modern Fighting men vs Cowboys Gunslingers of the old west?

Status
Not open for further replies.
What about a SF team dropped into the Alamo, depends on how much ammo they brought with them. Even a few cases of Rem 700's and plenty of ammo would have changed the outcome. How about a smart tactically minded officer in charge of the 7th Cavalry (and armed with .30-30 lever actions). All fun and maybe a little interesting but thats about it.
 
"How about a smart tactically minded officer in charge of the 7th Cavalry (and armed with .30-30 lever actions)."

For years I've said that the US Army made a huge mistake when they withdrew the Spencer carbine wholesale, especially from the cavalry, to be replaced with the M1873 Trapdoor.

I've contended that, had the Army either accepted the logistics challenge of keeping Spencer ammo in the supply train or, better yet, redesigned it to work with the new centerfire revolver cartridge, that the increase in firepower might well have prevented the massacre at Little Big Horn.

A perfect example of the Spencer's utility is the Battle of Beecher Island in 1868. The largely irregular force of scouts was armed with Spencers, while the few Cavalry personnel had .50-70 Trapdoors.

The unit held off from several hundred to upwards 1,000 Indians for the better part of 3 days, in large part because of the Spencer's firepower advantage.
 
I'd disagree with Irwin

I think the Battle of Beecher's Island was not won by concentrated fire of Spencer Repeaters. I think it was horsemeat that really sustained the beleaguered defenders.
Seriously though, Beechers Island is an often overlooked part of the Indian Wars and had pretty serious consequences. An important Chief by name of Roman Nose was killed in the action.
 
not won by concentrated fire of Spencer Repeaters. I think it was horsemeat that really sustained the beleaguered defenders.
Click to expand...

If the beleaguered defenders had been armed with swords and spears, would the horsemeat have won the battle for them?

The combination of the firepower of the Spencers AND the fact that they had a large ammo supply with them, AND were on the defense is what mattered most.

Having enough rations is important, but alone wins nothing.

As to the Army going to the single shot breechloader as the standard, sure, it was a mistake, for the individual troops who had to fight with them, but it was "good for the Army", in the opinions of the brass of the day.

The Army has prestige, but doesn't have much money. Surely the Army of the Republic which defeated the Rebels, without them, hardly needs expensive repeaters and their ammunition to deal with a few rebellious savages!

Or so enough of them thought, at the time.
 
"I think it was horsemeat that really sustained the beleaguered defenders."

Really?

The average human can go a couple of weeks or more without food.

I wonder how long any of them would have lasted without ammunition? A matter of minutes?


EVERYONE knows that it was their sense of adventure, dashing sideburns, and Mitchum 7-day deodorant pads that sustained them...

Sheesh!
 
Last edited:
mr bolo said:
What would happen if a group of former Special Forces / Delta Operators went back in time to the Old West during the height of the gunfighters era

with the modern fighting man's experience, survival skills , hand to hand combat techniques and training, what would the old timers from the old west do? would they stand a chance?

even a common bar room brawl, the former SF / Delta / SEAL would probably take them down into submission with ease

it would be kind of like in the movie the Magnificent seven but worse
Click to expand...

Scenario one, sent on a mission to kill someone in that time, the SF men would obviously prevail. It wouldn't be any sort of bar room brawl. They'd do it from a distance unheard of in those days and never been known or seen.

Scenario two, if they somehow got on the wrong side of these old timers and knew it, I think they'd still have the significant advantage. They're trained for modern combat in guerrilla/insurgent strongholds, they wouldn't just be wandering around sniffing the daisies. In fact, I'd guess that as soon as they knew the old timers were after them, they'd finish it before the old guys knew what happened.

Scenario three, if they got on the wrong side of the old timers and DIDN'T know it, it would all depend on any number of assumptions that the person imagining the situation might factor in. No way of knowing. I still think the training, vigilance, conditioning and team work of the modern SF soldier would give them a distinct advantage.

Scenario four, if they traveled back and didn't have a specific "Seek and Destroy" type mission, I'm quite certain they'd be smart enough to melt away and never be known. If they had time to prepare, I'm sure that some of the publicized but lesser known gold finds of that time would "vanish" from the history books, as it wouldn't be there when the original discoverer arrived and the SF soldiers would be obscure and wealthy.
 
There is one part that I thought was sort of funny. The part about the "killers of old" being mostly drygulchers and shooting from ambush. Ummm isn't that a large part of SF doctrine? A well executed ambush with overwhelming firepower and finishing the fight before the other guys even knew it was a fight? The concept of a fair fight seems silly to me. Some old statement paraphrased, "A fair fight means all my men get to come home alive, screw the other guys".
 
"A well executed ambush with overwhelming firepower and finishing the fight before the other guys even knew it was a fight?"

