Cavalry Training

[conz]

Steve,

Thought of you as I read the latest Army training bulletin out today decrying the low level of marksmanship for Soldiers in Afghanistan and the need for all units to perform more marksmanship training in the field. It discusses the many methods to conduct "field expedient" marksmanship training when you are in a combat zone.

Sounds familiar. <g>

Clair

[AZ Ranger]

Clair

The nature of the operations there would be conducive to having more proficient marksmanship of the units equaling success. That is how I view LBH there was never more than 3 companies engaged at one time except at Reno-Benteen. I would agree that if all 12 companies were on the valley floor in mutual support the marksmanship level needed to survive would be lower.

I think in general if you think there is no way to win you're right. I also believe that skills needed to be efficient in the west were a higher level than during the civil war yet I don't think they were. Horses were expendable and replaceable during the civil war. The 7th was so short of horses that they left troopers behind.

Steve

[Dark Cloud]

It would be interesting to know if the 'decline' in marksmanship by the current Army rather speaks to people on their exhausting 45th tour opting to decline unnecessary risk, which requires staying somewhat more exposed to take a well aimed shot or eight. We know where the bad guys are, call in artillery or air. We can afford it, and why risk men?

To the Union, everything was expendible in the CW, people not least. The South got very depressed at the rapidity of Northern replacements and of equipment, and the 'why bother? they'll have it again tomorrow...'mind set appeared early. Recall that Grant had 'too much' artillery and planted it around. At Lee's surrender, the AOP could feed the starving ANV (and they in their own land) for a prolonged period with hardly an extra drop of sweat. The QM Corps guy was brilliant keeping it all organized (color coordinated wagon trains) and moving correctly, and Grant said so in his memoirs. THAT's a winning Army, but the guys who made it possible at great brains and effort get elbowed aside by history for the primping Custers and Picketts who accomplished far, far less for their cause and men.

The industrial masterminds of WWII that essentially flipped a switch and made more weaponry and ships than the rest of the world combined in about a month or whatever, fail to receive sufficient credit. Yeah, they got money, but yeah, it was a 24-7 job.

[newn]

Taylor enlisted January 14 1872 and was assigned February 17, 1872 to 7th Cavalry!
4 weeks-barely time to ride/shoot!
typical?

[Melani]

I assume he would have continued training after his assignment.

[sherppa]

Currently Soldiers on Active Duty are required to qualify 2 times a year with there assigned weapon. On the Reserve and NG side it is still once a year with additional qualification required prior to Deploying. This a huge improvement over the the once a year requirement. Soldiers need trigger time, shooting like most skills is highly perishable. I notice a big difference if I take more then a couple weeks of from the range, pistol or rifle.

Largley our advantage in the area of marksmanship has been our enemies tends to be worse shots or simply less fire disicpline.

[AZ Ranger]

Since the cavalry no longer has horses they should have more time for other training. Horsemanship was on the way out because of the rifled barrel allowing greater accuracy.


Up to that time the smoothbores would wait until the cavalry closed to 50 yards and get off one shot. The cavalry trained to charge at 50 yards so the horses would arrive about the same time. Once you could have more accurate fire the number of shots by the individual soldier increased. The volley fire evolved to individual fire and the rifleman.

["Hunk" Papa]

Jul 30, 2009 11:29:12 GMT -6 @conz said:

Steve,

Thought of you as I read the latest Army training bulletin out today decrying the low level of marksmanship for Soldiers in Afghanistan and the need for all units to perform more marksmanship training in the field. It discusses the many methods to conduct "field expedient" marksmanship training when you are in a combat zone.

Sounds familiar. <g>
Clair

A further piece of evidence, if indeed one was necessary, that training in the 7th was not top of anyone's agenda, comes from Varnum's biography:-

While Custer was very much of a martinet, he never drilled anything in his life or ever watched a drill. He could hardly drill a squad. He left the drilling to his company commanders who didn't exert themselves."

Where's a grizzled old sergeant when you need one.

[quincannon]

Hunk: I get beat up a lot especially on the other board, but in light of you resurecting this thread it bears saying again. The 7th Cavalry was a route step outfit, While they may, if reports are correct, have been good a spit and polish, along with parade ground maneuvers, they were hardly the stuff of hard campaigning against a very able foe, either by today's standards or those of that day.

["Hunk" Papa]

Aug 19, 2011 20:40:38 GMT -6 quincannon said:

Hunk: I get beat up a lot especially on the other board, but in light of you resurecting this thread it bears saying again. The 7th Cavalry was a route step outfit, While they may, if reports are correct, have been good a spit and polish, along with parade ground maneuvers, they were hardly the stuff of hard campaigning against a very able foe, either by today's standards or those of that day.

I can't speak for the other board, though I do understand what you are saying, as the person who started this thread and provided many silly posts on it, is undoubtedly one of those who 'beats you up."

Whilst I generally acquiesce with what you say, it must not be forgotten that, Little Big Horn aside, the 7th had relative success against the Plains Indians. That it was not in pitched battles and not even the Washita qualifies in that sense, points to the fact that the singularity of the LBH was the decisive factor. A greater force of warriors than ever before and in fighting mood were more than Custer's force could deal with on a day when the Indians did not scatter. Better marksmanship might have made some difference, but as horsemanship did not figure as such, it should be discounted.

[quincannon]

Soldiers do well in battle only those things they train for. I don't believe there was any training program in existance at that time beyond the superficial. Marksmanship is certainly one area of deficiency, but there are many others. I think this post Civil War period was one of transition to a period lasting unitil today and the foreseeable future of a more open style of warfare. What training that did exist, I don't believe took this into account. In addition I do not believe the regiment's leadership was particularly adept at training, and seemed to show little interest. That is a very broad statement, and I am sure there were exceptions, but it sure does look like that on the surface.

[benteen]

quincannon,

Colonel, I'm not very well versed in this topic, but do you think that the lack of proper training, marksmanship etc, was to an under estimation of the enemy. Who needs training, why waste money on ammo , or drill etc when all the enemy are is a bunch of savages, stone age people that we can run through any time we want

Be Well
Dan

[quincannon]

Dan: In all probability that contributed to it. All you have to do to understand the U S Army of the time is to read Kipling's Tommy Atkins. Out of sight, out of mind, the big wars over, fend for yourself. Chuck him out the brute.. Now forgive me Cary Grant, Douglas Fairbanks's Jr and Victor Macglaglen are on tonight in Gunga Din and I have missed a half an hour already.

[AZ Ranger]

Gunga Din is one of my favorite movies

[benteen]

Though I belted you and flayed you by the very God that made you you are a better man than I Gunga Din