|
Post by bc on Oct 31, 2013 19:53:20 GMT -6
Will mentioned starting a thread on the cavalry horses and their uses and usefulness, etc. I remember one book about the use of mules during the cw that was written and kind of the manual for the army's use of pack and draft horses and mules. Training horses is very frustrating for many people today but back then everything was kind of second hand as most everyone rode horses except perhaps in the big cities. Col. Phillip St. George Cooke's 1862 cavalry manual also has a horse training section. It just seems like (and maybe this is a Hollywood perception) that most people and cav had well trained horses and well trained riders. I suspect that is not the case. Every once in a while, I run across some story about a horse acting up and "jigging" on the trail.
The officers had the best horses since they bought their own and could afford blooded horses from Kentucky and so on. Since about all of the 7th Cav was stationed in the south just prior to 1876 to deal with some KKK and other issues, many of them had good horses. Custer was in Kentucky and he had a couple thoroughbreds although he may have bought one or both earlier as at least one was at the Washita, I think. They also bought some good horse flesh for the regular troops while they were there. The rest of the 7th basically got their mounts bought on gov contract with many of them being wild or bought from breeders.
They weren't all that perfectly trained. DeRudio had trouble mounting his horse and ended up staying in the timber so he said. Edgerly had trouble mounting his horse below Weir Point and managed to get on and away with NAs just yards away from him and his orderly had to hold it for him. Reno had a particularly fast horse as he led the charge out of the timber and was the first one climbing the bluffs to Reno Hill. Benteen's horse was a particularly fast walker and could walk ahead of the rest of his battalion. However to teach and keep a horse walking or trotting at a particularly steady and fast rate takes much skill as a rider to teach them to do it and keep them doing it. Otherwise horses tend to get lazy and malinger every chance they get so riding is really a full time job.
Col. Nye, the LBH superintendent in the 1940's or so and namesake for the ridge, was some kind of veterinarian and he wrote a book on Custer and his horses. He basically condemned Custer for riding his horses as long and as fast as he did. I need to find that as he also made some cartridge finds up around Nye-Cartwright ridge.
bc
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 31, 2013 20:22:57 GMT -6
I don't really care if your mobility equipment is a horse, an APC, a utility vehicle, truck, or a stray dog. It will take care of you as long as you take care of it and not abuse it. What Clair evidently said is totally ridiculous. It defies everything I ever learned in the Army, and frankly I am surprised he made such a stupid statement. I remind everyone once again that everything that man says is colored by some insatiable desire on his part to either damn or adore. He lacks balance, focus on the subject, and common sense.
In my world that also goes for your feet. Dry socks, foot powder, and well maintained boots were a must, and leaders must constantly check their men's feet, for they are just as important as a well maintained weapon and potable water.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Nov 1, 2013 5:02:47 GMT -6
Cavalry in Europe didn’t have the same problems of supply as did the U.S. Cavalry, Europe (well as far as Russian) was full of towns and villages, and from these locations any provisions could be either taken or bought, in the USA this was not the case, how many towns were there within reach of Custer? If a column had to move over a long distance in the wilderness they had to take everything along, I cannot be sure of this but could a column in Europe could stay in the field longer than a column in the US?
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Nov 2, 2013 12:59:31 GMT -6
Here is a piece about the humble Mule and its place in U.S. History.
George Washington played the major role in the development of the mule population in America. He recognized the value of the mule in agriculture and became the first American mule breeder.
Donkeys were already in America, as they came over with the early explorers, but they were quite small. Washington wished to breed the very best mules, but he faced a major obstacle, the Spanish government at that time prohibited the acquisition or exportation of the famous Andalusian donkey. Washington wrote to King Charles of Spain requesting permission to purchase good quality breeding stock. In October of 1785, a ship docked in Boston harbour carrying a gift from King Charles for George Washington, two fine Jennies and a four year old Spanish jack named, appropriately, “Royal Gift’. That "royal gift" from the Spanish king is today credited with the development of the American mule which began a dynasty that “reshaped the very landscape of the country”.
In 1786, the Marquis de Lafayette sent Washington a black Maltese jack called “Knight of Malta”, along with several Jennies. These animals bred with the Andalusia’s, and the crossing of the Spanish and Maltese strains created highly valuable stock known as the “compound”, the beginning of the “American Mammoth Jack stock”.
After the Revolutionary War, Washington started a program to develop a larger, stronger mule to be used on farms to replace horses in the field. In less than fifteen years Washington had 58 mules working at Mount Vernon. In 1786, Washington advertised the “compound’s” services in a Philadelphia journal. The stud fee for serving horses was a third less than it was for serving donkeys. It is said that mules from Washington’s stock became the forerunners of mules that were the backbone of American agriculture for generations in the southern U.S.
By 1808, the U.S. had an estimated 855,000 mules worth an estimated $66 million. Mules were rejected by northern farmers, who used a combination of horses and oxen, but they were popular in the south where they were the preferred draft animal. One farmer with two mules could easily plough 16 acres a day. Mules not only ploughed the fields, but they harvested crops and carried the crops to market. On tobacco farms, a mule-drawn planter was used to set the plants in the ground. Harvested tobacco was pulled on wooden sleds from the fields to the barns.
By 1840, a quality jack used for mule breeding could fetch up to $5,000 in Kentucky, then a leading mule-breeding state. A large number of donkeys were subsequently imported from Spain and in the decade between 1850 and 1860 the number of mules in the country increased 100 percent. More than 150,000 mules were foaled in the year 1889 alone, and by then mules had entirely replaced horses for farm work.
