|
Post by conz on Jul 20, 2009 10:48:48 GMT -6
Nice layout, Steve, explaining military considerations using non-military terminology. May aid in understanding.
I'll only add that in traditional military tactics, skrimishers normally must withdraw before compact, more numerous, "regular" formations because their fire is not dense enough to cause enough casualties to stop that disciplined attacking mass from overruning them.
But against "irregular" forces, skirmish lines are normally adequate to prevent their being overrun, regardless of the numbers of attackers.
In a firefight of attrition, where nobody is trying to overrun anyone, and they just shoot at each other, skirmishers almost always can destroy a compact formation, because they are a less vulnerable target to fire than the compact formation is.
In cases where Soldiers were destroyed by attrition fire, normally by mass arrow fire, like at Fetterman's destruction, and perhaps the knot on Custer Hill, indications are that the men bunched up into a mass, like a "square," vulnerable to mass fires from the enemy.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 20, 2009 16:00:13 GMT -6
:'(you guys never get nostalgic of those good ol' times seem to me that your westpoint theories apply to another age i mean before the machine gun landmines and airplanes when you still had a chance and could survive by brains and markmanship I play a lot of lasergame and paintball and i always get killed by massive power by kids running around firing like zombies, and make me think of those deadly african kid armies just wondering allthough you portray me like a hippy for my NDN defense, one of the reasons i'm nostalgic about NDN wars is that you still had a chance to combat and sort yourself out by skill and outsmarting. I would love to be there anyway pretty soon we will only have robots on the ground and all be sad
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Jul 21, 2009 15:34:02 GMT -6
"it is irrelevant if there are 500 or 10,000 attacking"
Huh, guess I never thought of it that way. But I like this kind of thinking, it makes health care reform sound down right affordable.
Seriously though let me pose a question I haven't heard before around here and Conz your rule above brings it up. Custer's plan as it was conducted, how many warriors could he have handled? If there were only 500, only a thousand; how small a number before things tip to his favor?
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 21, 2009 20:35:09 GMT -6
By my reasoning, Mike, Custer could have been destroyed by as few as a 1,000 Warriors, probably, and could have handled more than 10,000 (meaning not losing 50% of his force) had he and his officers made the proper decisions. That's how much numbers matter, to this professional.
With too few Warriors, they could not have had the moral inspiration to take advantage of the 7th Cavalry's mistakes that day. The reason I believe they destroyed Custer's wing was that they had mass at several places...that requires a certain number...and when a hole was found in the Army's defenses, they had the mass (and will/morale) at that point to exploit it. I doubt this could have happened with fewer than 1,000.
At Isandhlwana, in Jan. 1879, only two and a half years after LBH, according to my Mil Hist Ency., a British Army force of 1,600 with 2,500 Native Scouts was wiped out to the last man by 10,000 Zulus.
After the battle at Rorkesdrift, about 5,000 of these Zulus, flushed with victory, could not eliminate 45 British Soldiers, after repeated assaults which left 250 Natives dead and 17 of the Soldiers. The Zulus broke off and left.
And the Zulus were MUCH better organized and skilled than our Lakotas and Cheyenne were.
So view LBH within the scope of similar conflict of that time.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 22, 2009 9:11:51 GMT -6
What saved the British at Rorke's Drift was they were in a barricaded, fortified position. The walls were high and additional height was added by bags of food(?) The protection saved the British and resolute leadership.
However, at the Alamo under the same type of circumstances (out-numbered Americans in a fortified position) the Mexcian Army defeated them (albeit after 2 weeks?)
At Adobe Walls a small group of Buffalo Hunters held off hundreds of Indians (again fortified position)
The same could be said for the Wagon Box & Hay Field fights (especially with new rapid fire weapons).
Out in the open in most cases out numbered troops could be over run and defeated (Beecher's Island is an exception, probably others)
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 22, 2009 9:42:34 GMT -6
Rorke's Drift is remarkable for many reasons, but the big explanation is that the British had rifles and knew how to use them, the Zulu had flintlocks and apparently did not. They left out of hunger, not military defeat. Still...... Impressive.
The Alamo only consisted of one real attack, which was entirely successful. The circumstances were not the same as the Mexicans had an organized army, artillery, motivation. Americans love to assume that their civvies fightin' for freedom (for a future slave state, but whatever....) are naturally terrific soldiers and shots, but ever since Lexington Green that's been a dubious myth. Competence trumps enthusiasm, generally.
Beecher Island isn't reflective of the Army. It was composed , mostly, of highly experienced Indian fight civvies, dead shots all. Or, mostly, rather. If Custer had 210 of such, there might be reason to think the Sioux suffered 1000 dead. But he only had the 5 companies of the 7th he had chosen for himself.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 22, 2009 11:33:04 GMT -6
If Custer had 210 of such, there might be reason to think the Sioux suffered 1000 dead. But he only had the 5 companies of the 7th he had chosen for himself. There you are with that simplistic thinking, again. If the Navy Seals had comprised all of Custer's wing, there is no assurance that many more casualties would have been inflicted on the Warriors. The better the shots, and the better their targets stay hidden, so you don't really get more killed, see? If the Warriors eliminated Keogh's and Yates' battalions without having to run through much of the Soldiers "fields of fire," what good is it to be a marksman at all? You have to show that marksmanship has ANYTHING to do with the number of casualties, not only in this battle, but in ANY battle. Think about it...good marksmanship never kills more people...it only makes more people keep their heads down more. Clair
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 22, 2009 13:48:06 GMT -6
clair you're doing pretty well here for once, your markmanship gets better the more endangered you are beecher island was pure sniper work so a demonstration of markmanship does count against outnumbering forces for now I will shut up being an ignorant on Zulus : I like this board for learning! Zulus ruled apparently.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 22, 2009 15:14:24 GMT -6
Yeah...you would like the Zulus. A very honorable people and the BAD BOYS of the African continent, to be sure. They were probably the high point of primitive civilization before European or Asian civilization came to Africa and America.
