|
Post by El Crab on Nov 11, 2005 23:42:37 GMT -6
Crab continues to amuse. He owns a WW2 weapon and once picked up other weapons and a saber. Dear Crab you must understand attaining the level of a manual (the book) display of competence is not the same. Also, running through the manual is not comparable to a zen master of Kendo. Nor is owning a WW2 weapon stored in your closet comparable to those of us who fire a minimum of 500 rounds high power, at varying ranges each year. Huh, 500 rounds fired is the necessary amount to be proficient? Did you read that somewhere? I'm not a bad shot with that .303 British I have. But the kick on it is a bit much, so I don't shoot it as often as I'd like. But last year, I shot at least 100 rounds with it. But not the 500 a year to attain proficiency, unfortunately. I'm a pretty handy shot with an FN-FAL and AR-15 as well. But I'm not proficient with those, either, as I've not fired the 500 rounds necessary. If only I had the Shooting Proficiency Statutes available for perusal... I just find it funny when people decide who is qualified to discuss topics. Well, not people, trolls.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Nov 12, 2005 11:41:01 GMT -6
Well, if a saber had been used, it would have been mainly used by foot soldiers as the majority of GAC's men were dismounted. Without spending any extra brain cells on this, the only two instances <edit> in which <close edit> the saber may have made a difference upon the battle and its outcome rely upon "what ifs." What if #1 is that Reno had pressed his charge upon the village. The saber would have obviously been of use then. What if #2 is if there had been a serious attempt to cross at Medicine Tail Coulee, then I believe it would have been more useful as a psychological weapon against the defenders of the ford than as an actual weapon. As far as the dismounted troops carrying them to use when their weapons were empty, well, the Indians had more arrows than they knew what to do with and at last glance, the bow and arrow has greater range than a saber. But then, what do I know, as per our resident troll, I am not a proficient swordsman. Bye Paulie Billy
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Nov 12, 2005 13:21:28 GMT -6
I’m sure he’s the one that attacked Jeff Broome so badly not too long ago. Cross was not the one who attacked Broome.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Nov 12, 2005 14:10:02 GMT -6
All--
I can understand everyone's concern regarding problem posters; and yes, some of us have a right to be quite angry at anyone who takes pot shots--whether it be at our fascination with the subject matter or more frighteningly, our characters. But I caution everybody to stop making threads about specific posters; let's leave that pleasure to the forums that are based upon abuse--and there are a few of them that accept this kind of childish behaviour. Ignore these idiots--we'll all be a lot happier.
On a personal note, I am friends with Paul Cross. Whatever problems he caused at whoever's forum, in real life he has been not only decent to me, but to my immediate family. Remember that not all of us are our board personalities ... those can often be interpreted to be anything that they're not.
This will be my only post regarding posters. From here on in, let's discuss the issues.
Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by markland on Nov 12, 2005 19:31:08 GMT -6
Please read the IM I sent you.
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Nov 14, 2005 6:27:16 GMT -6
Billy:
Sabers would have been more of a psychological impact if the Cavalry was brandishing them during a mounted attack. I doubt if Indians would stand around waiting to have the heads or arms cut off, but would have backed of. That does not mean, however, that the Indians would not have fired arrows or weapons at mounted troopers.
Sabers were far more of a symbol than anything else and were quickly shelved at the start of the CW for being almost useless in the "new" type of combat: long range firing and or heavy artillery.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Nov 14, 2005 9:58:19 GMT -6
Yet, oddly enough, the "shelved" saber was Custer's go-to weapon.
And yes, Indians weren't a fan of the "long knives". They definitely were a shock weapon, but the actions at LBH really would not have put them in play, other than on the Reno Retreat.
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Nov 25, 2005 18:51:40 GMT -6
Sorry about coming to this thread late.
The effectiveness of the sabre (and the bayonet) was a matter of much debate in the US Army after the introduction of self-primed metalic catridge firearms. The best summary of contemporary thought is in the paper titled "The Sabre and Bayonet Question." presented by 2nd Lt. John Bigelow, jr., 10th US Cavalry, to the United States Military Service Institute at West Point on Thursday, Sept. 15, 1881, and published in their Journal, vol. III, 1882, pp. 65-96.
