|
Post by markland on May 4, 2012 9:53:13 GMT -6
Ulan, further errors. He has 11 NCOs rather than 10 and counts the two trumpeters in the EM category.
|
|
|
Post by ulan on May 4, 2012 10:12:30 GMT -6
Ulan, without spending a lot of time right now, I'd guess 2 of the 6 man discrepancy is due the author counting two blacksmiths and two farriers rather than one each. . Billy He did?...no he didnĀ“t. He would asumme a total of 80 men then, but he asummed 78.
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 4, 2012 10:49:31 GMT -6
Yes, I see your point but his data or interpretation of the data is in error. The Army Register set the authorized strength of a company as three officers + seventy other ranks. That is a difference of five. We can account for three by the extra NCO and the two trumpeters. Somewhere he had two extra men and including an additional blacksmith and farrior seems the most likely. Later today when I get on a PC rather than this iPad and compare the archive.org PDF to my transcription again.
Be good,
Billy
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 4, 2012 11:23:40 GMT -6
Ulan, just checked the PDF. Total aggregate strength of a cavalry troop was 73 of which 3 were officers, 10 NCOs, 2 trumpeters, 2 blacksmith/farriors, 1 saddler, 1 wagoner, 54 EMs.
If you download the PDF, it is on p. 271 of the PDF (261B of the actual document).
Billy
|
|
|
Post by ulan on May 4, 2012 15:17:29 GMT -6
Wow, that looks like the ultimate answer!
Thank you very much for this effort and your patience Fred!
Interesting btw that Reno thought he had only 100 men in his skirmish line. Quote:"I dismounted my battalion, detailing number four of each group of "fours," to hold the horses, thus reducing our fighting force to about seventy-five men."
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 4, 2012 16:08:45 GMT -6
At the RCOI, page 503, Reno says he had 112 men (not including officers). Where is that quote from, Ulan?
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 4, 2012 18:10:14 GMT -6
Wow, that looks like the ultimate answer! Thank you very much for this effort and your patience Fred! Interesting btw that Reno thought he had only 100 men in his skirmish line. Quote:"I dismounted my battalion, detailing number four of each group of "fours," to hold the horses, thus reducing our fighting force to about seventy-five men." Jesus blessed Christ! Ulan, i'm a bit perturbed as you without question accepted Fred's numbers while ignoring mine which are transcribed and proof-read from the Army Register for 1875. The 1875 Register would have been the one in effect on 6/25/76 as the federal fiscal year began in October. As a side benefit, the original source document and page are supplied! Remember this! Don't blindly accept anything off the i'net unless it offers primary documentation as the source! In other words, you have to validate what you read! Billy
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 4, 2012 19:52:39 GMT -6
Ulan, i'm a bit perturbed as you without question accepted Fred's numbers while ignoring mine which are transcribed and proof-read from the Army Register for 1875. The 1875 Register would have been the one in effect on 6/25/76 as the federal fiscal year began in October. As a side benefit, the original source document and page are supplied! Remember this! Don't blindly accept anything off the i'net unless it offers primary documentation as the source! In other words, you have to validate what you read! Yeah, Ulan... you better check whatever I put up here; I'm notorious for my lies, prevaricating, and distortions, just ask the idiots next door... and as everyone knows, the 1875 register has a lot to do with the numbers that left FAL as well as the ones at the LBH. Of course, I have only checked a lot of my work against data provided by Markland... so who knows? Best wishes, Fred. Don't get your undies in a wad Fred! I'm simply raging about blindly accepting data because it's from an established author without validating the source. Something you wouldn't do! Remember that this entire furball started as a result of U accepting a secondary or tertiary source as fact, in explanation: the web page author, the quote from a book, wherever the numbers came from. Room for error in that chain. Billy
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 4, 2012 21:08:06 GMT -6
Billy: I believe the Federal Fiscal Year in the 19 Century ranged from 1 July to 30 June and most of the 20th Century as well. The Fiscal year was changed from that to 1 October to 30 September sometime during my tenture in the Army because I vividly remember having to go 15 months with 12 months worth of money. When that was I do not recall off hand probably in the 1970's. Now if it was October to September sometime in the long previous past I do not recall hearing about it. Can you provide a reference?
Now everybody give Ulan a break. He is trying to mine for information that given his locality probably does not have readily at hand. We were all once at a point where we had to learn what the right questions are before we could ask them.
