|
Post by quincannon on Jul 17, 2013 8:15:29 GMT -6
First off and for the umpteenth time, and despite the name of the various manuals, there are no Infantry, Cavalry or Quartermaster Corps Tactics. There are only tactics, that differ only in the technique and methodology of their employment, due to the rate of mobility, arms and equipment, terrain, and situation. The tactics Montrose employed in the late 20th and early 21st Centuries are the same as Gideon employed several hundred year before the birth of Christ. For instance a flank attack is the identical concept for both Infantry and Cavalry, with the great difference being in the depth (sometimes) and in the relative speed that it can be conducted.
By the same token there is no Infantry battle that differs from a Cavalry battle. There is only battle, that is waged using whatever methodology and technique is called for by that battle, and with whatever type force is available.
To limit tactics or battle by type and name flies in the face of the recorded history of battle. An example might be actions on an outpost line. Cavalry is the type unit of choice for such work, have the required mobility to withdraw rapidly should the need arise. That does not mean that outposting cavalry sit on their horses or in their vehicles and watch. They move their transportation to a safe place and dig in. In a more modern era they dig in the transportation as well and use it as an aide in defense of the outpost line. Anyone who want's and example of this look how the 18th Cavalry Squadron, 14th Cavalry Group outposted the Loshiem Gap during the Bulge. I am sure Ian has a ready reference. Anyone requiring a reference to an earlier era look at Kelly's Ford, or Aldie Gap.
In short units, regardless of branch do what they must do, maneuver, skirmish, dig in and defend.
There is no magical change that occurs when a mounted soldier steps off of his mount to fight on foot NONE. It does not change the battle from one of cavalry to Infantry. It changes battle only by being either mounted or dismounted. If someone wants to say that the majority of LBH was a battle fought dismounted by cavalry I would fully agree, but please don't try to pawn claptrap of Infantry battle off on me, because I know better and so should you.. If you don't you are wasting your time because in the not knowing at this late stage of the game, your chances of understanding this battle are near zero.
It is no wonder to me that some of you can't get beyond the Errol Flynn version of LBH. It is no wonder then that you can't understand reconnaissance, river crossings, withdrawl while in contact, fire and maneuve5r, Ford D, Keogh's position, why one route was chosen over another, time, distance, and battle flow and context. How can you when you don't even understand the cavalry function or how cavalry operates
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jul 17, 2013 8:58:44 GMT -6
Chuck, a short piece on the Battle. Dispositions of the 18th Cavalry Squadron Loshiem Gap; Colonel Devine, realizing that the forward platoons of the 18th Cavalry Squadron were in danger of destruction and could make no more futile efforts, cut off and isolated as they were, planned to make a stand along the Manderfeld ridge. This ridge line was some 3,000 yards in the rear of the original cavalry line and about twice that distance from the West Wall positions out of which the German attack had erupted. Devine intended to defend along the ridge with the 32d Squadron and thus cover the withdrawal of his forward troops. Shortly after 1100 the fresh squadron reached Manderfeld, Troop E moving its assault guns into previously reconnoitred positions at Manderfeld, Troop C deploying northwest of the town to cover the road from Lanzerath, and two dismounted platoons of Troop A digging in southwest of Manderfeld. While this area defense was forming Troop B took stations near Andler; at this village, just west of the German spearhead in Auw, the Our bridge remained an intact and important prize. The remainder of Troop A was dispatched to Holzheim, there to cover the group's left and rear. At the end of the day, being 1876 or 1944, Infantry or Cavalry, it’s just men bravely making a stand. Ian. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 17, 2013 9:12:26 GMT -6
And Ian every one of the initial positions occupied, were well dug in (by cavalry) and reinforced by dismounting the weapons off their vehicles, in part to make up with firepower for their lower levels of dismounted strength. The mission was a cavalry mission, outposting the area between the 99th and 106th Infantry Divisions, with one squadron up and dug in and the second squadron in reserve well to the rear. The idea being that if the dug in squadron on the outpost line got into trouble, the reserve squadron would counterattack and clear them off. Standard cavalry methodology then , before, and now.
