jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 27, 2015 20:17:58 GMT -6
Quincannon, My point regarding retired military was that you had to bring some experience to bare to make a point or have studied an issue. Cavalry as an arm of the service practically ended by the close of the 1800's so no one is now around who can speak from experience. For example which is correct for a cavalry charge against cannon saber or pistol? It is the saber because of the chance of blowing up the powder during a charge and killing yourself and not capturing the artillary What is the point? We must be careful about taking things out of time particularily when discussing cavalry.
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 27, 2015 20:20:34 GMT -6
Quincannon: You are right I fully agree. I used the word tactic incorrectly.
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 27, 2015 20:45:08 GMT -6
Quincannon: One follow up question regarding tactics. Would a cavalry charge in column or line be a tactic or a choice of technique? Would firing a volley by rank or platoon or flickering fire be a tactic or technique? Would they be techniques because the tactic would be the manner of assault?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 27, 2015 20:47:52 GMT -6
Cavalry WHAT. Wash your mouth out with soap. Make it that really nasty stuff that little kid had to swallow in the Christmas Story.
Cavalry is a battlefield function that does not need a horse to accomplish it mission, any old recon vehicle or scout helicopter will do just nicely. Battlefield functions know no limitations or time period. They are a constant.
You have been reading all too many funny books. I would suggest to you that it takes the very same stuff to ride in Colts tank as it did to mount a horse draw your saber and ride into shot and shell. The difference is in degree. If hit in 1865 you got a hole in you, probably a fairly clean hole, fell off your horse and brake your neck. Today you would be burned alive to a crisp. It's all relative.
What is correct against cannon, I assume cannon that are supported by the pedestrian friend? Bigger cannon that blow the bastards away to the point where they cannot function, then it does not matter squat if you shoot or stab those that may remain.
I would suggest to you that I too know of the saber and pistol debate, and it is about as stupid as a debate can be in the era of the rifled weapon even the muzzle loading Springfield or Enfield, that can kill your bloody ass 300 yards away before you get in range. Took both the confederates and Federals some time to learn that lesson, Ask Farnsworth.
THINK-THINK-THINK and please throw that Currier and Ives version of the Civil War or any war in the trash this very night
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 27, 2015 20:59:54 GMT -6
Beth, CW tactics did not translate to the West . Let me share one thought however that has puzzled me and perhaps has made me respect Custer despite the fact that I don't think I would like him personally. At his court martial he said something to the effect that if he were an Indian he would be a Hostile because you can not be an Indian if your culture is taken away and you are forced to live on a reservation. This understanding of the Indian seems so at odds with his function as an Indian fighter. So I have difficulty accepting him as someone who simply acted impetuously. Actually I think that comes from "My Life on the Plains" not his court martial. What books have you read about Little Bighorn? It will help to know what background you bring to the discussion. Beth
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 27, 2015 21:25:03 GMT -6
An assault is a tactic.
A line or column are formations.
A column is best for control, but deficient in firepower forward. A line maximized firepower forward, but is harder to control
The choice of formation depends upon the situation. If some idiot ordered me to assault the town of Aldie, where the streets are narrow, and the houses close to the road I would have little choice but to adopt the column and pray (a lot). Once beyond Aldie heading for Middleburg I would always choose line to deploy into from my march column, as the terrain is fairly open, and I would conclude that anyone I would meet would also be in line. In naval warfare there is a thing called crossing the T. A line catches you in column and you are extra crispy.
I do not know what flickering fire is. Enlighten us all, for I don't believe any of us have heard the term used. Are you talking about fire at will.
Volley fire by rank or platoon were essentially the same thing. It was not a tactic but rather a technique used in both defense and offense. In both instances it was designed to put out a high concentration of controlled fire. Its use in the defense is self explanatory, kill them, break them up, remove the sting from the assault against you. In the offense it was used in a similar manner to what Patton and other WWII types called marching fires. Essentially you are moving forward in a line formation and you stop every so often to place suppressive fire on the object of your attention. Both of them were on the way out with the advent of rapid fire and automatic weapons.
That retired two hundred years out of date really hurt considering that I grew up in this area and know it like the back of my hand, and there is not a battle or battlefield in the Commonwealth of Virginia I have not made incestuous love to. You might check on where Tom lives too. If he really gets mouthy Tom take him to the New Yorker for the grease treatment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 22:50:59 GMT -6
Jag, Welcome to the board and the discussion. As you have seen, most are opposed to dialogue and differences in opinion. Bash GAC and you will be welcomed otherwise be on your way. Particularly enjoyed Beth's first response to your post. Typical narrow minded response.
As a side note, QC has zero, none, nada, combat experience. Take his blow hard garbage with the respect it deserves.
Hold your ground. Montrose and AZ Ranger are fair and know what they are talking about. So too does Fred.
Again, welcome.
Regards Mark
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 28, 2015 3:35:42 GMT -6
Quincannon, I thought you may make the point that mounted cavalry provides the same function as modern day tanks. While it is true that they have shared many of the same functions hence the army still calls it cavalry there are important differences. You really can't make a horse gallop into a stationary object they will turn or stop and throw you off. At Waterloo for example some French Currassiers got so frustrated they tried backing their horses in against English Squares. A tank can make a frontal assault on a defended position horse cavalry could not do so and most attempts at it failed.. Unless the soldiers in a line broke the cavalry would find itself at the end of a bayonet. Cavalry then provided the function of screening troop movements there is no modern day equivalent with the advent of radar. Cavalry protected the flanks because it was more agile and they had not thought of much else for it to do other than delivering messages and picket duty only later in the Civil War was the use of cavalry as fighting infantry a common occurrence (mounted Infantry aside). Given that the 7th was equipped with weapons more suitable for an infantry engagement (long range single shot rifles) such weapons would be largely useless in an attack by horse and the pistol would only be sufficient to capture woman and children. So I question those who suggest a mass attack by an undivided force was the correct way. Having one force, Reno, charge the village to scare the women and children into a waiting force that comes in from the side to cut off the retreat seems like a reasonable strategy (among no great choices given their relative numbers). I do however question whether this would have led to a surrender against such a large and diverse encampment.
