|
|
Post by rch on Oct 20, 2008 13:02:20 GMT -6
When I mentioned general and special orders and circulars, I thought I was making a reasonable suggestion about where some useful information about training might be found. I still believe that to be the case.
rch
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 20, 2008 13:27:26 GMT -6
Guys,
I talked to some of my buddies down the hall, and they admitted that they DO still use General Orders as directives, but only overseas in combat theaters. Explains why I never got any, since all my assignments were in stable training environments overseas and stateside.
In Iraq, there are several General Orders currently in effect, and most are used to regulate Soldier behavior over there. The biggie, and the only one most can quote verbatim, is "General Order #1" out of CENTCOM. That is the prohibition of using alcohol in the SWA theater, and lots of Soldiers (even officers) get zinged on that one.
Most of the others are filtered down as "Rules of Engagement" and "Rules of Interaction" so nobody reads the G.O.'s covering that...they have their own local SOPs.
I haven't run across any that address training yet, but if I do, I'll pass that along.
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by sherppa on Oct 20, 2008 15:22:33 GMT -6
When I mentioned general and special orders and circulars, I thought I was making a reasonable suggestion about where some useful information about training might be found. I still believe that to be the case. rch I think you were right ont he money, along with SOPs. sherppa |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 20, 2008 20:29:18 GMT -6
Documenting training in the civilian world of police work is not anal conz, it is a necessity. It is the lawsuits and civil law that requires police departments to maintain records. You can be sued for failure to train in this civilian world. Firearms instructors are involved in lawsuits in police shootings and have to produce the training records.
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 20, 2008 20:33:51 GMT -6
Guys, I talked to some of my buddies down the hall, and they admitted that they DO still use General Orders as directives, but only overseas in combat theaters. Explains why I never got any, since all my assignments were in stable training environments overseas and stateside. In Iraq, there are several General Orders currently in effect, and most are used to regulate Soldier behavior over there. The biggie, and the only one most can quote verbatim, is "General Order #1" out of CENTCOM. That is the prohibition of using alcohol in the SWA theater, and lots of Soldiers (even officers) get zinged on that one. Most of the others are filtered down as "Rules of Engagement" and "Rules of Interaction" so nobody reads the G.O.'s covering that...they have their own local SOPs. I haven't run across any that address training yet, but if I do, I'll pass that along. Clair I posted that in reply 85 |
|
|
|
Post by rch on Oct 21, 2008 9:45:25 GMT -6
It appears that general and special orders for sentinels go back a long way and are likely more related to English usage. A number of regulations appling to the duties of a sentinel are in the 1861 Regulations, including phrases such as "take charge" of a post and "repeat calls from posts more distant."
General orders for a sentinel were those that applied generally to all guard posts; special orders were governed by the unique nature of each particular guard post.
A. V. Kautz in his book on the 1865 customs of the service for enlisted men, gives his version of the general orders which appear to be based on the regulations. They probably evolved over time. If a sentinel was asked what his general orders were, according to Kautz his answer should be:
"I am required to take charge of this post and all public property in view; to salute all officers passing, according to rank; to give the alarm in case of fire, or the approach of an enemy, or any disturbance whatsoever; to report all violations of the Articles of War, Regulations of the Arrmy, or camp or garrison orders; at night to challenge all persons approaching my post, and to allow no one to pass without the countersign until they are examined by an officer or non-commissioned officer of the guard."
rch
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 21, 2008 10:17:04 GMT -6
General orders are distinct from direct orders. They're issued by an officer to all those he commands unless exceptions are listed. Without a stated duration to be in force, they're standing orders. The term 'general' does not refer to rank. The Army, and West Point, is composed of standing orders and general orders.
Documenting training in the Army world of military work isn't anal either, rather required, and of great benefit to those who shell out for it to know whether it's been spent wisely. Those are disturbing contentions.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 21, 2008 10:43:56 GMT -6
Documenting training in the civilian world of police work is not anal conz, it is a necessity. It is the lawsuits and civil law that requires police departments to maintain records. You can be sued for failure to train in this civilian world. Firearms instructors are involved in lawsuits in police shootings and have to produce the training records. Oh, I well understand. We don't have such strict requirements, although we still do a considerable amount of record-keeping today. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 21, 2008 10:45:39 GMT -6
When I mentioned general and special orders and circulars, I thought I was making a reasonable suggestion about where some useful information about training might be found. I still believe that to be the case. rch I agree, rch...just use such information advisedly, as all evidence. <g> Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 21, 2008 12:45:13 GMT -6
Regular Army cavalry basic training, from a Soldier's memoirs...
