|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 17, 2013 22:49:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jul 17, 2013 23:56:34 GMT -6
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 By the same token they are not operating as cavalry would. You are making my point for me by placing the emphasis on mobility rather than shock.And mobility which came at a price;25% of the units fighting strength. In today's world the infantry are just as mobile as the"cavalry". If a comparison can be made between the cavalry of old and the modenday version it is to be found in their method of delivery;shock.
|
|
|
Post by mac on Jul 18, 2013 0:06:47 GMT -6
Mobility is what allows the shock. To arrive quickly where you are not expected. Even if you dismount when you arrive. In 1876 cavalry was about as mobile as you could get. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jul 18, 2013 4:06:36 GMT -6
Clayton Chun wrote this on Cavalry tactics from this period;
The Army employed its Cavalry forces in four main ways. The Commanding Officer of a Cavalry Regiment or Company could order his Troops to conduct a shock action via a charge; to dismount for support or to independently attack the enemy; to fire when mounted; or to reconnoitre the area for the enemy. The Cavalry used shock actions to break up a concentrated enemy force, from the basis of a surprise attack, spearhead a counter attack, or conduct a breakthrough when surrounded. The Cavalryman’s prime weapon was the strength and size of his horse. The speed and rapid concentration of force produced the impact and shock of the attack. The Sabre, Pistol and Carbine supplemented this. In dismounted action, Cavalrymen could produce disciplined fire or take advantage of their mobility to outflank an enemy attack.
Now the BLBH was no Brandy Station, but these could have been the only tactics available to the 7th in 1876.
When I mentioned in my last post about the US Cavalry being an all-purpose force, can the same be said of the US Infantry? Were all Infantry Regiments trained in the art of firing in close order (in line) and acting in open order (Skirmishers)? I have had a look around and from the end of the ACW to WW1 I cannot locate any Troops designated as Light Infantry (I have seen references to the 10th, 71st & 89th Light Divisions from 1943).
I suppose the Light Infantry employed in a modern Army circa 2013 would adopt similar tactics to the ones below;
‘’To close with the enemy by means of fire and manoeuvre in order to destroy or capture him, or repel his assaults by fire, close combat and counterattack’’
A glossery of terms would be a good idea, otherwise this thread will be like a microwave, everyone getting hot and going round in circles.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 18, 2013 8:20:48 GMT -6
Marine Corps Gazette | November 05, 2005
Structure clearing. During the assault on a structure there are three different tactics that the squad can use for entry into the structure. The three types of entry are dynamic, stealth, and subdued. The dynamic entry is violently aggressive from start to finish. The commands are verbal and yelled. The squads lead by fire, placing one or two rounds in every door that is closed or window that is blacked out. Fragmentation grenades, stun grenades, and flash bangs are used. At night, surefire flashlights are employed in order to clear. The movement of the squad is swift and overwhelming for the enemy inside. The stealth entry is exactly the opposite of the dynamic entry. The squad breaches quietly, moves slowly, speaks only in whispers, and listens for any movement within the house. There is extreme emphasis placed on initiative-based tactics (IBT). During night clearing, night vision goggles and AN/PEQ-2s are used instead of surefire flashlights. The stealth entry confuses the enemy on exactly where the squad is in clearing the house and allows the squad to maintain the element of surprise.
Subdued entry is a combination of the two previous types. The squad moves quietly until they encounter a room. Upon entry into the room, Marines are violently aggressive. After the room is cleared, the Marines switch back to the stealth method of entry. This type of entry allows the squad leader to control the rate of clearing while maintaining some element of surprise. It is important to note that squad leaders must vary the type of entry. The squad must constantly mask its movement through every form of deception that may confuse the enemy inside the building or room. It is up to the entire squad to use its imagination and vary entry tactics and techniques as much as possible. The objective is to keep the enemy off balance and not allow him to get into the squad's rhythm.
I still believe that the definition of tactics is broader as illustrated above.
The tactics listed for structural entry: dynamic, stealth, and subdued
Some of the techniques used in implementing the tactics:
Techniques that individual Marines need to be taught and practice are the following:
*Pie off all danger areas. Before entry into a room, as many danger areas as possible should be pied off leaving only one or two corners that need to be cleared. Don't blindly rush into a room, especially if the door is open.
* Use the buddy system. Two Marines always peel off the stack, never one.
