|
Post by noggy on Feb 15, 2018 6:40:08 GMT -6
Hello, hello. Found no better place to post this question, and if debated before; please just link me in the right direction.
The whole "volleys were a signal for help" thing is often mentioned when the LBH is discussed. Bread and butter for the Cornuts. I don`t buy this at all, for more reasons than are needed to expand on right now.
I know little to nothing at all about the US Army pre-CW (minus battles/wars with tribes), and as for the CW my knowledge is at best basic about the war itself, largest battles and famous individuals. Tactical issues, Army structure and so on? Nothing. But I do believe I have read of instances during the CW where volley fire was used as a signal. Now of course this was was pre-planned, which it wasn`t at LBH (otherwise it wouldn`t have been a topic). But how common was this in the field in general? Do we know of any instances during the Indian Wars where volley fire was used as a "come to our aid, you bastards!"?
Thank you in advance, Noggy
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 15, 2018 8:49:17 GMT -6
Noggy, there is discussion of volley fire in the RCOI, roughly pages 175-200, I don't recall precisely. When the soldiers are engaged in a given action, initial firing may sound like an intentional volley. If your enemy is coming at you in waves you tend to fire heavier at the beginning of each wave. Take that little bit for what is worth.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Feb 16, 2018 2:50:26 GMT -6
Noggy, there is discussion of volley fire in the RCOI, roughly pages 175-200, I don't recall precisely. When the soldiers are engaged in a given action, initial firing may sound like an intentional volley. If your enemy is coming at you in waves you tend to fire heavier at the beginning of each wave. Take that little bit for what is worth. Regards, Tom Hello Tom Never read the entire RCOI, but managed to find aht I believe to be the whole thing online. Will give it a read. Cheers Noggy
|
|
|
Post by pequod on Feb 16, 2018 13:02:33 GMT -6
Noggy,
While reading the RCOI, always keep in mine the officers circling the war wagons to protect the reputation of the 7th Cavalry. Is there anything wrong with that? Only if one is looking for what really happened on June 25-26, 1876, and doesn't care if the testimony is biased in favor of distortion.
Regards,
Robb
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 17, 2018 8:50:37 GMT -6
Noggy, While reading the RCOI, always keep in mine the officers circling the war wagons to protect the reputation of the 7th Cavalry. Is there anything wrong with that? Only if one is looking for what really happened on June 25-26, 1876, and doesn't care if the testimony is biased in favor of distortion. Regards, Robb Robb You can "keep in mine" but wouldn't it be better to keep in mind? Since I already has conceded that you win an A+ in grammar and spelling do I need to change it to an A? As nouns the difference between mind and mine is that mind is the ability for rational thought while mine is an excavation from which ore or solid minerals are taken, especially one consisting of underground tunnels or mine can be . As verbs the difference between mind and mine is that mind is (now|regional) to remember while mine is (ambitransitive) to remove (ore) from the ground. As a pronoun mine is my; belonging to me; that which belongs to me. Regards Steve
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 17, 2018 9:15:34 GMT -6
Now that is funny!
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by pequod on Feb 17, 2018 9:39:38 GMT -6
Gentlemen, Re: mine
Really..? ..read it again ...out loud... You're not as obtuse as even you evidence, or are you?
Robb
It's correct...
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 17, 2018 10:00:03 GMT -6
A modifier or maybe mudderfutter preceding a noun?
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 17, 2018 10:14:18 GMT -6
Nice try Robb maybe you can "keep it in mine" the next time you comment on someone's post.
|
|
|
Post by pequod on Feb 17, 2018 12:25:23 GMT -6
AZ,
(...possess.pron. referring to a thing or things belonging to or associated with the speaker...) I would ask you to be patient when you read a passage that is unfamiliar to you and is expressed in idiomatic English. If that is too convoluted for you, you might try silence...!
Robb
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Feb 17, 2018 16:03:10 GMT -6
The use of volley fire as a distress signal is a myth. It was never used as such in any era, by any army, ever.
1. Problem of signal. The enemy can have a surge of combat activity that produces the sound effect of a volley. Remember, the sound of a volley just means an increase in sound. And the tactical use of volley fire is based on smooth bore muskets, which were obsolete. Even friendly forces can create a volley like signal, when an enemy element exposes itself for a moment.
2. Orders. Signals in combat are not random chance. They are included in the operations order. Paragraph 5 for anyone trained in NATO. The fact that no officer at LBH stated the existence of volley as a signal, means it did not exist.
Volleys were not used in this era tactically or for tactical communications. There were thousands of combat actions in this era. Not a single one supports this lunatic theory.
I just had to reinsure my library. 6000 books, and Robb claims he is a super genius because he has 700. Fool, issue is not owning books, it is understanding them. Please leave this board, you waste our time here, clown.
|
|
|
Post by pequod on Feb 17, 2018 16:56:58 GMT -6
montrose,
As for being a clown, montrose, you have no trouble understanding what constitutes being a clown is all about. Your clownish reputation here is on display for all to see at any time of the day or night. In those 6000 books, there may even be one that you understand, the one that includes crayons for your artistic expression.
Cheers,
Robb
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Feb 17, 2018 19:14:10 GMT -6
Noggy, While reading the RCOI, always keep in mine the officers circling the war wagons to protect the reputation of the 7th Cavalry. Is there anything wrong with that? Only if one is looking for what really happened on June 25-26, 1876, and doesn't care if the testimony is biased in favor of distortion. Regards, Robb First of all; None of the other replies to my thread have showed up. Very strange. I see others have posted, so hm.. Robb: True, but how would GAC look compared to say Reynold?
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Feb 17, 2018 19:34:03 GMT -6
The use of volley fire as a distress signal is a myth. It was never used as such in any era, by any army, ever. 1. Problem of signal. The enemy can have a surge of combat activity that produces the sound effect of a volley. Remember, the sound of a volley just means an increase in sound. And the tactical use of volley fire is based on smooth bore muskets, which were obsolete. Even friendly forces can create a volley like signal, when an enemy element exposes itself for a moment. 2. Orders. Signals in combat are not random chance. They are included in the operations order. Paragraph 5 for anyone trained in NATO. The fact that no officer at LBH stated the existence of volley as a signal, means it did not exist. Volleys were not used in this era tactically or for tactical communications. There were thousands of combat actions in this era. Not a single one supports this lunatic theory. I just had to reinsure my library. 6000 books, and Robb claims he is a super genius because he has 700. Fool, issue is not owning books, it is understanding them. Please leave this board, you waste our time here, clown. Montrose; May be an error, but this never showed in my Notifications. Like I wrote, and after checking it was from the other board, that`s supposedly at one point been a thing. In a war where volley fire was the way of fighting, it seems strange. To me, it is a weird way to communicate in any given day. It is actually mentioned in an old Norwegian Infantry manual from before the Napoleonic Wars, but as useless due to our Infantry being supposed to fight in wood and such. Hardly more suseable on the praerie? In lack of ammo a couple of volleys being a SOS without everyone being onboard about it seems strange. And btw, I am so sorry, I have had some beers. My spelling and such will have suffered. Geir
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 18, 2018 6:56:30 GMT -6
Noggy, I read your post, went and got two beer's, consumed them and there were no issues. However it is a bit early to partake. Even with out the beer your basis works.
Regards, Tom
|
|