one.

[thallub]

Recall the Battle of Rorke's Drift only 3 years later, in which a garrison of only ~150 troops held off 3,000-4,000 Zulu warriors, similarly using breech-loading single-shot repeaters.

There's a big difference in the Custer fight and Rorke's Drift. The Zulus were armed with short stabbing spears. The natives at Little Bighorn had bows and guns, lots of guns.

[kilimanjaro]

How about a crate of M16's at the Alamo?

My library has three lineal feet of Custer books, so I'll opine.

Repeating arms would have prolonged the fight, which may have taken as little as twenty minutes or as long as three hours, but the bottom line is that Custer's cavalry Troops were extended for nearly 600 yards along a slope, and were chopped up piecemeal, one after the other, by over 2,000 Indians, many with repeating rifles. I think the expression is 'defeated in detail'.

Maybe half the force would have survived, due to increased firepower, but I think the extended order of the units did not allow for the kind of results that were achieved at Rorke's Drift, i.e., fighting from behind prepared defenses. The situation was far more akin to Ishandlwana than anything else, divided forces, extended order, and enemy numbers all combined to cause a debacle.

[Brit]

Battle of Rorke's Drift.

Her Majesty's troops were all speaking the same language, well trained (WELL LED!) and in an enclosed sort of Fort.

English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh and all Professional troops. The Natives had some rifles, but not a lot of skill with them.

No comparison between the Little Big Horn.

[us920669]

Yes, and there is more. Custer didn't know about Crook's results. He did know he was jumping the gun on what was supposed to be a coordinated action, now impossible because of Crook's results. Benteen didn't perform very well - "lollygagging" as the official inquiry put it. Many 7th troopers survived the campaign because only Custer's group was way down-stream trying to find the flank of a village far bigger than anyone thought possible.
It was doomed from the beginning.

[Lohman446]

A) You had unskilled "soldiers" - as noted above speaking a common language was an issue. The lack of skill involved horsemanship and marksmanship at best

B) The battle occurred on what was effectively "foreign soil" in that the scouting was poor. The adversary knew the land far batter than Custer's men

C) The adversary was committed and competent.

D) There was poor leadership complete with several tactical blunders

E) The soldiers were heavily outnumbered

No repeating rifles would not have helped. A well provisioned Apache helicopter and competent pilot might have helped.

[campingnights]

I believe it was on the History channel where Custers battlefield was examined. They even marked cartrage locations and matched them to specific rifles by firing pin impacts. It was quite impressive. One major problem that was revealed was the inferior quality of the 45-70 cartrages used. I think they said the case was cheaper copper (or something like that) instead of brass and that it caused frequent extraction problems, to the point the soldiers had to use their knives to pry out the expended round. It certainly would have slowed them down considerable. Also said the cartrage locations showed the soldiers broke, probably trying to escape, and ended strung out where they were easier pickins for the Indians. The gatling guns Custer left behind might have made a difference, but maybe not. Their only chance would have been to mass the soldiers and break out and the gats were not a good weapon for a running fight. Basically, they just didn't get outta Dodge quick enough.

[dahermit]

"Maybe half the force would have survived, due to increased firepower [Sic, repeaters],..." It would have made no difference if the problem was the basic ability to shoot accurately.

[dahermit]

...the soldiers broke, probably trying to escape, and ended strung out where they were easier pickins for the Indians.

They had no virtually no training in mounted fighting, none in fighting afoot... it is no wonder they broke and became strung out, they were not taught prior to the battle, were left to their own devices. Rorke's drift soldiers, on the other hand, had the advantage of a very strict regimen of drill and training to stand-fast and fight as an ordered unit.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

The soldiers in Rorke's drift were trained relentlessly in using their bayonets too. An inexperienced Zulu armed with a spear had little chance even against a British soldier with an empty gun.

And, of course, they were in a fortified position not out in the open like Custer.

[TXAZ]

This repeating rifle would have given Custer a slam dunk:

[us920669]

Yes, that thing looks like it would definitely end discussion. I bet it takes a pretty substantial platform. What's it chambered, anyway?

