|
Post by Beth on Jun 9, 2015 19:21:22 GMT -6
First I apologize for saying the word saber again. I've been spending the afternoon evening following some leads about them and I suspect in 1876 they were about as useful as tits on a bull--except perhaps for killing snakes. I suspect that even if every man on the battlefield had been armed and trained with something like a trench knife it wouldn't have made a lot of difference in June, 1876--other than give the NA a bunch of really good knives. I find it interesting that the NA called the cavalry "Long Knives" so even if the saber wasn't used, they at least impressed by them. Perhaps they were looked on as a prize for the taking.
A couple questions though and perhaps someone here has the answers, when they left FAL did everyone have a saber or was it strictly an officer's weapon. Did they have purchase their sabers or would it be something like standard issue.
Is there a thread or a place for finding the information about what each enlisted man was issued? What he was expected to provide.
Beth
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 9, 2015 19:42:21 GMT -6
Best source I know of for cavalry equipage are several volumes by a fellow named Randy Stephan, now deceased I believe, that covered the whole era of horse cavalry in the United States. They were horrendously expensive back in the 1980's and I passed, but they are quite well researched from what I can tell.
Another source would be the United States Army Cavalry Museum at Fort Riley, Kansas. They have an unsurpassed collection and the people there are among the most helpful you will ever run into. They cover the era from the beginning until the end of the Cavalry Branch. They taper off in both knowledge and collection from the period of dismounting through the short lived cavalry groups of WWII, but pucker through till the end in 1949. The Patton museum at Knox has a little cavalry, but picks up in the 1930's with the rise of mechanization onward to the present day. I have heard there is going to be another Armor Museum at Benning in conjunction with the Armor School portion of the Maneuver Center. I know no details, and don't think it is off the ground yet.
The one source live an in person who knew more about cavalry than any soul living in the United States was Mary Lee Stubbs, unfortunately living is the operative word and she is not. What papers she left behind are probably at the Center for Military History, although I don't know that. All my contacts are retired or dead.
As a sidebar, there was a railcars worth of U S Army sabers that reached New Zealand, by error I suppose, and it turned out that when cut down a lot and retooled a little they made dandy machetes for the Marines on Guadalcanal. So if there was jungle in Montana, Custer screwed up big time.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jun 9, 2015 19:45:15 GMT -6
I guess the question is whether the Indians were willing to ride up close enough that a saber would work as a defensive weapon. I am guessing they were and that they pulled troopers out of their saddles. At some point the revolvers emptied and it turned into hand to hand battle. I guess they could swing their carbine to block on one side of their body.
A private described the beginning as somewhat orderly with the troopers in front of him extending their right arm and firing their revolver. As the speed increased he dropped his revolver as he reached for his saddle to remain mounted.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 9, 2015 19:53:00 GMT -6
Looking at it from yet another perspective if you need a saber for self defense in such a situation you are already SOL.
The carbine was the prime offensive and defensive weapon, regardless of how inadequate it was, and that is another complete issue. When you drew either pistol or saber in Indian warfare, you were already out of your depth and the cavalry you served with were in for one of those less that desirable days.
Take this out of the cavalry environment for a moment. Are there any of you that would suggest that Infantry put down their rifle, in favor of drawing a pistil and assaulting a band of anything (does not matter) that out numbers them eight to one even though that band is armed with some good and some not so good weapons. No I did not think so.
Now if anyone says shock action and effect I will ask you to define same. Can you?
Horse cavalry was the most traditional branch of the Army. They hung onto it like a poor man hangs onto his last loaf of bread. It was obsolescent by 1900. It was completely obsolete by 1918. Yet it persisted. Even the Field Artillery had for the most part gotten rid of animal transport by 1937. Only the pack artillery retained them, and they were special mission/situation folks.
In 1941 two weeks before Pearl Harbor we had 15 regiments active that were or had been horse cavalry in the very recent past. Two of those, the 1st and 13th Cavalry had become mechanized in 1933, and lost any association with the cavalry branch when they became the 1st and 13th Armored Regiments. The 4th and 6th Cavalry were partially mechanized and partially horse mounted. The 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th 14th, and 26th were still horse mounted very little changed from when they were first organized. Of those, one was destroyed, two remained mounted slightly into 1944, and the rest were either dismounted and partially organized as Infantry or became the basis upon which mechanized cavalry groups were created.
I brought up Deathbolts earlier, attempting to show that there were some who well knew that it was a branch without an adequate for the time mount or weaponry, and would soon be a branch without a mission.
