|
Post by quincannon on Mar 28, 2015 8:41:00 GMT -6
I share that opinion Steve. Had they been present there may have been a temptation to use them somewhere along the line, and with that lack of training and proficiency, their use could have cost even more lives.
I had never seen this Wilson paper before, and I was encouraged by it, in that someone was looking at what was, and saying this ain't cutting it. My impression heretofore was this renaissance occurred ten to fifteen years later.
I am sure you are aware, but it bears repeating for those who are not. Several crates of those Army sabers were discovered in New Caladonia in 1942, apparently shipped from some Army depot in error. I think they must have been of the later type, but just don't know for sure. They were cut down and sent to the Marines on Guadalcanal for use as machetes. I think I mentioned that my daughter is moving back to NVA from San Antonio. When I next visit her I intend to make the USMC museum at Quantico an essential stop. I must remember to inquire if they have any of these in their collection.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 28, 2015 9:06:37 GMT -6
I am sure that I read somewhere the movement rate of a Gatling gun was roughly the same as a pack mule, whether or not the animals pulling the 60 pound Gatling could keep up with mules over a long distance I don't know as all of the trek would be made over cross country with no roads for the large spoke wheels to move across and then we have the numerous rivers and creeks.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 28, 2015 9:25:15 GMT -6
I believe Custer made the correct choice in not taking the Gatling guns.
The questions regarding their operational mobility are well known, and have been previously discussed.
There has been little discussion however on their tactical mobility, and how that limited mobility would have impacted planning, scheme of maneuver, and allocation of resources, primarily to protect those guns.
Would their obvious utility in both offense and defense be outweighed by the otherwise unnecessary allocation of resources to protect them so they could lend continue value added?
In thinking about this consider what you want a Gatling gun to do for you, and where they would do it from.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Mar 28, 2015 9:38:03 GMT -6
QC,
I would want the Gatling guns with the infantry component of Gibbon's blocking force to the north.
I am not criticising GAC for that omission, although concentration of remaining firepower becomes a greater priority without them.
WO
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 28, 2015 9:40:40 GMT -6
Well Chuck the obvious place would be an elevated position with good fields of fire, but with this being a cavalry unit they would have to be placed into position and probably left to provide covering fire, this its self would have its problems as a detachment of troopers would be needed to provide flank security just in case they got hit from behind.
I would think that the move over the bluffs and down Cedar coulee would be a none starter for these weapons so the only two other places would be Reno and the pack train as Benteen was on a scout and not a part of the main advance, Reno like GAC was moving at speed so the pack train is the only choice, so if they took these guns along they would probably be first used at Reno hill to make a show for the hostiles in the valley.
Then you have the ammunition expenditure, figures show that it could knock out around 350 rpm that along with amount of black powder smoke and the prospect of the barrels overheating would null its effect somewhat, but I would say that Reno could have used a couple on his flank in the valley, the problem was getting them there.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 28, 2015 10:15:53 GMT -6
Agree with WO. They are best left with the Infantry.
Defensive use of those guns does not present much of a problem (if you can get them where you need them). You place them on the most dangerous and presumably the most high speed avenue of approach.
Offensively the problem is not all that different than the ones we deal with today. To support any attack by automatic suppressive fires you must either be higher and firing over the head of those making the actual assault, or be positioned on the flank and firing at an angle into the objective being assaulted. Today of course we have man portable weapons, that can move away rather rapidly should some danger to them emerge. Not so then, so outside protection must be provided, and the cost of that is the diminishing of combat power in the assault. It may very well be worth it given the firepower potential of the guns themselves.
Then, as Ian points out, there is the increased expenditure of ammunition and how that would be handled, and that too would sap resources.
The point here is that the question of taking the guns or not taking them deals with much more than their mobility. It has to do more with the restructuring of resources, setting priorities, and tactical impacts such as the required changes in the scheme of maneuver, than it ever did with gun mobility alone.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Mar 28, 2015 10:42:49 GMT -6
AZ In reading the thread from which I quoted you below:
In my Department we had some old mini-14s for a long time that were well worn before we got them. We now have AR-15 platforms and looking at the AR-10. I purchased an AR-10 awhile back and it is better in many ways for what we have to use a rifle/carbine for such as shooting a bear. The point is that the majority of our officers have to use what is issued and should be proficient in the use all weapons.
I immediately thought how familiar your statement was to me. I have read similar words and statements from many, many USMC officers and commands just prior to and after WW II started. The Marines always got hand-me-downs from the NAVY---planes, rifles, vehicles and more--- with which they were to make do. They always did and accomplished great things . Regards
Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 28, 2015 11:04:20 GMT -6
I have heard that many times as well. I am not sure it is entirely accurate though.
