|
|
Post by conz on Oct 12, 2008 20:27:00 GMT -6
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.."
Yet we know Barnitz is exaggerating, because many of those early Soldiers were Civil War veterans. In the '70s decade, most of the regiment were experienced Soldiers, and not new recruits. So its a wash between the two, but either way, you cannot trust Barnitz's judgment here...we KNOW the men were experienced Soldiers, in the main. Sure, but two things. One, the turnover was no greater than if they had been in combat during all that time, so it is normal for regiments to suffer such attrition. The men remaining step up, and new men are trained to take their place. This is very normal in any Army. Second, while some NCO's, and even officers, deserted, the vast majority of these men were the inexperienced ones. That also reflects combat experience, where it is usually the "cannon fodder" that takes the bulk of the casualties...the experienced men, the core of any good unit, do not fall as fast. So I don't think we can count this as a mark against the 7th's proficiency. The nice thing about King is that in writing his fiction, he relates details and "paints pictures" of unit life no historian can do. This is invaluable if you wish to understand military life. His "novels" tell you more about history than any unit history can, and more accurately. King was there...his stories are his life. Poor babies...probably too busy crying their eyes out to maintain a good formation, eh? Cut that crap...these guys were hardened veterans. They can take 50% casualties and still give the best formation and tactical drill performance in the Army. Again, you underrate the Professionals...do you have such a low opinion of Regular Soldiers? Clair |
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Oct 13, 2008 15:38:29 GMT -6
(1) Yet we know Barnitz is exaggerating, because many of those early Soldiers were Civil War veterans. In the '70s decade, most of the regiment were experienced Soldiers, and not new recruits. So its a wash between the two, but either way, you cannot trust Barnitz's judgment here...we KNOW the men were experienced Soldiers, in the main. (2) Again, you underrate the Professionals...do you have such a low opinion of Regular Soldiers? Clair
(1) Clair, you are some piece of work. Barnitz is accurate when his words suit your purpose but he exaggerates when they don't. That is pure cherry picking and even the most cursory research work would negate the idea that these men WERE experienced soldiers 'in the main.' (2) I have the highest respect for professional regular soldiers. What I don't have is any illusion that the post CW U.S. Army, including the 7th Cavalry, were of the calibre of men that we would regard as 'professional' today. The majority of men and women in the armed forces of the U.S.A. and the U.K. today, have had a rigorous and extensive training, followed by intensive periods of combat, making them professional AND experienced soldiers, who have had many opportunities to put their training to good use. The 7th Cavalry had some training, but hardly rigorous, bearing in mind that it was not until 1879 that all soldiers were required to fire 20 rounds per month on a proper range, and it took another 2 years before 'companies of instruction' were organized at the recruit depots to give enlistees four months of basic training before they were assigned to their units. The 7th were no worse in that respect than any of the other regiments, but they were no better either. Without Custer as their field commander and if the Washita had not received the propaganda of a great victory, the regiment would not have had a reputation that to this day, glosses over its shortcomings. Hunk |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 14, 2008 8:49:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Oct 14, 2008 15:38:35 GMT -6
Poor babies...probably too busy crying their eyes out to maintain a good formation, eh? Cut that crap...these guys were hardened veterans. They can take 50% casualties and still give the best formation and tactical drill performance in the Army. Clair
Another view of the Wyoming & Yellowstone Columns meeting was provided by John F. Finerty, the war correspondent for the Chicago Times who was travelling with Crook, in his book 'War Path and Bivouac'. This man, with no agenda and a journalist's eye for detail says, "The principal thing that attracted my attention, and that of all our force, was the remnant of the 7th Cavalry. It came in, formed into seven small companies, led by Major Reno - a short, stout man, about fifty years old, with a determined visage, his face showing intimate acquaintance with the sun and wind. The horses were all in splendid condition, having been grain-fed all along; but many of the officers and men looked tired, dirty, and disgusted - just as most of Crook's column had appeared for many weeks." and "Every one felt that there was naught to cheer about. When you have seen one regiment of our soldiers in the field , you have seen all." A somewhat different picture to that described by the gung-ho Charles King. Hunk |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 15, 2008 6:49:46 GMT -6
The horses were all in splendid condition, having been grain-fed all along; but many of the officers and men looked tired, dirty, and disgusted - just as most of Crook's column had appeared for many weeks." and "Every one felt that there was naught to cheer about. When you have seen one regiment of our soldiers in the field , you have seen all." A somewhat different picture to that described by the gung-ho Charles King. Hunk In this scene, yes, but it doesn't negate King's comments. And you see that the witness says that they looked like every other cavalry column of the day, except that their horses looked better. And they certainly looked better than Crook's column! How do you think the 5th Cavalry looked after eating many of their own horses?! Probably FAR more "disgusted" than the 7th's, eh? <g> Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 15, 2008 6:53:31 GMT -6
AZ,
Your comments about the military needing to be trained in marksmanship as well as the police is silly...very few of our Soldier have the time to be trained to that level, and it certainly isn't necessary.
Our men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan don't get near the firearms training that our local police get.
If today's Soldiers don't get, nor require, such marksmanship, why would we criticize the 7th Cavalry in the 19th century for not having it?
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 15, 2008 6:57:33 GMT -6
Hunk,
I think you may have a combination of:
a) an inflated notion of how "professional," trained, and experienced today's Regular Army is, and
b) a deflated notion of how professional, trained, and experienced the 19th Century Regular Army was.
Down in the ranks, there is very little difference between the two. Yes, we have marginally improved things like basic training and regulated things like marksmanship training and the testing of basic skills, but then we have to learn so much more today than then. So in my opinion, it is probably a wash.
I think the rank and file of the Regular Army, in the U.S. and in Europe, of the 19th Century was every bit as "professional" and well trained for their expected missions as today's great armies are.
