Cavalry Training

[conz]

Oct 19, 2008 17:23:03 GMT -6 AZ Ranger said:

In order for you to be correct there would have to be 3 types of General orders. Two of which do not take a General to issue but could be issued other ranks.

What General order would have been issued by Generals only in the 1870s?

So have read General Orders and the NEVER is not exactly correct?

AZ Ranger

I don't know the specifics of what constitutes "General Orders," either, except in the sense that we had General Orders, and Special Orders, mostly only used for guard mount.

But I haven't ever seen the sense that a "General Order" was from a General, although that would generally be true, <g> since it was a higher-level instruction of policy or regulation back in the day.

In the Old Army, "General Orders" were mainly used for two reasons: to establish an administrative policy, or to publish administrative orders (like promotions, discharges, etc.). They weren't tactical/operations orders, and they weren't issued at unit-level headquarters (brigade and below).

Today we have a bunch of policies, but I never saw them published as a "General Order" coming out of Corps or Division headquarters (certainly no such thing at brigade and below HQs). Maybe HQ Dept of Army still uses them administratively, as in the case Lew pointed out, but we never saw them in the field.

Anything pertaining to training, marksmanship, etc., at brigade and below is published in Army Regulations, Post Regulations, Field Manuals, Tech Manuals, and special texts, and unit policies. That's all I ever saw and used as a commander.

And that was more than enough. <g>

Clair

[biggordie]

Aye, "The rank and file don't matter...." I believe it was the rank and file who were allegedly the trainees. I would guess that they should have mattered. "Ninety shells a year...." When I was seriously training, I would use more than ninety cartridges per HOUR!!!

And ninety per year is hardly adequate, unless used all at one or two sessions immediately prior to taking the field. Maybe that is exactly what they did. Maybe.

Instead of quoting training of other troops in other decades, it might be useful for someone to post the actual training records of the seventh Cavalry for the spring of 1876, if anyone can find them . Otherwise, this is all idle conjecture, especially the continued garbage from our esteemed resident military expert.

Gordie

[rch]

AZ

AZ, I understand your point about riding a horse at a walk or trot, and It confroms to my one experience on horseback, aside from pony rides. However I think that from time to time on the first 2 weeks of the march they would have had to do more. Any man with no bullets in his pistol would be in a tight spot without regard to the quality of his horsemanship.

I do not believe that the defeat at the LBH can be attributed to poor horsemanship.

As for training generally, I know Custer ordered training for the Gatling Gun Detachment. I doubt he would do that and ignore the whole 7th Cavalry. Culbertson testified that they had company and battalion drill. He said there was no squad drill. I think squad drill was mostly for recruits. Culbertson was from a company which had no recriuts.

I'm sure NCO's were always engaged in correcting errors and informal instruction, but as to what the company was to do when it fell out for drill that, I'm sure, was the determined by the post or company commander.

In the barracks and perhaps in camp there were 4 squads to a company, but these were not tactical units. In action and on an ad hoc basis an NCO might be given a number of men to perform a certain task.

In early March, Reno ordered one hour of target practice a day; about 3 weeks later he reduced the practice to 1/2 hour a day. This was about the same schedule Custer ordered before selecting the sharpshooter detachment in 1868. He was said to have ordered target practice before the Yellowstone and Black Hills Expeditions. I think Custer and Sturgis may both have had a healthy respect for training, and I see no reason to believe that the standards set for the regiment fell off at any time except during the assigment in the South from 1871 to 1873.

It is possible that the rate of fire during the 1876 practice was not fast enough to cause ruptured cartridges.

I am not surprised that it was suggested that the defeat was due to a lack of target pracice. The time period coincides with the formation of the National Rifle Association and an awareness that the general level of American marksmenship needed improvement.

rch

[sherppa]

For what it is worth the Army's current General Orders are as follows:

GENERAL ORDERS
1st General Order
I will guard everything within the limits of my post and quit my post only when properly relieved.

2nd General Order
I will obey my special orders and perform all my duties in a military manner.

