|
|
Post by conz on Oct 16, 2008 19:10:16 GMT -6
Was Custer there overseeing the training or was he begging to be allowed to participate in the campaign. Was Reno in charge of training and did not discover the ammunition issue causing weapon failure and jamming until after the battle? Who cares what these officers did or thought pertaining to training? Didn't they have NCO's?! Have you guys learned nothing? Clair |
|
|
|
Post by clansman on Oct 17, 2008 2:45:53 GMT -6
It was and is an NCOs responsibility to make sure his platoon or squad received adequate training. An officer occasionally put in an appearance but took no part in training.
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 17, 2008 5:30:44 GMT -6
So were are to believe that even when the CO doesn't believe in marksmanship training and provides no ammunition or material for targets that NCOs would act insubordinately and do it anyway. The officers that did not believe in marksmanship controlled the purse strings and set the general orders. Show us General Orders other than General Ord and General Auger establishing the implementation of marksmanship in the time period which would effect the actual troopers at LBH.
Are we to believe that NCOs established the 1860's rifle company that was deployed at Washita on their own volition and also decided it was not necessary for LBH?
I am shocked that anyone would believe that officers have no control over the basic content of training. There is no argument on who preformed the instruction of the training. Raising that is Red Herring.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 17, 2008 6:06:11 GMT -6
Also the horse returns prepared for the end of May don't reflect a significant loss among horses for the first 2 weeks of the march from Ft Lincoln; something that might be expected if the riders were incompetent.
rch
Every day mules walk into the Grand Canyon with inexperienced riders and show up the next day to do it again. Most travel was done at a walk and it would not require much horsemanship. The horses knew what to do. From looking at all the white spots on cavalry horse pictures, they had issues.
The stationary weight of saddle and accroutrements would remain constant for experienced rider or not and the movable weight, the rider, was kept to a minimum with the preferred size of the trooper being small. The horsemanship skill lacking that I refer to is an independent seat and would come into play in the gallop and charge by allowing the hands to perform tasks other than holding on. I have no doubt most people of the era could sit a walk and stand a trot as good as any tourist does today. Could a trooper defend themselves from Indians in close quarters after firing all the shots in their revolver? Or were they just holding on and not firing at all?
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 17, 2008 7:11:40 GMT -6
So were are to believe that even when the CO doesn't believe in marksmanship training and provides no ammunition or material for targets that NCOs would act insubordinately and do it anyway. Silly...for one, I don't know of any "CO's" that didn't believe in marksmanship training. Just the opposite...I've seen many accounts where the company and regimental commanders DID believe in, and do, marksmanship training. CO's sometimes bought ammunition out of their own pockets to do more training than the Army provided for...haven't you seen that? Where do you see that company and regimental commanders wouldn't provide ammunition for firing? I see them drawing from their local ordnance depots all the time in various accounts...it was rather routine. Material for targets? Are you kidding? You guys are really "locked up" in your thinking if you don't believe that any NCO could whip up targets, and makeshift ranges while out on the march, or in camp, without any word or thought from any officer. Please...get a grip on reality...too much "book learning" here, and not enough reality check on what professional NCOs and junior officers do daily. Who cares what generals think?! What does that have to do with the price of beans (or rounds) at the company or regimental level? Generals can make things a bit harder, or a bit easier, for those company NCOs, but the Sergeants are going to train their men, regardless. That's what professionals do. Ignore any General Orders you see...most Regulars don't follow them anyway, even if they ever read them. In my entire Army career, I NEVER read a single "General Order." All that stuff is for the newspapers, and the gullible public. Are you talking about Cooke's sharpshooter detachment? That was the regimental commander's pet idea...no general ordered it. The NCO's couldn't have cared less, I'm sure. They had so many good marksmen that you can see in Barnitz where after detaching all the men to form that elite unit, he still had enough good shots for