* Pick up uncovered danger areas, including when opening doors to furniture large enough to fit a man inside. * Clear obstacles, such as furniture. * Prep rooms with grenades. * If the room is too small for two Marines, or not enough Marines are clearing the house to hold security on all of the danger areas, the number two man turns around and covers the rear of the Marine clearing the room. * Move stealthily through a structure even with broken glass on the ground. * Make a stealth entry with night vision goggles and AN/PEQ-2s. * Make breaching charges and place them on the locking points of different types of doors. These are just some of the techniques that need to be practiced and passed on to younger Marines. Tactics. IBT should be taught. There are four rules of IBT. They are: * Cover all immediate danger areas. * Eliminate all threats. * Protect your buddy. * There are no mistakes. Every Marine feeds off each other and picks up the slack for the other. Go with it. Every Marine needs to understand and memorize the rules governing IBT. These rules should not only apply to MOUT but to all small unit infantry engagements. Rule number four must be particularly emphasized to the squad. There are no mistakes when clearing a structure in combat, only actions that result in situations-situations that Marines must adapt to, improvise, and overcome in a matter of seconds.
Semper Fi
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Jul 18, 2013 9:03:37 GMT -6
Tactics is the employment of units in combat.
Techniques are the general and detailed methods used by troops and commanders to perform assigned missions and functions, specifically the methods of using equipment and personnel.
Procedures are standard and detailed courses of action that describe how to perform tasks.
In military writing Tactics, Techniques and Procedures are normally just called TTP. Note that tactics are not prescriptive in nature but require judgment in application.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jul 18, 2013 9:04:31 GMT -6
Mobility is what allows the shock. To arrive quickly where you are not expected. Even if you dismount when you arrive. In 1876 cavalry was about as mobile as you could get. Cheers Hi mac The shock in question is not" surprised" shock ,it is collision/impact shock.It is the shock of brigades of charging cavalry mounted on half ton horses. Dismounting is to allow the enemy the opportunity to recover.A bona fide cavalry would press home its attack. It has been suggested that single troops of Custer's battalion counter attacked.40Troopers would have the weight of a powder puff.A useless exercise. Whaterever hybrid force the 7th was I imagine any self respecting cavalry or infantry would regard it with distain. Regards
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jul 18, 2013 9:31:48 GMT -6
I have recently been researching US Infantry, Paratroop, Gilder and Marine Companies and I have noted upon the abundance of Grenade Launchers in each respected Company, even NCOs from the Weapons Platoons had a M7 Grenade Launchers in there kit, the 1944 Marine Companies had the most with 17 per Platoon (12 x M7 Grenade Launchers (M1 Rifle) and 5 x M8 Grenade Launchers (M1 Carbine), later they replaced these with the more effective M79, and more recently with the M203, add to this the M2 and M26 Grenades, so the US from WW2 until the present have given its Troops the ways and means to clear out any buildings or structures.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 18, 2013 14:10:02 GMT -6
Will: You said it better in four sentences, then I could in four pages.
Steve: I think the difference lies in the different uses of the word, may be the differences between military use and that of law enforcement. Both have the right idea. May be also the Marines use is for individuals as well. If that is a late 60;s early 70;s manual, I think I know who wrote it, Del Kohl, and next time I talk to him I will ask.
Mac: Your are correct in both your statements. It was not an Infantry fight because of the distances involved. An infantry unit in that day would not have , could not have, under normal prevailing conditions have spread itself out that far, and the distances involved are what determined the dynamics of the battle. Shock Action-Shock effect is normally associated with mounted attack, but under certain conditions action and effect can be achieved by a dismounted force. Action and effect is more than the point of collision, and only a complete amateur would think that so. Action leads to effect and effect is the surprise and subsequent disruption. You done good.
Ian you also done good. Chun's summation was clear and to the point.
The 10th (Mountain), 71st (Jungle), and 89th (Pack) Light Divisions were very experimental, but their "lightness" was achieved by a reduction mainly in equipment types and levels, not unlike the tables produced for the airborne division. 75mm Pack Howitzer in lieu of 105mm's in the DS FA battalions for instance. All three were efforts by McNair to make the divisions compact and easy to ship overseas. There were other reasons as well, such as the specific orientation of the 10th, and 71. The 89th was more general purpose. Anyway, all three were found wanting and the 71st and 89th were reorganized as standard infantry divisions, and both were late in deploying.
The 10th was sent from Camp Hale, way up in the mountains here in Colorado, not all that far from Leadville. to Camp Swift, Texas. The same fate awaited the 10th but Mark Clark needed troops in Italy, the 10th as is was ready, and went, but not before changing designation to 10th Mountain Division. The division came back here to then Camp Carson, and was in the process or reorganization for the invasion of Japan, when the war ended and it was inactivated. It was activated in 1948 as a basic training division at Fort Riley, and was re-designated 10th Infantry Division. In either 54 or 55 it was reformed as a combat division and sent to Germany. It came back to Benning in 58 and was inactivated. Reactivate in 1984 as the 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry). I went through this entire process simply to answer your question about the light infantry of European traditions (Green Jackets etc.) It was only during this last activation that the division ever adopted that tradition and mindset. Not before.