“If the vaulting exercise had been difficult before, it was now still more so; in fact, it had reached its climax. The heavy carbine was attached to the sling belt by an iron swivel and hung, muzzle down, when the trooper was mounted, but when dismounted and standing to horse ready to mount, it was thrown over the right shoulder and hung down his back. The saber was attached to the waist belt by two narrow straps, one a little longer than the other and always hung loose in them except when worn on foot drill, when it was hooked up on the waist belt.
“With that rig, and in the style just described, we stood the day after the order was given, by our horses, ready to mount if we could, but it certainly didn’t look like it was possible. We had to overcome the difficulties in vaulting into the saddle and believed ourselves well on the way to perfection in that part of mounted drill, but when I stood by the side of my horse that morning looking at the long saber by my left side, the lower part of the scabbard resting on the ground about two and one-half feet behind me and the upper part of the scabbard wit the hilt of the saber projecting out at least one foot in front of me, and the carbine hanging down the middle of my back with the butt end just opposite the back of my head, I wondered if it was possible for me to make a spring with such force as to bring myself and those loose and dangling weapons up on the back of my horse.
“That there was fun on the drillground that morning when the first sergeant, after having explained the rules in the new exercise, gave the necessary commands to mount, can be imagined. Few, if any of us expected to be able to execute the command in proper style, and when the command fell there followed a scramble and a terrible rattling of sabers along the line, but only a few could be seen on top of their horses when the commotion was over. The others were either lying on the ground or standing by their horses with a disgusted look on their faces, I being among the last named. It took several days fo that kind of vaulting exercise before Sergeant O’Connel allowed us to begin exercise in the riding ring. Even then we had to turn out “under arms” at every drill hour and make several vaults with the whole rig on before we were allowed to take off our belts, “stack” carbines and take the ring.” (James Larson, Sergeant Larson, 4th Cav., pgs 96-97)
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 21, 2008 13:30:05 GMT -6
Need to use a saber?
Sergeant Bishop fired his carbine and then discharged his horse pistol. There was not time to reload and so he drew his saber. Finding himself beset by several warriors and struck in the side by a musket ball, Bishop pointed his saber forward in “tierce point,” spurred his mount, and rushed headlong into his foes. Later he would recall that he “made his saber . . . drink blood”; the lanky sergeant hacked and parried lance thrusts, fended off blows from buffalo hide shields, somehow fighting his way back to the safety of the Dragoon encampment.
A history of the 1st Dragoons, I think this is about 1859
|
|
|
|
Post by lew on Oct 21, 2008 14:09:48 GMT -6
Col. John S. Mosby wrote "I believe I was the first cavalry commander who discarded the sabre as useless and consigned it to museums for the preservation of antiquities. My men were as little impressed by a body of cavalry charging them with sabres as though they had been armed with cornstalks. In the Napoleonic wars cavalry might sometimes ride down infantry armed with muzzle-loaders and flintlocks, because the infantry would be broken by the momentum of the charge before more than one effective fire could be delivered. At Eylau the French cavalry rode over the Russians in a snowstorm because the powder of the infantry was wet and they were defenseless. Fixed ammunition had not been invented. I think that my command reached the highest point of efficiency as cavalry because they were well armed with two six-shooters and their charges combined the effect of fire and shock."
|
|
|
|
Post by bc on Oct 21, 2008 14:12:48 GMT -6
Saber use: Although not effective to use a saber charge vs. NAs, sabers would have come in handy at LSH and Calhoun Hill. Too bad no one planned to be surrounded and fighting to the last man so they instead left the sabers at the Powder River Depot.
|
|
|
|
Post by lew on Oct 21, 2008 14:35:31 GMT -6
BC, I'd take an extra revolver over a sabre. Col. Theodore Roosevelt wrote the following;"We felt very strongly that it would be worse than a waste of time to try to train our men to use the sabre—a weapon utterly alien to them; but with the rifle and revolver they were already thoroughly familiar. Many of my cavalry friends in the past had insisted to me that the revolver was a better weapon than the sword—among them Basil Duke, the noted Confederate cavalry leader, and Captain Frank Edwards, whom I had met when elk-hunting on the head-waters of the Yellowstone and the Snake. Personally, I knew too little to decide as to the comparative merits of the two arms; but I did know that it was a great deal better to use the arm with which our men were already proficient. They were therefore armed with what might be called their natural weapon, the revolver."
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 21, 2008 14:41:45 GMT -6
At least train them well in something. The 7th of 1876 was trained sufficiently well (as a group) in nothing. Not horsemanship, carbine (with either powder charge), nor pistol. Giving them a sword with which they're not trained either would be just weight and false security.
|
|