It seems that some want to turn this into amateur hour.
Thanks for posting that map. Had not seen the action portrayed that clearly in graphic form before. Most time the action itself gets lost in the much bigger actions that took place later, but none of those later actions were nearly as important as this small cavalry fight, because the 18th Squadron guarded the front door to the Bulge.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jul 17, 2013 9:23:35 GMT -6
Your welcome Chuck, I thought I could get a more precise map, I suppose if you dug around (that one took about two minutes to find) for a while there would be a better one available, but I am glad you liked it.
The tactic of one Squadron in situ and one mobile could be relayed back to Yates and the way both E and F could have been handled, E in Skirmish or trying to get in Skirmish of Cemetery Hill or Ridge and F Company still mounted in reserve.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 17, 2013 9:32:51 GMT -6
Yes it could. Same deal, the only difference being distance allowed and speed of response. In the end though, be it Yates or the 18th/32nd, it did not work and for the same reason, to much enemy coming on to quickly, to much terrain to cover, and not enough cavalry.
Ian: I believe your understanding of these things, despite never being in a military force, is quite well developed. I attribute that to your war gaming experience, where you had to demonstrate your skills against a live thinking opponent, and not just read without fully understanding concept. Well done.
Study without practical application leads one along the same path as thinking kissing makes babies. The need is to get deeper and well beyond the superficial.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jul 17, 2013 9:55:52 GMT -6
Thank you Chuck, I must admit there is a lot of experience people based on this site and I have learn't a lot from them and you. Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 17, 2013 10:11:28 GMT -6
Ian: Life is a continual learning process.
One thing I despise in life is the preconceived notion for it closes your mind to learning.
The thing I don't understand the most when speaking specifically about the military is that tactics are some mysterious thing, only understood by those washed in the blood of the lamb. Tactics are nothing more than the practical application of common sense. It is better to catch the enemy unawares, then for him to see you coming. It is better to defend on high ground then low. It is better to hit him where he is weak than strong. It is better to find ways of killing him before he finds ways of killing you. It is better to lock both the front and back doors. It is better to think of what can happen, rather than decide upon what will happen. It is infinitely much better to give than receive. Combat power is like your checkbook, you either have sufficiency or you don't and it is unwise to try and stretch what you have or exspend what you don't. Everyone of these things is nothing but common sense. No mystery, no magic, but you start to study tactics and some say no that is way over my head. Well if it is life is way over their heads also.
Dragoons: The name is derived from the French and refers to the weapon they initially carried, the dragon. They did indeed start out as mounted infantry, but during the latter half of the 18th century they evolved into light cavalry changing their standard mission set to that of cavalry, rather than horse mobile infantry. Infantry methodology for battle was dropped in favor of a new mission set that revolved around screening, guarding and reconnaissance, conducting these missions both mounted and dismounted. So anyone who thinks that dragoons were nothing but mounted infantry with a neat name is dead wrong, for all this material is from open sources if you would bother to read before getting your mouth in gear. It is also open sourced that cavalry fights both mounted and dismounted as dictated by the situation. I am really becoming weary of coving this same ground over and over again because of those who ether are unable to comprehend or are unwilling to do so to make some agenda driven point. If you are an adult, act like one. If you don't know an answer ask or better yet look it up so as it will make more impression on you for the effort.
As you do your research you will also find that the United States Army up until the advent of the tank did not have heavy cavalry in the European tradition that fought primarily mounted. So to say, when speaking of the United States alone that cavalry fought mounted is uninformed as to the facts and if it continues it evolves into the realm of stupidity, for not knowing is one thing, but knowing and not accepting is stupid. The United States always followed the dragoon concept, fighting both mounted and dismounted from the time of Light Horse Harry and through the totality of the 19th Century and well into the 20th. This changed only with the advent of armored mobile firepower, and the mounted arm was split, one part devoted to the light cavalry mission set of reconnaissance, screening, and guard missions, and the other into directed mounted assault.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jul 17, 2013 11:31:02 GMT -6
"It was a cavalry fight, start to finish, fought by cavalrymen. PERIOD".
