|
Post by conz on Sept 28, 2008 9:18:59 GMT -6
Definitely chaos...lots of it almost always in combat. Such chaos, or "not understanding what is going on" is different at the command level than at the Soldier level, but both experience some measure of it all the time.
We might call chaos the extreme version of "confusion," and a bit calmer than that is simply lack of understanding. As this "confusion factor" goes up, units have a greater chance of becoming temporarily paralyzed, or even breaking and running. They will not come back together and fight as a unit until either someone can put some understanding ("discipline and orders") back into them so they have something to do, or they get a break from the pressure and can come together on their own.
This is different from panic, where terror-stricken Soldiers become blind to everything but running, dropping their rifles and running over their own screaming officers and NCOs. That happens a lot in warfare, too, but not often by professional units like the 7th Cavalry.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by wild on Sept 28, 2008 10:13:00 GMT -6
I disagree...do a survey of "finest units" that broke and ran without being shot at...just by what they saw. I doubt you'll find any At Chancellorsville an entire federal corps broke and ran. And just for balance at Cedar Mountain Jackson's left flank collapsed and ran.In both cases some units ran without either seeing the foe or hearing a shot fired.Panic is contagious and can spred to uncommitted units. In Custer's situation he was flanked.He had his command in line astern 3 minutes from hundreds of warriors.In biblical terminology The Assyrians came down like a wolves on the fold.
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Sept 28, 2008 12:42:39 GMT -6
Chaos is definitely a better word to describe the Custer battalion’s reaction to the sudden situation they were thrust into. Thank you AZ.
A course of action, plan A, suddenly hits the wall and in a heart-beat we switch to plan B. Chaos can be described as all that goes on when switching from plan A to plan B. Breaking formation, turning away, scrambling to a new position and trying to reorganize in order to turn again and face the new situation. Quick moves into the timber or hasty dash for the bluffs were exactly the same actions as a run back from the river for high ground in order to rally on guidons and officers to affect a defense.
Do not forget to give the opposing force of warriors the credit they are due. They used their own superior numbers, advantage of terrain and volume of fire power (leaded and feathered. Direct and indirect) to expertly stop Custer’s attack, and then never allow him breathing room to re-consolidate and reorganize his forces into a coherent defense.
The Reno and Custer reactions and moves are all so terribly common to human nature in any age, at any time and within any culture.
We’ve seen this same thing happen on Wall Street and stock markets around the world this past week or two. Investment positions, company models and business plans hit the wall (a sudden cash flow/credit crunch). CEOs with (Custer - without) a so called golden parachute are scrambling to find timber or bluffs, BODs (the officers) are scrambling to reposition and hold the wolves at bay, and the warehouse and assembly-line workers (the troops) are scared to death of what the once bright future may now suddenly hold for them and their families, but carry on as best they can while looking over their shoulders for the grim reaper’s reaching hands.
‘Taxpayers. Big problem. Be quick. Bring CASH. P.S. Bring cash.’
The taxpayers may or may not have actual means to do so, even as tightly tied they and their futures are to the situation.
Reno had a think fast position to run for and Custer did not. That was the only difference between the two battalions and their ultimate fates. Reno is condemned for not dying and Custer is lionized for doing so. I personally see neither of their actions as more or less honorable than the other’s, and neither do I see any chaos resulting from it as being out of the norm of expectations given the unexpected circumstances they encountered on that day.
BS
|
|
|
Post by sherppa on Sept 28, 2008 19:42:59 GMT -6
wild,
I am familiar with direct fire, indirect fire, grazing fire and plunging fire, even campfire. And indirect fire is basically as you have described. But we are not talking about mountains, merely draws or ravines, were spotters do not have to figure Magnus effect or even simple windage to any real degree. And signaling would not be that difficult.
Also, I am referring strictly to the Warrior use of the bow and arrow. Even with the rainbow trajectory of the 45/55 or 45/70 it would not be applicable in this or hardly any scenario. For what it is worth, I base my belief on several different factors:
1. Information put out by the rangers working at LBH.
2. The topography would allow for Warriors en mass to fire arrows out of the draws and ravines unto the open area of LSH and onto Cemetery and Deep Ravine areas. Much is documented about the use of the draws and by the Warriors.
3. I do not think the European Armies had the market cornered on this tactic.
4. A Soldier standing kneeling or even prone provides a fairly large target.
5. With a limited accurate range of up to 40 yards. To accurately loose an arrow it would require the one shooting to expose a great deal of upper body. Why expose yourself at that range if you don't have to.
P.S. I would like to have seen the FM for the use of sabers for indirect fire (LOL).
thank you for your thoughts,
sherppa
|
|
|
Post by wild on Sept 29, 2008 5:53:17 GMT -6
Sherppa P.S. I would like to have seen the FM for the use of sabers for indirect fire (LOL). As shouted orders on the battle field are difficult to hear the battery commander often made use of his sabre to signal his guns to open fire.
We do splitting of hairs on this board and lobbing and indirect fire are entirely different species. The lobbing of a single arrow would be useless.Massed lobbing requires discipline,a designated target and a fire order and then a possible correction of aim.The Sioux FM does not have a section on this drill. So no lobbing played little or no part in the battle.
|
|
|
Post by sherppa on Sept 29, 2008 6:48:13 GMT -6
wild ,
I fear you misunderstand my attempt at humor in the comment about sabers for indirect fire. What I meant was physically using the saber as a projectile.