Sending Marines out with Brewsters and Vindicators at Midway was criminal, but I am not sure that anything better was available.
The Marines kept the 03 until after Guadalcanal, but that was their decision.
The Stuarts used on Guadalcanal were horrible tanks, but the Army was also using them, and again I think it was a deliberate decision on the part of the Marines, in that it was light and manageable ship to shore.
The turnabout is fair play though in that the Marines willing said don't throw me in the briar patch Brr Fox, we will take all of those horrible Corsairs off your hands, but it will while be kicking and screaming.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 28, 2015 12:18:03 GMT -6
Interestingly, the speaker in Chapter 1 of the book, Col. Benjamin W. Crowninshield, one of Sheridan's aide-de-camps and later a historian, was pro-sabre, but felt that "a wooden or leather scabbard lined with wood is better, would be noiseless, [and would] keep the sabre bright and sharp; for the sabre is supposed to be sharp." Also, I really enjoy reading Shelby Foote. I wish I could write history the way he does (or you do). I understand what you mean that the Gatling guns were a major hindrance; Wilson mentions that he had to dump his artillery in a river while in a tight spot around Petersburg. This may have made him less inclined to be burdened in such a way again. However Wilson seems so pro-firepower that if he had command of the 7th I'm sure he would have been very tempted. Conrad, I must tell you, your posts are really good. Well thought-out, well written, always informative... just really a pleasure. I agree about Foote's writing as well. His work is almost like a well-written novel. I do not think I have ever knocked off 3,000 or so pages as quickly as I read his Civil War works. Another thing about the sabers: they did not have to hang down from the rear of the saddle or from the individual carrying one. There was a method of connecting them to the pommel or front portion of the saddle, then running the scabbard beneath the saddle extension, the part leading to the stirrup. That would have kept the scabbard tucked into the flank of the horse, minimizing or even eliminating any noise. For someone like me-- used to flinging mortar or howitzer rounds at the enemy, i. e., letting an inanimate object do my work for me-- the more armament, the better: pistol, saber, repeating carbine, hard-fired bricks... whatever, etc. Again, great post. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 28, 2015 12:18:52 GMT -6
I believe Custer made the correct choice in not taking the Gatling guns. Agree, totally. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 28, 2015 13:24:53 GMT -6
Chuck they were M2A4 Light Tanks what the Marines used on Guadalcanal, they had about 50 in service, the Stuart was the M3 Light Tank, not much difference except for thicker armour, different 37mm and better engine.
The Marines also used Reising’s and Johnson M1941s (Automatic Rifle and LMGs).
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 28, 2015 14:14:44 GMT -6
Ian: I was under the erroneous impression that the 2A4 the M3 and 5 were all referred to as Stuarts. Thank you for the correction.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 29, 2015 5:35:24 GMT -6
Your welcome Chuck, we called them "Honeys" although we never used the Scott (M8 GMC) which gave the US Army great service until the Sherman 105mm came along.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 29, 2015 9:37:05 GMT -6
I thought it was the British army that named their American lend-lease tanks after US Generals, apart from the General Stuart, the first medium tank was the M3 which we had come in two versions, the General Lee which was altered to British requirements with a new turret and the standard model used by the US Army called the General Grant, Churchill ordered that the term “General” be dropped from the name, so after August 1942 they were just called Lee and Grant. This comes from a US site, the first one is the vehicle used at Guadalcanal (no Stuart in the title); linkHere is the standard M3 Stuart; linkBut you are correct as both the M3 and M5 were known as Stuarts. Ian.
|
|
|
Post by callmeconrad on Mar 29, 2015 9:48:08 GMT -6
Conrad, I must tell you, your posts are really good. Well thought-out, well written, always informative... just really a pleasure. I agree about Foote's writing as well. His work is almost like a well-written novel. I do not think I have ever knocked off 3,000 or so pages as quickly as I read his Civil War works. Another thing about the sabers: they did not have to hang down from the rear of the saddle or from the individual carrying one. There was a method of connecting them to the pommel or front portion of the saddle, then running the scabbard beneath the saddle extension, the part leading to the stirrup. That would have kept the scabbard tucked into the flank of the horse, minimizing or even eliminating any noise. For someone like me-- used to flinging mortar or howitzer rounds at the enemy, i. e., letting an inanimate object do my work for me-- the more armament, the better: pistol, saber, repeating carbine, hard-fired bricks... whatever, etc. Again, great post. Best wishes, Fred. Thank you for your kind words, Fred. Coming from a writer of your calibre it means a lot. One of the things I love about this board is that along with the 'big' ideas I also learn tid-bits of information like that there was a quieter way for a sabre to be carried. So while extra weight and proficiency may have been an issue, noise wouldn't have been. Interesting. Cheers, conrad
|
|