"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."
"By the same token there is no Infantry battle that differs from a Cavalry battle. There is only battle",
At least Errol Flynn was consistant.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Jul 17, 2013 12:27:44 GMT -6
Chuck, a short piece on the Battle. Dispositions of the 18th Cavalry Squadron Loshiem Gap; Colonel Devine, realizing that the forward platoons of the 18th Cavalry Squadron were in danger of destruction and could make no more futile efforts, cut off and isolated as they were, planned to make a stand along the Manderfeld ridge. This ridge line was some 3,000 yards in the rear of the original cavalry line and about twice that distance from the West Wall positions out of which the German attack had erupted. Devine intended to defend along the ridge with the 32d Squadron and thus cover the withdrawal of his forward troops. Shortly after 1100 the fresh squadron reached Manderfeld, Troop E moving its assault guns into previously reconnoitred positions at Manderfeld, Troop C deploying northwest of the town to cover the road from Lanzerath, and two dismounted platoons of Troop A digging in southwest of Manderfeld. While this area defense was forming Troop B took stations near Andler; at this village, just west of the German spearhead in Auw, the Our bridge remained an intact and important prize. The remainder of Troop A was dispatched to Holzheim, there to cover the group's left and rear. At the end of the day, being 1876 or 1944, Infantry or Cavalry, it’s just men bravely making a stand. Ian. Yes Ian your last sentence is spot on. That is basically what I am saying, although Richard does a better job of it than did. Let me try to explain my thoughts another way. We have in our forum a fighter pilot (alphakilo), if his base was being over run by the NVA I have no doubt he and his fellow pilots would grab rifles and make a stand, but that is not the purpose of fighter pilots. Can cavalrymen dig fox holes and defend themselves, of course they can, but the cavalry was not designed to form a defensive perimeter and dig fox holes, or shoot their horses and use them as cover. The main purpose of cavalry, what they were designed for was to hit hard and fast, shock and awe. Just so you understand what I am thinking let me use an example, you don't have to agree with me, but I just want you to know my logic..... Washita...Fought like the function of cavalry. Hit hard hit fast, Shock and awe. Although I think it was more of a massacre then a fight, they functioned the way I believe cavalry was designed. LBH......Hit nothing hard or fast, didn't shock anyone. They in turn were hit so fast by so many that they had little choice but to try and save themselves. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 17, 2013 12:43:30 GMT -6
Dan: Put bluntly you don't know B from a bulls ass what you are talking about. You have dug this hole of yours deep enough. Continuing to dig by slight nuance will not get you out of it.
I told you all this stuff was open sourced. READ if you don't believe READ. Just saying you disagree carries about as much weight as a popcorn fart in a windstorm. Disagreement means that you not only have an alternative view but you have something to back it up as the reason for forming such an opinion. You have nothing and it shows. Stop digging.
You speak of logic, yet you fail to use it. If the intent of cavalry was to exclusively fight mounted, then why issue a carbine? A carbine is not a mounted weapon. A horse makes a very poor firing platform for a carbine, yet the carbine was their main weapons system. As Montrose has pointed out innumerable times the technique and methodology of the employment of tactics by cavalry was build around their main weapons system. Another preconceived notion with no basis of fact bites the dust, but I am sure you would rather cling to those then be confronted with reality. In addition why do you think that entrenching implements such as picks and shovels might be found within a cavalry regiment? Don't you think there might be some purpose behind it? Now I know this interferes with your charge of the Light Brigade world , but it is that world you have created that is in error, not the reality of recorded U S Military History. Do you think all of us who have made both a lifelong study and profession of all this take dumb pills or just do it to irritate you tender sensibilities ? Did you ever consider that we just might know more about the subject than the average bear.
