|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jun 9, 2015 10:34:42 GMT -6
Alan: That is what a breakout from encirclement is, a formalized running away. Benteen's arrival did nothing more that prevent a change in venue for Reno's total destruction. Not all breakouts achieve success. Just off the top I would say judging only by history it is not even a fifty-fifty proposition. People say, and will continue to say, mainly what they are told by people who have no clue what they are talking about. Saying garbage repeatedly still makes it garbage. Thinking about it is I suspect too hard for some folks. I think Reno did the right thing too. My only point in continually harping on this point, is that if Reno did conduct a retreat he did a disgraceful job of it. On the other hand if it was what it was, a breakout, Reno conducted the action as it should have been conducted, and unlike many others he got away with it, with a little help and the intervention of Divine Providence of course. This is where it seems to me to be obvious that the lack of training and equipment use forces this to be a more one sided running battle until the river. The horses take over without the proper training and they move as fast as they can. The riders that don't have an independent seat lose the use of their hands since they are holding on with both hands. The use of the revolver is limited to at the most 6 rounds. Hits only count. The lack of saber allows close contact by the Indians without much to fear. I know most think the saber was useless but in close quarter battle on a galloping horse it would be useful in my opinion. It's kind of hard to put a bow over a troopers neck it the trooper strikes the arm holding the bow with a saber. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jun 9, 2015 10:45:14 GMT -6
Steve: I see you have come back from where, Indiana? Chuck Drove straight back with only 1 hour rest. 1,665 miles. Teaching a law enforcement use of personal watercraft course Friday on Lake Powell and working an OUI checkpoint on Saturday on the Colorado river under the I-40 bridge. Regards Steve Wish I had a boat and a bottle on the Colorado, I could give you someone to demonstrate proper techniques on. I know where the bridge is. I could probably get a cabin at Ft. Tuthill.
I think I am checking in at the 7th on the 21st.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 9, 2015 10:45:31 GMT -6
Steve: You fight with what you have, not what you wish you had. So in this particular instance bring a knife to a gun fight was probably a good thing to do. The only reason not to do so in that era, was no expectation of need, which leads you down the road of no close quarter battle was expected, and the further conclusion that George wished away a capability.
Don't think I would have brought them either, but what I would have done is assure the proficiency of the rider, before I sent them into the Blue. Sort of like thinking that by taking a tank into battle you have covered all your bases, when you never stopped to find out if anyone can drive the tank proficiently.
A concurrent analogy might be driving that same tank into battle, and finding yourself in close proximity to enemy dismounts with hand held anti-armor weapons, only to discover you had dismissed such a possibility and did not bring along any ammo for your coax. Your main gun is useless. The two MG's at the TC's and loaders station too exposed. The best driving skills in the world will not counter a shaped charge.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jun 9, 2015 12:31:27 GMT -6
Chuck
I agree but I think it has more to do with the lack of proficiency with the saber. Sgt Ryan makes comments regarding the current conditions of the troopers and specifically the use of the saber and fighting while mounted.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jun 9, 2015 13:17:37 GMT -6
Drove straight back with only 1 hour rest. 1,665 miles. Same truck as last we met? Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 9, 2015 13:34:21 GMT -6
Chuck I agree but I think it has more to do with the lack of proficiency with the saber. Sgt Ryan makes comments regarding the current conditions of the troopers and specifically the use of the saber and fighting while mounted. Steve Wasn't one of the factors for leaving the sabers behind the noise they made clanking and fear of discovery? I recall reading that 'somewhere' but then it never made sense because everything you read after that seems like they were trying to give themselves away--like breakfast fires. Plus you read of people following the horses in front front of them from the sounds of things clanking on the saddles plus then starting fires for breakfast. Was the call to leave the sabers at Powder River Custer's alone? Beth
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 9, 2015 14:31:44 GMT -6
So Steve, I am just as flexible as a wet noodle. Let us modify that analogy of mine to read they left behind the coax machine gun ammunition because the gunner was not proficient in its use, so why bother carrying it. Fault attaches any way the bread is sliced, and I am aware that you are posing these things not because you are asking the question, but for the benefit of all.
I bet you don't leave your long arm behind, or not wear your vest because it is hot and heavy. You follow your training. But had you not been trained to do either, or that training was so old it became state, or those that supervise you did not insist you conform with standard, you might.
Taking the saber or not taking it seems to be one of those bones of contention that appears now and then. My suspicion is that Ryan's is part of the answer, and the remainder comes from the fact that these things were in a period of transition, where the blade was on a descending arc, and the fire arm ascending. A judgment call that backfired by a combination of not reaching a standard of training because of these factors. They were not well trained in the use of firearms either, and while training ammunition was a factor, lack of that ammunition did not stop dry fire and aiming exercises. Truly a miserable performance.
Beth, when an Infantryman goes in the field everything possible is taped down to prevent noise that may alert the enemy to your presence. If you know what you are listening for though a platoon moving through field or woods, sounds like the ice cream truck that comes down your street this time of year. I don't know who said that about the saber making noise, but it is either an excuse, or said because that was the first thing that came to mind. You can't use 100 mile an hour tape on a horse very well and they make a heck of a lot more noise than the rattle of saber, or canteen, or the voice of the rider. I have seen it too somewhere.