form his own company "sharpshooter" squad. I wonder where they all got the rounds to get that good? I haven't seen a single account where targets were procured and set up on a regulation range, and marksmanship records kept. So I guess, without a manual, without ammo, and without a range, they weren't really the good shots their officers and NCOs said that they were. Or more importantly, that the Warriors wouldn't come close to when they were lined up in skirmish order. <g> In any army, any age, a brilliant officer can write the most brilliant, comprehensive, and sensible manuals and issue general orders, and NOT ONE THING will happen if the NCO's don't follow it. OTOH, no manuals, no orders, no officers, and the NCO's in a company will scrounge ammo, time, and a roughshod range with targets to make all their men expert shots, eventually. Give that NCO a manual, and he'll probably just sit on it while he conducts the training that he KNOWS his particular group of men REALLY need. And the thought of a fresh LT out of West Point, latest marksmanship manual in hand, trying to instruct an old Irish Mick 1SG how to train his men would be too funny a scene that should have been in a John Ford movie. <g> That's the Regular Army. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by clansman on Oct 17, 2008 8:51:32 GMT -6
I agree entirely with conz on this one. In my nine years experience as an NCO I never knew any company commander who was not in favour of basic training, firearms or otherwise. They left it to the discretion of the NCO, who. if he was worth his salt and they invariably were or wouldn't be NCOs, made sure his platoon was adequately and regularly trained. In fact there was always great rivalry between the different platoons in this respect. There is no red herring here. That is how it was. I don't know which army you were in, az, but if you relied on officers I wouldn't like you to support me. (no offence, Clair).
|
|
|
|
Post by bc on Oct 17, 2008 9:30:10 GMT -6
I was in an army where real men saluted with the palm down and only the first finger touching the the forehead and where real men didn't wear skirts. Of course in today's army, they are not supposed to ask or tell anything about skirts so I don't know. And our Lieutenants are not leftists either. Can we still be allies?
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 17, 2008 10:16:27 GMT -6
Some more notes I found laying around...
In late March [1867], more than 1,400 soldiers – including eight companies of Custer’s 7th Cavalry – marched down the Santa Fe Trail to the Arkansas River. The troopers were kept busy along the way staging aggressive battle exercises that were intended to intimidate and impress the unseen Indian observers…- The Custer Companion, Thom Hatch
Lieutenant James Calhoun of Company L wrote in his diary on July 1, 1874: "The new Springfield arms and ammunition were issued to the command today. They seem to give great satisfaction." – lonestarrifle.com
“…was the signal for a well-directed volley, as fifteen cavalry carbines poured their contents into the ranks of the shrieking savages. Before the latter could recover from the surprise and confusion which followed, the carbines – thanks to the invention of breech-loaders – were almost instantly loaded, and a second carefully aimed discharge went whistling on its deadly errand. Several warriors were seen to reel in their saddles, and were only saved from falling by the quickly extended arms of their fellows. Ponies were tumbled over like butchered bullocks, their riders glad to find themselves escaping with less serious injuries. The effect of the rapid firing of the troopers, and their firm, determined stand, showing that they thought neither of flight nor surrender, was to compel the savages first to slacken their speed, then to turn lose their daring and confidence in their ability to trample down the little group of defenders to the front. Death to many of their number stared them in the face.” – GA Custer on a Yellowstone fight in 1873, revealing disciplined and effective soldier firing
Sheridan notified all friendly Indians to take refuge on the reservation set apart by the Medicine Lodge Treaties and report at Fort Cobb, Okla., which he ordered reactivated. He accumulated huge stores of supplies and winter equipment at Forts Dodge, Arbuckle (Okla.), Lyon (Colo.), and Bascom (N.Mex.); and formed wagon and pack trains to transport them. He also inaugurated a rigorous training program for the troops, and recruited white and Indian scouts. – cr.nps.gov
“Drills and target practice were pushed to the limit. Forty of the best shots were selected for a separate organization under the command of Lieutenant Cooke. We youngsters called it the ‘Corps d’elite’ and the name stuck throughout the campaign.” – Ed Godfrey, on the time spent at Camp Sandy Forsyth in the fall of 1868.
