|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 23, 2008 9:23:38 GMT -6
Once using the sword on horseback, you've surrendered any possibility of re-loading a pistol and fighting in the preferred and most effective mode of the last two centuries. That is, unless you somehow break contact with the enemy beyond their weaponry range, because they now have the technological advantage. Way to shed two centuries of military advance.
As surely as dismounting for your beloved firing lines, it's a capitulation to the enemy for cavalry to reduce its weaponry level when mounted. This enemy already outnumbers you and they, even if not graced with firearms, had the bow and arrow. The enemy does not have a line to be shocked and break by heroic charge, but an amorphous amoeba of mounted horsemen quite happy and able to fight on horseback at a sustained level most in the 7th - even if they once could, and that's doubtful - were unlikely to equal.
This assumption that American men absent sufficient training have this innate ability to wield a sword with military dexterity on a horse they can barely control under stress - and this against a skilled enemy - is about as solid as the twin belief that American men don't need maps or directions, help or advice, sun screen or water. I find it remarkable this is offered as a plausible alternative. Using a sword is difficult, and probably of less value than a club, since a sword and especially these light sabers will get stuck and not bounce back.
You could mount 40 mm chain guns on the saddle and give them to the 7th that day and at the level of training they received would probably make small difference.
And this is EXACTLY the sort of issue for which we have officers and training. If charging with pistols, what was the group procedure for reloading, for covering each other in the process? Had no thought whatsoever been given to this? What does that say about the officers and army?
The sole, bovine tactic was that we charge and the Indians ran, so none of that supposedly mattered. And this despite contrary evidence, all of it based upon size of the 'village.' The Indians didn't run because they couldn't in disorganized metropoli, and had to fight. This was learned in decade past, and ignored.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 23, 2008 11:04:56 GMT -6
Several errors above, I think:
1. In a large melee, sword is more effective than pistol, as proven in our Civil War, as well as many European battles of the 19th Century. All the best American cavalry units of our Civil War, on both sides, used the saber in mass combat, not pistols.
2. The majority of the Troopers were excellent horseman, and much better marksmen than the majority of Warriors. They were well trained to use sabers both mounted and dismounted. The NCOs in each company ensured this.
3. There is no need to reload pistols in any cavalry charge, for they don't last long enough to require it. If you expect a melee that will last longer than your six revolver rounds, you draw your saber. If you don't have a saber, you break contact and rally, preferably behind another element that can cover you while you reload, which is the doctrinal method for doing such things in mounted warfare.
4. The Warriors ALWAYS run when we charge. I've never seen a case when they did not run before making actual contact with a charging cavalry formation...has anyone else? There should be one somewhere, but I've never come across one...where two sides charged each other and went into melee hand-to-hand on horseback?
Could any Warrior force ever withstand a mounted (or dismounted) cavalry charge?
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by clansman on Oct 23, 2008 11:34:47 GMT -6
They did with Reno.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 23, 2008 12:12:58 GMT -6
They ran away from Reno's "charge to the rear," right? Otherwise, he would never have made it to his retreat ford. The only close combat occurred as the Natives came up from behind in pursuit. When Reno formed a skirmish line on the valley floor, no Warriors came close to it, at least no group of them...they stayed at least 200 yards, and probably twice that, away from the front of the firing line. It was far too deadly for them to attempt to charge, even though it was near their own village and was able to fire into it. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by clansman on Oct 23, 2008 12:23:38 GMT -6
I didn't say they attempted to charge Reno. I said they withstood his charge, which was why he dismounted. Do you think that if Reno had continued his charge into the village the warriors would not have charged him? Would they have ran away and left their women and children to the mercy of the soldiers and particularly the Ree scouts?