Imagine an Army branch run by horse fanatics. One even remarked how can you play polo mounted on a tank. Concubines the lot of them, off with their giggling heads. They got so caught up in their traditions the world passed them by, and that is what was happening in 1876 as well.
I don't think you would ever hear Andy remark that we should retain Spad 13's and Nieuport 28's in the inventory because that's the way we started in the business.
|
|
|
Post by mac on Jun 10, 2015 4:42:44 GMT -6
I will move away from sabers (although I do have a machete..wonder where that is..I remember when I was allowed to take it on an airplane..anyway). The Reno breakout. In using vocabulary I see the term retrograde which is a modern term but if we look further it contains the breakout manouver within it. The first part of a breakout is an offensive move. Reno said he charged and surely this is the offensive start of a breakout. My first point here is we can (should) use modern terminology but we must use terms in a militarily correct way and analyse their meanings fully. The next part of a breakout is to break contact. Did Reno achieve this or was he reinforced by Benteen before he completed a breakout? I know he put the river between himself and the bulk of the enemy but does this constitute breaking contact or was it a momentary respite had Benteen not arrived? Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jun 10, 2015 6:34:38 GMT -6
Beth have a look through this link, it covers a lot of data about the US military through the ages (well the last 200+ years) It is safe to open and download; linkConcerning horse and sabre, this US soldier thought that his horse was too light for the job and his sabre was inadequate, so he used his initiative;
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jun 10, 2015 6:50:02 GMT -6
Good question Mac, I would have thought that the Indians would have carried on killing, just because a river got in the way it wouldn’t stop their momentum, they would have harried them all the way because their mounts were fresh and their enemy showed them their backs which would give the pursuer the advantage.
So we have three reasons for them to stop their chase, the first is the river which really should have aided them as the cavalry would have slowed down to cross, second more soldiers approaching (Custer) but how would these warriors know about this? And third the arrival of Benteen, would Benteen and his strung out column of around 115+ men be enough to force the Indians to stop? Some of these Indians would have fought against Crook and they were not fazed by the amount of men he had.
But there again it could be a combination of all three.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jun 10, 2015 7:56:37 GMT -6
Looking at it from yet another perspective if you need a saber for self defense in such a situation you are already SOL.
The carbine was the prime offensive and defensive weapon, regardless of how inadequate it was, and that is another complete issue. When you drew either pistol or saber in Indian warfare, you were already out of your depth and the cavalry you served with were in for one of those less that desirable days.
Take this out of the cavalry environment for a moment. Are there any of you that would suggest that Infantry put down their rifle, in favor of drawing a pistil and assaulting a band of anything (does not matter) that out numbers them eight to one even though that band is armed with some good and some not so good weapons. No I did not think so.
Chuck Isn't part of battle anticipating being in SOL situations and knowing what to do and the equipment to do it the job. I still have a Kabar but in order to use it you have to be in close quarters. I think Ryan stating that Custer would not fight them mounted is the clue to why CQB wasn't anticipated and no need for saber. To bad since they probably some close quarter fighting. Did they train for hand to hand and knife use?
It's a hard way to learn if your first experience was at LBH.
Funny you say that since I put down my boot camp wood stock 7.62 M14 rifle and was given a M16A1 There are M-4 carbines in use now. I like the ARs now but when fixing a bayonet in training it didn't seem the same. Some of that training never goes away. A few years ago I had to shoot an elk behind the DPS yard. My supervisor told me she was unable to get up so I moved to close quarters. She jumped up and raised up and attempted to strike with her front legs. I used the 870 shotgun as I was taught and deflected the blows. I heard my supervisor say something like OMG. I thank the Marine Corps for that training even if it was 40 years after the training.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by dave on Jun 10, 2015 9:03:11 GMT -6
QC Your post regarding the demise of the cavalry made me think of Bill Mauldin's famous WW II "guy shooting his jeep" cartoon. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 10, 2015 9:06:48 GMT -6
Mac: Contact was not broken by Reno. Reno was still in contact when Benteen arrived. Like I said above, had it not been for the arrival of Benteen, all Reno would have accomplished was a change of venue for his own destruction. Those Indians saw Benteen coming up, and cleared off shortly after. They could have destroyed or very badly damaged Benteen as well but they had no idea of what was coming up behind Benteen. They cleared off broke contact, and watched. This goes back to this high ground in the south of the valley issue, the use of deception as a weapon. Always make them think you are in great strength or will be shortly.