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 28, 2015 3:46:26 GMT -6
Quincannon, "flickering fire" was just another term used to describe a pattern of fire from alternating places in the rank.
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 28, 2015 4:02:09 GMT -6
Scarface: Thanks for the welcome. I don't intend to make Custer conversions here nor would I want to since I am undecided about him in some respects. Nevertheless I often read regurgitated pap from authors with agendas to to destroy the Custer myth but in the process overdo it. In some ways Custer has been made to answer for all the sins of our government against the NA and turned him into the character found in Midnight at the Museum.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on May 28, 2015 5:09:10 GMT -6
1. Role of technology. This was an era of changing technology. Even though we think we live in an age of change today, not in ground combat. Our pistol, mortars and Heavy Machine guns are not much different than WW1. Everything else dates to WW2. The RPG is still one of the best anti armor weapons, and it is a direct copy of the panzerfaust. The main rifle for the US Army has been the same for over 50 years. The Brown Bess musket with its 50 yard range, had dominated tactics for a century and a half. (1690-1850). The invention of the rifled musket made tactics from this era obsolete. A cavalry column charging an infantry line was now a suicide run. But this was rapidly followed by the invention of breech loading rifles, and then repeating rifle. Weapon changes require new tactics. (Actually military uses the term tactics, techniques and procedures; many of these changes are in the latter two areas, but requires a longer discussion). At LBH the 7th Cav was using a new weapon: the 1873 Springfield Carbine. The 7th received this new weapon in 1874/5, varying by company. 2. Role of cavalry. In the Brown Bess era, the cavalry was the arm of decision. In the rifle era, cavalry was a support arm. Battles were decided by infantry and artillery. In the ACW the role of cavalry was scouting and screening for the infantry and artillery forces. Raiding was a secondary task, meant to disrupt supply networks for the infantry and artillery. Note that the cavalry in the West operated more independently than in the east, especially compared to the Army of the Potomac. In the post ACW US Army, things changed. Cavalry was better suited to fighting Indians on their own, as opposed to the scout/screen task. So role of cavalry is different than ACW, and tactical changes are also in order due to weapon changes. Emory Upton led the effort to update tactics. The 1872 Infantry manual was followed by an 1874 cavalry manual. So the 1876 7th cavalry had both new weapons and new tactics. 3. Indian response. The Battle of Beecher Island was fought in Sep 1868. www.legendsofamerica.com/co-beecherisland.html 50 USA fought 600 or more Indians. The Indians tried using their traditional tactics, which were based on clubs and bows. They made numerous mounted charges trying to get as close as possible. It was a turkey shoot. Many of the Indians who fought here fought at LBH in 1876. In the interim, the Indians sought as many repeating rifles as possible. They had an estimated 400 at LBH. Mounted charges went away. Indian tactics focused on infiltration and getting into enemy flanks and rear. The very fact that they formed a massive village in 1876 shows an effort to innovate, and try a new tactic. The Rosebud and LBH fights show a very different Indian force than the 1867-72 force. 4. Summary. Technology changes drove new weapons which in turn drove new tactics. This places a premium on adaptive leaders. There were many innovations tried by the US Army in this period by men like Crook, Mackenzie, Gatewood, even Miles.
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 28, 2015 5:17:05 GMT -6
Quincannon: One other point. The rifled musket was not used at 300 yards effectively and certainly could never be a force agaist a changing cavalry at that range for the following reasons. The average soldier was not trained to use the sight, many of the older conversions to percussion did not include rear sties and most importantly given the arc of the trajectory the killing zone at 300 yards was very small. Most engagements during the CW occurred at 116 yards for initial fire. See, Earl J Hess' book The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat Reality and Myth.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on May 28, 2015 5:18:36 GMT -6
What an appallingly ugly piece of history. But I am struck by the fact that Mosby would have adapted better to the Indian Wars. Look at Mosby bio. interesting guy who became friends with Grant. Did much in later life. He did not let his military life define him. I am sure Will knows many fine former Special Operators, whose former life has not defined them post military. If you get a chance to see Ted Williams bio, HOF baseball player, look at military decorations. Yes Steve he was a Marine..
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by montrose on May 28, 2015 5:26:18 GMT -6
My great something grandfather served under MG John Sedgwick in the ACW. Uncle John saw men flinching under long range fire.
"Why are you dodging like this? They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance!" he raged at his men.
Those were his last words. Head shot.
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 28, 2015 5:28:26 GMT -6
Montrose: Your insight is appreciated and noted. I do have two questions which are sometimes not taken into account when various alternate theories of attack are advanced concerning LBH. First you can't put a horse in a canter much less a gallop in more than a foot of water. Where could an all out charge have occurred? Second there is talk about the cavalry kicking up clouds of dust to reveal their position to others under Custer's command, but would the terrain and grass produced such clouds. There are plenty of examples where cavalry is concealed by undulating terrain at less than 200 yards.
|
|