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 23, 2008 14:21:19 GMT -6
I didn't say they attempted to charge Reno. I said they withstood his charge, which was why he dismounted. Do you think that if Reno had continued his charge into the village the warriors would not have charged him? Would they have ran away and left their women and children to the mercy of the soldiers and particularly the Ree scouts? The Warriors, I am quite sure, would have given way and allowed Reno to enter the village. They would surge around him on his flanks and rear. He could, and probably would, have continued his charge through and out the backside of the village, pursued by Warriors. But he never could have been stopped by them. That result would be quite incredulous. The worst that could happen would be part or most of his command may have become mired in a hand-to-hand melee in the village because it wanted to. But if it wanted to just ride right through, I don't see how the Warriors could have stopped him. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 23, 2008 19:18:27 GMT -6
But he never could have been stopped by them. That result would be quite incredulous. The worst that could happen would be part or most of his command may have become mired in a hand-to-hand melee in the village because it wanted to. But if it wanted to just ride right through, I don't see how the Warriors could have stopped him.
I don't believe that he could ride through the village. That first depression that the Indians hid in would slow them down.
How about a lance in the chest of a horse? Or jump up behind a rider and cut his throat? Or throw the pot of stew on them? Once inside the village everyone there is a potential threat. I don't think you could maintain speed and formation.
So what stopped Custer from riding through if it was so easy to do?
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
|
Post by sherppa on Oct 23, 2008 20:07:49 GMT -6
AZ,
I think you are right. The village very large and frought with many dangers, 1800 atleast.
I also, think that riding through the village was Custer's plan, but he simply did not make it that far. I would guess the lack of a good ford was largly responsible for him initially not making it to the village itself.
sherppa
|
|
|
|
Post by clansman on Oct 24, 2008 2:50:54 GMT -6
I agree. I think Custers' hesitation at MTF was fatal.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 24, 2008 7:53:32 GMT -6
I don't believe that he could ride through the village. That first depression that the Indians hid in would slow them down. Now if the ditch was so bad that the horses couldn't cross, you could be right. But even in this case, if the cavalry actually got up to the ditch, I think the Warriors would have fallen back. When have you ever seen, in Indian warfare, a "line" of Warriors stand and fight a position hand-to-hand with a line of Army Soldiers attacking it? Never happened that I can see. If it comes to hand-to-hand range, and the Soldiers are attacking, the Warriors run. This is very practical, since usually the Soldiers, in formation, greatly outnumber the Warriors on their frontage, who are more spread out. So in close combat, you would have two or three Soldiers for every Warrior "on a line," like the ditch. That's the physical model, but the psychological one is more important, and I don't see Warriors standing for a charge. They run to the rear or float to the sides and look for another way to get at the Soldiers. Like an infantry square with bayonets so thick the attacking mounted formation can't get through? I don't think so...<g> I'm sure we would have seen some of this, but it is individual combat, not formation combat. It won't stop a formation...it may pick out a few stragglers. That's why you keep to your formation. <g> Masses of mounted Warriors coming to counterattack him...it took away his offense and put him on defense, just like Reno. You see what the cavalry is always trying to avoid when fighting outnumbered is close combat on the defense. When you are attacking, close combat is okay, but if the enemy is attacking you, getting into close combat will be fatal to your command. Two ways to avoid this: dismounted carbine fire will keep them away from closing on you, or attacking them so they run will keep them from closing on you. Them coming in on your flanks is fatal, as Reno well discovered. A line of Warriors with rifles and arrows could not have stopped Custer from crossing MTC ford. Only Warrior counterattacks (or their potential) that he judged he could not repulse with his own charges could cause him to "pull up." If he could get around their flanks, he could cause them to run. But charging into the front of a mass of Warriors that he can see will swamp him on the flanks is very dangerous. In retrospect, though, he probably should have done just that...taken that chance. Might be costly and risky, but in hindsight it couldn't have been worse than the historical result. Custer hesitated...he held up his attack at the time when he had the best odds he would ever get that day...when he first got to the MTC ford. Reno's Warriors were coming, but were still a few minutes away...he only had the few dozen Warriors at the ford and the hundreds behind the village coming his way. Had he charged headlong then, it would have been a real mess, so that obviously didn't seem a better choice than holding up on the ridge and awaiting Reno's/Benteen's inevitable counterattack into the Warrior's rear (since he could tell they had all left Reno and were on him now). Since Reno wasn't coming, that was a mistake. He compounded his mistake by assuming Reno's arrival and taking Yates north, away from Keogh, leaving Keogh to fend off the majority of the Warriors during a critical 30 minutes in the battle. Keogh got swamped, probably due to his own tactical mistake of sending C Co forward against too many hostiles (same scenario...charge to GGR, Warriors fall back from the charge, but swamp C Co around the flanks)...then they rolled him up from behind his skirmish lines. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Oct 24, 2008 8:29:07 GMT -6
sherppa and clansman... and Clair, now-
I don't think that Custer (himself) even tried to cross at MTC, but be that as is it may, I can't see that any of them (Reno, Custer, Calhoun or Keogh) charging into the village would have NOT been a fatal move. Maybe, if all were in position and the attacks were coordinated and simultaneous, as at Washita, but still doubtful in my mind. This camp was fully awake in the Summertime daylight, and not still sleeping - with the inhabitants all huddled under blankets in their tee pees against the fridged Winter night’s air.