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 15, 2008 8:52:22 GMT -6
AZ, Your comments about the military needing to be trained in marksmanship as well as the police is silly...very few of our Soldier have the time to be trained to that level, and it certainly isn't necessary. Our men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan don't get near the firearms training that our local police get. If today's Soldiers don't get, nor require, such marksmanship, why would we criticize the 7th Cavalry in the 19th century for not having it? Clair My level equivalent to police officers was referring to combat ready which marksmanship is only a part of equation. I would think every patrol should be combat ready just as police officers should be ready for the unexpected. Just spent the last week with 2 soldiers that have served in Iraq and going back again. Their training is on par with police tactics. Are you missing out on what they are being trained to do? I believe that before going into battle even in the 1870s they were to fire 60 rounds each per trooper. My point was that marksmanship requires constant practice. If the troops are stationed in a safe area there is no need to practice. If you are in a dangerous area then the honing of the skill is needed. I think the best example of my equivalency to police would be the Yellowstone Expedition where a small number of troopers dismounted fired and hit Indians and horses causing them to back off. If they had not hit, the Indians would have overrun them. Police Officers don't have high rate of hits either but they are ready to respond at all times when on duty. In that respect I believe soldiers in Iraq are on par with police officer on shoot situations. What makes you think that police would do a better job on a building entry team? AZ Ranger |
|
|
|
Post by clansman on Oct 15, 2008 8:56:08 GMT -6
When I was in the service we were on the ranges at least once a week, firing a minimum of 15 rounds. We did a 24 excercise every ten days or so and two 48 hour excercises every month. In Germany the excercises were almost non-stop, usually with armoured units. We felt the training was ample.
|
|
|
|
Post by clansman on Oct 15, 2008 9:00:01 GMT -6
AZ I can't agree when you say if troops are in a safe place there is no need to practice. Regular practice is essential to hone your marksmanship skills.
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 15, 2008 9:05:18 GMT -6
AZ I can't agree when you say if troops are in a safe place there is no need to practice. Regular practice is essential to hone your marksmanship skills. My point is our military doesn't walk around with weapons to deploy stateside so the skill would not be useful. If you know that you are about to deploy than several weeks of practice would be more than adequate to be combat ready. I would guess that snipers practice all the time but regular troops do not. AZ Ranger |
|
|
|
Post by clansman on Oct 15, 2008 12:06:10 GMT -6
When I was in the service we were on the ranges at least once a week, firing a minimum of 15 rounds. We did a 24 excercise every ten days or so and two 48 hour excercises every month. In Germany the excercises were almost non-stop, usually with armoured units. We felt the training was ample. |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 15, 2008 12:42:05 GMT -6
And you don't think this was the case in the 1860s and 70s? The NCOs decided how many rounds each Soldier had to fire to be proficient, and they practiced continuously, according to accounts I've seen. How many patrols went out and didn't hunt game? How many drills in camps went on when the men didn't fire their weapons at least weekly? I see all kinds of training going on in Soldier's memoirs.
Exactly...so the fact that skirmish lines were never overrun in any of these Indian wars tells you what about their marksmanship proficiency?
Soldiers in Iraq today are like the Soldiers on the Plains in the 1870s...the NCOs decide who needs to fire how much ammo. Now we see more action in Iraq than we saw on the plains, so they do get more chances to fire, in practice and in real. But the principle remains the same, and the Soldiers in each Army are equally well trained to perform to the standards required of each (which are much higher, today, than then).
But I really don't think even our most experienced house-searching teams have the training to standards that most SWAT teams in U.S. police forces have. At least, I HOPE our Police have higher standards!? Please correct me if I'm wrong. <g>
You train to standard. If you meet 100% of YOUR specific standard, you are equally trained. The men of the 7th Cav were trained to 100% of their standard, just as the men of the 7th Cav in Baghdad are trained to 100% of their modern standard.
Again, it is not right to expect the men of the 1870 Army to be trained to the same standards of the men of the 2007 Army. I maintain that they were equally trained to their standards, but today's standards are much higher across a huge range of issues, marksmanship being only one on par with hundreds more.
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 15, 2008 12:44:20 GMT -6
My point is our military doesn't walk around with weapons to deploy stateside so the skill would not be useful. If you know that you are about to deploy than several weeks of practice would be more than adequate to be combat ready. I would guess that snipers practice all the time but regular troops do not. AZ Ranger That's right...specialists like snipers fire more rounds, and more often. And during different periods you have different training priorities...firing might be emphasized one month, and you go to the range every week, and then do other things where you won't see a range for three months. Marksmanship isn't everything...there is a LOT to train on, today and back then! Clair |
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Oct 15, 2008 15:09:57 GMT -6
The horses were all in splendid condition, having been grain-fed all along; but many of the officers and men looked tired, dirty, and disgusted - just as most of Crook's column had appeared for many weeks." and "Every one felt that there was naught to cheer about. When you have seen one regiment of our soldiers in the field , you have seen all." A somewhat different picture to that described by the gung-ho Charles King. Hunk In this scene, yes, but it doesn't negate King's comments. And you see that the witness says that they looked like every other cavalry column of the day, except that their horses looked better. And they certainly looked better than Crook's column! How do you think the 5th Cavalry looked after eating many of their own horses?! Probably FAR more "disgusted" than the 7th's, eh? <g> Clair
The extract does not say that Terry's men, including the 7th, looked better than Crook's, it says 'just as most of Crook's column had appeared etc.,' that is, they looked exactly the same, so please do not try to spin the situation to favour the 7th as we all know that, rather like David Cornut with Custer, your mission in life is to continually burnish their image. What Finerty's description does is not so much negate King's comments as show up King's comments for the romantic, over the top embellishments they were. Hunk |
|
