|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 24, 2009 10:35:58 GMT -6
Isn't marksmanship an athletic endeavor? You cannot make someone a great or even adequate athlete without a baseline of genetic gifts. You can make them as good as their physical abilities allow (mental training is also, really, physical) but you cannot install muscle cells or nerve synapse.
If not maintained by practice, exercise, and training updates, they regress to their norm. Or, with age, worse.
We have much evidence (enemy casualties, battle accounts, disgusted reviews by civvie scouts and later, officers) the shooting and riding left much to be desired in the frontier army. What offered evidence contradicts it? None, really.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 24, 2009 11:07:22 GMT -6
Not being able to compensate for supposed superior enemy accuracy (even by the units you called 'elite') is not quite the same thing as unintended failure to "overcome firepower." In the very few and arguable examples possible, a more accurate statement would be that the decision was reached NOT to overcome that supposed firepower because a temporary goal wasn't worth the casualties, or often any casualties. They certainly could have. Yes, I certainly agree with you here. At any time, the Warriors could, physically, have overrun any part, or whole, of the 7th regiment that day. The reason they did not is what is important...it surely isn't because they didn't WANT to. They couldn't do it even though they DID want to. No war chief could make his group of followers ride through any field of fire of any Army skirmish line into close combat with the target. In my studies, I have never found one instance where this occurred. Many times they DID try...the leaders DID want to do this. But they could never pull it off, even though physically, as you well point out, they could have in any of our Plains Wars battles. But as Napoleon said, "In war, the moral is to the physical as 3 is to 1." That is the key to understanding combat...psychological factors dominate cause and effect formulas, which are only influenced by physical factors. That should help bolster all my arguments about marksmanship, above. That would be a good project, and not too hard to do. I'll bet the list is longer than you think. I'm not sure what you mean by this, but of course there are many permutations of combat other than skirmish lines. The current discussion is limited to the ability of Warriors to overcome the firepower of skirmish lines, and the importance of marksmanship to that formula. There were as many combats between Cavalry and Indians that didn't involve skirmish lines, as did. In what proportion? Well...making that list above would be the first step to investigation. 1SG Ryan's firing was not "late appearing," if I understand your meaning. Many of the Civil War veterans were very good shots, you should admit. You are being far too simplistic, which is okay, because you are not a tactician. Examine my model more closely. I think your model would have that no skirmish lines ever existed, so you don't have to deal with this issue. But for those who DO include skirmish lines in their model of what happened with Custer's wing, you must be able to explain how they were overcome other than that they were "outnumbered," or that their marksmanship wasn't good enough. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 24, 2009 11:13:45 GMT -6
The fights you mentioned took place in the 1866-68 period when warriors were still "new" at fighting soldiers and before soldiers were armed with rapid fire weapons. They learned that mass charges were not going to be effective and would cause heavy casualties. I think Kingsley Bray in his CH bio mentions the evolution of Lakota tactics a bit...it is a good point. Careful, though...note that the U.S. Cavalry regiments coming out of the Civil War had Spencer repeating rifles mostly...the fasting firing weapons on the plains. By the time of LBH, most regiments (all, I think) had converted to single-shot Springfield carbines. So their rate of fire actually decreased from Washita to LBH...their firepower went down (but it could kill at a farther range). Yes...I think they could often find ways to "counter" any Army tactic. They just couldn't ride over Army dismounted skirmish lines. So if you had solid lines that couldn't be flanked, you were probably safe from annihilation by any number of thousands of Warriors...as long as your ammo held out. It is when you don't have good fields of fire for your skirmish lines that you get in trouble. Yet the Warriors could not override Reno's skirmish line in the valley, for all that. They tried a few times, according to Soldier accounts, but quickly gave up and rode around the long way, well out of range of all those "poor marksmen." <g> Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 24, 2009 11:26:04 GMT -6