No small camp to begin with, it was strewn with enough incidental obstacles to break up formation and hinder the advancing troopers. One and a half to three miles of such scattered obstacles. It’s difficult to even picture the mess a charge into that village would have quickly become. A sort of Pickett’s Charge among the tee pees.
The state of the art in the Seventh that day (whatever one supposes it to have been) just wouldn’t have been up to the level of horsemanship and shooting skills required for such a charge to work out. My opinion only - it should go without saying by now.
M
|
|
|
|
Post by clansman on Oct 24, 2008 8:47:58 GMT -6
Clair.
I'm confused. In one breath you say the warriors will run away when soldiers charge them. In the next breath you say charging into a mass of warriors will swamp them on the flanks. Do they run away or not?
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 24, 2008 9:29:01 GMT -6
Clair. I'm confused. In one breath you say the warriors will run away when soldiers charge them. In the next breath you say charging into a mass of warriors will swamp them on the flanks. Do they run away or not? Sorry...the explanation is that when I describe the Warriors running, or "falling back," before a charge, that means only to get out of the way...not off the battlefield for good. And only those in the immediate path of the charge...not those not directly affected, who watch and then come in for a close on flanks and rear. It would take a catastrophic tactical event to get these Warriors to flee the battlefield...they need to be hit from different, unexpected directions and broken up. You need to "fix them to the front, and kick them in the flank/rear." And that is exactly what the American cavalry was trained to do. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 24, 2008 10:26:27 GMT -6
In the Big Book of Bevo Officer Pretend, maybe, or in the latest Miniver Cheevy Report! (the subscription is free). If the US cavalry was so trained, of course, it would explain the painful results through the years of the Indian Wars.
Indians had no flanks, no front. They didn't fight that way. They didn't utilize "indirect fire" either, because they weren't organized to do so. They were little better organized than a street gang defending their turf. They didn't react like an actual army would because they could only know what they, as individuals, were seeing, which wasn't much however less dense the dust became in memory, helped by translators and less than objective chroniclers.
There was no command keeping units working together, primarily because there were no actual units, either, except by situational coincidence. If the US Army was trained to nail that to the ground and attack from all sides, it was as stupid as nailing water to the ground and splashing in the puddle. It only made sense against a similar trained army. For proof, look at the Washita, where absolutely everything was in the 7th's favor and remarkably few warriors were killed.
That was because the warriors - despite all the hysterical NA claims - did NOT hang around to defend the women and children, many of whom became captive. They booted out of there right quick. Capitalize warriors all you want.
This insistence upon viewing this battle of the LBH within the straightjacket of military formations and procedures makes no sense, given there's tender evidence it was that organized by either side and the sure evidence of the result.
|
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Oct 24, 2008 11:12:59 GMT -6
So, just out of curiosity, dc, given that the village was attacked in the first place, what tactics, in an ideal world, do you think they should have used? What do you think Custer should have done to prevent annihilation?
|
|
