Custer's assumptions

[benteen]

Jul 17, 2013 15:41:17 GMT -6 quincannon said:

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)

If these men already had spades and already were digging in why would Benteen send for some. How did those impressions get there, the following from The Last Stand by Nathaniel Philbrick Pvt William Taylor A company "But an order was an order, and reluctantly the men began to build a breastwork made of hardtack boxes, saddles and dead horses. They also dug shallow rifle pits in the cracked and flintlike earth with their forks, plates and tin cups, heaping the excavated dirt into rounded, protective mounds"Nothing about spades. Now I have given 2 separate sources for my statement that they didn't have spades to dig in with Now why don't you provide your source that says all the spades were given out an there was only one left.

Be Well
Dan

[AZ Ranger]

When looking in the 1862 Cavalry Tactics manual I could not find the word technique. Did the definition of tactics change from 1862 to the present time? It doesn't matter to me if you take out the word Cavalry and just go by the content. Trooper mounted, is exactly my point.

I would suggest that weapon system were different for us enlisted men between Cavalry and Infantry. Were infantry troops issued carbines? Were troopers issued a rifle if they desired. Let's not get into the ones purchased by the soldiers.

How much training did a infantry soldier receive with a saber or was it designed for cavalry use.

No infantry soldier would have had the same extraction problem as that experienced with the carbine since the rifle had cleaning rod.

I believe the barrel of the cavalry issued Colt SAA was cut and then issued to artillery at some point.

AZ Ranger

Attachments:

[AZ Ranger]

I think (I know)DC suggested a dictionary of terms. Good idea It would have to be period correct.

AZ Ranger

[AZ Ranger]

Military tactics, the science and art of organizing a military force, and the techniques for using weapons or military units in combination for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle.


Is this definition wrong?

Certainly in law enforcement the technique for using weapons courses are called titles such as tactical handgun and tatical shotgun. There are tactics taught for building entries etc. I think the word tactics and tatical have a much broader definition.


AZ Ranger

[wild]

The cavalry of the period under discussion was in transition from the classical cavalry role to that of mounted infantry.At the LBH we see this evolution in action;the troopers giving up their mounts to fight on foot.
One particular action demonstrates this transformation to wit the dismounted charge led by Benteen against encroaching Indians on Reno Hill.One would imagine that it would be second nature to a cavalry unit to carry out this action mounted.
Firearms had rendered the mounted charge obsolete.If it were not for the mobility the horse provided it would have been phased out.
Whether by design or by enemy action the 7th adopted infantry tactics and those tactics saved the bulk of the regiment.
Dan's observation re the Washita vis a vis the LBH highlights the gulf between the tactics used on these two fields.
It is not the presence of the horse that defines an action but the use of it.Dan is spot on.

[quincannon]

Steve: I have the same book on my shelves and I am familiar with the name. That manual is more of drill than tactics. It contains little in the way of tactics

Tactics are a set of fundamental principles that are adapted by each type force to fit their needs and differences. For instance the flank attack is a tactic. Infantry and a mounted force accomplish it by different methods, a different speeds and at different average distances. The tactic then is modified into specific technique. Clearing a building is not a tactic. Building clearing is a technique, within the broad scope of the maneuver that requires the building to be cleared in the first place.

By the same token how much training did a cavalry soldier receive in the use of the bayonet. None. It was not required for the cavalry battlefield function any more than the saber was required for the function of the infantry.

Extraction, cleaning rod, short barrel Colt what's your point? If it leads to modified systems to better adapt to the job at hand, that hardly has anything to do with tactics.

It would be nice to have a glossary of terms. tactics is a term overused and little understood. Does a tactical handgun kill people more efficiently? Is a tactical stance really tactical, or is it a stance one uses when firing a handgun. Is a tactical shotgun, not a weapon adapted for more ease of use in a combat or law enforcement situation? Does tactical feeding have anything to do with fire and maneuver?