[JWT]

Given Custers temperament and decision making it is doubtful anything would have saved him. He was hell bent on self destruction IMO.

[johnwilliamson062]

He had several high capacity repeating arms. He left them behind.
An increased volume of fire would have required an increased supply of ammunition.
He would have arrogantly left that behind also.

As another said, he was positive the natives would flee(because of his arrogance). He was absolutely unprepared for any other response. From the moment they counter-attacked he and his men were finished.

My understanding is, that although some positions were overrun with there still being ammo, other positions did run out of ammo. Repeaters would have simply increased this affect.

[dahermit]

As another said, he was positive the natives would flee(because of his arrogance). He was absolutely unprepared for any other response.

In his defence, there had never been such a large gathering of Indians in recorded (since the Whites were there), history. It is no wonder that he did not believe his Crow scouts. To Custer, it was going to be a matter of keeping the Indians from escaping and nothing was going to convince him otherwise. I suspect that he considered this his last likely opportunity for headline grabbing glory.

[hornetguy]

Yes, that thing looks like it would definitely end discussion. I bet it takes a pretty substantial platform. What's it chambered, anyway?

I think those are chambered for several different rounds, from 30 caliber to 30mm....

[Hunter Customs]

(because of his arrogance).

The above was Custer's main problem at Little Bighorn, also it's a lot tougher fighting skilled warriors then it is to massacre women and children.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter

[us920669]

He left the Gatlings behind because they were wheeled, and where he was going they could only use pack animals.
His scouts never exactly saw the camp - they could only sense atmospheric disturbance. They couldn't have seen the pony herd, but probably thought the field didn't look exactly right. There was plenty of room for subjective interpretation.
He was arrogant and egotistical, but the military arts at which he excelled required a fast-break, use it or lose it mentality. All fine and good until he rolled snake eyes.

[mehavey]

...but the military arts at which he excelled required a fast-break, use it or lose it

And the Indians had never stood and fought in any numbers in recent military campaign experience. Instead a fast strike had always sent the natives running an panic -- usually resulting in their slaughter.

No, Custer was a lot of things, but he was playing the game IAW the doctrine du jour and got hit by an out-of-the-blue lightning strike of 00 on the roulette wheel -- never to be repeated through the next decades of the Indian Wars.

Read A Terrible Glory sometime, for a fair analysis of not only Custer and the circumstances leading into the Little Big Horn, but also of the surviving officers who should have been prosecuted, but weren't.

[dahermit]

[QUOTE]And the Indians had never stood and fought in any numbers in recent military campaign experience. Instead a fast strike had always sent the natives running an panic -- usually resulting in their slaughter.

No, Custer was a lot of things, but he was playing the game IAW the doctrine du jour and got hit by an out-of-the-blue lightning strike of 00 on the roulette wheel -- never to be repeated through the next decades of the Indian Wars. Actually the Indians did stand and fight before the battle of the Little Bighorn...but Custer was not aware of it. Crook and his Indian allies ran into significant resistance (The Battle of the Rose Bud), on their way to the Littlehorn.

[dahermit]

...the military arts at which he excelled...

Although he had significant success in the Civil War, his Indian fighting demonstrated no apparent skill...unless you are counting the massacre of unarmed women and children (Black Kettle's camp), as a demonstration of military art. Or, the 19 men he abandoned to the Indians in a previous encounter.

[sgms]

Have read conjectures that if Custer had indeed taken his gatling along with him and kept his troop with them they would have mostly all survived the expedition. Primarily because he would have never been able to get the guns and themselves to the indian camp/camps till long after the indians had moved on. If he couldn't catch them them he couldn't fight them. But he didn't take them and he did make a number of very bad command decisions that cost him and his those under his immediate personal command there lives. So it is all just a game of "What if". Fun but of no real worth beyond amusement.

[dahermit]

So it is all just a game of "What if". Fun but of no real worth beyond amusement.

I agree. No one from Custer's immediate command survived (except one horse), so no one will know exactly what happened. Nevertheless, it is an interesting event to read about, read the different accounts of, and discuss. It is just too interesting to ignore.