I haven't studied Beecher's in a long time. I do recall though, that the main reason they survived was because the Warriors kept charging at them, but they kept killing enough of them, mostly at point-blank range, to stop each charge, so that they were never "overrun." A good example of a very small amount of firepower keeping away a huge horde of attackers without the discipline to simply ride through the lead and get into close combat with the outnumbered enemy.
Here is where good marksmanship has play, and why armies "sometimes" pay attention to it...it allows a small force to have the hitting power of a much larger force.
So if your force should, by normal standards, be too small to repulse a certain attacker, if they are very good marksmen, they will generate as many hits in a small amount of time as a much larger force with standard marksmanship.
So that is why modern armies like superior marksmanship...in the spread out battlefield caused by artillery and aircraft, we want small groups of riflemen to have the intimidation factor of larger groups.
But this has no effect on our LBH investigations, because the standard of marksmanship that the Army had at the time was plenty to make skirmish lines absolutely impregnable to Warrior attack.
Now you get to Beecher's where we would think that they indeed did not have enough rifles to keep charging Warriors off of them, but we find that their superior marksmanship made up for their smaller numbers.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 23, 2009 6:42:20 GMT -6
What are the Army Standards for marksmanship that were in place from 1872 to 1876?
Specifically:
The course of fire for the dismounted and mounted soldier for the weapon systems.
The standard ammunition allocation for all weapon system.
The remediation standard for poor shooters.
The award standard for good shooters
Pvt William O Taylor enlisted in 1872. He states he never fired his revolver horseback. His first experience in 4 years was at LBH. So even if the standards were adequate the practical application for Pvt Taylor for a cavalry trooper firing one of his two weapon systems horseback is zero. Can't get any worse.
The Army implemented standards, provided more ammunition for training and practice, and instituted an award system for demonstration of marksmanship after the LBH.
I instruct firearms training at Northern Arizona University for the National Park Service Ranger program. We had a Navy Seal come through the program. His group size never got larger than 3 inches which included shooting out to 25 yards with handgun. His CQB skills were even greater. To think he would not do better than the rest of the Pvt Taylor's is absurd.
I have little doubt that the Indians had superior CQB skills to the typical cavalry trooper. I also have no doubt that Navy Seals are far superior in CQB skills to any Indian unless they have the same training.
I believe that the qualifications for a cavalry trooper do not provide for the best hand to hand skilled troops available at the time. Whereas the Indians that were bigger and stronger were still on the home team.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 23, 2009 6:51:38 GMT -6
You still don't get it Steve...that all those personal skills are of very low importance in BIG tactical firefights. We like to THINK that they, but really, whose artillery is fastest and most accurate trumps ANYTHING the grunts carry around.
In modern infantry platoons in large combat actions, the only reason we have rifelmen at all is to replace machine gunners when they become casualties from artillery.
At LBH, what difference at all does marksmanship make? The Warriors were HORRIBLE marksmen, yet they beat Custer's wing handily, and couldn't overrun Reno's defense even though they outnumbered him 10:1.
So what is all the fuss about marksmanship? Nice to talk about, grunts thump their chests over it, but really, in the larger scheme of things, the SEALS, given the same decisions by officers that the 7th made, couldn't have hit 10% more Warriors than the Troopers did, I'd wager.
If you have no targets, you can't get hits. The Warriors aren't sitting out there waiting to see if the Soldiers can hit them. So they stay under cover until they find a way to get close to the Soldiers without being shot at.
The best marksmen in the world aren't going to kill more Indians if they never see the Indians, right?
Clair
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 23, 2009 8:18:02 GMT -6
I do get it Clair. I don't disagree with you on what weapons causes casualties in modern warfare when they are available and deployed. But you can not apply that to LBH. Since we are focused on LBH none of the other weapon systems of the day or of modern times matter only those that were there for immediate use. Seems to me the Indians were effective without artillery.
Navy Seals would have better skills for CQB. The revolver should have been effective in CQB dismounted. You can see the enemy in CQB. What type of CQB formations did the cavalry have?
Only hits matter. You compensate for marksmanship by increasing numbers of shooter and rounds put in the air, Where there is lead there is hope. Marksmanship to me is simply math. There is more hits per shots fired. So if marksmanship is poor increasing the number of shooters and/or number of shots fired will increase the number of hits.
Are you implying that Custer should have know that he could not win without artillery and Gatling guns after he saw the size of the village and before engaged?
Steve
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 23, 2009 8:54:34 GMT -6
Marines should instruct at West Point. (For all I know, some may, actually. SEaLs see no shame in going to Ranger School, after all. Interservice cooperation may be greater than publicized.)
WP graduates are apparently unclear that hitting the enemy with a bullet is a valid point of combat, and that discussing 'modern' warfare weaponry is entirely irrelevant to a battle in the past and pointless. Or, maybe it's because AZ has been in combat and knows, and conz has not and doesn't. (I haven't and don't, of course.)
I'm still waiting for some tidbit of information to emerge that would suggest conz actually went to WP and learned something unavailable to WEB browsers to justify the tax money that paid for his attendance.
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Jul 23, 2009 9:11:26 GMT -6
"...the only reason we have rifelmen at all is to replace machine gunners when they become casualties from artillery..."
Nonsense. The 'ultimate weapon' was, is and always will be an infantryman with his rifle. You pretty much just said, 'If all else fails.. call in the Infantry.'
"When the objective absolutely, positively has to be taken over night..."
M
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 23, 2009 9:59:54 GMT -6
Semper Fi Michael
|
|