I think there is a difference between maximum capability of a weapon system and an individuals ability to make optimum use of his/her weapon system that is what I believe Rickey was referring too and what I am referring to. Maybe that helps in what we are stating. The individual trooper did not receive enough training and practice to make optimum use of their individual Springfield. I don't understand...what is the difference? No, but it is a relative thing...you can get close. A key ingredient of superior marksmanship is getting as close to that "vice held" standard as you can. This is getting the most out of the weapon's designed capabilities. There are lots of other factors too, but won't go into that at the moment. I don't think that is what he is talking about here, and I find this approach odd. To be sure, there are human differences that allow some persons to get closer to that ideal weapon capability than others, but I think what we are really concerned with in this tactical discussion are the weapon's effects...if the carbines are really being used well at the long ranges they were designed for. The discussion, I think, is about whether the Soldiers had enough training to get close to that standard, not whether the Soldiers were inately good enough to ever get close to that standard, no matter how much training they got. Are you trying to say that the Soldiers were such poor humans that they couldn't become good marksmen regardless? I don't think so. No. Let's look at it this way. The Army specifies an "effective range" for a rifle. It says Soldiers should all hit so many times a certain target at that range. This standard is designed for the majority, not the minority of most skilled eyeballs and trigger fingers. That is making "good" use of the weapon's capability, but not "optimal" use of it. A few men will be natural born shooters. With practice and some training, they'll be such good snipers that they will, indeed, approach the "vice held" capability of that rifle well beyond the "effective range" the Army designated. Within any unit, including the 7th Cavalry in 1876, you had men in both categories. You don't need every man to be a sniper to have a skirmish line that is impenetrable by masses of Warriors, don't you agree? But you have a couple men in every company that can knock the eye out of a buffalo at 600 meters. Good enough. So what, again, is the beef over the level of marksmanship in the 7th Cavalry at LBH? Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 24, 2009 11:27:22 GMT -6
Isn't marksmanship an athletic endeavor? You cannot make someone a great or even adequate athlete without a baseline of genetic gifts. You can make them as good as their physical abilities allow (mental training is also, really, physical) but you cannot install muscle cells or nerve synapse. If not maintained by practice, exercise, and training updates, they regress to their norm. Or, with age, worse. We have much evidence (enemy casualties, battle accounts, disgusted reviews by civvie scouts and later, officers) the shooting and riding left much to be desired in the frontier army. What offered evidence contradicts it? None, really. It is amazing that anyone is able to kill anybody else at all, isn't it?! <g> Clair |
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 24, 2009 13:42:03 GMT -6
CRZHRS and Conz you forget that during the '50 and early '60 the lakota and cheyenne were, overall is my impression, a bunch of
nerdy
men-afraid-of- their-real- enemy
Their leaders discouraged them and they were always refusing to fight whites, keep out of range, afraid to get, in exchange more trouble, more forts and possible winter village wipe outs
heavy toll for small summer victories.
If you reread Grinnel untill 1965 Cheyennes avoided all contact or did not insist while after, in their opinion, they won almost any encounter between 1866 and 1876 except summit springs (thanks to the evil >:(Pawnee again)
as their goal was not to annihilate
but to show their superiority
by some individual deed
kill a couple of soldiers, take some horses
and get out a there and party
NOW HERE IS ANOTHER WOLFGANG SPECIAL OUTSMARTER /
NOW WHY IS IT YOU GUYS CAN NOT AGREE ON THE POOR MARKMANSHIP OF THE 7TH
WHILST YOU TAKE FOR GRANTED
THAT LAKOTA AND TSISTISTA WERE POOR SHOOTERS
HOW CAN YOU TELL
THEY WERE BORN WITH A WEAPON IN THEIR CRADDLE BOARD
THEY ONLY HAD BAD BULLETS BAD RIFLES FEW AMMO THAT S ALL
If we take conz or Az to a training with an old twisted breechcloud muzzleloader you would not even dare to go!!
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 24, 2009 13:53:04 GMT -6
Can this shade a light Wolfgang happens to be an ex vicechampion of longbow shooting in the netherlands. (sorry darkcloud i'm not boasting don't use it against me ;D) anyway I was never able to beat my pokerface collegue, the champ, who showed no emotions and pulled all his arrows in the yellow at 25 meters while I had always a red here and there every once and a while as I hate to concentrate for a long time (same as on this board) however on the 'ground" when we went instinctive target hunting I always won over him I always nailed that eagle on a glider and turkey on a rope swinging so what helps practice or 'standards' when you're out on the field instinctive shooters are betterbut to get instinctive you have to shoot a lot in the field in any situation and start young like indianswolfgang made a good point here i think and it is easy to read ;D unlike some others here  when I was kid we shot on each other with real sport arrows or self made with big nails in front and real goose feathers i got one arrow in the head and walked around with it one in my leg that had to be pulled out with 2 hands by a 'friend" and i shot one friend through the neck who went to the hospital that is how you get instinctive so when are we going to reenact LBH  |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 24, 2009 13:57:46 GMT -6
WG brings up the valid counterpoint of how bad was Warrior marksmanship? Certainly, the Troopers made fun of it all the time, but then, they weren't laughing as they hid behind crates within Reno's perimeter, either. <g>
Perhaps Custer did not cross MTC ford because the Warrior marksmanship was too effective there.
