Cavalry Training

[conz]

Thought I 'd start a thread where we could consolidate evidence of the training of the cavalry officers and Troopers during this period. I'll start with this gem:

"Cosby was a veteran of the Mounted Rifles and had been severely wounded in combat against the Comanches in 1854. Cosby remembered this experience when he served as an instructor at West Point. He developed a set of training exercises in hand-to-hand combat. Much like a modern martial arts teacher, Cosby demonstrated to his class using two cadets, Fitzhugh Lee and Manning Kimmel, as dummies. Cosby taught saber thrusts, use of a revolver as a club, and wrestling holds. Within the coming year his instruction was to save Lee's life." -- Arnold in Jeff Davis's Own

This is the first indication I've read of hand-to-hand combat training for the frontier Soldiers. Of course, most units also had boxing and wrestling teams as intramural competition, and that would also count as combat training.

Clair

[markland]

conz said:

Thought I 'd start a thread where we could consolidate evidence of the training of the cavalry officers and Troopers during this period. I'll start with this gem:

"Cosby was a veteran of the Mounted Rifles and had been severely wounded in combat against the Comanches in 1854. Cosby remembered this experience when he served as an instructor at West Point. He developed a set of training exercises in hand-to-hand combat. Much like a modern martial arts teacher, Cosby demonstrated to his class using two cadets, Fitzhugh Lee and Manning Kimmel, as dummies. Cosby taught saber thrusts, use of a revolver as a club, and wrestling holds. Within the coming year his instruction was to save Lee's life." -- Arnold in Jeff Davis's Own

This is the first indication I've read of hand-to-hand combat training for the frontier Soldiers. Of course, most units also had boxing and wrestling teams as intramural competition, and that would also count as combat training.

Clair

What has that to do with the post-Civil army? While F. Lee & Kimmel learned these skills at West Point between 1853-1857, there is nothing to imply that the knowledge was passed to any of their troops.

And I still don't see anything about horses dancing with arrows.

Personally I would think that the antebellum troops were somewhat better trained than those of 1870 upwards; but, that is just a personal opinion. That said, I remember reading somewhere that after the Mexican War veterans were discharged from the Regiment of Mounted Rifles in the very early 1850's, for a while it was one of the least effective regiments in the army.

By the way, the Ft. Knox Post Library has some interesting books you may want to check out. Use the search terms, "dragoons" and "cavalry" on a couple of searches.

Billy

[George Mabry]

Conz,

Interesting subject. It’s been my understanding that in those years immediately following a protracted period of war, military funding was slashed, the army downsized, and training sharply curtailed. There seems to be plenty of accounts about how we always have to take an Army out of mothballs, dust it off, and shine it up just before going into the next war. It’s my guess that it would have been the same after the CW. I realize the western Indian wars followed closely the conclusion of the CW but I wonder if it was considered such a second rate theater of war that funds for training were still cut back to nothing. Whatdaya think?

George

[markland]

georgemabry said:

Conz,

Interesting subject. It’s been my understanding that in those years immediately following a protracted period of war, military funding was slashed, the army downsized, and training sharply curtailed. There seems to be plenty of accounts about how we always have to take an Army out of mothballs, dust it off, and shine it up just before going into the next war. It’s my guess that it would have been the same after the CW. I realize the western Indian wars followed closely the conclusion of the CW but I wonder if it was considered such a second rate theater of war that funds for training were still cut back to nothing. Whatdaya think? situation?

George

Unfortunately Conz is trying to mix apples and lemons. His example is of a former Rifleman, officer or soldier I haven't looked up, posted to the West Point Center For Wayward Boys who, in essence, taught them to fight dirty. This occurred in the antebellum years, Kimmel entered West Point in 1852 and graduated and was appointed second lieutenant in the 2d Cav. on 07/01/1857.

I want to see the arrow-dodging horses! Sorry Claire, that one is too much fun to ever let it rest peacefully; somewhat like DC's travails of the Burmese mules.

