|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 22, 2005 8:18:38 GMT -6
Has anybody ever gone hiking in the mountains and carry a backpack? In my younger days I carried 40 lbs. and climbed up to 6,000 ft. It took me about 6 hours in good weather.
I have also hiked easy and relatively flat trails with the same weight and have gone 15 miles in about 3-4 hours. I don't see a infantryman having any problems going the same distance at the same pace. I don't think they carried the weight Fred mentioned for his "hikes". Also pack animals carried their food and extra gear. The infantry man only carried what he needed, probably a blanket, rifle, canteen, etc. and no food.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 22, 2005 9:35:06 GMT -6
Elisabeth--
You are a pip!
Crzhrs--
The fact that the infantry accomplished the same marching as the cavalry during the first 13 days of the campaign is... well, is what? They both did it. And I'm sure you're correct about other "things" carrying some of their equipment; the wagons carried forage for the horses. My point is, no infantry alive could cover the ground Custer's cavalry covered on 30May76. The infantry that day stayed in camp. One more 10-12 mile hike & 2 more days were spent in camp (admittedly, it was during a blizzard, but stil...). Then a five-day burst consuming, what, 112 miles, then more days in camp, while Reno took 6 companies through the grind. The infantry kept up during the marching, but the burden was put more on the cavalry.
I just don't think infantry was suitable for fighting Indians, that's all. Certainly in certain situations, but their lack of mobility was probably more of a hindrance in most campaigns. They'd guard the wagons, the camps, the supplies, & if the situation was right, you could probably use them in certain attack/ fighting scenarios. To me, the infantry was more for guarding than for offensive operations in the west. The Civil War was one thing; Indians were another.
Merry Christmas, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 22, 2005 9:52:28 GMT -6
Fred:
Good point about infantry fighting Indians. It was the Cavalry that was mobile and quick being able to either keep Indians on the move or attack a village if they could find one. The problem with Cavalry was their horses, which unlike Indian ponies needed forage to survive. They were grain fed and could not survive on native grasses, so campaigns had to be planned for quick strikes and if they lasted longer than planned the horses broke down. Look what happened to Crooks Horse Meat March which almost resulted in the soldiers starving to death.
The infantry could get there but at a slower pace over the long haul, which favored the Indians who could outdistance them easily. Custer's command was for finding the Indians quickly and either attacking or forcing them to keep moving in hopes that they would run into Gibbons/Terry/Crook.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Dec 22, 2005 10:10:10 GMT -6
I guess infantry were good for delivering firepower? They could march with artillery without it slowing them down ...
Strange that the Army never set about a serious breeding programme to develop ideal cavalry mounts. Elizabeth Atwood Lawrence in "His Very Silence Speaks" quotes Luce as saying that they did try for a while, and concluded that a three-quarters American, one-quarter mustang horse was the best for cavalry service. You have to wonder if they mightn't have done better reversing those ratios, really.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 22, 2005 10:22:47 GMT -6
Elisabeth:
I guess the Cavalry wanted big, powerful horses that could carry the extra weight and be intimidating when fighting Indians. Maybe if they had used Indian ponies they could have moved much faster, had ponies that could survive off native grass and had endurance.
I suppose they probably thought anything having to do with Indians was ridiculous . . . point in case they failed to use the Indian travois to carry wounded men which would have made them far more comfortable than the litters the Army used.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Dec 22, 2005 10:53:41 GMT -6
True. And it seemed to take a long time to dawn on them that the tepee-shaped Sibley tent was much better for the Kansas winds than the standard rectangular article.
Col. Dodge tells a wonderful story about a scruffy little Indian pony -- so small and shaggy that he calls it "the sheep pony" -- that was raced against three Kentucky blue-bloods in succession, and beat them all. In the final race, the Indian rider was so contemptuous of the opposition that he rode facing backwards and making rude gestures! So SOME army officers got the point. He also says, though, that if you took a pure mustang into your horse-lines, it got fat and lazy and vile-tempered; the best solution was a cross.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 22, 2005 14:32:51 GMT -6
Crzhrs--
I did not know that about the army horses (that they couldn't survive off the native prairie or grasses). As you can tell, I'm a city-slicker. That's why they took forage w/ them. Well, that answer THAT question (it's amazing to me that these authors who write about the wagon train & the packs & the mules & horses & all this stuff, never mention something like that. Some of those guys should be reading these pages).
