|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jul 16, 2013 8:51:41 GMT -6
When you talk of tactics and professionalism. The British Army still flogged men up till 1881; they replaced it with Field Punishment Number One. linkTactics; Lord Chelmsford ordered his men to form square when faced with massed Zulu charges at the Battle of Ulundi; apparently he thought that the extended line system failed at Isandlwana. It was the first time the British Army had used a Brigade or Divisional Square since the introduction of the Breech Loading Rifle, the British used the square formation again in the Sudan, some of the Officers there had fought at Ulundi and naturally adopted a square formation. I don’t think this would have benefited the 7th, it is more of an Infantry tactic, which would include large Battalions or larger. Plus I don’t think the Indians would be daft enough to charge head long into a line of rifles like the Zulus and Mahdi’s did. Ian.
|
|
|
Post by Gatewood on Jul 16, 2013 10:48:20 GMT -6
1. Mounting each company on distinctive colored horses had a practical application. In the confusion of battle it was far easier to distiquish individual units by the color of their horses than by guidons and other means. This served both the commanders, who could tell at a glance what units were where, and the individual troopers who might become seperated from their units and were trying to find them to join up on. LBH itself serves as a good example, where various of Reno's men recounted seeing "The Grey Horse Troop" at a particular point at a particular time, evidencing that it was easy to identify it and track its movements.
2. Forming square was mainly infantry defense against charging cavalry. It presented a mass to the attacking horses that their natural instinct was to balk at charging into, and thus disrupted their charge. However, in certain applications, it was also useful against infantry. The principal weapon system was not the rifle or musket, but what was attached to the end of it - a bayonet. A wall of bayonets could be mighty intimidating, especially to relatively unsophisticated troops that did not have a good counter to it. I recall reading an account by one of the survivors of Rorkes Drift, in which he indicated that the Zulus appeared to be far more intimidated by the British bayonets than by their rifle fire, and the same was probably true at Ulundi.
3. Although "primative" forces, by western standards, the Zulus and Mahdies had military structures with commanders that could give orders and expect to be obeyed; the plains Indians did not. As such, the commanders of the former could order mass attacks that would be executed, regardless of a "soldier's" personal feelings about it, while, as we have discussed many times, the individual Indians made their own decisions as to what they were going to do, which, as Ian said, would have been daft to charge into a square. Also, the Zulus/Mahdies had relatively large populations that could afford to absorb significant casualties through frontal assaults, if that is what it took to achieve the military objective, while the loss of only a small number of Indians was a serious blow to their tribes and overall population.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Jul 16, 2013 14:39:33 GMT -6
When you talk of tactics and professionalism. The British Army still flogged men up till 1881; they replaced it with Field Punishment Number One. linkTactics; Lord Chelmsford ordered his men to form square when faced with massed Zulu charges at the Battle of Ulundi; apparently he thought that the extended line system failed at Isandlwana. It was the first time the British Army had used a Brigade or Divisional Square since the introduction of the Breech Loading Rifle, the British used the square formation again in the Sudan, some of the Officers there had fought at Ulundi and naturally adopted a square formation. I don’t think this would have benefited the 7th, it is more of an Infantry tactic, which would include large Battalions or larger. Plus I don’t think the Indians would be daft enough to charge head long into a line of rifles like the Zulus and Mahdi’s did. Ian. Ian.....I think what is overlooked is that this WAS an Infantry fight. Yes it was fought by cavalry soldiers but it was a fight on foot. Cavalry hit hard hit fast and get out. The only semblance of a Cavalry fight was Renos charge at the village, which we know was stopped, after that it was all Infantry fighting. Reno/Benteen realized this and formed not a square per se but an oblong defense, which saved them. I agree with you and gatewood that the warriors were not daft enough to charge into it, but also they couldn't afford the losses to the tribes. I believe if they didn't care about their losses, and charged into them they way the Zulu did, Reno/Benteen would have been wiped out the same as the British at Isandlwana. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 16, 2013 15:35:59 GMT -6
No, LBH was not an Infantry battle, fight, whatever you wish to call it. It was a cavalry battle. Were it an Infantry battle it would have been conducted altogether differently, using much different methodology, and a completely different scheme of maneuver.