The final paragraph reads:
"As for the sabre, if it is abolished for any good reason in our country, it will be, the writer humbly believes, because we can not perfect the American soldier in the use of it; or, because we can not instruct our men to ride and maneuver at a fast gait; or, because a firearm has been invented that will shoot straight without being aimed straight."
The cavalry sabre is a shock weapon that is most effective used point first in a charge. To get this effect, the trooper and his horse must be trained to maneuver at a rapid gait towards the enemy while the trooper extends his body and arm along the right side of the horse's neck. As anyone who rides knows, this is not a natural riding position for either the rider or the horse. They still teach this as a sport at West Point using the system developed by George S. Patton when he taught at the Mounted Services School at Ft. Riley, but most people have never seen a proper sabre charge. You certainly have never seen one in the movies.
I think Custer left the sabres at home for two reasons. First, there were too many green men in the regiment who would not have known how to use their weapon.
Second, he didn't expect conditions favorable to a sabre charge. A charge in line implies a compact target like a line of enemy infantry or cavalry. It is of little use against a dispersed enemy. As a matter of fact, forming line against a dispersed enemy makes you a bigger target for their fire weapons. The sabre *can* be used against a dispersed enemy, but then the combat resolves into a series of individual duels, sort of like fighterplane dog fights. That is an extremely dangerous way to fight if there are 500 of you and 1,500 or more of the enemy. Especially if the enemy are known to be superb horsemen who prefer hand-to-hand combat.
One last point is that the sabre is an offensive weapon. It is not possible to use it to protect your back when you are riding away from the enemy.
Custer made the right decision to leave the sabres and the Gatlings at home; neither would have made any difference in the outcome of the battle.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Nov 25, 2005 22:53:27 GMT -6
Paul, exellent post. FYI, and I will dig out the source material later in some moment of weakness, i.e. housecleaning; but the controversy about the use of the saber was still ongoing in the Cavalry Journal in the early 1880's. Best of wishes, Billy P.S. To find out the complexities of using a saber, go to this URL and read Col. Cooke's 1862 Cavalry Regulations: www.usregulars.com/library.htmand read about the proper way to use a saber. The SOB knew how to do everything but get modern weapons and reinforcements to Ft. Philip Kearny...much to Fetterman's displeasure.
|
|
|
Post by Saugus Zouave on Nov 26, 2005 0:32:30 GMT -6
Paul, exellent post. FYI, and I will dig out the source material later in some moment of weakness, i.e. housecleaning; but the controversy about the use of the saber was still ongoing in the Cavalry Journal in the early 1880's. Best of wishes, Billy P.S. To find out the complexities of using a saber, go to this URL and read Col. Cooke's 1862 Cavalry Regulations: www.usregulars.com/library.htmand read about the proper way to use a saber. The SOB knew how to do everything but get modern weapons and reinforcements to Ft. Philip Kearny...much to Fetterman's displeasure. Thank you, Bill. I'm quite familiar with most of the 19th-century sabre drills. I have a large personal library of original manuals (including French, Prussian, British and Russian manuals) and I've taught combat sabre fencing off and on for a number of years. I'm pretty good with a bayonet too. By the way, for anyone out there whose tried using the Indian-made reproductions, don't be misled into thinking they are anything like the originals in weight or balance. You have to try an original to understand what correct weight and balance feel like. The modern repros are like trying to fence with a boat anchor. The Light Cavalry Sabre Model of 1872 is a beautifully balanced, light, fast weapon. However, on campaign it's just another couple of pounds for your horse to carry. Every pound of extra equipment you carry means one less pound of food or ammunition. A spent horse means death to a cavalry trooper. Folks who want to get a feel for what real sabre fencing feels like (as opposed to modern sport fencing) should try the new 19th-century practice sabres being made in China by Paul Chen for Hanwei available from CAS Iberia. The Hutton model is very nice, right down to the repro sharkskin on the gripe. They are British in style, but very close to originals I've seen that were made and sold in the US. A friend of mine just picked up a pair of original 19th-century practice sabres like them that are stamped "St. Louis" on the blades. Undertand that these are not GI weapons, they are what would have been used by gentlemen (read officers) for serious fencing instruction. Cheers, Paul
|
|
|
Post by Saugus Zouave on Nov 26, 2005 8:10:34 GMT -6
It occurres to me that a reference to Hutton might be misleading to this group. The sabres are patterned after those used by Alfred Hutton in England in the 19th century -- nothing to do with the modern author Paul Hutton.