|
|
|
Post by ulan on May 5, 2012 1:44:41 GMT -6
Wow, that looks like the ultimate answer! Thank you very much for this effort and your patience Fred! Interesting btw that Reno thought he had only 100 men in his skirmish line. Quote:"I dismounted my battalion, detailing number four of each group of "fours," to hold the horses, thus reducing our fighting force to about seventy-five men." Jesus blessed Christ! Ulan, i'm a bit perturbed as you without question accepted Fred's numbers while ignoring mine which are transcribed and proof-read from the Army Register for 1875. The 1875 Register would have been the one in effect on 6/25/76 as the federal fiscal year began in October. As a side benefit, the original source document and page are supplied! Remember this! Don't blindly accept anything off the i'net unless it offers primary documentation as the source! In other words, you have to validate what you read! Billy Haha markland, i think you missunderstood me. I allready believed your numeration about the official company strenght of 7th in 1876. Backed up with the original documents it seems to be more accurate then from the website i linked to and i thank you very much for. But i understand this as ideal strenght (in germany we said the "soll" ) in that time frame or at least the strenght in wich they were leaving the Fort. Actually my main interest was meant for the battle strenght on june 25th, and there was a difference. In fact my first interest was on the pack train and why there were so many personal with the pack train. My second interest was to nail(more or less) how many men were in fact in the three battalions with Custer, Reno and Benteen. Fred told me exactly the numbers and i believe this is a summation of his work over many years so i see no reason to doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by ulan on May 5, 2012 1:50:42 GMT -6
At the RCOI, page 503, Reno says he had 112 men (not including officers). Where is that quote from, Ulan? I read it in the Major Reno Biography on the Little Big Horn Associates web site.
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 5, 2012 4:02:51 GMT -6
Remember that this entire furball started as a result of U accepting a secondary or tertiary source as fact, in explanation: the web page author, the quote from a book, wherever the numbers came from. Room for error in that chain. Hardly... not when you vet them, source after source, after source, year after year, after year. My work isn't that casual. I don't go by the name of "Reddirt." You know what... why don't I just pull the goddam post down; that way you can figure it all out and make sure it's correct. Best wishes, Fred. Fred, tha "U" was shorthand for Ulan, not you. Sorry about not being clear about that. I was NOT criticizing your research. Ulan, Fred's research is what you're looking for as far as the actual field strength. QC, that is interesting. I've never formally looked into it, only gone by the yearly reports to Congress which were usually in the October/November time frame and theArmy Navy Journal yearly indices began in October. Billy
|
|
|
Post by montrose on May 5, 2012 6:37:56 GMT -6
1. Remember the difference between table of organization and equipment (Called TOE) versus authorized strength.As a money saving measure, Congress kept authorized levels below TOE. As a post LBH measure, Congress increased authorized strength to TOE, but only for cavalry companies.
2. The 1870s had an insane desertion rate. Up to 30% of the Army deserted every year. This means that no unit was ever at full authorized strength. This turbulence creates severe problems for training, unit cohesion, and morale.
Army pay was poor, and most Americans would not enlist. This led to heavy recruitment of immigrants, without any requirement that they speak English. So now add inability to communicate to unit cohesion and training woes.
3. The Army lacked base support infrastructure. If you remember the US Army in Europe; it had some 200,000 civilian employees.
The 1870s Army had no such support. Units had to do all their own base support functions. It is very clear from diaries and books written at the time, that base support actions were the dominant day to day activity of units.
4. This issue also leads to the disease of details. Units had to detail soldiers from companies for a myriad of support functions. Some of these assignments kept soldiers away from their assignments for years.
Even within the 7th, we see numerous details that take away from combat power. Orderlies, cooks, medic assistants, etc. Some of these assignments were only for a day, others were for the campaign.
Bottom line :there were many issues that took away from the combat power of companies. No company was ever going to be anywhere near full strength.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 5, 2012 9:18:26 GMT -6
If it is in the First Person, it is an Autobiography or it is fiction.
Second, this is an account 'found among his effects' after his death decades previous. So, is it a first draft or what? If he had not submitted it for print in final form, it's hardly fair to present it as a Biography, or much of anything. Who among us would want any or all of our papers presented as a "biography" or the equivalent of sworn testimony at our death without previous approval?
Further, it seems to be not a biography, auto or otherwise, at all but an account of the battle of the Little Bighorn. He had tried to get interest in his account from magazines but found no interest in a submission.
He was assigned his command, had no time to review them, and after the battle the NCO's and their information were scattered if in existence at all, and that his recollections later are not in accord with the existing paperwork of which he would have no access at the time isn't surprising or damning. At the RCOI he thought he had 112 based upon whatever was available.
It's surprising how many officers were with Reno compared to Benteen with the same number of companies. Custer could have used them.
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 5, 2012 9:48:41 GMT -6
Billy: I believe the Federal Fiscal Year in the 19 Century ranged from 1 July to 30 June and most of the 20th Century as well. The Fiscal year was changed from that to 1 October to 30 September sometime during my tenture in the Army because I vividly remember having to go 15 months with 12 months worth of money. When that was I do not recall off hand probably in the 1970's. Now if it was October to September sometime in the long previous past I do not recall hearing about it. Can you provide a reference? Now everybody give Ulan a break. He is trying to mine for information that given his locality probably does not have readily at hand. We were all once at a point where we had to learn what the right questions are before we could ask them. QC, thanks for the reminder not to assume. Thankfully it occurred on something relatively innocuous to my purposes. BUT...now that you mention it, I do need your help on a related subject concerning the army organization. As you know, the Army Reorganization of 1866 reorganized the three battalion infantry regiments into three one battalion regiments. Does any of your books indicated when that officially took effect? I'm asking in relation to the Bozeman Trail research I've done. The 2d Battalion of the 18th Infantry garrisoned Forts Reno, Phil Kearny and C.F. Smith. The question is: What date did they become the 27th Infantry. Thanks in advance! Billy
|
|