It always goes back to training for that is the rock upon which professionalism is built. As the Good Book tells us it is Peter, and not a pile of sand, that the foundation of salvation is built. Lots of good TTP in the Good Book if one knows how to find them. I don't lap water like a dog either, and thereby failing to be alert when I take refreshment. Remember how Gideon chose only the most worthy for his special forces A Detachment.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 9, 2015 15:12:28 GMT -6
Beth, when an Infantryman goes in the field everything possible is taped down to prevent noise that may alert the enemy to your presence. If you know what you are listening for though a platoon moving through field or woods, sounds like the ice cream truck that comes down your street this time of year. I don't know who said that about the saber making noise, but it is either an excuse, or said because that was the first thing that came to mind. You can't use 100 mile an hour tape on a horse very well and they make a heck of a lot more noise than the rattle of saber, or canteen, or the voice of the rider. I have seen it too somewhere. It always goes back to training for that is the rock upon which professionalism is built. As the Good Book tells us it is Peter, and not a pile of sand, that the foundation of salvation is built. Lots of good TTP in the Good Book if one knows how to find them. I don't lap water like a dog either, and thereby failing to be alert when I take refreshment. Remember how Gideon chose only the most worthy for his special forces A Detachment. I've never put much stock in the too noisy claim. Horses aren't like cats, they are noisy just moving and when you put a couple 100 together it's going to be heard.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 9, 2015 15:18:27 GMT -6
Didn't really think you did, and while I addressed it to you, it was intended for those that read and believe everything they read, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. There are books, then again there are BOOKS.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 9, 2015 17:53:00 GMT -6
Didn't really think you did, and while I addressed it to you, it was intended for those that read and believe everything they read, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. There are books, then again there are BOOKS. Where sabers ever carried into battle in the Indian Wars after LBH? Beth
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jun 9, 2015 17:56:01 GMT -6
Drove straight back with only 1 hour rest. 1,665 miles. Same truck as last we met? Best wishes, Fred. I have the same truck and will drive it to Montana since I haul a lot of gear. Saddle, bedroll, Dutch ovens, stove, ice chest and beer. For the trip to Indiana we rented a car which was suppose to be a Ford Edge but turned out to be a minivan. The rental guy laughed about a cowboy driving a minivan so I wore a ball cap while driving it. Regards Steve
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jun 9, 2015 18:03:05 GMT -6
I think that the saber was more obsolete for conventional cavalry charges but the horse was at the beginning of the end also with rifle barreled long with an increase in accuracy.
My thought though is the CQB with Indians required some type of hand held weapon.
Ryan states that he believed that even Custer would not fight the 7th mounted.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 9, 2015 18:31:58 GMT -6
Armies, all armies are very conservative institutions. Patton designed a saber for cavalry use either just before or just after WWI. At the same time he was giving lip service to the traditional horsecrap army, he was writing articles for The Cavalry Journal talking about the future horseless mounted branch. One in particular I remember where he extoled the adventures of the 2nd Deathbolts in their gas proof armored vehicles doing a cavalry mission. That was about 1922, and eventually the Chief of Cavalry told him to cut the crap, that cavalry was horses, and stop his writing/
There is a fairly widely known picture of a mounted trooper astride his horse with .45 ACP held at raised pistol, and wearing the then new steel pot helmet so familiar to you all. That would date it probably as mid 42 to early 43, and the caption reads training for a mounted pistol attack. Good luck sport.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Jun 9, 2015 18:41:36 GMT -6
Throughout my career, I carried a long gun (M16 or M4), short gun (pistol, and not always the Army issued piece of crap M9) and some type of knife.
If you are using a knife, you are definitely in a go to hell plan. Generally the main reason you carry a knife is utility. I carried a bayonet from Austrian special forces for decades. It was a gift from a joint mission back in 1992. It was a great combat knife, and survival tool. Wight matters in special operations, and that tool was useful.
Saber was not that useful a weapon after 1840. It had some utility. It was also not that useful as a tool.
But the decision to go with a nonrepeating rifle created a window where the weapon had some utility.
The real answer was a repeating carbine with 7-20 rounds and a pistol with a magazine.
Navy Development Group has been using hatchets for 15 years, as a door opening device. Combat being a weird thing, a SEAL killed a bad guy with his axe. SO the last few days have seen a media frenzy on Seals killing bad guys with hatchets.
Get real. Any special operator willk ill bad guys using the following systems. Cruise missile, airplane, helicopter, long gun, short gun. Any close combat weapon is an ohhhh crap.
MSG Tony Pryor killed a bad gut with his hands, a neck break jujitsu move. Why did he have to do that? He was 1st man in a 4 man stack. He entered a room of known bad guys, who were shooting at support elements outside the compound. The problem is a single bad guy opened fire on his element deeper in the compound. So his stack did not follow him into the room.
Desperate struggle silver stars and bronze stars.
But the senior enlisted sergeant of the raid should NEVER have been a number one in a stack.
And he should have fired the number two. I was part of a board that removed this clown from promotion to SGM, for subsequent behavior.
The saber was useless as a weapon system to fight and win the nation's wars. Its role was as a 3rd weapon to try to overcome poor tactical decisions of the leaders.
At the individual level, the weapon has use in your final seconds of life. At the company and above level, if your soldiers need the saber, you lost. The decisions leaders made doomed their men, regardless of individual skill, training, and weapons.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 9, 2015 19:12:54 GMT -6
I partially disagree. The decisions leaders made did doom their men, but not regardless of training, skill and weapons.
The lack of training, crummy weapons when better were available, and battlefield demonstrated lack of skill and field craft was a contributing factor. Even poor leaders base their poor decisions on what they think their units are capable of. The problem as I see it is that these leaders, not all, but most, had not conducted and/or supervised training to a point where they knew and understood capability levels.
Poor decision making has several fathers, not just stupid decisions made rashly and recklessly by nincompoops.
|
|