|
Post by montrose on Mar 27, 2015 8:36:52 GMT -6
Lol,
As a coincidence. My ancestor who fought in the ACW was enlisted by then CPT Crowningshield. In his later struggles with the pension folks, Crowningshield had 2 letters in support. Odd how small history becomes sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 27, 2015 8:38:42 GMT -6
There is something that stirs the soul when one views a portrayal of a cavalry saber charge like we see in Lady Butler's Scotland Forever that Ian posted yesterday. We might even be tempted to say that cavalry without the saber is not cavalry at all.
Cavalry as an nineteenth century saber wielding force was largely obsolete by the time Wilson wrote, and Custer and his contemporaries took the field. It, in the American experience, had started evolving during the ACW, into two distinct battlefield functions. The first function was that of a force capable of the traditional role cavalry played on the battlefield, reconnaissance, screen, guard, economy of force, a role it still plays today.
The second, the emerging role of the ACW, is a portion of the main battle force that is made mobile by the use of the horse, and far more effective by the incorporation of the means to produce massive amounts of firepower. Today that role is maintained by armor, mechanized, infantry, field artillery, assault and attack aviation, incorporated into a single combined arms force designed expressly for mobile warfare. This mobile force is not cavalry. It is the highly mobile portion of the main battle force.
Now back to the saber, in light of Wilson. They should have been sent back from where they came and melted down for all the good they did on the post 1865 battlefield. In fact rather than just being another weapon, they were a doctrinal danger, an impediment to the firepower evolution.
I say the above with no mental reservation. The danger in keeping them, is that a more traditional commander in that age may be tempted to use them. All that could produce in an increasingly firepower intensive world is needless death. There were several examples of this up to 1939 when Polish Lancers needlessly sacrifice themselves using saber and lance against tanks for God's sake.
We would not be having this discussion if the subject at hand were the flintlock rifle and pistol.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 27, 2015 8:55:17 GMT -6
Apparently the Polish Lancers were told that the German tanks were made out of wood, I don't know if there is any truth in that rumor but wooden or not they still had machine guns so did the Lancers think that these machine guns fired wooden bullets too?
If the 7th had broken into the village then would they be better served armed with a lance rather than a sabre? maybe they should have had four weapons, lance, sabre, carbine and pistol, training to use a lance and sabre would help with the easing the boredom when on frontier duty and unlike bullets they cost nothing.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 27, 2015 9:32:17 GMT -6
Ian: I trust you jest.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 27, 2015 9:40:20 GMT -6
He jousts
Beth
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 27, 2015 9:51:59 GMT -6
Well someone has to bring a new approach, but yes it was tongue and cheek, it must have came from Errol Flynn in the film The Charge Of The Light Brigade. Imagine the warriors in the village seeing this coming at them; Just look at them go; Ian.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 27, 2015 10:27:48 GMT -6
A full charge must have been a sight to see. I imagine you could feel the earth rumbling under you feet as they approached. Unfortunately, Reno was short a few men to make it really impressive. Link
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 27, 2015 11:02:23 GMT -6
I am still having trouble with no saber when Reno reaches the river and the troops and Indians are mixed...empty revolver and one round in carbine.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 27, 2015 11:29:08 GMT -6
I am still having trouble with no saber when Reno reaches the river and the troops and Indians are mixed...empty revolver and one round in carbine. Regards AZ Ranger Sabers would have come in handy that day. Beth
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 27, 2015 11:32:08 GMT -6
If Reno's men had been properly armed with a modern (for then) repeating rifles, as suggested by Wilson in the paper posted, there is a fairly good chance that there would not have been a need for Reno to go to the river.
The saber still had some utility, when your force is armed with only a single shot carbine, and revolving pistol. but as Wilson points out the day of the single shot weapon had passed. An Army that falls behind in technology usually stays behind until it receives a wake up call of nearly 300 needlessly dead. And then it may still take some convincing as it did with our own. The cavalry in the United States Army have always been foot draggers to tradition, and still are. They were nearly put out of business for this nonsensical approach to progress in 1941, and probably should have been.
