|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 27, 2014 11:19:43 GMT -6
This is a question that still begs an answer well into the 21st century: Does a Western-style military use the same tactics in fighting a non-Western war against insurgents, Native People and/or guerilla style of fighting or use the tactics of fighting a Germany or Japan?
I don't think the US military changed their style of fighting when it came to facing Indians. Would the US military have shortened the war or eliminated the disasters of a Gratton, Fetterman, Custer, etc., against Indians if they changed their style of fighting? And would Custer have been successful if he adopted tactics better suited to fighting a guerrilla war?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 27, 2014 11:41:57 GMT -6
Horse: Tactics don't change. They are universal and unchanging. What changes is adapting tactics to the situation at hand. Those that do, usually by trial and error are called winners. Those that fail to do so are called losers.
Tactics are the basic method of doing something. Adapting that basic method, so it works for you is technique.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 27, 2014 13:07:57 GMT -6
Crzhrs; I think that the way they conducted this mission as a whole in 1876, was badly thought out, and why should I, a none military man with the value of hindsight say this, well if you want a job done you should in my view, use all the resources you have and use them to together.
Now look at this campaign as a whole, the US Army had 12 Cavalry Regiments and they employed only three (2nd, 3rd and 7th), and these were split into the three columns under Terry, Gibbon and Crook, now these three columns acted independently of each other. So to do this mission they should have employed three or at least two Cavalry Brigades and say one Regiment.
Now if we shift the focus on war today, then the difference is this, if you have a group of guys who are willing to die for their cause, dress them in civilian clothes and arm them with AK-47s and RPGs then you find that you are in for a struggle.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 27, 2014 16:41:37 GMT -6
Horse: To address your question in another way, and I think it was the way you expected it to be answered originally. The best way to beat a guerilla is to yourself become a guerilla. The Brits in Malaya found that out. Wingate used those methods with his Special Night Squads in Palestine. It is not though a change in tactics. Call it ambush or ambuscade for instance, you still get shot at by surprise and when highly vulnerable no matter if conducted by guerilla or conventional force.
The real problem is that conventional forces do not want to adapt to the guerilla war or the guerilla type opponent. It is well outside their comfort zone, and you don't need all those expensive toys, that generals with hemorrhoids just love to have around.
Think about this for a moment. All one really needs to fight a guerilla is a rifle, a good pair of boots, a canteen, canteen cup, spoon, and a reasonable expectation of being resupplied with food and ammunition every now and again, while you live in complete isolation and take your fight to the enemy only on your terms, but often. Think about it.
Ian: Ten regiments. 11 and 12 were post Span Am.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 27, 2014 16:58:23 GMT -6
"Does a Western-style military use the same tactics in fighting a non-Western war against insurgents, Native People and/or guerilla style of fighting or use the tactics of fighting a Germany or Japan?"
You confused the debate, crzhrs, with misuse of terms. Not playing gotcha, but we all do this and we need to get better.
You use Indians and insurgents for guerrilla, urban warfare fighting as opposed to 'western', and Japanese and German for large, set piece battles.
1. Guerrilla warfare IS western fighting. It's Spanish and comes from the Napoleonic era and the Basque and Iberian lands.
2. Both Japan - big time - and Germany - a bit at the end - employed it, so there is no distinction. It's a western way of war and alternative western ways can beat it, as the Iron Duke showed and others since. And every tribe used it from Maine to Monterey.
3. There is no comparison to the literal police actions of the American West to the other examples. If the US in 1865 had decided on genocide and the AOP and Sherman's just moved west and killed all the Indians, it would have taken about an hour and half, most of it for writing up reports. It had little to do with styles of fighting, but just massive power vs. little. The biggest annoyance of the Indian Wars was to do it as cheaply as possible. The efforts of ALL the tribes, or ALL their civilization - after hunting - went into these wars. You could subtract the entire cost of the Indian Wars from the US budgets and it might not be noticed. The Indians were feared not at all, and the idea was to keep the Army as small as possible.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 27, 2014 17:28:09 GMT -6
DC: I would agree with that with one exception. The Apache seemed to have mastered the guerilla style. None of the others were even close. Had they been it would have taken a hundred years, after the civil war to flush them out.
I think it might be a good subject for thesis, or preferably dissertation to study the Apache and see if that style of warfare, was native to them, or simply an adaptation based on centuries long contact with the Spanish.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 27, 2014 17:39:26 GMT -6
Based on no horses, and so close to the ground in bad, bad land. Commanches drove them to the mountains.
