|
|
Post by tbw on Feb 7, 2010 18:06:07 GMT -5
Perhaps there was some foundation to their fears of the "walking soldiers", perhaps better trained, better disciplined and they didn't have that horse behind them to crawl back onto to get the "H" out of there if things went south. It kind of reminds me of the Zulu wars. Sure they had cavalry there too, I know, but what still intriques me about it was a man by the name of Lewis Cadwallader Coker, a midshipman in the Royal Navy at the battle of iNyezane. I think of this often when the subject of gatlings comes up. It wasn't the first time gatlings had been used, i'm sure, but it was one of the first times against spear throwing natives that it had been deployed and used. If you haven't read this account, you should. Now take that times 2 and apply it to what Terry/Gibbon could have done had they confronted those Indians. Seeing that thing cut down 5 to 10 men or more in one turn of the crank may have been all it would have taken to have made them turn tail and run... I know it would have been for me!
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Feb 7, 2010 19:22:56 GMT -5
I have long consider the bring of the gatling guns as counter productive as they were cumbersome and the operator would have been a shooting duck for an Indian sharpshooter. Your thread has made me realize that I may have been wrong. I have read about that incident in the Zulu Wars that you mentioned. The gailing that was placed in the corner of the "English Square" was instrumental in protecting and defending the weakest point of the square.
Would the guns have slowed down Custer, Yes. But, can you imagine if only one gun was able to reach the hillock that Custer stood upon?
Thanks for printing words that helped me to re-evaluate my perspective.
One of the significant, enjoyable conditions that exist in this forum is the space that allows one express himself/herself without negative ramifications.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Feb 7, 2010 20:16:00 GMT -5
I just enjoy hearing the "possibilities" Joe, I think as well as you and others do. It certainly is by no means definite one way or another here in this instance as to what may or may not have happened. And I certainly think it would have depended upon who "surprised" who. The gatlings were as you pointed out 'cumbersome' and were not much of an offensive weapon. I think we today try to evaluate these kinds of weapons with "offense" in mind, but realistically they were more suited to 'defensive' operations. Had the Indians caught the soldiers when these weapons were still not operational it would have been a different story, much like the one we still have today. So your premise and thoughts are still valid as far as i'm concerned.
I think that for Terry and Gibbon to have succeeded, or for that matter Custer, had he taken the gatlings, they would have had to have chosen the best defensive ground and lured the Indians to attack them. What we know today, is that the Indians would have attacked them, just look at Crook and Custer as prime examples. What they thought and what happened were two different things, yet they had the proper tools to handle both situations: They had the sabre's for the Cavarly charge, and the Indians hated those. And they had the Gatlings for defense if the Indians chose to attack them.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Feb 13, 2010 20:48:46 GMT -5
I imagine that the solitary reason of import in Custer's refusal for the guns was that they could not be transported fast enough to keep up with the command. In all probability they would have falling behind the pack train which was already slow as molasses..
|
|
|
|
Post by Cutter on Feb 15, 2010 2:15:41 GMT -5
I imagine the Gatling guns weren't used is why Joe said. Also, given the time to deploy, and redeploy would cost Custer time, given the fluidity of the fight. Given the terrain, when deployed, the Gatlings would run out of ammunition before any harm would come to the enemy.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Feb 27, 2010 18:43:56 GMT -5
I have always pondered Custer's excessive "dash" across Kansas for which he would face a court martial.. I believe he loved Libbie passionately but, to risk his career, refused to delay his march to retrieve two, lost men, and travel over 210 unauthorized miles to see his wife must have been prompted by something other than "love."
Stories had circulated that his wife and Weir had become an "Item" in his absence. who started the rumor? Why none other than Custer's arch nemesis, Benteen.
Absolutely no reasonable grounds were ever established to warrant an accusation of infidelity towards Libbie. Custer on the other hand?
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jun 7, 2011 19:42:34 GMT -5
I hear that the following is true: Wica Kin Woecun Wokokpeke kin Ecunpi. Winya Kin Ins Ecunpicasni Kin Ecunpe.  |
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Jun 7, 2011 19:44:04 GMT -5
Damn right! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jun 9, 2011 19:02:29 GMT -5
I hear that the following is true: Wica Kin Woecun Wokokpeke kin Ecunpi. Winya Kin Ins Ecunpicasni Kin Ecunpe. Translation: Men did the dangerous work and women did the impossible. Tell me that the Lakota didn't have it on the ball  . |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Mar 10, 2012 12:02:01 GMT -5
I hear tell that Gen. C.C. has decided not to interject his opinions on this forum any longer because he believes the majority of the forum membership to be a group of Custer pacifists who can't see the writing on the wall despite ours noses being jammed against it!  |
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Mar 10, 2012 19:26:50 GMT -5
CC where is yuh! I miss bumping heads with you. Come on back!
|
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Mar 11, 2012 17:36:59 GMT -5
Cinnamon, I hope all is well with you!
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Mar 17, 2012 9:35:28 GMT -5
Me Too! keep in touch partner!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cutter on Mar 17, 2012 15:11:09 GMT -5
Wow, I got a lot of catching up to do. Happy St. Patrick's Day everybody.
|
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Mar 31, 2012 19:39:12 GMT -5
Happy St. Patrick's Day to you too ;D!
|
|
.
