|
Post by quincannon on Sept 10, 2013 9:00:13 GMT -6
Ian: A detail means just that a person or group of persons detailed to perform a specific task on a semi permanent or temporary basis. The detail I was first given as a brand new private was fire detail, meaning that it was my job for one night to stay awake and make sure the coal fired furnace for my barracks was sufficiently tended to. Kitchen police is another type of detail, that has absolutely nothing to do with maintaining law and order in the kitchen.. Detail then is nothing more than another term for doing a specific job. In the cavalry if you were assigned to stable detail, you spent the day shoveling horse manure. Standing guard is a detailed duty, and many other things as well. The First Sergeant maintains a duty roster, and these things are performed in rotation, if you are below a certain rank. Noncommissioned officers are also detailed on a separate roster. They perform such duties as charge of quarters, which is essentially an after hours point of contact, that sets up shop for the night in the company orderly room. At battalion and higher level noncommissioned officers would likely to be detailed as staff duty NCO, to assist the officer of the day. OD is in itself a detail for company grade officers within a battalion, as is officer of the guard.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 10, 2013 9:17:21 GMT -6
I know what you mean Chuck, along the lines on a team or subunit in the British Army, so you have answered my question when you said you was detailed to keep barracks warm, that means it was not a unit term exclusively used by the Cavalry.
I must have watched too many John Ford Cavalry movies, ‘’Detail move out’’ or ‘’Sgt form a burial detail’’.
Ian,
|
|
|
Post by Gatewood on Sept 10, 2013 9:23:41 GMT -6
Going back to organisation, I don’t know if I am right but the doctrine used seems to be that every Regiment could drop off Troops when moving in the field (or campaign), now I have not double Checked this (Fred will know the correct total) so forgive me if I am wrong, but the 7th may have left in its wake nearly 300 men from when it left FAL and got to PDR and then took out men for Pack duty. I don’t know when the US Army gave each Regiment or Squadron or even Troop its own Train, with men assigned on a permanent basis rather than watering down its units. oh by the way Happy Birthday Fuchs! Ian. Ian, I don't recall the exact numbers (I can find it if you really want to know), but a number of men were left behind at FAL to perform various duties (including tending the company gardens), and a number more were sick. Also, as was always the case, several (particularly officers) were on various forms of detached duty, including the regimental commander, Col. Sturgis, and 2 of the 3 majors. Most leaves had been rescinded, but I believe that a few were still absent for that reason. Finally, there were not enough horses to go around, so a good number of troopers just followed along on foot with Terry (have always wondered if walking long distances in cavalry boots was a problem).
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 10, 2013 9:25:32 GMT -6
Ian: Forming a detail, may be as informal as a NCO saying you, you, and you follow me, we have to go to the supply truck to get (fill in the blank, ammo, rations, pick up our dropped rucksacks, you name it).
The 1876 Army did almost everything "out of hide" meaning that the total authorized strength of the Army was the sum total of its documented organizations. If someone was needed for any duty whatsoever it was a subtraction from fighting strength. In reality it was like Congress handed you a loaded gun to shoot yourself in the foot with.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Sept 10, 2013 9:30:31 GMT -6
The battalion was no more than an ad hoc formation;put together whenever it was needed and dissolved just as easly with no reference to the regiment commander as exemplified by Benteen sheding command of his battalion. Platoons were a means of controlling fire.As the main business of cavalry was shock such articulation was not required.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 10, 2013 9:35:32 GMT -6
Gatewood; yes I think the numbers are between 295 and 300 (FAL/PDR/Pack Train), to hazard a guess 293?
Chuck I have been ordered to form a detail of one ‘’for cooking duties’’ I was the first home so I will firing up the stove.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 10, 2013 9:37:28 GMT -6
Chuck, the British Army had not long formed its own version of a military train (1875). It was an amalgamation of two departments, the Commissariat and Transport Dept. and the Ordnance Store Dept. it was later known as the Army Service Corps, we know it today as the Royal Logistic Corps.
Saves watering down your Companies or getting in civilians.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 10, 2013 9:37:31 GMT -6
Ian: Chandler's "Of Garryowen In Glory" contains and annex which pretty much tells where everyone was in the regiment. I don't know that is completely accurate, but it's pretty good, and certainly good enough to provide rough numbers or a very good approximation.
Parliament it seems was more generous with Her Majesties taxes that was the Congress of the United States.
You are on Kitchen Police Ian. Scrub those pots and pans very well.
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on Sept 10, 2013 13:03:01 GMT -6
oh by the way Happy Birthday Fuchs! Ian. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by wild on Sept 10, 2013 13:56:26 GMT -6
Up to the early 1870 commissions up to the rank of colonel could be purchased in the British Army. At first glance this might seem a riduculous system.But the role of the officer below regimental level was hardly more than placing himself at the head of his company and advancing to within musket range of the enemy. The nature of warfare was the clash of large formations of soldiers.Once committed to an attack these formations advanced rigidely with no maneuvering.Tactics were non existant below brigade level. Same went for cavalry;massed regiments charging straight ahead.All that was required from the field officers was leadership and dash.They were little more than judus goats. This was the era in which Custer and Reno and Benteen and Keogh plied their trade.They were not tacticions.They would not have operated outside a brigade formation.Commanding a few reduced troops and expected to think tactically in concert with other small units would have been foreign to them. We see in this discussion the suggested formal organisation down to section level.These minute units had no combat role.Cavalry was straight line shock led with dash, anything else was a waste of time. The 7th was competent enough provided it's quarry was sleeping .Anything else such as scattered small unit actions and it was hopeless.
|
|
|
Post by Gatewood on Sept 10, 2013 14:44:57 GMT -6
"This was the era in which Custer and Reno and Benteen and Keogh plied their trade.They were not tacticions.They would not have operated outside a brigade formation.Commanding a few reduced troops and expected to think tactically in concert with other small units would have been foreign to them."