By 1897, the number of mules had expanded to 2.2 million, worth $103 million. With the cotton boom, primarily in Texas, the number of mules grew to 4.1 million, worth $120 each. One-fourth of all the mules were in Texas and the stockyards at Ft. Worth became the world centre for buying and selling mules.
In 1923, the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued Farmer’s Bulletin No. 1311, titled “Mule Production”. The publication explained the attributes of mules, and gave instructions on how to successfully breed good stock, as was learned in the 1800's. The farm mule left the farms about the same time as draft mules left the Army, and for the same reason the combustion engine. But, during World War II, civilians faced gas rationing, so farmers reintroduced their reliable farm mule, at least for the duration of the war.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Nov 2, 2013 22:23:38 GMT -6
I hope GW's mules can swim now cause when Chuck gets rid of the airborne we might need them again.
bc
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 3, 2013 16:02:26 GMT -6
You need not worry Britt. The descendants of the last Army mules are alive and well and in the care of the Colorado Springs Shriners. I passed them going to church this morning. Consider them in deep reserve for future contingencies.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Nov 4, 2013 6:03:24 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Sept 6, 2014 8:08:00 GMT -6
Great links, thanks. Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by Mulligan on Sept 7, 2014 18:00:01 GMT -6
US Army Cavalry Tactics Manual, 1872 Mulligan
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 8, 2014 10:56:14 GMT -6
When you look through it is it skill builders rather than tactics. Cooke has skills needed on horseback individual and in larger groups but not tactics in my opinion. The horsemanship to me is a skill and used to accomplish a tactic. The same for firearms. How to train is not a tactic. Being proficient with a firearm allows you to concentrate on the tactics.
Is that manual something different than Cooke's 1862 manual or is it a reprint? It looks like someone added pictures to Cooke's 1862 manual and not a new 1872 manual with different content.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 8, 2014 12:48:44 GMT -6
What training was there available to the enlisted men, to be a cavalry trooper you must of course be able to ride, that’s a given, and being in the military you should be able to shoot, clean and maintain your carbine, but apart from these two obvious points (“two” well that’s if we add that they target practiced), what others are left, drill I suppose, similar to our “Trooping the Colour”, and sabre skills, but if we rule of drill and sabre skill (well they didn’t use them at the BLBH anyway), that leaves firing pistols from horseback, so my question is did they ever practiced this very important skill, because if the chance ever comes that a mounted charge is required and these men have no sabres, then they surely must be able to charge with pistols in hand and be an effective fighting force.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 8, 2014 13:55:09 GMT -6
The 1872 was essentially drill manual as was Cooke's 1862. Have never seen, only heard about the 1872, but I have a copy of the 1862 and its value as a tactical manual is nearly nonexistent.
|
|
|
Post by Mulligan on Sept 8, 2014 15:58:27 GMT -6
Completely for laughs: here's a photo of me, taken by my Arab guide, roughly about the time of Napoleon's campaign in the Orient. Mulligan
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 9, 2014 6:37:31 GMT -6
The 1872 was essentially drill manual as was Cooke's 1862. Have never seen, only heard about the 1872, but I have a copy of the 1862 and its value as a tactical manual is nearly nonexistent. I agree in that it is a drill manual to provide the skills needed to be tactically effective. The Reno breakout and retrograde to me were tactics. That soldiers had never ridden that fast before, did not have an independent seat, and dropped their revolver trying to hold is an example of not have skills they should have developed from doing drills. That the troops made hits or not is related to drill and practice how they were deployed are tactics. The observations of officers of how effective the tactical deployment is working includes observations of the troops in the particular situation. That is one of my criticisms of hindsight comments. They don't have the real time observations of the actual troopers there. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Sept 9, 2014 19:16:19 GMT -6
Mulligan,
The manual you linked is an 1872 reprint of Cooke's 1862 cavalry manual. And that was based on Napoleonic tactics, with infantry having smoothbore muskets with an effective range of 50 meters.
The manual in use at the time was written by Emory Upton. He had written the infantry manual in 1866, the cavalry manual in 1872 and the artillery one a year after that. I have posted links to this manual in the past. AT the moment, I can't find a link to the cavalry manual, only the infantry and artillery.
My paper copy of this manual was destroyed in a flood in 2010. I am trying to find another, had no joy searching amazon. If anyone knows where I can buy a new one, I would appreciate it.
The Army was still trying to figure out organizational design and tactics to new technology. It may be hard to understand, but they were facing more technological change at that time than we are today.
The best MG the US Army has is the .50 caliber MG, which has been in the inventory since 1919. The AK-47 is a copy of a German WW2 weapon. The RPG is also WW2. The M60 MG is a US copy of German WW2 MG. Ground combat technology has been fairly slow to evolve since WW2.
Now look at the post ACW Army. Prvios tactical concepts were based on smoothbore muskets. Upton was responding to muzzle loader rifles in ACW. BUt breech loaders were already present, and now were coming out magazine fed rifles.
An interesting dead end development showed up at this time. Rifles had the capacity to fire out to a mile. Going forward past the 1870s until WW1, many militaries developed the concept of massed indirect fire. They developed firing procedures to have troops mass as a unit and fire at targets a mile off. Reading these manuals is interesting, the details are very complex.
Why was this technique a dead end?
1) Artillery went from a direct fire to indirect fire at the same time. 2) Machine Guns 3) Human beings with iron sights just cant shoot that far. Please note that today the rifles used by all militaries have an effective range of 300 meters, the same as in 1876. Until we develop cyborgs, we have to understand the skills and abilities of human beings.
|
|