I will give you my definition of tactics. Tactics are a set of principles for organization for combat, and the application of fire and maneuver. They are universal and unchanging. They are based upon the Principles of War. The application of tactics by different Arms to meet their specific needs I call methodology. The specific actions called for by virtue of situation or terrain, I call technique (Clearing a building is one such) If anyone does not like what I present here, I don't care and if they have a mind to they can go to hell.

Dan? Was it not Philbrick that also said in his monumental tome heavily laced with fiction, that Sitting Bull at first thought the soldiers desired peace and parley, and that Custer and his close associates sat on Cemetery Ridge for half an hour picking out the girls they wished to keep company with. I don't know, but have you ever tried to dig a hole with a fork, and a mess kit, especially in flint like earth. As far as horses go, did Philbrick state that horses were deliberately killed to form breast works on Reno Hill, or did they just happen to have been shot by the hostiles and such a convenient place as to fit in with the overall defensive scheme and fire plan. Seems like there were enough spades around to dig 210 plus shallow graves two days later. Wonder where they came from. Gibbon probably supplied some, but certainly not all

I don't have a reference for spades other than they were authorized items of equipment then and now. Other than these two pieces of testimony and Philbrick's flight of fantasy, is there any other mention in testimony anywhere that the absence of spades (it is a given there was not sufficient quantity. There never are) was of such a serious nature that it harmed the defense? Is there? I would think as a company commander, not having access to equipment because of insufficiency or neglect, I would be raising holy hell, especially if the lives of my soldiers were placed in jeopardy.

Why would Benteen send for some. Because he did not have any. But think for a minute. Why would he send for some if he knows that there were none.

Dan this is an exercise in trying to make you think instead of accepting both at face value and as gospel truth any statement by any Tom, Dick, or Harry, in or out of context, related on unrelated to the subject at hand just because it is in print. You don't accept what I say without an argument, but you are perfectly willing to accept the testimony of any strap hanging son of a bitch, that fits in with the notions you have both preconceived and held dearly So lets just get this straight. Things you like you accept without question, and things that don't fit in with your particular notions you reject. Is that it? Hell of a way to run a railroad brother. There is only one truth and the last time I looked that is what we are here to find. Separate the hogs from the pigs so to speak. No one, including me holds the pink slip to the truth. It is a collective effort.

[AZ Ranger]

It would be nice to have a glossary of terms. tactics is a term overused and little understood. Does a tactical handgun kill people more efficiently? Is a tactical stance really tactical, or is it a stance one uses when firing a handgun. Is a tactical shotgun, not a weapon adapted for more ease of use in a combat or law enforcement situation? Does tactical feeding have anything to do with fire and maneuver?



I view tactics as a choice anything else is emergency and I am sure it is filtered through 34 years of law enforcement. So if you run out of ammunition in your handgun its an emergency reload and you drop the magazine. It has no further use. A tactical reload is a choice and the handgun magazine has remaining ammunition but the quantity may be unknown. If there is time and cover why not put in a fresh magazine and save the ammunition in the removed magazine. We call this a tactical reload.

In tactical handgun unlike the introductory shoot at a paper target when told the officer learns to shoot while moving, engage what is offered rather than preferred, shoot from various positions such as on your back over head. All of these skill builders are used in the tactics deployed. Without the proficiency of the weapon system being include in the tactics you have results other than desired.

You can order a charge as a tactic but if you can't ride or shoot mounted it's not much of a tactic.

I do understand your definition that there are tactics and that cavalry and infantry can do the same thing. I just think that certain tactics and their success depend on mobility and effective use of the weapon system.

Steve

[quincannon]

Steve all tactics depend upon mobility and the effective use of the weapons system. The operative words there is depend on, not constitute in and of themselves.

Perhaps it is your individual application of tactics as a police officer that you confuse with methodology, and technique. You after all are a unit of one, so for you, specifically in your case tactics, methodology and technique meld into one. That is far different than the view of the squad leader, platoon leader or company commander. Those folks expect the technique of battle to be fully engrained in their soldiers. That is what training is for. Their sole purpose is to use these soldiers to achieve and objective using the tactics required by the situation.