(You had to have been there!)

Be good,

Billy

[conz]

Good comments, but I'd like you to consider a few other elements to this training equation....

First, most of the training that goes on in any army is not in a manual, and is not printed up in any report. My perception is that 90% of Soldier training occurs informally by experienced NCOs and veteran rank-and-file with less experienced Troopers. The training historians like to talk about is that last 10% that pulls those individual and small unit skills together, and is the least important to a unit's combat readiness, I believe.

Second, with a professional military cadre, there is really little impact on training between pre-, during-, or post-warfare. Volunteer units trained for the emergency are greatly affected by this, but Regular Army units are pretty similarly trained, and combat-capable, before, during, or after any war.

Third, with all the veterans in these Regular Army units...much more important at the NCO and Trooper level than in the officer ranks...I don't see any dropoff whatsoever in skills or training levels before and after the Civil War. Regulars do about the same thing no matter when the timeframe.

So with militia units, I'd agree with your'all's sentiments, but not with Regular Army units.

If any Soldiers learned hand-to-hand skills before the Civil War out on those plains, they taught the same to Soldiers during the Civil War, and taught them again after the Civil War, would be my read.

It's all about the NCOs and what they know, what they've experienced, and what they pass on. That's 90% of Soldier skill and capability. Everything else, and most of what we seem to focus on around here, is just icing on the cake.

Clair

[conz]

CPT King, of the 5th Cavalry, upon seeing a formation in the distance as Crook's column runs into Terry's after LBH...

"Indians! I should say so - scores of them, darting about in equal excitement to our own. But no Indians are they who keep in close column along that fringe of trees; no Indians are they whose compact squadrons are moving diagonally out across the broad plain, taking equal intervals, then coming squarely towards us at a rapid trot. Then look! Each company, as it comes forward, opens out like the fan of practised coquette, and a sheaf of skirmishers is launched to the front. Something in the snap and style of the whole movement stamps them at once. There is no need of fluttering guidon and stirring trumpet call to identify them; I know the Seventh Cavalry at a glance, and swing my old campaign hat in delighted welcome."

And this admiration from one of the 7th's greatest competitors for "honor" on the Plains...no love lost between these two. But you'll find several references in histories to how much better drilled the 7th Cav was compared to the other regiments. Custer took great stock in precision drill, and the company commander competed with each other in drill for his favor.

Clair

[conz]

As long as I have King open, a note from his own regiment:

"General Carr, to keep us from rusting, ordered inspection and mounted drills on Sunday and Monday morning; but then the rain came back, and for forty-eight hours we were fairly afloat."

This was while they were chasing Indians across the plains. Where was this printed in the history books? This is the "background" stuff that goes on all the time, from simple NCO time with Soldiers teaching weaponry, horsemanship, or shooting/hunting skills, to bigger things like squadron formations and foraging tactics.

Clair

[conz]

Horsemanship…

Here CPT King describes an Indian attack while the troop horses were out at pasture, and a bugler calls them back to post: “…suddenly, in a great could of dust and with the thunder of half a thousand hoofs, the herds of two of the companies came sweeping at full speed around a low hill towards tehw est, and, skilfully guided by the troopers in charge, bore down direct upon the corrals. ‘Mount! Quick as you can, all of you!” he shouted, and signalling to the corporal in the lead of the herds, he threw himself upon his horse, quick as the other could vacate the saddle in his favor, and, carbine in hand, and calling again to his men to follow, he tore off towards the chase.

“Bold horsemen there were in the old days at Sandy. There were men that day who threw themselves without either saddle or bridle upon their horses’ backs, and trusted to voice, leg, and instinct to guide them. Others, less confident, bridled their chargers, but none stopped to saddle. In five minutes a hundred horsemen were scattered over the valley in pursuit of the escaping Indians.”

Pretty fair horsemanship, I must say. 5th U.S. Cavalry, about 1869.