The so-called "hammer & anvil"-- which is apparently what Terry had in mind-- is about all I can think of (other than pre-planned ambushes) that you could use 1870s infantry for during the Indian wars. (Sorry for butchering that sentence.) And that stretegy makes sense, so I see their usefulness there.
Thanks. Merry Christmas, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 22, 2005 14:57:45 GMT -6
Terry's plan was good on paper. Three diverging commands from different directions hoping to trap the Indians in the middle.
The Sioux/Cheyenne, however, were far quicker to respond, regardless of the military having Indian allies and white/native scouts. They struck Crook before he knew what happened, they countered Custer's attack plan and became the hammer, and then scattered into smaller bands and roamed free for the rest of the summer, with the military having to come up with excuses why they had a miserable late winter-late summer failures.
It became obvious to the government/military that they did not have enough manpower to be successful and quickly added large numbers of the campaigns and kept the Indians on the move. After a small victory by the miliary at Slim Buttes, disaster struck Dull Knives' Cheyenne in November breaking the power of Northern Cheyenne and forcing them to seek settle with Crazy Horse. It was only the incessant hounding of the Indians throughout the winter that finally caused them to give in the following Spring.
In the end the Indians won most of the major battles--Rosebud and LBH while the military won only when they could find a village and attack at dawn.
Maybe Custer should have hounded the Indians rather than attack, forcing them to keep on the move and they would run into the other commands. In the end it was mostly the constant harassment and chasing by the military that forced the Indians on to reservations rather than battles.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Dec 22, 2005 20:34:49 GMT -6
Fred, AKA AK,
The cavalry were good for bursts but at what impact upon their future staying power?
My attesting to the fact that the infantry would outwalk the cavalry is based upon normal marches (whatever they were-I think 15-20 miles initially).
I will find that article this weekend...it is from a member of Crook's division.
Are there any "Pedro" signs still standing?
Billy
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 22, 2005 21:15:12 GMT -6
I don't know, Billy. Those horses did a pretty admirable job of it for 40 days, in what had to have been as tough a campaign as there was in the old west. The terrain, the weather, the distances, the struggling w/ the wagons for most of the time... . Custer took companies C, D, F, & M on his little 55-mile jaunt up the Little Missouri; Reno took B, C, E, F, I, & L on HIS recon. That meant that C & E didn't miss any of the fun, including the hoo-rah on the last day.
By the time they all hit the Powder River Camp on 7Jun76, the column had traveled some 287 1/2 miles. That doesn't count the Custer side-trip & it's before Reno's trek. I guess all I'm saying is that the horses did all that was asked of them; did it for 40 days; did it w/-- at times-- horrible grazing, dreadful water (I mean, even horses can't drink water w/ a high alkaline content, can they?), & all the while carrying 1 ea. 140 pound man + equipment. That's it; I'm not making a big deal about it. It just seems to me that if I were going to go into this thing as BG Fred, I'd have done things pretty much the same way & hoped my cavalry could drive the Indians into my waiting infantry.
During WWII, the Germans had specialized divisions that they used for specific jobs. Rear area security was handled by Security Divisions specifically trained for that kind of duty (in Russia). Front-line divisions controlled an area back behind them only to a certain distance. Behind that came these Security Divisions. In France, they used a concept of Static Divisions. Again, a lower level troop, usually left to guard specific things. When we attacked on D-Day, many of the German emplacements were manned by these Static Divisions. My whole long-winded point here is that this is sort of how I envision infantry being used against the Indians.
Anyway, this will probably be my last post for a while. My wife & I are heading off tomorrow to spend Christmas w/ one of my brothers in Myrtle Beach, so for anyone sick enough to have read this post this far, Merry Christmas & God bless you, one & all. A new friend,
Fred.
P.S.-- And Billy... who the hell's "Pedro"?
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Dec 23, 2005 9:27:19 GMT -6
Elisabeth
3/4 mustang and 1/4 Morgan or thoroughbred would have been too small. I believe the minimum height for a Cavalry horse was 14.2 hands. Dandy just barely made it.
Indians did well on their small ponies because they didn't have to carry much.
The Sioux didn't manage their herds and mares bred with whatever stallion was around at the right time. I have read accounts of some Indians riding "ponies" that weren't much bigger than a large draft dog. Crooked hocked, spavined, roman nosed, knocked=kneed, hammerheaded, splay footed. The average Indian pony wasn't much to look at. It was a tough animal. Just not large enough.