Noticed that, too, did ya? :D
 
For years I've said that the US Army made a huge mistake when they withdrew the Spencer carbine wholesale, especially from the cavalry, to be replaced with the M1873 Trapdoor.
Click to expand...

Winchester bought out the declining Spencer Rifle Co. in 1869, largely to shut down a competitor, with no thought of keeping the slower firing but sturdy rifle in production. The Army had no resupply or maintenance for their C.W. leftover Spencers, and the guns taken from the Seventh are described as "well worn." It made sense to the War Department brass at the time.
 
After 44 amps post about books and differing knowledge of the battlefield reminds me of A march to ____ series by John Ringo. Where the elite bodyguard of royalty get stuck on some planet where they crush everything until their high tech gear beings to fail. Then they pretty much touch on every style of fighting in human history as they trek across the planet.

They might be the greatest soldiers but their battlefield is one of tech and information not swords and shields or volley musket fire or mounted combat. Sure they learn it but the lose alot of people along the way.
 
Last edited:
"Winchester bought out the declining Spencer Rifle Co. in 1869, largely to shut down a competitor, with no thought of keeping the slower firing but sturdy rifle in production. The Army had no resupply or maintenance for their C.W. leftover Spencers, and the guns taken from the Seventh are described as "well worn." It made sense to the War Department brass at the time."

That's correct.

But, a couple of counterpoints.

In the run up to the adoption of the Trapdoor just after the Civil War, the Army considered a variety of new rifles, the Spencer among them. The Spencer was rejected for the standard rifle, primarily due to its short range, but it was retained in service specifically as a cavalry arm for the duration.

Spencer supposedly offered the Army manufacturing rights to the gun on a royalty basis, but was turned down.

At the end of the Civil War the Army was in the process of purchasing something like 50,000 Spencer rifles in .56-50. With the end of hostilities, that contract was cancelled, and the undelivered rifles were rejected (which apparently set into motion the eventual downfall of the company). For years Spencers were among the cheapest rifles available on the surplus market. Bannerman's 1927 catalog shows a .56-50 Spencer for sale for, IIRC, $12, and ammo at $1.50 per hundred.

The Army had, at various times (including during the adoption of the Trapdoor) showed no compunctions about violating legally held US patents, including a number of patents held by Hiram Berdan. Berdan's widow successfully sued the governement for patent infringment in the 1890s.

The Army had more than enough manufacturing capacity to make not only Spencer rifles but also affiliated parts.

Yes, I'm sure things did "make sense" to the War Department folks at the time, but only if they completely and totally forgot (which they did) the lessons learned about firepower during the Civil War.

Despite clear "writing on the wall" about the changes to warfare, the procurement officers in the War Department went right back to an 18th century theory of warfare combined with the insane premise that each and every American is a natural born long range sniper. Immigrants? Well, the second they step off the boat they become "Americans," and they are magically transformed into long--range snipers.

I still think it's just mind blowingly stunning that the Army somehow managed to drag its collective head out of its collective butt and actually become somewhat forward looking in the 1920s with the adoption of the Garand...
 
While there have always been exceptions, historically there has been no group of more conservative, hidebound, resistant to change, and supremely convinced of their own infallibility, officers than those in military ordnance bureaucracy. And not just in the US.

Not sure if it is because of the kind of people that gravitate into those positions, or the "system" creating and fostering that kind of thinking. Probably some of both.

History is full of instances where the dogmatic mindset of the Ordnance "professionals" prevented the adoption of mechanically superior designs, (which WOULD have given tactical superiority as well), because of some arbitrary standard.

History also gives us many examples of the same mindset preventing, or delaying the repair/correction of something they had blessed, but did NOT WORK PROPERLY. One of the more recent ones is the (now) famous "torpedo troubles" during WWII.

There is one basic fallacy about a comparison between "modern fighting men" and old west cowboys & gunslingers, and that is that the cowboys and gunslingers were not "fighting men". Yes, they fought, individuals, and groups, but they were not "fighting men" like a military unit.

one could turn it around and say LAPD (traffic, NOT SWAT) vs old west gunslingers. While also not a totally fair comparison, it is a bit closer, IMHO.:)

and I have read the John Ringo books, I do like them immensely.
 
If you change the parameter to more of a Terminator outlook where you go back in time naked, with no weapons or tools of any kind except what is in your brain, then it does become more interesting. Take a couple Green Berets or Navy Seals and send them back through time to the old west. Once they find clothes etc. and weapons I suspect that since they are on average a highly intelligent groups of spec warriors that they will quickly get up to speed on the weapons usage. Now throw in their training on tactics and hand to hand conbat and they are going to be a formidable opponent, likely one who will quickly get the reputation of "don't screw with this guy, he will stomp the crap outof you", but how likely would it be that say a general in the Civil or Indian wars listen to someone he doesn't know about tactics and movement of troops etc. More likely in such a situation he would simply become a small footnote in history, something along the lines of After the slaugher of say the 7th Cavalry it was supposedly noted that at least one person was not scalped, again supposed due to his fighting ability and his body was found with a pile of empty shell casings all around him. (such stories are available from nearly every war). Heck maybe those guys were actually Spec. Ops types who fell through a wormhole in time and found themselves in a war, unable to change the overall outcome they simply decided to fight to the limit of their considerable ability. I cannot believe I have let myself get drawn into thies.
 