Perhaps Reno dismounted because Warrior marksmanship from the "ditch" was too intense to brave? Although it was probably more out of a desire not to get into close combat with a larger force that caused him to stop.
Thing about the cavalry is: they always WANTED to fight from a distance, so we don't get a lot of opportunities to see them trying to brave Warrior fields of fire in the attack.
Perhaps the attack on Dull Knife's village best shows the Army's ability to advance through Warrior's fire...so not such a good effect of Warrior marksmanship.
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 24, 2009 14:01:54 GMT -6
I agree WG that hunting is better preparation for combat shooting than static target practice is. Done right, a combination of the two is ideal...you learn different things.
The Army did this...they learned both on target ranges and in the field hunting. So they got pretty proficient this way, over the years.
The big drawback to Warrior practice was ammo...they rarely had enough to waste it on practice. Many tribes didn't even use ammo for hunting...they used arrows. Often ammo was reserved for combat.
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 24, 2009 14:08:50 GMT -6
WG brings up the valid counterpoint Clair waouh  |
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 24, 2009 14:09:31 GMT -6
zouf!  |
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 24, 2009 14:18:05 GMT -6
I agree WG that hunting is better preparation for combat shooting than static target practice is. Done right, a combination of the two is ideal...you learn different things. The Army did this...they learned both on target ranges and in the field hunting. So they got pretty proficient this way, over the years. Clair which army did this? what years? how many years was the average 7th soldier enrolled anyway compared to the total all life enrollment of a lakota? it is easier to shoot instinctively an arrow as a bullet your brain does not registrate the bullet to correct in open field the aiming and then include this result for the next shots here come wolfgang again with his fiction : I still believe a medieval longbow army would have wiped out the cavalry even faster, those indians had poor bows for on the ground fighting, only good for horseback and close combat but i already spoke about that before can someone fly me to 1870 to sitting bull with a lot of long ash wood and explain the whole matter |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 24, 2009 16:16:48 GMT -6
"Instinctive shooting," as you mean it, is good for close combat...not very good for distance shooting, where more technical means allow greater accuracy. One reason they say the Nez Perce were such improved marksmen over the other tribes out West was because they knew how to use the leaf sites on their rifles.
7th Cavalry Troopers had all different lengths in service...that is one difference between Regular Army units and volunteer units, the later of which have most of the men with the same, short, time of service.
So some Troopers had 10-20, even 30, years as Soldiers. Other Soldiers, a minority, were on their first enlistment. When you have a company with a combination of all these, you always have a dozen really good marksmen, some decent shooters, and a bunch of men who can just put a lot of lead downrange.
Yes, English or Scottish longbowmen would be more deadly than American Indians if nobody was shooting back at them. But their need to mass their fires, stand up straight doing it, and the still longer range of the Springfield carbines to the longbow would make them ineffective, I'm afraid. Good fantasy, though!
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 24, 2009 17:31:29 GMT -6
instinctive shooting in archery is that you don't have to put the arrowhead on your target in your view or use a trick to measure the approx. distance.
american indians were pure instinctive shooters as they did not reach full reach out with their arm arrow hardly ever to the cheek (nose chin or lip) but often half way or 3/4 according to what they felt.
with those early rifles it was the same no?
you had to aim way lower or way higher then your barrelpoint according to the distance
and if you can do that without estimating or thinking
you shoot instinctively
but you have to shoot way more bullets as arrows to get a hold of it I believe
as for the english bowmen : they were way too early abandonned! damn ' cannonballs.
an indian village defended with massive longbow strength could keep any regiment out of distance, stupid ndn's!
or let's put it the other way : custer would have won with such a regiment! lakotas would fled in panic for such a god given bow that shot double their distance and twice their strength : only problem : you have to walk and it was a long trip to LBH.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 24, 2009 18:59:00 GMT -6
Given enough time to develop, I think the Indians would have evolved into a society and military not dissimilar to the Mongolians of the 1200s, I believe. They were probably about 1,000 years behind them in development, but along a similar track.
The key to Mongol military superiority were some things the Indians had...horse and village mobility, endurance, warrior ethos, but they also developed centralized discipline, formation fighting, and the compound reflex bow. Nothing in Europe could stop them.
I think THEY would have ridden right over the 7th Cavalry and any force of the U.S. Army of that day, carbines be damned. A veteran Civil War army with artillery MIGHT have a chance of surviving the attack of a medieval Mongolian horde, depending upon the situation.
Clair
|
|