I will stick by my definition, Fundamental principles unchanged and universal, governing the organization for combat and the application of fire and maneuver, consistent with the principles of war.

The word itself is misused, overused and used incorrectly. to the point where it is little understood, and whom everyone has his own definition of.

[AZ Ranger]

tactics
(DOD) The employment and ordered arrangement of forces in relation to each other. See also procedures; techniques.
Source: CJCSM 5120.01

[quincannon]

Here's another: The science of securing an objective designated by strategy, especially the art of deploying and directing troops, ships and aircraft in coefficient against the enemy.

Source: The dictionary.

Does not say a damned thing about tactical shotguns, tactical feeding, or tactical mess kits. Nary a word about cleaning rods, extractors, mounted, dismounted, carbines, sabers, charging, fending and such like. Nor should it.

[quincannon]

We have talked about what should not be included in a discussion of tactics. Here is what Marshall said should be discussed, and used them as chapter headings

RULES-OBSCURITY-SIMPLICITY-SCHEME OF MANEUVER AND MAIN EFFORT-TERRAIN-TIME AND SPACE-MOBILITY-SURPRISE-DECISIONS-THE PLAN-ORDERS-CONTROL-COMMAND AND COMMUNICATIONS-SUPERVISION-DIRECTION-FIRE AND MOVEMENT-FIRE OF MACHINE GUNS (obviously written after LBH, so I would think suppressive fire would be an adequate period substitute)-INFANTRY ARTILLERY TEAM-NEARING THE ENEMY-THE ADVANCE TO THE ATTACK-SOFT SPOT TACTICS-BATTLE RECONNAISSANCE-COUNTER ORDERS-ACTION AND MORALE-NIGHT ATTACKS-MIRACLES-OPTIMISM AND TENACITY

[AZ Ranger]

I got out my 1967 Marine Corps manual and the only tactic talked about is squad tactics and that is for 13 man squad with 3 4 man fire teams and 1 Sergent. Here is the manual definition of mission: The specific task assigned or duty assigned to an individual,weapon, unit,or units

[mac]

Given that the group concerned is titled as cavalry can we accept that that is what they were?! If they were infantry do you think they would operate with the spatial separation they have at LBH?! This is the core thing to me, it may not be smart but their positioning is based on their mobility and I doubt anyone would position infantry that far apart. Sure they get off the horses to fire their carbines but they, as a unit, are not operating as foot soldiers would.
My last two posts are based on the idea that Custer was operating on certain assumptions, one of which was that he had the mobility to position himself fast enough to justify the course he took to get there. That is what cavalry often do.
Cheers

[AZ Ranger]

That's what happens when you assume something. The spatial arraignment didn't work so I don't get the point. It didn't work for Custer's single battalion.

AZ Ranger

[AZ Ranger]

Jul 17, 2013 19:32:33 GMT -6 quincannon said:

Here's another: The science of securing an objective designated by strategy, especially the art of deploying and directing troops, ships and aircraft in coefficient against the enemy.

Source: The dictionary.

Does not say a damned thing about tactical shotguns, tactical feeding, or tactical mess kits. Nary a word about cleaning rods, extractors, mounted, dismounted, carbines, sabers, charging, fending and such like. Nor should it.

Nor does it state flank attack or any other thing that would be useful in understanding what it means. Funny its starts as "the science" than uses "especially the art". It only lists troops, ships, and aircraft. Guess artillery and tanks are used in tactics?

The one I posted earlier makes more sense to me. It states science and art which I am sure is more accurate and the technique for using weapons.



Military tactics, the science and art of organizing a military force, and the techniques for using weapons or military units in combination for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle.

To clarify tactical handgun and tactical shotgun course it has nothing to do with the individual weapon system as you state in your post. It is the techniques and tactics that is course subject. You can take the tactical handgun or shotgun course with whatever your department issues or your allowed to purchase and carry.

On most larger patrol and special operation efforts we work in teams. I am reasonably sure that clearing a house or building is quite similar between LE and military with the separation line drawn on the use of lethal force.


Steve