Replies

Nothing could have saved Custer that day except a massive infusion of troops, repeating rifles, or possibly having the Gatling guns offered to him that he supposedly refused.

Two comments:

Custer's downfall was that he learned to late that the Indians battlefield tactics had changed. He fought as he was use to fighting. The Indians did not, they adapted.

He did in fact refuse the Gatling guns, as he thought them impractical against Indians on horse back.

Although many Indians had repeaters, as you have said, I thought they was the exception, not the rule. I am not sure on how many repeaters the Indians actually had.

No one can be exactly certain of the number of repeaters the Sioux/Cheyenne had however Sgt Mark Latham of the Canadian Police met a large Sioux band about a month after the massacre of Custer. He states every one of the Indians were armed with Winchesters and more importantly Henry Rifles. The Henry was a high velocity, heavy round that was easily fired and extremely accurate.

There is nearly absolute proof, both archeological and narative (there were far more live witnesses than usually thought), that the Indians fired two volleys from behind the crest of the hill. Loss of even 20% of Custers force (and it was probably more than that) in the first seconds of the battle would have been fatal to the 7th Cavalry. The Indians then attacked in their normal warrior method of fighting taking the fight among the troopers of the 7th hence the repeating rounds found among them. The 7th by that time would have been broken, disorganized, and doomed.

He did in fact refuse the Gatling guns, as he thought them impractical against Indians on horse back.

True. You will remember I said that Custer would have had to induce the Indians to attack him. This assumption is that Custer would assume a defensive posture and force the Sioux/Cheyenne warriors to attack him over ground of his choosing. Coupled with Gatling guns this would have almost certainly changed the outcome of the battle. Custer should have known this tactic since he saw the south use it repeatedly and very effectively during the Civil War.

I personaly think that he just was A. not smart enough and B. just totally enamored with the perceived glory of a classic cavalry charge.

Custer's downfall was that he learned to late that the Indians battlefield tactics had changed. He fought as he was use to fighting. The Indians did not, they adapted.

Precisely.