Now just for starters why don't you read about Las Guasimas where dismounted cavalry performed a cavalry mission, an exclusively cavalry mission, without a horse in sight. Then you come back and tell me all about shock and awe. Chances are you have never heard of it, and therein lies the root of the problem.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Jul 17, 2013 13:43:34 GMT -6
Dan: Put bluntly you don't know B from a bulls ass what you are talking about. You have dug this hole of yours deep enough. Continuing to dig by slight nuance will not get you out of it. I told you all this stuff was open sourced. READ if you don't believe READ. Just saying you disagree carries about as much weight as a popcorn fart in a windstorm. Disagreement means that you not only have an alternative view but you have something to back it up as the reason for forming such an opinion. You have nothing and it shows. Stop digging. You speak of logic, yet you fail to use it. If the intent of cavalry was to exclusively fight mounted, then why issue a carbine? A carbine is not a mounted weapon. A horse makes a very poor firing platform for a carbine, yet the carbine was their main weapons system. As Montrose has pointed out innumerable times the technique and methodology of the employment of tactics by cavalry was build around their main weapons system. Another preconceived notion with no basis of fact bites the dust, but I am sure you would rather cling to those then be confronted with reality. In addition why do you think that entrenching implements such as picks and shovels might be found within a cavalry regiment? Don't you think there might be some purpose behind it? Now I know this interferes with your charge of the Light Brigade world , but it is that world you have created that is in error, not the reality of recorded U S Military History. Do you think all of us who have made both a lifelong study and profession of all this take dumb pills or just do it to irritate you tender sensibilities ? Did you ever consider that we just might know more about the subject than the average bear. Now just for starters why don't you read about Las Guasimas where dismounted cavalry performed a cavalry mission, an exclusively cavalry mission, without a horse in sight. Then you come back and tell me all about shock and awe. Chances are you have never heard of it, and therein lies the root of the problem. I knew it wouldn't take long for you to start your nasty sarcastic nonsense. I don't know B from a bulls ass, why, because I don't agree with you. Whats this hole your talking about, I believe I explained clearly what my thought was and gave an example. If the cavalry was issued shovels, then the 7th must have thrown theirs away because from what I have read they had one spade on Reno hill. Why were they issued carbines, for just this reason at LBH, they may not be able to function as cavalry and be forced to fight defensive battle. By the same toked why were they issued sabers and side arms, to throw the sabers at the enemy from their foxholes. Listen I am not going to convince you that the7th did not fight the way cavalry were designed (In my opinion) to fight, and you are not going to convince me that they did. So lets just agree to disagree and move on. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jul 17, 2013 13:44:07 GMT -6
The US simplified there Cavalry to one all-purpose type, when I used to fight Napoleonic’s, you would get the various members turning up on a wet Friday evening opening there boxes and pulling out there newest figures, and if was Cavalry then you guarantee it was one you haven’t seen before, just the French alone could assemble;
Carabiniers Cuirassiers Dragoons Hussars Lancers Chasseurs Guard Lancers Old Guard Horse Grenadiers
In WW2 the US also kept the same doctrine, equipping there 1944 Tank Regiments in one simply manner; Armoured Cars = M8s Light Tanks = M5s Medium Tanks = M4s Heavy Tanks = M26 Tank Destroyers = M10s, M18s & M36s (the only exceptions) Half-Tracks = M3
This may seem a lot, but if I compared it to what Germany was turning out the list would reach the bottom of the page, just Tank Destroyers and Assault Guns alone would be enough fill a page;
Stug IIIs (75mm & 105mm versions) Stug IVs Panzer IV/70 Hetzers Jagdpanther Jagdtiger Sturmtiger Elefant Sturmpanzer IV Sturminfanteriegeschutz 33B Wesp Grille Nashorn Hummel Marder’s (about four different types)
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 17, 2013 13:51:30 GMT -6
You don't know B from a bulls ass in that you have not a clue as to how American Cavalry was designed to fight Until you dismiss that childhood notion of yours that cavalry must fight on their horsies in order to be cavalry that situation will continue. As for sarcastic nonsense. that seem to be the only way you pay attention. Presentation of well documented fact does not seem to do the trick. So quit wasting my time with this asinine shock and awe crapola, grow up and learn fact, and not rely on childhood visions of fiction.