3rd General Order
I will report violations of my special orders, emergencies, and anything not covered in my instructions, to the commander of the relief.

And yes capitalizing "General" and "Order" are the prescribed spellings for Army correspondence.

No Soldier attending Basic Combat Training today will graduate without knowing them verbatim.

In addition to these three, I have seen General Orders published in cases of Unit Awards and Medals of Honor.

sherppa

[conz]

Oct 19, 2008 21:03:30 GMT -6 biggordie said:

Instead of quoting training of other troops in other decades, it might be useful for someone to post the actual training records of the seventh Cavalry for the spring of 1876, if anyone can find them . Otherwise, this is all idle conjecture, especially the continued garbage from our esteemed resident military expert.

Gordie

Gordie, you are being silly, and not very useful. If you can't find direct records of their training, on what evidence must you base your judgments on? If you don't have "resident military expert" experience, then at least use the training records and evidence of Regular Army units nearest to our subject as possible...probably the experience of units just prior to our subject would apply more to the experience of later units, but both are valuable.

So what do you offer as evidence of their training? Saying "nothing" doesn't do us any good. Use your imagination, man!

Clair
Resident Military Expert (RME)

[conz]

Oct 19, 2008 22:17:42 GMT -6 sherppa said:

For what it is worth the Army's current General Orders are as follows:

GENERAL ORDERS
1st General Order
I will guard everything within the limits of my post and quit my post only when properly relieved.

2nd General Order
I will obey my special orders and perform all my duties in a military manner.

3rd General Order
I will report violations of my special orders, emergencies, and anything not covered in my instructions, to the commander of the relief.

And yes capitalizing "General" and "Order" are the prescribed spellings for Army correspondence.

No Soldier attending Basic Combat Training today will graduate without knowing them verbatim.

In addition to these three, I have seen General Orders published in cases of Unit Awards and Medals of Honor.

sherppa

That reflects my experience perfectly. Very different from the General Orders of the Civil War era.

But I'm not sure this is on the topic, which was..."can you use the policies of the General Orders of that day as evidence of the lack of training in the companies of the combat units?"

My point that the G.O.'s are pretty poor indication of anything going on at regimental and company level.

Clair

[AZ Ranger]

rch - I think we are not that far apart. I just don't think the 7th was a elite group of trained cavalry. The standards were not very high and some levels of training was less than in the 1850s.

Certainly there is lots of excuses used to deflect blame or responsibility for the poor performance at LBH. So one should look at the actual reaction attempts made to solve real problems. For training you would expect to see advancements based upon need and not excuses. For equipment you would expect to see modifications or replacement.

The Army instituted a Marksmanship program shortly after LBH and a School of Cavalry for horsemanship training. Godfrey had made comments about the basic horsemanship. So I view these to indicate that there truly was lack of training or at least levels were not high enough and equal throughout the Army. The modification to the carbine to assist the removal of a stuck cartridge case occurred right after LBH. I am reasonably sure the use of pack trains was a real issue and the Crook method was adopted in training rather than the Custer method.

So I would agree that marksmanship, horsemanship, packing, and equipment issues are not single items responsible for the defeat of the 7th. I do believe their cumulative effect did not enhance their chance for success.

My thought is there was a transition between the sabre and firearms of the civil war to the center fire cartridge carbine and revolver. The training should include tactics and modification of thought processes of officers also. I can not understand what a trooper was expected to do in charging a village the size of LBH horseback when he fired 6 shots from his revolver and there are hundreds of Indians around willing to fight. Part of good defense is a good bluff sometimes. Would a Indian be more or less willing to close the distance to a trooper with sabre in hand? That alone would have made Reno's retrograde more efficient in my opinion.

AZ Ranger

[Dark Cloud]

Still think that using a sword efficiently required training of the sort the 7th did not have nor the Army was willing to provide, especially if to be used while mounted in a charge. It would require a level of horsemanship not shared by many in the 7th, with one hand wielding a big knife.