The only thing they would have come in handy for Beth, is to get even more untrained in their use people killed.
Read again what Wilson was saying. There is a reason why Infantry is the Queen of Battle. Like the Queen on the chess board it is the most versatile of the combat arms. It can be easily adapted to any battlefield maneuver function, anywhere, by addition and subtraction. Cavalry is a one trick pony, that when it steps even slightly out of primary function diminishes its combat potential.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Mar 27, 2015 11:57:38 GMT -6
QC Which repeating rifle would you have selected for the Army the Henry, Spencer or was there another rifle available? The Henry held a lot of shots but was time consuming to reload wasn't she? Where bolt action rifles in existence at this time? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 27, 2015 12:20:45 GMT -6
If Reno's men had been properly armed with a modern (for then) repeating rifles, as suggested by Wilson in the paper posted, there is a fairly good chance that there would not have been a need for Reno to go to the river. The saber still had some utility, when your force is armed with only a single shot carbine, and revolving pistol. but as Wilson points out the day of the single shot weapon had passed. An Army that falls behind in technology usually stays behind until it receives a wake up call of nearly 300 needlessly dead. And then it may still take some convincing as it did with our own. The cavalry in the United States Army have always been foot draggers to tradition, and still are. They were nearly put out of business for this nonsensical approach to progress in 1941, and probably should have been. The only thing they would have come in handy for Beth, is to get even more untrained in their use people killed. Read again what Wilson was saying. There is a reason why Infantry is the Queen of Battle. Like the Queen on the chess board it is the most versatile of the combat arms. It can be easily adapted to any battlefield maneuver function, anywhere, by addition and subtraction. Cavalry is a one trick pony, that when it steps even slightly out of primary function diminishes its combat potential. I agree whole heartedly with you and Wilson. The military as well as many others seldom see the writing on the wall that things are changing and trying to drag them into a new age is difficult at best. "That's the way it's always been done" and "We can't change it after all of these years" seem to be a natural fall back position. It usually takes a disaster of some sort to get things changed. Of course then you get reactionary change which can be just as bad-- Beth
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 27, 2015 12:50:39 GMT -6
QC Which repeating rifle would you have selected for the Army the Henry, Spencer or was there another rifle available? The Henry held a lot of shots but was time consuming to reload wasn't she? Where bolt action rifles in existence at this time? Regards Dave The 73 Winchester would have been available in 44-40 cal. Colt pistols were available in the same caliber. That probably would have been the way to go. I should probably check but, off the top of my head, the above would be the best marriage. I also think S&W revolver used the 44-40.
Bolt actions were about to gain traction in Europe about this time, certainly not readily available.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 27, 2015 12:58:08 GMT -6
Dave I would have chosen the one with an effective range out to 300 meters, that was easy to train in the use of, and not be terribly concerned with the time it took to reload (today I would of course), and adapted my technique of battle to compensate for any extraordinary load time.
This is the concept in its infancy at that time, and there are bound to be shortfalls and missteps. You deal with them as they manifest themselves and always keep looking for newer stuff that performs better.
It is not only military Beth. It is human. I usher at church nearly every Sunday, and it is a rare Sunday indeed when I do not here a mumble of we never did it that way, or Father Stumblefart never did that. Wake up I feel like telling them it is a new day. We do it his way and Stumblefart is dead.
This all goes back to the old retail admonition ---- If you do business today, like you did business yesterday, you will be out of business tomorrow,
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Mar 27, 2015 13:07:05 GMT -6
It was supposedly more difficult and time consuming for a trooper to become proficient with a saber than with a firearm, but it is hard to imagine why. However, since there was limited ammunition for marksmanship practice, it would seem that they might as well have spent their available time training with the saber. On the other hand, when the 4th Cavalry went north to join in the conflict against the northern tribes they left all "unnecessary" equipment behind. That included their sabers, and if MacKenzie, who many consider to have been the best Indian fighter of them all considered the sabers to have been of small utility in those circumstances, then I would say that is a pretty strong argument for it.
|
|