There is one basic fallacy about a comparison between "modern fighting men" and old west cowboys & gunslingers, and that is that the cowboys and gunslingers were not "fighting men". Yes, they fought, individuals, and groups, but they were not "fighting men" like a military unit
Click to expand...

While I agree with you and understand what you mean, I would also say many gunslingers had served in the military. While tactics are much different now, many were displaced war veterans (Civil War, Spanish American, Indian Wars.) I know you meant they weren't in a cohesive fighting unit after that, just pointing out that many were fighting men earlier in their time.
 
When I think of gunslinger, I think of one who fights with his gun. If you took a gunslinger and a Navy Seal and had them face off in the street, it is very possible that the gunslinger would draw first and win. Especially since the Navy Seal's semi-auto pistol would probably jamb, while the old Colt revolver would work flawlessly.
 
There is also the consideration that the SP team would save millions of lives. Each Special Forces team includes a medical expert.
The introduction of anti-septic care alone would save huge numbers. Knowledge of water borne illness would save many more.

Even a Boy Scout handbook supplied to the US Army would have saved thousands of lives during the Spanish American war.

I don't think it would be hard for our SP team to prove their bonifides to the powers that be.
We're also talking about a time when an average citizen could walk into the Whitehouse for a one on one interview with the president.
 
Scenario one, sent on a mission to kill someone in that time, the SF men would obviously prevail. It wouldn't be any sort of bar room brawl. They'd do it from a distance unheard of in those days and never been known or seen.

Scenario two, if they somehow got on the wrong side of these old timers and knew it, I think they'd still have the significant advantage. They're trained for modern combat in guerrilla/insurgent strongholds, they wouldn't just be wandering around sniffing the daisies. In fact, I'd guess that as soon as they knew the old timers were after them, they'd finish it before the old guys knew what happened.

Scenario three, if they got on the wrong side of the old timers and DIDN'T know it, it would all depend on any number of assumptions that the person imagining the situation might factor in. No way of knowing. I still think the training, vigilance, conditioning and team work of the modern SF soldier would give them a distinct advantage.

Scenario four, if they traveled back and didn't have a specific "Seek and Destroy" type mission, I'm quite certain they'd be smart enough to melt away and never be known. If they had time to prepare, I'm sure that some of the publicized but lesser known gold finds of that time would "vanish" from the history books, as it wouldn't be there when the original discoverer arrived and the SF soldiers would be obscure and wealthy.
Click to expand...

This seems like a succinct explanation of the parameters set by the OP. I wonder though what other effects this would have long term?

There is also the consideration that the SP team would save millions of lives. Each Special Forces team includes a medical expert.
The introduction of anti-septic care alone would save huge numbers. Knowledge of water borne illness would save many more.

Even a Boy Scout handbook supplied to the US Army would have saved thousands of lives during the Spanish American war.

I don't think it would be hard for our SP team to prove their bonifides to the powers that be.
We're also talking about a time when an average citizen could walk into the Whitehouse for a one on one interview with the president.
Click to expand...

The knowledge these men have would drastically effect the course of science and technology in this country. Surely these men are some of the most patriotic in the nation today; and they would likely feel compelled to do whatever they could to advance their nation, even in the 1870's. They might not be able to go patent an M4, but they know how it works and happen to now be in a time when many great firearms designers live. Besides their effect on small arms though they also have over 100 years worth of doctrine in their heads past what the army of the day knew.

As pointed out above, their understanding of modern medicine would have huge impacts. I am guessing if these guys stick around long term they will patent, perhaps along with contemporary engineers/designers/inventors all kinds of neat things like refrigerators, weapons from small to very large, simple items like staples, three hole punch and many other items which they know are possible but didn't exist. I am also guessing that these men would still feel bound by whatever branch of service they were in, since it still exists in the time they have been transported too. I see each an every one flying up the ranks; over a very rough road of opposition by many entrenched interests.

Interesting scenario.
 
I've never been in any sort of gun fight, not even a fist fight for that matter, but I do believe rule number 1 is never under estimate your enemies. Ask the British how that worked out during the Revolutionary War. So if these modern people go back to the late 1800s thinking their modern weapons and tactics are superior then I think they would loose. Regardless, the modern guns don't matter so much. All it takes is one shot, plus most revolvers hold 6 shots and levers can hold a lot. And honestly, I think a group of hired killers would win hands down from their tactics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top