Cavalry during the Civil War, through World War II spent an ever increasing percentage of their combat operations dismounted, until in WWII it was on the order of 75%.
Anyone who thinks that just because soldiers fought at LBH dismounted makes it an Infantry fight can never understand what went on there
LBH was completely a cavalry fight from start to finish. Just because a soldier dismounts from a horse does not make him an Infantryman.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Jul 16, 2013 16:11:06 GMT -6
No, LBH was not an Infantry battle, fight, whatever you wish to call it. It was a cavalry battle. Were it an Infantry battle it would have been conducted altogether differently, using much different methodology, and a completely different scheme of maneuver. Cavalry during the Civil War, through World War II spent an ever increasing percentage of their combat operations dismounted, until in WWII it was on the order of 75%. Anyone who thinks that just because soldiers fought at LBH dismounted makes it an Infantry fight can never understand what went on there LBH was completely a cavalry fight from start to finish. Just because a soldier dismounts from a horse does not make him an Infantryman. I disagree, other than Renos charge at the village I see no part of this fight that was a cavalry fight. After Renos charge was stopped, there were no cavalry manuvers. They used horses to get to the timber and then Reno hill, when Benteen arrived he said something to the effect "This is a groundhog fight men dig in live or die" A cavalry fight does not include digging fox holes (Or attempting to). I never said that fighting on foot makes a cavalryman an Infantryman . I said it was an Infantry fight fought by cavalrymen. Now some people sat the 7th wasn't really a cavalry unit but was in fact more like Dragoons who like the Australian mounted Infantry just use horses to get to a location and then fight on foot. OK I can go along with that and say it was a Dragoon fight, but I disagree this was a Cavalry fight. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jul 16, 2013 18:07:42 GMT -6
The primary weapon of the 7th at the LBH for all practical purposes was the carbine.A weapon which could only be used effectively on foot. All the action with the exception of Reno's retreat was fought on foot. The tactics employed were infantry tactics while in possession of a horse.They were not cavalry tactics while in possession of a carbine. Hope this clarifies.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 16, 2013 20:16:48 GMT -6
Dan: You are misinformed about the mission, function, and nature of cavalry. Also, the last time I looked dragoons are considered cavalry. Another thing. Who said foxhole digging is the exclusive domain of the Infantry?
Dragoons are different than mounted infantry. Different in mission, Different in method. If you don't know the difference I suggest you find out, so you may disabuse your mind of nonsense
It was a cavalry fight, start to finish, fought by cavalrymen. PERIOD.
I have no further time nor the inclination to rebut this nonsense further. Get educated, or believe all your preconceived notions. Take your pick. But if at this stage of the game you don't know the difference between Infantry and Cavalry, and the way each operates, there different mission set, and the difference in methodology they employ, I think you are wasting your time in the study of this battle.
Now I ask you, what were Reno's and Benteen's men supposed to do on Reno Hill when surrounded? Were they supposed to stand there and be shot at, instead of digging in? Did you expect Reno to say, we can't dig in people because that is what the Infantry does, and if we do that some guy in New Jersey in 2013 will say this was an Infantry battle. NONSENSE.
And for God sake don't say you didn't say that because that is exactly what you said. What I am saying is this. Cavalry fights the way it must as called for by the situation at hand, offensively or defensively. All of this was and still is in the mission menu, for cavalry is a battlefield function, a function that did, still does, and always will differ from that of the Infantry. So when they get off their horsey and fight on foot, it remains a battle conducted by cavalry using approved, and time honored cavalry doctrine and methodology.
|
|
|
Post by mac on Jul 16, 2013 23:08:46 GMT -6
I have been down this path and I am with quincannon on this one. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jul 17, 2013 0:31:51 GMT -6
I have been down this path and I am with quincannon on this one. Cheers I'm with Dan on this one. The issue is "was this a cavalry battle".Not "was the 7th a cavalry unit". A cavalry action is one in which the force in question engages or conducts it's mission mounted. At the LBH the horse fulfilled the same function as the pack mules to wit a form of transport not a weapon. At every contact the 7th abandoned it's horses;nowhere on that field did they engage the enemy in mounted combat.From start to finish the action was on foot.The horse if it had a function was used to avoid combat,abandon it's mission. "The word dragoon originally meant mounted infantry, who were trained in horse riding as well as infantry fighting skills"Now I ask you, what were Reno's and Benteen's men supposed to do on Reno Hill when surrounded? Were they supposed to stand there and be shot at, instead of digging in? Did you expect Reno to say, we can't dig in people because that is what the Infantry does,[/b] This makes Dan's argument.They employed infantry tactics.