But a million soldiers just marching across the tribes would be gruesome, Apaches included. Once located, they just march on them. Too many, artillery, just awful. They couldn't unite, and they had nothing without white support in food and firearms. Where could they go? There'd be no unit small enough to attack and no ability to turn them away. They'd build railroad to where they were needed, kill ALL the game, and bridge all the rivers, burn all the grass. There were people who'd have liked that but more who'd be appalled, so there was no chance of this.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 27, 2014 17:50:08 GMT -6
OK DC I would gladly give you the job of digging them out of THEIR mountains. I sure as hell would not want to, given a corps to do it., and that is a modern corps mind you. Have you ever been to Oak Creek Canyon, and that is good terrain compared to some of the rest.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 27, 2014 17:51:58 GMT -6
Based on no horses, and so close to the ground in bad, bad land. Commanches drove them to the mountains. But a million soldiers just marching across the tribes would be gruesome, Apaches included. Once located, they just march on them. Too many, artillery, just awful. They couldn't unite, and they had nothing without white support in food and firearms. Where could they go? There'd be no unit small enough to attack and no ability to turn them away. They'd build railroad to where they were needed, kill ALL the game, and bridge all the rivers, burn all the grass. There were people who'd have liked that but more who'd be appalled, so there was no chance of this. DC, Both of your last two points are dead on, I was going to complement Chuck on his caveat, as he was right. Then you come back with this. You are dead on the money as the Apaches never had relied on horses, and trade as did their other western brethren. But they also had a border to play with, heat and terrain as well.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 27, 2014 17:59:14 GMT -6
Love Oak Creek Canyon, would love to have a cabin there! The mountains in SE AZ along with the White Mountains(have hunted there with Apache guides), would also be issue.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 27, 2014 18:04:43 GMT -6
You can still compliment me Tom. My ego needs a boost this afternoon.
DC is completely correct about guerilla warfare though. It is a western way, based upon the only method the weak fighting the strong have any chance at all. Regardless of if you call it guerilla, petit guerre, irregular, it is still summed up in my favorite name for it - The War of The Flea. If a flea bites you enough it will kill you or drive you insane. The only alternative is to leave the place the flea inhabits, therefor the "strategy" (note how I use the word)behind waging a guerilla war.
As long as I could spend all my sunsets in Sadona, I love the Verde Valley as well.. South of Tucson, all the way to the border, you can keep it.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 27, 2014 18:13:19 GMT -6
Davis Monthan, MT Lemon, and the back roads north from there are also beautiful.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 27, 2014 18:28:07 GMT -6
Any place that does not have tumbleweeds looks good to me now. We had a wind storm last week that completely covered our little Metropolitan District with them. As I go down my street, you have to weave your way between them some piled six and eight feet high. Several of my neighbors house front are covered with them up to roof level. None in my front, but my back yard about 60' X 80' is so full of them up to stockade fence high level you can't walk in it. Problem is that there is no way to get rid of them. You can bag them up but the trash man won't take them, because when crushed they destroy the crusher. They break up into very fine particles, which destroys the inner workings of equipment. My wife is at a Metro District meeting at the moment discussing some total solution. They have been at trying to find this solution for about ten days and all lead to dead ends. I am so pissed at Bob Nolan, that I want to take a drink of "Cool Water" and forget all about "Tumbling Tumbleweeds"
Might get back near your way in June Tom. My granddaughter graduates from high school down in Williamsburg. Figured she would go to W&M, like her parents, but she tells me in an e-mail she has chosen Mary Washington in Fredericksburg instead.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 28, 2014 3:15:59 GMT -6
Williamsburg did not have as many snow days, as we did so they may get out close to on time. I am near Fredericksburg and my grand kids are going to lose spring break and still get out of school late. Fred , I think, is attending the LBH Association in Winchester in June. I think it starts 6/11.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 28, 2014 4:38:42 GMT -6
Duly noted Chuck, which was going to lead me on to my next question, but now that I have learnt that they only had 10 Regiments available in the whole of the country, it rather makes it null and void, but never mind I will ask it anyway;
Do you think that this whole expedition should have been just a Cavalry affaire? To me when you are fighting this sort of foe you need speed and mobility, and that’s something that in 1876 the foot soldier cannot give you.
In a modern war we can load our Infantry on to vehicles or helicopters and get them into position pretty quick.
So imagine this battle being conducted today, the area first gets reconnoitred either by drones, satellites or aircraft, and then you send in the troops, you could land them by helicopters in Company strength at any location around the village.
In 1876 they had only the horse, so that’s why I think that the mission should have been done by as many Cavalry Regiments that they could muster.
Ian.
|
|