Not clear on how the sword would have made much difference. While the issue of coup was an important part of a warrior's makeup, defending home and family might edge that to the back burner, and rather than the dramatic one on one battle they'd be as likely to fire an arrow into a sword bearer or a soldier reloading his pistol. Either way, if the Indians do not run and greatly outnumber you, the charge made no sense whatsoever.

rch posts: "I think Custer and Sturgis may both have had a healthy respect for training, and I see no reason to believe that the standards set for the regiment fell off at any time except during the assigment in the South from 1871 to 1873."

Really? What exactly WERE the standards set? What level of incompetence was acceptable? In 1874, they were still trying out different weapons.

Assuming that the standards were adequate and high - and that lack of evidence for chronic training and practice is actually evidence they existed - does not harmonize with the low regard they had for the Indians and boilerplate assumption they would run every time. And, you know, the results through the decades.

There was no budget for sufficient ammo to practice to the level a soldier would need. Further, the Indian Wars in general are not testement to a federal army trained all that well, regardless of Custer's disaster.

[AZ Ranger]

Oct 20, 2008 6:36:39 GMT -6 @conz said:

Oct 19, 2008 22:17:42 GMT -6 sherppa said:

For what it is worth the Army's current General Orders are as follows:

GENERAL ORDERS
1st General Order
I will guard everything within the limits of my post and quit my post only when properly relieved.

2nd General Order
I will obey my special orders and perform all my duties in a military manner.

3rd General Order
I will report violations of my special orders, emergencies, and anything not covered in my instructions, to the commander of the relief.

And yes capitalizing "General" and "Order" are the prescribed spellings for Army correspondence.

No Soldier attending Basic Combat Training today will graduate without knowing them verbatim.

In addition to these three, I have seen General Orders published in cases of Unit Awards and Medals of Honor.

sherppa

That reflects my experience perfectly. Very different from the General Orders of the Civil War era.

But I'm not sure this is on the topic, which was..."can you use the policies of the General Orders of that day as evidence of the lack of training in the companies of the combat units?"

My point that the G.O.'s are pretty poor indication of anything going on at regimental and company level.

Clair

You are changing the discussion of GO and training. The discussion was that command officers in general did not feel the need to train in marksmanship. I was asked if any officers put more emphasis on firearms training. I provided the GO for that answer with General Ord being a example and that he required reports. In the police world training does not occur unless it is documented. Although we all know you can learn on the job you can not prove everyone had the same on the job experience in which they learned basic skills. One should not assume all your troopers are equal in skill level without asking them to demonstrate it. Reports and records is the means for an officer to not be there when the individual demonstrates his skill level. Can you imagine an officer on Reno's skirmish line looking at his NCOs and stating you told me they were crack shots.

I do not believe General Orders have changed at all. The Department of Army General Orders (DA GO) look the same to me. The commanding officer General Orders look the same and are not issue by a general necessarily. The all have a general application rather than a individual directive. The higher the rank or position the more total individuals are included. They still include establishments, recognitions, and directions.

AZ Ranger

[AZ Ranger]

DC My thought is the sabre could be used to deflect blows which is a human nature to do so very little training to do that is required. It could be used to push off a closing Indian within arms reach and I think it would have a deterrent effect. I don't think it had any offensive nature in going into the village other than shock. Once you fired your 6 shots it MIGHT help to get you out of there. The assumption on my part is that a trooper had the ability to ride with at least one hand free.

AZ Ranger

[Dark Cloud]

You're a good rider and you may forget how difficult controlling an excited horse is with one hand for the far less experienced while at the same time dicing with death with the other. It strikes me that sorta/kinda training with swords would result in soldiers slowing down to engage and being shot or pulled from their mounts. Awkwardness on the horse would resonate quickly with the Indians, and they'd take advantage.

The whole scenario makes no sense absent the Sioux bolting. The 7th could not sufficiently engage while mounted, could not defend themselves and their mounts sufficiently when not. In any case, they did not.

[BrokenSword]

I thought the saber fell more into the category of a tool rather than weapon. Like the small folding shovels infantry often carry. The saber being swung in circles over head might frighten some of the enemy during a charge, but in my mind, didn’t offer great advantage against bayonet tipped musket or rifle, lance or spear. Artists just LOVE the image, but the reality may be somewhat different - no huge surprised there.