Best light infantry we had in WWII was in my opinion the 1st Special Service Force. I discount the first five Ranger battalions, for they were so misused it is very hard to tell how they stood up in the light infantry arena. The 6th was very good, but it was used in a non-typical environment and hard to evaluate as well Frederick did a very good job with the 1st SSF, very similar in concept to the European model.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Jul 18, 2013 15:23:32 GMT -6
Will: You said it better in four sentences, then I could in four pages. I agree. If these two knowledgeable men Colonel Montrose and Steve are on the same page regarding tactics, techniques, and procedures, then I look at it a Gospel and take it to the bank. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 18, 2013 16:11:12 GMT -6
Yes, but they said different things, so it seems the same page has two different sides. Did Montrose not say units and Steve is still talking tactics down to the individual level, which Montrose refers to as Techniques and Procedures?
It is safe to say that this is a no win thing where everyone brings their own personal experience to the table. Let it rest, because it no longer serves a purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jul 19, 2013 3:04:26 GMT -6
Yes Chuck, Lt. Colonel Fredrick and his Devils Brigade of 1,800 Men. Here is a segment wrote from a book review by an ex-member of the Brigade. During World War II, there was no other elite unit as unique as the First Special Service Force, if one were to consider only the fact that its Combat Echelon contained trained soldiers from the Canadian Army. They served alongside their U. S. Army compatriots, wearing the same uniform, totally integrated. When I and a fellow Canadian Sergeant walked into our pyramidal tent in 5th Company, Second Regiment, we found two trained American volunteers awaiting our arrival. Within days, it was hard to tell American from Canadian as we learned to parachute together, laughed over trying to integrate basic drill commands and actions. Our weapons training included, demolitions, mountain climbing, skiing, unarmed combat, the use of German weapons, and the range of other training elements, including development of the Weasel, the first truly effective over-the-snow vehicle. We started with the dry run at Kiska when the Japanese left before we and others landed. Our sudden shift to Italy: fighting in the mountains leading to Cassino; our 98 days without relief at Anzio holding almost one quarter of the entire Beachhead; the road to Rome (the first Allied troops to enter the Eternal City in force, two days before Normandy); our role in leading the invasion of S. France; and the saddest day of all when the Force was disbanded in December, 1944, in S. France. Here is the Hollywood version of when the Canadians marched into Camp, you would think it was Edinburgh Castle. linkIan. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 19, 2013 6:36:51 GMT -6
Yes, but they said different things, so it seems the same page has two different sides. Did Montrose not say units and Steve is still talking tactics down to the individual level, which Montrose refers to as Techniques and Procedures? It is safe to say that this is a no win thing where everyone brings their own personal experience to the table. Let it rest, because it no longer serves a purpose. No I didn't say individual. That is from the Marine Corps Gazette and not anything that I said. An entry team is a unit and not individuals at all that is employed in combat clearing of a building. Even within the entry team unit the smallest group is two that being you and your cover "buddy". The same thing goes for law enforcement. Certainly we patrol individually but we train and deploy use larger number of officers also. We have units also that are deployed as entry teams, seacth teams,active shooter. When we ran our highway 89 roadblock we had 80 officers. Anything larger than individual officers on patrol at the same time reguires an operational plan and search warrants, decoy operations, and targeted locations and/or individuals reguire a PACE plan. (Thanks to William). So I may be way off base but I will try to put this into TTP. Tactic - Dynamic deployment of an entry team Technique- (One Example) Cut the pie clearing Procedure- How the indidival preforms the clearing techinique properly with the least exposure of his body I am reasonably sure that is how that Marine Corps article is using the terms and would be consitent with my law enforcement views. AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 19, 2013 8:30:11 GMT -6
Steve: When you quote the Marine Corps Gazette - you said it. It becomes yours. You did not indicate disagreement. It was different in scope and context from what Montrose posted. Now you made your point, and that point is we differ in definition. So be it.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 19, 2013 8:41:06 GMT -6
Ian: The 1st SSF is still a thorn in the side of U S Special Forces today, in that it is from that unit that the official history of Special Forces is drawn. More properly it should be from the OSS, and their units like the Jedberg Teams and Detachment 101, which are much more similar to the special forces methods of operation. Personally I like the idea of the 1st SSF being perpetuated, and OSS was not an exclusively Army unit, but I do see and sympathize with their point.
There is a reason for this however. U S Army units can only be perpetuated if they are first constituted (put on the rolls of the Army) and are organized under a suitable and appropriate table of organization (TO&E) Units that are excluded from perpetuation are units that are organized under a TDA (Table of Distribution and Allowances). Such units are organized for a single specific purpose, and when that purpose is over the organization ceases to exist. For OSS the Army provided personnel and equipment to the Office of Strategic Services, so did the Navy and Marine Corps. You may remember an actor named Sterling Hayden, He served as a Captain in the Marine Corps but his entire time in service was as an OSS operative in Yugoslavia. My son in laws headquarters organization is one such TDA unit. When the need for it passes it will be gone, with no official history attaching.
|
|