[conz]

Horsemanship in a field camp…

“Company commanders will drill their non-commissioned officers in the riding school at 8.50, and in the afternoon the non-commissioned officers will drill the men, the officers being present in superintendence…” – CPT Barnitz letter, 1868, in Utley

[conz]

Marksmanship…

“We were halted, without crossing, and facing up the stream dismounted to fight on foot. I however selected ten picked men, who were expert shots on horseback, and placed them, under charger of Sergeant McDermott, on the prolongation of the flank.” – CPT Barnitz’s account of Washita, in Utley

Note that these men are in addition to the ones that had earlier in the campaign been detached from each company to form Cooke’s sharpshooters. Presumably there was an abundance of marksmanship talent in the 7th Cavalry.

[conz]

Marksmanship in a field camp…

“I had to discontinue writing for a time, since commencing this letter, to go out to practice target firing, as all the officers fire daily now from 6.15 to 7.30 at 1,2,3,4, and 500 yards. I appear to be about the second best shot, on the averat, Lieut. Nowlan being the best, I believe.” – CPT Barnitz letter, 1868, in Utley

[conz]

Drilling on the march…

“We have been drilling all the way here – under Genl. Custer. We had a fine field for maneuvering; the open, rolling prairies. The Artillery usually forming one column, the Infantry and wagon train another, and the Cavalry away off on the flank moving in squadron (or close) column (two companies abreast) – or in column of fours, or platoons, and occasionally forming in line at the gallop – sabres drawn, guidons fluttering, and bugles repeating the signals.” – CPT Barnitz, letter 1867, in Utley

[bc]

Are there any old written unit training schedules from the cw/Indian war periods around for review?

Back when I worked in the S2/S3 shack, we always prepared written training schedules. Don't know how strictly they were followed, but they looked good for the IG and Readiness Command.

[conz]

bc,

I'll bet there are, mainly for IG purposes, as you say, but I doubt they have survived into history. But good researchers should dig up such reports somewhere.

Clair

["Hunk" Papa]

Oct 10, 2008 12:36:34 GMT -6 @conz said:

Marksmanship…

“We were halted, without crossing, and facing up the stream dismounted to fight on foot. I however selected ten picked men, who were expert shots on horseback, and placed them, under charger of Sergeant McDermott, on the prolongation of the flank.” – CPT Barnitz’s account of Washita, in Utley

Note that these men are in addition to the ones that had earlier in the campaign been detached from each company to form Cooke’s sharpshooters. Presumably there was an abundance of marksmanship talent in the 7th Cavalry.

If you're going to quote Barnitz please use all relevant passages, such as August 24 1867 "Our men are in the main a set of uninstructed recruits, who can't hit a barn door at 300 yards, with a carbine, and much less an Indian.."

The Barnitz diaries and letters cover only the years 1867-1868, the formative years of the 7th Cavalry when Custer the martinet, was determined to make them a crack regiment. I accept that efforts were made to employ some training during this time but it had two detrimental effects, it made Custer hated by both officers and men as Barnitz makes clear and caused a high rate of desertion. By July 1868 the regiment had "lost upwards of 1,200 men by desertion since the organization of the regiment." That is about 400 more than the official complement of the 7th and shows just how difficult it was to maintain a level of trained efficiency in the light of such a turnover.

I await with interest to see if you can fnd any quotes about the 7th's training, similar to those made by Barnitz for the years 1869-1876.

As to Capt. Charles King, he was a romantic who described everything he experienced in purple prose. It is no coincidence that he became an author of fictional army characters, who's adventures are described in the same flowery style as the various quotes you have supplied.

It is perhaps a measure of his romantic nature that in describing meeting the 7th cavalry he expects us to accept that a regiment that had just lost 5 companies and with the remaining 7 having taken heavy casualties, would present a splendid dress parade spectacle just 6 weeks later, especially after marching all the way down the Yellowstone.