Sabers were literally long knives whose main purpose was to reach out and cut the harnessing on artillery horses as well as to cripple the animals by chopping the backs of their lower legs, or to slice through the reigns of an enemy‘s horse. In a hand to hand fight and a pinch, the saber could be used as an effective weapon, just as a shovel or number of other ‘tools’ might be, but it strikes me as a go-to weapon, and not a first choice in an attack. Certainly of little practical use while charging through a village, unless you want to hack down clothes lines and knock their laundry into the dirt.

B(ent) S(aber)

[conz]

Oct 20, 2008 7:27:13 GMT -6 AZ Ranger said:

I just don't think the 7th was a elite group of trained cavalry. The standards were not very high and some levels of training was less than in the 1850s.

On what basis do you make your judgment that the training in the 7th was less in the 1870s than in the 1850s?

I can live with your first opinion, because that is in the eye of the beholder. But the second one needs some justification, I think.

Clair

[conz]

Oct 20, 2008 7:52:48 GMT -6 Dark Cloud said:

It would require a level of horsemanship not shared by many in the 7th...

Why do you rate the horsemanship in the 7th as inadequate? Is not galloping across the plains, bareback, and sometimes bridleless as well, carbines in hand, proof of "adequate" horsemanship?

Do you believe that most of these Troopers could "ride in the manner of the ancient Romans?" as John Ford would put it?

Looks to me like the evidence for very good horsemanship skills in these frontier regiments is the norm.

There was no budget for sufficient ammo to practice to the level a soldier would need. Further, the Indian Wars in general are not testement to a federal army trained all that well, regardless of Custer's disaster.

It is not established that there was insufficient ammunition available for levels "a soldier would need." Reading the "General Orders," et al, on that subject is not convincing evidence of what really happened at the unit level regarding marksmanship training.

Clair

[conz]

Oct 20, 2008 8:01:52 GMT -6 AZ Ranger said:

You are changing the discussion of GO and training. The discussion was that command officers in general did not feel the need to train in marksmanship.

Why do you think this?!

I was asked if any officers put more emphasis on firearms training. I provided the GO for that answer with General Ord being a example and that he required reports.

Aye, this would be very typical of the higher officer's need to monitor what is going on in his units. They are always asking for more reports, as if the mere presence of a report actually indicates what it really going on. <g> But yes, he is trying to excert some influence as to what happens at company level. Next step will be for inspectors to go down and try to verify that what is in the reports is actually true, or is interpreted correctly.

In the police world training does not occur unless it is documented.

Not in the Army world...we aren't that anal about documenting training. Now we do a LOT more of this today then we did back then...I see very few instances of filling out training or evaluation reports back then except anecdotal reports by inspecting officers or commanders. Today we have regulations for many aspects of Soldier training and promotion. But it doesn't come near to reporting everything a Soldier does/learns.

Although we all know you can learn on the job you can not prove everyone had the same on the job experience in which they learned basic skills. One should not assume all your troopers are equal in skill level without asking them to demonstrate it. Reports and records is the means for an officer to not be there when the individual demonstrates his skill level. Can you imagine an officer on Reno's skirmish line looking at his NCOs and stating you told me they were crack shots.

I fully agree with you, and the modern military does a lot more of this than they did back then just for such reasons. But the lack of such a system does not mean units were poorly trained back then...it only means that we didn't track them centrally in such a detailed fashion.

I do not believe General Orders have changed at all. The Department of Army General Orders (DA GO) look the same to me. The commanding officer General Orders look the same and are not issue by a general necessarily. The all have a general application rather than a individual directive. The higher the rank or position the more total individuals are included. They still include establishments, recognitions, and directions.

Well, I never got one. <g>

I'll look around here at Ft Knox and see if I can find any influence of G.O.'s, especially with regards to "directions." Down the hall is the bulletin board for orders and announcements for the 16th Cavalry Regiment...

Clair