Although Benteen had significant large unit experience, even commanding a brigade at one juncture, he spent a large portion of his CW service chasing and fighting what are charitably called 'irregulars' in Missouri and Arkansas. As such, I presume that he had a good deal of experience in small unit cavalry operations, not to mention fighting irregular forces, that probably stood him in better stead than most when later fighting Indians.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 11, 2013 3:55:39 GMT -6
Now I will have one more run at this, so the roles of Saddler, Farrier and Blacksmith are redundant when operating in the field of battle, so I will count these three men as Privates and place them in a set of fours along with the other rankers (because they would be dressed as Privates and I think would fight in the line as Privates), which would add up to 85 Privates.
So I reckon that we are taking things too far and that the Company simply had 20 sets of fours containing 80 Privates which would leave five extra, so if we detailed out one for each Officer (as an Orderly) that would leave two, which could be the odd two men Gatewood mentioned (Teamster and Wagoner) who could be located with the Regimental Train.
This hopefully would pan out along the lines of this;
CHQ (total 100 all ranks) 1 x Captain (Commander) 1 x 1st Lieutenant 1 x 2nd Lieutenant 1 x 1st Sergeant 1 x Line Sergeant (Company Guidon Holder) 2 x Trumpeters 3 x Privates (Officer Orderly’s) 1 x Teamster (Located with the Regimental Train) 1 x Wagoner (Located with the Regimental Train)
4 x Line Sergeants 4 x Corporals 80 x Privates (in 20 sets of fours)
Yes Chuck, I did the washing up, my Venison Burgers went down a treat (only allowed one Burger a month so I made the most of it).
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 11, 2013 3:59:42 GMT -6
Chuck; I have tried to Melbourne Chandler's "Of Garryowen In Glory’’ to view on line, but to no avail.
I didn’t know that Colorado was so rich in Forts, found these whilst searching for the Chandler book;
Camp Alva Adams Fort Brent Fort Crawford Fort Garland Fort Logan Fort Lupton Fort Lyon Fort Massachusetts Fort Morgan Fort Pueblo Fort Sedgwick Fort Saint Vrains Fort Williams
I also found this;
A US Cavalry Troop (or Company) occupying a Company Fort in 1861, was comprised a minimum of; 1 x Captain 1 x 1st Lieutenant 1 x 2nd Lieutenant 1 x 1st Sergeant 1 x Company-Quartermaster Sergeant 4 x Line Sergeants 8 x Corporals 2 x Trumpeters 2 x Farriers 1 x Saddler 1 x Wagoner 53 x Privates Total = 79 all ranks
Or Maximum;
1 x Captain 1 x 1st Lieutenant 1 x 2nd Lieutenant 1 x 1st Sergeant 1 x Company-Quartermaster Sergeant 4 x Line Sergeants 8 x Corporals 2 x Trumpeters 2 x Farriers 1 x Saddler 1 x Wagoner 72 x Privates Total = 95 all ranks
At maximum strength it is still five of the total of 100, unless things changed after the Civil War.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 11, 2013 7:54:39 GMT -6
Ian: I think of those forts only two remain, Fort Garland and Fort Logan.
Logan was an operational post until the end of WWII. It is now a national cemetery within the Denver Metropolitan Area, but many of the old buildings remain, and you can get an idea of what a well established late Indian War period "permanent" Army post looked like. Last unit that I know of that was stationed there was the 2nd Engineer Regiment just prior to WWII, part of the 2nd Division in the square configuration. Other parts of the division was the 3rd Brigade at Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, Texas, and the 4th Brigade at Fort Francis Warren, Cheyenne Wyoming (now Francis Warren AFB, and formerly Fort D. A. Russell). After it became Ft. FW, another post down in Texas was named after Russell.
Fort Garland was a typical one company temporary post of the period, and has been partially restored, and is located in the town of the same name, west of Walsenburg. Interesting place to say "I've been there", but not all that much to see. It was once commanded by Kit Carson, and was later the home of a company of Buffalo Soldiers, can't remember if it was the 9th or 10th. I think the 9th.
Probably the one that hold most interest is one not on your list, and not an Army post, that being Bent's Fort, down near La Junta. It was actually a fortified trading post on the Santa Fe Trail. It was used as a backdrop for some of the early scenes in the TV mini-series Centennial. Nice place to spend an hour or two.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 11, 2013 8:02:24 GMT -6
Hi Chuck, that goddam site contains a typo, it has Fort Bent down as Fort Brent, check the title and see the first line in the paragraph underneath;
Fort Brent Colorado
Beside the Arkansas River is Bent’s Old Fort. The prairie lands of south-east Colorado. The only white settlement on the entire Santa Fe Trail that was built in 1833.The trail ran from the U. S. frontier community of Independence Missouri, south-westto the Mexican provincial capital of Santa Fe in Texas. Big time trading post as well, and served commerce that was traded in the area, but after the gold rush in California, things died down, and was later on abandoned. In the 1960's they rebuilt the fort, and it's a historical site as well. You can take tours, and check out all the artefacts, and is very informational about what life was like back in the day.
Is this the same Fort?
Ian.
|
|