One spade? Cite your source. It would take more than that just to accomplish field sanitation or in your world does real cavalry just crap on the ground? One spade? Come on. What you read was one spade available for one instance for one individual company.
Dan: I don't ask you to believe a word I say. What I ask you to do is read and find out for yourself. I am not one bit afraid of what you uncover, for I know the facts are on my side. What you are trying to do here is discuss algebra and geometry without the basic knowledge of addition and subtraction. People read what you say, and were it to go un-rebutted then what you say becomes fact/ What I am saying is that your version of fact is distorted, inaccurate, skewed for your own purposes, therefore misleading and not fact but a version of fiction through ignorance of fact. Now don't tell me I am wrong. Show me I am wrong and you might start with Mary Lee Stubbs and her history of the U S Mounted Arm. Were she alive she would eat your lunch as she did for me a couple of times. Be specific. We are talking U S Cavalry not some grand notion of cavalry. U S Cavalry.
Now if you don't like or don't believe what I have to say don't bother to read it or respond. I have much better things to do than act the part of a tutor, to those who either do not wish to learn, or incapable of it..
Now this thread is about assumptions, but this goes far beyond assumption into the realm of demonstrated fact. You will be back in three, to six months , maybe a year, with this same nonsense because you refuse to learn anything with any depth more than the odd superficial quotation, and for you that is the basis of all fact. So we will go round again, you talking about groundhogs and spades, homicidal malcontented perverted depictions of individuals that you don't like personally, and a grasp of relevant history straight out of the comics. I will say you are wrong and it will start all over again with the same arguments, and you still will not know B from a bull's ass. I will tell you so. You will be insulted. The remedy is in you educating yourself, and not relying upon spoon fed drivel.
Dan: I think sometimes you live in a world of the nice, those you consider friends only tell you what you want to hear. Real friends in my world tell you what you need to hear, no matter how brutal that truth may be. Now if what you want to hear has no basis in truth, real friends tell you that, and further tell you where truth may be found. Kissing someone's behind in an effort to play nice nice, does not do you any favors. It only fosters ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Jul 17, 2013 15:29:02 GMT -6
. One spade? Cite your source. It would take more than that just to accomplish field sanitation or in your world does real cavalry just crap on the ground? One spade? Come on. What you read was one spade available for one instance for one individual company. . Chuck..My source is the RCOI testimony of Capt Fred Benteen who stated the following "The night of the 25th Major Reno was up on the hill where my company was and ordered me to build breastworks. I sent for spades but there were none" I read somewhere else where someone said there was 1 spade, but I am not going to go through dozens of books to find it . This should suffice. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 17, 2013 15:41:17 GMT -6
So Benteen was told to build earthworks and there were no spades available for Company H. So you conclusion is there were no spades present. Could it not also have been that they were all gone by the time his men went to procure them from the trains. Do you really think that those impressions still in the ground were dug by themselves or are you relying on one isolated piece of testimony that poor Fred had no spade.
And you read somewhere. Well could it not also be that the fellow that said it contained in one of those dozen books found that when he went to get a spade there was only one left.
A little outside the box thinking here, but would it not seem just a bit possible, perhaps even probable that the spades went on a first come first served basis, and if you snooze you lose. Thought crossed my mind anyway.
This is all up there with the infamous Porter there will be great killing today.------ It's a battle damn it. If you ain't killing you ain't fightin (You can add that to your list of nonsensical, irrelevant quotes and cite me as a source for it is all mine)
|
|