Cheers,
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Saugus Zouave on Nov 26, 2005 14:14:33 GMT -6
One other thing I remembered while I was thinking about sabres is that Custer actually wrote an endorsement for a fencing manual.
In Matthew J. O'Rourke's A New System of Sword Exercise, with a Manual of the Sword for Officers, Mounted and Dismounted (New York: George R. Lockwood, 1873) he wrote, "I most heartily commend him to the favorable consideration of the War Department, sincerely hoping that some action may be had by which this system of Sword Exercise may be introduced into the permanent organization of the army."
It was common practice at the time for authors to send copies of their works around to famous people and publish the endorsements they received in the book. I have no idea whether Custer was compensated for this.
Cheers,
Paul
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Nov 27, 2005 6:39:04 GMT -6
Paul,
Thanks for this terrific information. What you say about the weight and balance of original sabres is illuminating.
Coincidentally, on British TV this week, the documentary series 'The Queen's Cavalry' gave an excellent visual demonstration of the cavalry sabre at work. They were showing the techniques in force at the time of Waterloo (not strictly comparable, obviously) but the power, lethal nature, and manouevrability of the weapon were very clear. And its moral force. Terrifying.
The series tracks a bunch of green recruits to the Household Cavalry from their first day to passing out. In just 14 weeks' training, they'd gone from never having sat a horse before to being able to go over jumps without reins and with arms crossed ... and to being pretty proficient at sabre drill, too. Admittedly, it was a fairly intensive 14 weeks, and under skilled instructors; but it's hard to believe that the 7th Cavalry couldn't have achieved similar results if the will was there? (Though it's sobering to find that Lt. Van Wyck Reilly, on the march to LBH and with men under his command, is still in the early stages of learning to ride!)
Interesting, that endorsement. If Custer didn't get paid for it, is it possible he was still dropping hints about the Instructor's job at West Point? One gathers he was pretty annoyed when Emory Upton got it instead ...
|
|
|
Post by Legal One on Nov 28, 2005 11:06:47 GMT -6
In reading over the sabers question I found a poster who was busy trying to threaten some other poster in regards to another board? This posting seems quite strange and filled with misinformation. 1. In 1996 the government passed the communications decency act, which provides those supplying on-line computer services are not liable for information posted by their users. Individuals can be sued for some outrageous libels. It is a developing area of the law. I refer readers to lexus nexus quotes at www.lawyers.com, on line libel. 2. A substantial damage or loss must be clearly shown in a libel action. 3. The Doctrine of "Clean Hands" applies in equity courts. You cannot sue someone for calling you names if you have called them much worse or threatened to attack them .physically. Truth is a perfect defense to libel. 4. Slander and libel are not interchangeable. One is spoken, the other is written. Opinions stated as such, which do not greatly demean, greatly ridicule or hold a person up to public disgrace are generally protected speech. This is particularly true if the party of the first part initially broached the subject under discussion. 5. Persons who try to constantly threaten others or blacken others names are hardly an asset to any message board. I enjoy most of the postings, although I detect a certain PC throughout many threads.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Nov 28, 2005 21:43:15 GMT -6
Thank you for the information, Legal One. I hope you will register and join us more often.
We have people from five continents participating on the boards, a fact that pleases me very much. I'm not sure that I agree we have a "PC" attitude. Most of our boarders are quite opinionated, but I think we have a nice balance. We have a few over the edge on both sides, but most are willing to consider others' opinions.
|
|