Truth of the matter Steve is that I don't think we will ever know about the saber issue. Did Custer feel the saber obsolete on the then modern battlefield, or was Ryan correct, and lack of saber training was the deciding issue? It may have been both. We spend an awful lot of time on a ten minute issue I think, and you could say the same thing about the Gatling Guns, or Field Artillery, or not having Infantry, having no concept of the combined arms team. Good God the man, a regimental commander, had to borrow field glasses.
Some things you never forget, and I will say this emphatically, not including bayonet training during basic training, along with periodic refresher training on the blade is a big time mistake. It is not the bayonet. It is what the training itself does for the individual soldier or Marine, building confidence in self.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 10, 2015 9:36:17 GMT -6
Yes Dave it does, and I have smiled over that same cartoon more than once.
I am sure many here are familiar with the end of the horse cavalry era. There are a few things that I will bet that most don't know however:
The cavalry in 1941 was a branch without a mission due to the insistence of people like John Herr that cavalry was the horse, not the battlefield function.
The Armored Force was not created by legislation, as all branches in the Army are created. It was created by order of George Marshall. Each armored division had a reconnaissance battalion (so designated, and not called cavalry although that is the function, reconnaissance, they served). The Armored Force wanted no part of the horsecrap army, although most of them had come from the cavalry.
By mid 1942, all of the existing cavalry regiments were destined to be converted to armored unit. The two cavalry divisions had armored division numbers reserved for the 15 and 17 in the mobilization plan and they would probably have been converted by mid 1943. When you look at the lineages of four regiments 2nd, 3rd,11th, and 14th you will not detect anything out of the ordinary, just an entry redesignated 2nd Cavalry Group such and such a date. In actuality these regiments were all designated as armored regiments, using the same personnel in mid 1942. They were intended to continue the history of the former cavalry regiment. In an act of complete desperation to save branch, the cavalry school took the armored reconnaissance tables of organization, and said we can do this so let us mechanize. So the lineages of those four regiments were changed, the 2nd, 3rd,11th, and 14th Armored Regiments were designated new (not having before existed) units, and the four cavalry regiments were in fact reactivated with all new personnel. The United States Cavalry came that close to cutting their own juggler rather than change. There is a aftermath of these long paragraphs in the next, and last.
The Armored force was created as an experiment. That could not be retained in peacetime and it required legislation. SO the cavalry branch was offered the post war opportunity to become a modern armored force, keeping the names and traditions of the cavalry, continuing the cavalry branch name, keeping Fort Riley as the ancestral home, all the cavalry neatshit. and they said NO, not without including the horse. There were plans, I have seen them, existing as late as 1955 to take the 1st Cavalry Division and remount it on horses.
The end result instead of having a modern thriving Cavalry Branch carrying on fine traditions into the next century and beyond, cavalry became a subset dedicated only to reconnaissance in the U S Army, and they did it to themselves.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 10, 2015 10:19:47 GMT -6
Some may not see the relevance of these last few posts of mine. Nice history, but what's your point.
The point is both relevant and parallel to the whole discussion of actions or lack of action in times of change and transition. The 1876 army and the 1941 army were similar in many ways. In 76 it was the increase of firepower, rapidity, and accuracy that brought the use of current TTP into question. Some adapted, some hedged their bets, some refused change, but with all three that did not stop or even impede change that was upon them. Change is an inevitability of human kind.
In 1941 it was the mount that changed, and again you had all three types trying to deal with it. The difference was this time the refusers took a long leap off the bridge of their own destruction, and deservedly so.
My branch insignia is crossed muskets (flintlocks and don't you dare say rifles). We have not used muskets in some time (at least since the day before yesterday). They are a nice, and meaningful addition to the uniform, taking us back to our roots with a symbol of the past. The difference here is that I would bet the rent money that there is someone out there at Harmony Church this very moment that think the saber is still a nice to have. That friends is cavalry mindset, all you need to know.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Jun 10, 2015 10:24:06 GMT -6
Roger,
But I can neither agree or disagree, since I see no argument being made.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 10, 2015 10:29:31 GMT -6
Neither can I, and it was only intended to say that bad decision making is directly related to training, weapons, and skill, and not just a terminal case of boneheadism on the part of the commander. More to reinforce that refute, thus the word partial.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 10, 2015 14:26:49 GMT -6
Beth have a look through this link, it covers a lot of data about the US military through the ages (well the last 200+ years) It is safe to open and download; linkConcerning horse and sabre, this US soldier thought that his horse was too light for the job and his sabre was inadequate, so he used his initiative; Thanks that link should be helpeful. LOVE the pic!
|
|