“The troopers, most of them being thoroughly accustomed to Indian fighting, preserved the most admirable coolness from the moment the fight began.” - GA Custer on a Yellowstone fight in 1873, revealing the experience and veteran status of the 7th Cavalrymen
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by clansman on Oct 17, 2008 11:43:59 GMT -6
bc
Of course we can still be allies. How on earth would you win your wars without us? The jibes about skirts doesn't worry me. I've heard them all before. After all some of the greatest armies in history wore "skirts" eg, the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians. If you read the history of any Highland regiment you will see who the real men were. The Germans in WW1 were so afraid of us they called us the Ladies from Hell. As for saluting with the palm down, was that to shade your eyes from the sun? Don't forget, we were saluting the proper way when you guys were still on the Mayflower.
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 18, 2008 8:44:24 GMT -6
In my entire Army career, I NEVER read a single "General Order." All that stuff is for the newspapers, and the gullible public.
I believe you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 18, 2008 8:45:25 GMT -6
Again, difficult to avoid "nonsense." Using Custer as a coldly objective source as to his own command, and taking selections from his writings even after he'd been convicted at courtmartial is not just ignorant, it's dangeorus. Even the Army didn't take him at his word. The man lied a lot, and was convicted at court martial for it.
After his courtmartial and previous to imminent combat, the soldiers were indeed trained before the Washita. Absent one company they organized supposed sharpshooters (which meant better than the average in the 7th, not to any proficiency standard) into a separate group. It was nearly sufficient for them to overpower a village they greatly outnumbered at dawn, where the majority killed were not warriors. In fact, the Indians killed about as many of our warriors as we did of theirs. And without all that training.
No doubt it impressed the young Godfrey at the time.
But, as in anything, the bi-polar approach to training doesn't work. You have to train with regularity, especially given the turnover in men. They didn't do that, and the 7th got worse and worse along with the rest of the Army.
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 18, 2008 8:49:47 GMT -6
Silly...for one, I don't know of any "CO's" that didn't believe in marksmanship training. Just the opposite...I've seen many accounts where the company and regimental commanders DID believe in, and do, marksmanship training.
Provide proof. I would like to see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 18, 2008 9:02:00 GMT -6
Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it didn't exist. You have all ready stated the you have NEVER read a General Order
no general ordered it. General Custer ordered it. That is exactly the discussion regarding the the 1867 7th and the 1876 7th. What happened to it?
There may be some confusion on my part on what consititues a General Order and an general order from the CO.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 18, 2008 9:07:04 GMT -6
In my entire Army career, I NEVER read a single "General Order." All that stuff is for the newspapers, and the gullible public. I believe you. Just thinking about my first night in Marine Corps we had a list of General Orders to memorize while we stood on yellow footprints. We also learned the General Orders for guard duty. So why were Marine reruits required to learn General Orders and Army officers NEVER read them? |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 18, 2008 9:41:54 GMT -6
I agree entirely with conz on this one. In my nine years experience as an NCO I never knew any company commander who was not in favour of basic training, firearms or otherwise. They left it to the discretion of the NCO, who. if he was worth his salt and they invariably were or wouldn't be NCOs, made sure his platoon was adequately and regularly trained. In fact there was always great rivalry between the different platoons in this respect. There is no red herring here. That is how it was. I don't know which army you were in, az, but if you relied on officers I wouldn't like you to support me. (no offence, Clair). Not in the Army it was the United States Marine Corps. Since neither you nor Conz served in the Army when volley fire and officer control was the norm, how could you possibly speak for the officers of that time. Do we have Major Generals today leading the charge as Custer did in those times? The red herring I referred to was who did the instruction for the training. No one has said the General was out there instructing the training. My experience was that the NCOs performed the daily training and when we tested the officers were present. There was an evolution of rifle tactics that occurred with the deployment of rifled barreled weapons. It changed military tactics the transition began at the end of the CW and was not completed till the early 1900's. "Armed with articles from the Army and Navy Journal and led by Brig. Gen. John C. Tidball (who believed Custer would have won had his men practiced marksmanship), enlisted men and officers of all grades pressured Chief of Ordinance Brig. General Stephen Vincent Benet into releasing army ammunition for target practice." You did not need much target practice to fire a muzzle loader at 50 yards. You fired one shot with everyone at once and then bayonets became the weapon of choice. Semper Fi AZ Ranger |
|
