Don't beg.

asshole :)

Thats like cannon fire..only kills the person

Moi aussi j'étais u enfant devant la télé gaulliste à une chaîne en noir et blanc, , je me souvenais de l'intervention de la mitrailleuse>... Pas revu cette scène depuis plus d'un demi-siècle !

Just because they are fucking blind. They cant even see a single horse.

@@24goons 😆😆😆

Gatling gun boo-letts were 'specially designed and trained.

Vollkommer Schwachsinn Indianer mit Pfeil und Bogen, Speere vs Gattling Gun und Repitir Gewehr. Wie wäre es nicht gleich mit Todesstern vs Repitir Gewehr 🙄🤦🏼‍♀️🤦🏼‍♀️🤦🏼‍♀️🤦🏼‍♀️🤦🏼‍♀️

Aimbot

Kind of like the Battle of the Alamo took place in broad daylight on film.

Your life is constantly endangered. Mama might have to sell extra scones, or something!

Until early 1870/73 the cavalry had the Spencer repeaters, then some morons decided to replace them with the Springfield single shot (!). It remained in service until the adoption of the Krag-Jorgensen, shortly before the Ispano-American war. But you're right, until the late'60s a lot of Hollywood movies were wrong about Far West weapons, look f.e. to"The Comancheros" the year is 1841 but they've Winchesters & Colt 1873!

Superior intelligence and Superior fire power and that's all she wrote. To bad indians they never had a chance against a well trained Army.

I may be British and lack day to day experience of guns but I have always thought aiming was a useful thing to do when using one..

@@grahvis British military has a very long history of excellent training of soldiers in regards to aimed shots. Even pre gunpowder, the English longbow was a deadly weapon in the hands of an English bowman who was expected to begin training as a young boy. I was a proud member of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders Regiment, Canada.

@@Chamindo7 . It has been said that in 1914, the British were the best infantry in the world. One reason was having a much greater ammunition allowance for practice than the Germans. It's the Hollywood way of firing pistols that gets me, the quick jab forward as they fire, as though they were trying to throw the bullet. I have fired pistols just before the ban came in and how they hoped to hit anything that way is beyond me. Way back when I was in my late teens, the sergeant in charge of the local drill hall let me have a few sessions on the range, I think he was trying to tempt me to join the TA. :-)

@@grahvis We forgive, and understand your Englishness,

@@grahvis Sometimes they are reasons, sometimes excuses.

Yes, it's not a documentary.

This was a Western made in 1950. Of course it wasn't like real life. Westerns weren't about real life in 1950. They still aren't.

Not as cool.

No, they used the Springfield 45-70 single shot. Not the Sharps.

@@charleslarson6961 Thanks for the correction. I'm always getting those two mixed up.

This was one reason they lost so many Indian wars many Indians had repeating rifels😮

@@charleslarson6961 Depends on the period. CW-surplus Sharps were sometimes issued immed. after the War, along with trapdoor Springfields and (for the infantry) regular Springfield rifle-muskets. But no repeaters, no. Those were for scouts, if anyone.

He didn’t talk much bc he probably killed women and children also💀

@@checkup1165 well that's fucked up

@@checkup1165 so did you!

"old" Indian fighter. I didn't get it at first, and then started laughing!

He was just a serial killer, not to worry about it. 🤣😂

Noticed that straight away.

Gregory Peck was a replacement for Gary Cooper, who never liked the film but nevertheless his grand performance is the main reason the film is any good. April 27, 2015 | Rating: B | Full Review… Dennis Schwartz Dennis Schwartz Movie Reviews Out of the 53 theatrical features Gregory Peck made over a 47-year span, the late, great actor always considered the worst to be Only the Valiant ... But this middling Western isn't awful so much as it's awfully indifferent. September 21, 2013 | Rating: 2/4 | Full Review… Matt Brunson Creative Loafing

US army never used lever action Winchesters either,these movies are as fake as they come,written for an unsophisticated audience in a simplier time.

No, they would have been .50 caliber Spencer Repeating Carbines circa 1870. However, when this movie was made I doubt they had a supply of them available, hence the Winchesters. Also, that's a model 1880 Gatling gun in the movie, the earlier models had exposed barrels.

Goes to show just how pompous and insecure we've become.

The movie isn't racist. It is just stupid. If you want to see a good movie about the Apache Wars, try Ulzana's Raid with Burt Lancaster. This one could have been made with Tyrone Power and set on the Northwest Frontier. Or maybe with Jackie Chan set on the Chinese borderlands.

i still love old movies like this

gumbie05 you wouldn't know what racism is. I remember sailors and dogs keep off the grass and a chain link fence going down the beach into the surf. Just keep your filthy snow white mouth shut.

