|
Post by tubman13 on Jul 12, 2015 14:39:58 GMT -6
A question, was there a book on how scouting should be performed in 1876? Also, is there a book today? Infantry, SF, Force Recon, U.S., U.K., what is out there? I know even USAF, teaches techniques at Eglin. What distance should scouts have been thrown out on a campaign such as the one Custer was conducting? There is much good stuff out there, but nothing about proscribed methods.
One interesting article:
Indian scouts helped end the Indian wars by Delbert Trew Delbert Trew
America's tendency to become involved in seemingly endless wars dates back to 1866, just after the Civil War ended. The absence of a military presence on the western frontiers had allowed the Indian tribes to wreak havoc on settlers and travelers while raiding at will across the country.
Immediately after the Civil War ended, military units were dispatched west to quell the attacks. In 1866, an estimated 270,000 Indians, parts of 125 distinct groups, roamed within the U.S. boundaries. This was the start of a war fought mostly in the southwest, in which more than 1,000 engagements were fought over a 30-year period.
During this time, recorded and verified white casualties both civilian and military, numbered 2,571. Reports of these same engagements estimate 5,519 hostile Indians were killed. This is according to The Historical Atlas of the American West published by The University of Oklahoma Press.
Many reasons can be argued for this extended 30-year struggle. The one obvious reason was neither the white nor the Indian sides made any effort to understand each other's cultures or settle their differences. Each was determined to dominate the other.
Military forces of the time were trained to fight in the conventional Old World traditions. The Indians knew nothing of these tactics and fought a determined guerrilla war. Using their intimate knowledge of the terrain and living off the land as they fought, they left the military struggling to catch up while suffering from lack of supplies and relief caused by the political budgetary process. Doesn't this all sound somewhat familiar today?
A little-known fact, brought about by General George Crook, occurred when the U.S. Congress passed an act allowing the military to hire native Indians as scouts, not to exceed 1,000 in number, to guide and aid the Army in locating hostile groups. The reason for the need of the act as stated by General Crook, "When we use Indian scouts we find hostiles. When we don't use Indian scouts we don't find hostiles."
Obviously, the Indian scouts knew the terrain and the antagonist's thinking. Knowing the culture and being able to live off the land while scouting made them invaluable to the military.
Why did some of the Indian scouts turn against their contemporaries? The many tribes had warred against each other for centuries and this was a form of revenge. Others needed the job and money to send back to their families already living on reservations. A psychological side benefit, not realized at first, was the fact the scouts turning against the hostiles, was demoralizing to the hunted.
After the first few very successful engagements using scouts, hundreds of hostile groups surrendered and were sent to the reservations. Only a few renegade, hard-core bands continued to fight. Within a few months all Indian groups were subdued.
Few military records recognize the success of using Indian scouts because of racism and corruption among officers and Indian agents. However, enough records survived to leave no doubt the use of Indian scouts helped end a long and costly war.
© Delbert Trew
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jul 12, 2015 14:52:24 GMT -6
More interesting info in this link, but does not help regarding scouting. The Army's statement under 316 is particularly telling, regarding the LBH. Hope any who wish to read, enjoy. www.history.army.mil/books/AMH/AMH-14.htm
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jul 12, 2015 15:00:17 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 12, 2015 16:13:12 GMT -6
Tom: Field Manual 21-75 Combat Skills of the Soldier, which at one time was called Scouting And Patrolling. The Ranger Handbook published by the Infantry School, and my local PX usually has three or four privately written books on the subject, in their book section, and sometimes your will find them and a few more in the book section of the military clothing sales store. 21-75 is available on line and I suspect you will also find some study guides on 21-75 there as well.
One chocolate chip cookie.
Do you have any friends in the 820th Airbase Security Group, or through contacts. I am sure anything you would wish on scouting and patrolling would be available at Moody AFB
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jul 12, 2015 17:27:42 GMT -6
Thank you, as always.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jul 13, 2015 8:30:43 GMT -6
21-75 was good and current. I can't believe how much was in USAF manual. NBC First Aid and Observing, word for word.
Still looking for 1876, regarding how far out scouts should be. I am sure it varied by commander and situation.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 13, 2015 9:24:02 GMT -6
Tom: I think Caldwell's Small Wars Manual would probably be you best bet. It is a compendium of lessons learned from the 1890's through 1930 or so, and while it is a bit late as far as the period we are most concerned with, it is likely to answer a lot for you, because lessons are built upon one another, and small wars did not start in 1890.
It is available at Barnes and Noble and Amazon in paperback.
The book itself started from a collection of articles and reports in about 1920, and developed over the next twenty years until it became Caldwell's in 1940.
FM21-75 concentrates on the school of individual skills. For tactical doctrine you must go into the branch publications like the 7 and 17 series of FMs.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 13, 2015 11:23:17 GMT -6
Tom: Call me, I have a line on some more stuff for you much to lengthy for here.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Jul 13, 2015 11:47:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Jul 13, 2015 11:51:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jul 13, 2015 16:40:37 GMT -6
Tom,
1876 was all too ad hoc, not codified.
The scouts/guides were nowhere near far enough ahead.
And I am not being anti-US Army. Look how close in 1879 the Zulu Impi got to Isandlwana before Durnford's scout discovered it?
WO
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 13, 2015 17:04:53 GMT -6
The short answer to this is that there was no real codified doctrine as WO says in this era. Doctrine is the bridge between the military think piece such as Clausewitz or Sun Tzu and tactics.
In the specific question though regarding how far out a scout or reconnaissance force should be is - As far out as necessary to provide the commander with what he requires for his essential elements of information prior to battle being joined. If that distance is one mile than one mile is the correct distance. It that gathering of EEI requires that distance be thirty or more miles then 30 or more is the correct distance.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jul 13, 2015 17:15:47 GMT -6
The short answer to this is that there was no real codified doctrine as WO says in this era. Doctrine is the bridge between the military think piece such as Clausewitz or Sun Tzu and tactics. In the specific question though regarding how far out a scout or reconnaissance force should be is - As far out as necessary to provide the commander with what he requires for his essential elements of information prior to battle being joined. If that distance is one mile than one mile is the correct distance. It that gathering of EEI requires that distance be thirty or more miles then 30 or more is the correct distance. QC,
It certainly doesn't entail attacking blind like GAC on 25 June 1876...
WO
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 13, 2015 17:23:51 GMT -6
Very bad form indeed. Watching last Thursday nights Father Brown is no place to understand the game of Cricket either. Who could know that Lady Felicia could swing such a wicked bat. Of course I would not know a test match from a test tube.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 18:20:44 GMT -6
Very bad form indeed. Watching last Thursday nights Father Brown is no place to understand the game of Cricket either. Who could know that Lady Felicia could swing such a wicked bat. Of course I would not know a test match from a test tube. You should be very familiar with test tubes Queenie!!
|
|