Battle of the Little Bighorn: Could Gatling Guns have made a difference?

Half_Life_Expert#4276

This is the next What if/Could it? thread. I think is the smallest scale one I have done, as the total participants in this battle are less than 4,000.

This battle in June of 1876 was part of the Great Sioux War in the part of the United States now known as the states of Montana, Wyoming, and the two Dakotas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sioux_War_of_1876

While the United States won this war, it's most famous (or rather infamous) moment is this US disaster.

I'm sure most everyone reading this must have at least heard of the Battle of the Little Bighorn, or perhaps by it's alternate name: Custer's Last Stand. If you do not know much about this battle, here is the wiki link if you wish to read up about it before considering my question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Little_Bighorn

While most people think the US soldiers were totally wiped out in this battle, in actuality, it was only the 200 or so men directly under the command of George Armstrong Custer that were wiped out, with many myths of one or two survivors. Total there was around 700 US troops involved in this operation.

Against the US forces was a combined force of Lakota, Arapaho and North Cheyenne warriors from their respective Native American tribes. Estimates of their total strength range from 900 to over 2,000 , possibly more.

Since the battle, there has been a debate over Custer's decision to leave behind the Artillery attached to him, particularly the Gatling Guns, of which he had at least two.

Many have argued that had Custer brought the Gatling's with him when he was engaged by the Sioux forces, the US could have won the battle.

The question I put forth for this thread is:

"If Custer had brought his Gatling Guns with him to Little Bighorn, could he have won the battle against the Sioux forces?"


I personally do not think so, the Gatling gun was prone to jamming, but even if we assume the guns worked sufficiently, there are two problems I see:

1) The crew of the Gatling Guns would have had to be standing to operate it, thus leaving them completely exposed to rifle fire.

2) The Gatling Gun, while indeed delivering a then astounding rate of fire, would not have had the required tactical flexibility to engage the type of force Custer was opposing: Tribal Warriors on horseback with bows and carbines.

The Gatling Gun is great for holding a position and firing into an attacker, for example, Pickett's charge would have been ideal situation for the Union to deploy Gatlings if they had them.

In this case, the Sioux would have, in my opinion, been smart enough to spread out and do their best to move around the Gatlings, and pick of the gunners once they were within range.


but nonetheless, at the time, the Gatling gun did project an intimidating presence on any battlefield, and the Sioux warriors would have been at least nervous about going into battle against them. So in my opinion, the Gatling guns would have not won Custer the day, but could have prevented the major disaster that did occur.

Rath_Darkblade

I have to wonder about this:

The Sioux would have, in my opinion, been smart enough to spread out and do their best to move around the Gatlings, and pick of the gunners once they were within range.

Nonetheless, at the time, the Gatling gun did project an intimidating presence on any battlefield, and the Sioux warriors would have been at least nervous about going into battle against them. So in my opinion, the Gatling guns would have not won Custer the day, but could have prevented the major disaster that did occur.

The Sioux and Lakota would certainly have been smart enough to spread out and not charge head on into the Gatling guns' fire. As it was, they did spread out and did not form up into squares in the European fashion. As far as I'm aware, the 'square' tactics were never utilised by the Plains tribes.

Given this, why would the Sioux have been nervous about the Gatling guns? Of course these would have been something extra for the Sioux to worry about; but consider for a moment the Gatling guns' range and the fact that they tended to overheat. So if the Sioux had dispersed and reformed elsewhere, the Gatling guns' operators - perhaps - would not be able to aim accurately at them. Add to this the fact that the aforesaid operators would have been exposed to carbine-fire or arrow-fire, and the odds are even moreso in the Sioux's favour.

Finally, we must consider Custer's state of mind. AFAIK, he was in disgrace with the politicians in Washington, and thinking about running for Congress. Custer needed a quick and popular military victory, and the Gatling guns would have slowed him down, which is why he left them behind. He was also hampered by the usual anti-Indian prejudice of the time (i.e. "they'll run away as soon as they taste cold steel", etc. etc.) So to Custer, it wouldn't have made sense to wait for the Gatling guns anyway.

Just a thought or two... please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Deleted User]

Custer had one chance to evade the end result of the greasy grass, and that was to turn around and run like hell as soon as they saw the size of the encampment. Once Gall's (I think, don't quote me) mounted force swept up the gullies to the column's right, the other side of the greasy grass slope, the only way out was backwards...instead, they fought a skirmishing withdrawal across the slopes, attempting to get to high ground up near the bluffs to the colum's right, but the mounted wing came over the crest onto them, with the leg force coming up from the river and the gully the cav originally started down.

There will always be debate about the two squadrons that hung on (Reno's + ?), but they were comparatively lightly engaged, and did make it to a position where they could hunker down to a firefight. They did the appropriate thing, Custer didn't.

Edit:

Assuming any guns would have been moving as part of the column, there were only a couple of places they could have been dragged out of that gully, then they would have had to have been towed to a firing position, deployed, and used effectively...all under fire. Even if they had held the leg force coming from the river and encampment, Gall's mounted force would have been over them in a matter of minutes from the heights above them.

Those slopes are bare...the only cover apart from dips in the ground was the grass, and your horse...and it's a desperate man who lays his horse down to fire across it when you have several thousand screaming maniacs coming down on you.

Rath_Darkblade

Hidden Gunman wrote: »

There will always be debate about the two squadrons that hung on (Reno's + ?), but they were comparatively lightly engaged, and did make it to a position where they could hunker down to a firefight. They did the appropriate thing, Custer didn't.

I think you're thinking of Reno's and Benteen's squadrons. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. *smile*

daelin4#9896

Custer sortied out based on wrong assumptions and assessments. First, the enemy was more numerous than expected, and second, the strategy was to chase and harry the tribes at their weakest and unexpected, preferably under stealth as he approached. This calls for speed, not firepower. If we wished to actually engage the enemy in open battle with artillery and such they would simply have fled, preventing an engagement.
Bringing Gatling guns would have been impossible to achieve this, it's like expecting your bicycle to outrace a Kenyan runner, with the bicycle carrying an elephant.
To add to HG's comment, it's pretty hard (re VERY hard) to have artillery crews move guns to proper positions during battle or otherwise under attack, if Custer had ever considered the gatling guns, he'd have to take this into consideration.