Yes, sabers, flags, mirrors evan hats and blankets have all been used as tools for commanders to signal an action.
As for the actual use of arrows and indirect fire I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree on that one.
take care,
sherppa
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 29, 2008 7:36:58 GMT -6
5. With a limited accurate range of up to 40 yards. To accurately loose an arrow it would require the one shooting to expose a great deal of upper body. Why expose yourself at that range if you don't have to.
Where is limited accurate range of 40 yards coming from? I am sure an Indian could shoot prone with the bow horizontal better than trying to figure the trajectorty over a ridge top.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Sept 29, 2008 9:03:01 GMT -6
I fear you misunderstand my attempt at humor in the comment about sabers for indirect fire. Not at all sherppa you misunderstood mine. Be good
|
|
|
Post by conz on Sept 29, 2008 9:03:18 GMT -6
I disagree...do a survey of "finest units" that broke and ran without being shot at...just by what they saw. I doubt you'll find anyAt Chancellorsville an entire federal corps broke and ran. And just for balance at Cedar Mountain Jackson's left flank collapsed and ran.In both cases some units ran without either seeing the foe or hearing a shot fired.Panic is contagious and can spred to uncommitted units. In Custer's situation he was flanked.He had his command in line astern 3 minutes from hundreds of warriors.In biblical terminology The Assyrians came down like a wolves on the fold. Those were not Regular Army units...those were militia units. They don't have near the discipline nor training nor leadership excellence that Regular units have. Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on Sept 29, 2008 9:07:41 GMT -6
Sherppa P.S. I would like to have seen the FM for the use of sabers for indirect fire (LOL). As shouted orders on the battle field are difficult to hear the battery commander often made use of his sabre to signal his guns to open fire. We do splitting of hairs on this board and lobbing and indirect fire are entirely different species. The lobbing of a single arrow would be useless.Massed lobbing requires discipline,a designated target and a fire order and then a possible correction of aim.The Sioux FM does not have a section on this drill. So no lobbing played little or no part in the battle. But Wild, the Sioux witnesses SAID that they did this...so isn't that their doctrine? I do quality arrow fire used this way as "indirect fire," since it is an area target without direction, and without the shooter sighting on a specific target. To me, that is indirect fire, just as is light mortars that can see the target and lob shells into the area. Some may call this "direct fire," but it really distorts what is happening. So my own preference is to call lobbed, arching, area fire "indirect fire," be it by howitzers, mortars, or arrows. Clair
|
|
|
Post by wild on Sept 29, 2008 9:11:58 GMT -6
Conz Those units had two years experience of war.They were front line battle hardened veterns not pre war garrison troops.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 29, 2008 9:49:16 GMT -6
It's rather bizarre to account for Indians adapting to a specific situation, more or less together, as the result of military doctrine. Buffalo hunting, yes, since you could pick off one bison after another and the herd would not move, but keep grazing, still huddled together, by direct or indirect fire.
They had no 'doctrine'-s, they had no officers, their leaders led by example. Whatever happened to Custer's group, it was not a conceived trap (the one and only tactic Indians seemed to use - odd then, they always lost....), it was not the result of group tactical superiority but numbers, passive surprise (or active incompetence of the soldiers), and whatever explanation for the circumstances that brought Custer's guys to be surrounded with no cover on high ground.
Discussing 'Indian use of indirect fire' might be like Paul Tibbets discussing how to ride the shock wave of a nuclear blast. Yes, such knowledge was suggested as something to prepare for and, yes, he did it and, yes, it worked but no, it wasn't exactly practiced. Few Indians had ever fought in such a large action or anything remotely like it (they did have vets from Minnesota) and had no group training, no reason to apply indirect fire except as a common sense method of inflicting harm from safety.
This is the sort of inaccurate portrayal that leads to people like Ambrose saying Crazy Horse outgeneralled Custer, because it's in terms Ambrose was familiar with and their use excites and somewhat intimidates the mostly male audience, as if the use of the terms imbues them with 'understanding' of what they represent with few having actual experience.
In elevating the qualities of the enemy, losing troops are excused/forgiven/glorified and winning soldiers are elevated into the mythical realms. That's why Yamamoto and Robert Lee are vastly, almost ridiculously overpraised and Custer has become a pin-up for males with issues. Trying to gussy up a large mob action by the Sioux and Cheyenne as exhibiting military application of service academy manuals gives them a leg up and Custer another buff with a waxed rag to those innocent of how this works. Whatever they did that worked well in bulk was coincidental. Not like they had a list of options to cross off, or anyone to order them.
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Sept 29, 2008 10:14:59 GMT -6
Well said, dc, well said. Not only that, but valid observation.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by wild on Sept 29, 2008 12:00:06 GMT -6
conz I do quality arrow fire used this way as "indirect fire," since it is an area target without direction, and without the shooter sighting on a specific target The target is specific in both direct and indirect fire otherwise it is just random fire. Indirect fire is when there is no direct line of sight between the shooter and the target.In your example the target is the ravine.Hit the ravine with enough arrows and the law of averages should allow for a number of hits on the concealed troopers.
|
|
|
Post by clansman on Sept 29, 2008 12:58:38 GMT -6
darkcloud. So Lee was overrated as a general?
|
|