Custer's commanding officer, General Terry, offered him the use of two of the deadliest weapons invented in the 19th Century, he refused them, and told Gen. Terry that the 7th Cavalry could do the job alone. So he never took the machine guns he was offered. (Colt's patent Gatling guns). Had he taken them, one wonders what the outcome would have been.
I doubt that the Gatling guns would have been decisive. They would have only prolonged the battle and in the end would have still been lost........
Indeed the outcome would have been different. Most likely, it would not have occurred. Specifically:
1) Because the guns traveled at a much slower rate then the Calvary, they would have been several days to a week off of the date the battle occurred. The situation would have then been entirely different. This assumes that they would have kept the guns and Calvary together.
2) If they split into groups (as they did just prior to B of LBH), then the Indians would have attacked the weakest of the groups. Remember, the Indians knew where Custer was, he did not know where the Indians were.
Additionally, though Gatling guns were very effective against foot soldiers in the WBS, they would have been less so against mounted Indians. Certainly many more Indians would have been killed and wounded, had they engaged, but because of flanking attacks, the result ultimately would have most likely been the same (an Indian victory).
"Custer's commanding officer, General Terry, offered him the use of two of the deadliest weapons invented in the 19th Century, he refused them, and told Gen. Terry that the 7th Cavalry could do the job alone. So he never took the machine guns he was offered. (Colt's patent Gatling guns). Had he taken them, one wonders what the outcome would have been."
Yep. You know, the delay Custer would have realized, if he had taken the gatlining guns, and the artillery, might have slowed him down enough the battle might never have been fought.
Lot of things to consider beyond the raw fire power on that one.