Terrance Perkins you have NO idea what I've gone through in life when people have made fun of my green skin, slanted head and squishy body! Blow me! 😡

Will was their leader...

That's not Gary Cooper. Try Gregory Peck.

@@dennismitchell1934 yes yes yes.. that's who I meant.. You can see Hollywood has NO CLUE about how a firearm should be used.. just look at Alec Baldwin

My guess is the director thought it was more dramatic. You're right, though. Waste of motion and slows the rate of fire.

+Allen A I can think of three reasons why cavalry survived right up until WW1, and in some cases up until WW2. 1. The use of Gatling Guns against mounted troops in a frontal charge was a slaughter, yes, but the charge was a very small percentage of what the cavalryman did. Cavalry was still useful for scouting and foraging and was the quickest way to move men across arid countryside without railways, e.g. the deserts of the American Midwest. In battle Mounted Infantry was still incredibly effective, even with the invention of the Gatling Gun because they could move to new positions quicker than infantry but then dismount and fight on foot, making harder targets for the Gatling Gun. Meaning whilst the invention of the Gatling spelled the end for the Heavy Cavalry, whose sole purpose was to charge, Mounted Infantry and Light Cavalry still were valuable components of an army and so per were retained. 2. Western armies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were not particularly used to fighting each other, the vast majority of wars took place against natives who had no Gatling Guns, fewer cannons and generally had fewer modern small arms, so Heavy cavalry and Lancers were more effective against them, meaning they were retained in western armies because of how useful they were against technologically inferior enemies, who often fought in a loose formation charging formation. 3. Being British I know only of my own country's predicaments in this area, but I imagine the situation may have been similar in some other European countries. Stemming from the feudal days of the Middle Ages, a tradition developed of the rich and powerful being mounted on heavy chargers, whilst the peasantry fought on foot due to the cost of owning a horse. This continued into the 19th century, where officers in the Heavy Cavalry often came from the very highest echelons of society who were often the richest, meaning that due to the purchasing of rank system the rich would soon rise through the cavalry and many rose, through a combination of money and talent at mowing down spear-wielding natives, to become Generals. These Generals felt a deep connection to the Heavy Cavalry, seeing it as their roots and feeling a sense of nostalgia about past days of glory, e.g. Waterloo, Charge of the Heavy Brigade in the Crimea, etc. meaning they opposed any cutting of the Heavy Cavalry even as it became obvious during wars such as the Franco-Prussian War and American Civil War that the days of the Heavy Cavalry were over. The Heavy Cavalryman, therefore, survived because of the influence and power wielded by these Generals, until better reasoning won out as they were proven pointless and too expensive during the trench warfare of WW1. Yeah, they're the three reasons I could think of, I think they're the main three. There are probably more, someone will have made a KZfaq video about the topic somewhere.

Scouting, and mounted infantry for rapid movement over rough terrain to preform flanking movements, etc. Cavalry had not been use for frontal charges since the early 19th century.

The Australian light horse were dragoons if I'm not mistaken. They were mounted infantry. Frontal charges were generally not in their job description. Although a hand full of them did happen of course. There was this story of Polish cavalry charging German tanks during the second world war. Though I believe that was a myth, or at least not quite what it seemed.

Until WW1...

Always root for the Indians!!

XD JAJajjajajajaj Verdad

Creative Denny-TV poor humanity.

Which explains why they lost.

@@henryrodgers1752 Technically they did not lose. There are native americans still alive. If their enemies had won, that would mean all of them would be dead. That's what they wanted. This is just what they had to settle for.

American Indian? Native American is the proper word

@@rickville8898 Depends on whom you talk to.

This movie came out in 1951, they still had a long way to go before that. And an even longer way before getting to the New Western, like Little Big Man, or Soldier Blue

Did they use the model 1883 Gatling gun as shown here? I can't find info on that.

@@whiteknightcat Fire arms accuracy was nit thé point at the time this mowie was Made ...

@@loui260756 Well, at least they didn't arm them with M1's or BAR's!

I seem to remember that the soldiers were issued repeating rifles for this special mission of keeping the Indians bottled up, since there were so few soldiers.

I was wondering about that.

Yeah I really don't think the blue coats would have just magically let them live if they did.

It’s just an old movie, don’t be a dik.

@@conservativemike3768 is an old shit! And you like it!

@@siegmundheine4282 / Dude… chill & be happy.

@@conservativemike3768 😆😆😆

He was a great shot in "To Kill a Mockingbird" though!

The apache's didn't have countries, government, organized civilization, or land ownership though... so how was it their homeland anymore than the other tribes which they had killed to gain access to better hunting grounds?

@@lightsflashnow Excellent!