|
|
|
Post by mac on Jul 17, 2013 3:10:10 GMT -6
wild I disagree because I have given this much thought, you probably remember I proposed this idea a while ago. Indeed Reno and Benteen employed tactics suitable to their situation at that time. For every other part of the action the units behaved as cavalry in their tactics. Those tactics didn't work for a variety of reasons that we discuss here. However they are still functioning as cavalry. I know you feel that once they dismount they are no longer cavalry but I think this is too narrow a definition. Perhaps we just agree to disagree. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jul 17, 2013 3:55:32 GMT -6
Well this is interesting, Dan I can see were Chuck and Mac are going with this one and the reason why is this, now I don’t know what Cavalry tactics Custer used or trained under, either Joel Poinsett’s Tactics from 1841 or Gen. Cooks Cavalry Tactics from 1862, but he could have used Upton’s from 1874, all have instructions in how to form Skirmish Lines and I suppose the 7th followed them to the book when using Skirmish tactics during the battle.
Upton also Infantry Tactics; The Infantry Battalion was divided into two parts, each containing two Companies; The first group contained one Company in Skirmish order and the other Company in line as a support. The second group formed a two Company reserve line. The Skirmishers moved forward leaps and bounds usually in groups of fours. Gradually when they got closer to their target, more Troops from the Support Company would join the Skirmish Line as it advanced, thus thickening it out.
As a further note, When the US Army adopted Breech Loading Rifles, they still used Battle lines as a defence, this was not quite open order but not as ridged as in the ACW, but they choose not to adopted fully open order because it was a command and control issue), although they abandoned the tactic of moving in heavy column or ridged lines.
Note that none of these tactics where used (as far as I know) by the Cavalry at the LBH, apart from Defensive actions (Reno in the valley, the defence of Reno Hill and I suppose Yates and Keogh) they stayed with their horses close by, and the loss of their mounts (due to Indian attacks) would have forced them to fight a defensive battle on foot. At the end of the day, any Cavalry Trooper would be reluctant to relinquish his main form of mobility (the horse).
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 17, 2013 6:59:07 GMT -6
If the only answer for Custer was that he should have followed on after Reno down the valley then sadly it surely does become all his fault.
Mac I don't think that following Reno would be the only thing that Custer could do but what he did do didn't work and it appears to me that he didn't see it until it was too late. I think William nailed it and that character can interfer with the ability to deploy proper tactics.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jul 17, 2013 7:10:17 GMT -6
Of course mac this is hair splitting The 7th had a range of skills;this including infantry tactics.Wherever they were confronted by the enemy they relied on those infantry skills/ tactics.If the predominent action is infantry then I think that it is logical to describe the action as an infantry action. But as you say let us agree to disagree on this. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 17, 2013 7:18:16 GMT -6
I think I see a difference in what is being discussed. If we separate horse mounted tactics from on foot tactics without using the terms cavalry or infantry then can Dan's statement be accepted. I don't see where the 7th used horse mounted tactics after Reno dismounted to any advantage.
I understand there were individual horse mounted actions were observed.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 17, 2013 7:38:06 GMT -6
Back to the horsemanship for a moment. I think that one year would be sufficient for a trooper to become proficient if the training covered the anticipated circumstances. If you don't train and practice shooting a revolver from the horse at a charging gait then both the rider and the horse may not be battle ready.
One huge difference from mechanized cavalry of today and the horse is that the horse has a brain and is prey species. The prey species depends on flight more than fight. (Which works well if the Indians run not so well when the Indians chase you) The horse uses both sides of it brain and you have to teach both sides. If you desensitize one side of the horse it does not mean the other side is desensitized. A horse can sense the riders confidence or concerns in a situation. Can you imagine your jeep thinking the driver is not confident in this situation and taking off on its own.
A horse needs to be taught or exposed to stimulants in order for them to be proficient at non prey behavior. They don't reason like a person. If you want to predict what your horse will do then they should have experienced it in training and practice.
AZ Ranger
|
|