The Crow, on the other hand, did manage their herds and had splendid horses.
Custer was quite taken with KY Thoroughbreds. I think the Army inroduced some standardbred blood into Cavalry mounts later.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 23, 2005 10:30:20 GMT -6
Ewers & Sponenberg (Western scholars), and others have described the average Plains Indian horse during pre-reservation days was: "13.2 to 14 hands; 700 pounds; large head with a good eye; short thick neck; large round barrel; relatively heavy shoulder and hip; fine limbs and small feet."
I'm sure there were a wide variety of sizes and styles of horses used by many tribes. I would think a warrior would want a fast and agile horse for warfare and a larger one with more stamina for hunting buffalo. Horses had to be well trained to get close to buffalo, be quick and nimble to avoid a sudden charge by a bison.
Indians were proud of their horses and had a different horse for a specific purpose. Some were draft or pack animals, others for women, children, and the elderly. Most were decorated and painted almost as gaudy as the owner and I doubt any Indian would resort to some scrawny, ugly looking horse unless there was no choice.
|
|
|
Post by Saugus Zouave on Dec 23, 2005 10:58:08 GMT -6
Humans have greater endurance than horses. Horses are much better sprinters than humans. A human can walk farther in a week than a horse can, but a horse can run farther in an hour than a human can. This was considered common knowledge among military writers in the 19th century and different roles were assigned to infantry and cavalry based on this.
The speed of a column of march was dictated by the slowest element in the column. This was rarely the infantry. It was usually the baggage train, occasionally the artillery. Army wagons are normally pulled by mules. Mules have much better endurance than horses and the advantage of being able to eat just about anything. Horses have a very complicated digestive system that is very easily put out of order. A horse can literally kill itself by tying its intestines in knots if it rolls on the ground the wrong way. Mules also don't bolt in the traces if they're startled. However, they are usually (though not necessarily) slower than horses. Mules have a different psychology from horses. Being able to handle a horse is no guaratee that you can handle a mule. Mules get their temperment from their donkey parent, which is a mountain species, not a plains species. In the mountains, the best response to being startled is to freeze. On the plains, the best response is to flee. If you confuse a horse, it will bolt. If you confuse a mule it will sit down. Custer's command went on its last march with 14 day's rations. They tried to increase their speed by used pack mules, but had a lot of trouble with the mules because the troopers were used to horse psychology, not mule psychology.
Cavalry don't ride all the time when they are on the march. Troopers walk their mounts at regular intervals. The routine is something like: ride 30 minutes, walk 20 minutes, rest 10 minutes. Infantry could carry 3 to 4 day's rations on each man plus 60 rounds of ammunition. Cavalry could do the same thing, but that meant carrying 3 to 4 days rations for the man plus 3 to 4 day's rations for the horse. The pack mules had to carry the extra food, plus the extra ammunition plus their own food. Somewhere I have a manual that has the formula for calculating how many wagons you need for how many men for how many days. Needless to say, the more wagons and pack mules you have the more wagons and pack mules you need to carry the feed for the extra wagons and extra pack mules.
Plains Indian mobility rested on two basic differences from the US Army. First, each Indian combatant was supported by a family of non-combatants. Two women could take down a tipi and load it for travel in 15 minutes. The ratio of combatants to non-combatants was much higher in the army. In that sense they were more efficient than Indians, but in practice they were less effective.
Secondly, many Indians had more than one pony. That meant they could go into battle with a fresh mount. However, it meant that they had to feed, water, and drive big pony herds. Once again, the US Army was more efficient, but less effective.
The US Army was most successful when it attacked the vunerability of the Indian non-combatants and the pony herd. It was less successful when it allowed the Indians to exploit the army weakness in fresh mounts and troopers functioning as mule skinners and horse holders. In practice the infantry were very good at attacking villages (logistics tail would be the modern term) and pony herds, especially in the winter when the weather reduced the Indian's mobility and food supply.
Cheers,
Paul
|
|
|
Post by markland on Dec 23, 2005 16:18:52 GMT -6
SZ, excellent response.
Thanks a million!
Billy
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Dec 24, 2005 4:30:04 GMT -6
Its mentioned in Custer's Luck that Gibbon commented on the Seventh's fine collection of horses, upon their parade on June 22nd. And Custer seemed to have a good eye for horses, and was in charge of selecting and purchasing mounts in Kentucky, was he not?
|
|