|
Shovels
May 30, 2016 14:16:20 GMT -6
Post by montrose on May 30, 2016 14:16:20 GMT -6
1873 Hagner Entrenching Tool
|
|
|
Shovels
May 30, 2016 14:23:08 GMT -6
Post by montrose on May 30, 2016 14:23:08 GMT -6
Rice-Chillingsworth Trowel Bayonet, introduced with the 1873 Springrield Rifle
|
|
|
Post by montrose on May 30, 2016 15:05:11 GMT -6
A lot of electrons have been expended on the failure of the 7th Cavalry to properly entrench on the night of 25-26 June.
1. Equipment. The place to examine this topic is to identify available equipment.
The main entrenching tool in 1876 was the 1873 Hagner entrenching tool ( I will use the term I know them as, the E tool). E tools are very handy items for field use. Not necessarily for entrenching but for numerous uses in field craft. Field sanitation, gathering fire making materials, fire pits, etc. One of my own favorite uses was creating a drainage path around where I was sleeping to lower the misery of sleeping in the rain. (1 inch deep on the uphill side, takes 2 minutes, and it does lessen the suck).
Please note that you can not dig a true rifle pit with this etool. The infantry experimented with a two foot handle that could be attached to make it better at true digging, but that was different branch and after 1876.
The Rice Chillngsworth was fielded 1874-6, with the 1873 rifle. This means infantry units, since cavalry used the carbine, and had a saber in lieu of a bayonet. The idea was that a soldier could attach it to his rifle, and use it as a proper shovel. It was a bad idea, and did not work. Digging with this thing attached to the rifle would ruin the rifle. I list it because it was in the Army at this time, certainly in the infantry units at the Powder River Depot.
The problem is that whichever item they used, they only had two of them, with the pack train. The intent for just two is certainly field craft vice any thought of entrenchment. Filed latrine primary, firepit secondary.
2. Entrenching the night of the 25th. During the night of 25-26 June, the regiment made an effort to build hasty fighting positions. The two shovels were rotated between the companies. Many companies never saw these shovels, and the majority of soldiers also did not see either tool.
This means the main tools for digging in would be individual soldier belt knife, augmented by some pieces of wood scavenged from the wooden crates in the pack train. In these circumstances, building even a shallow rifle pit is impossible. What you do is build a shallow scrape the length of your body, so you can assume the prone firing position with a slight degree of cover. The dirt is piled in a reverse U shape in the direction facing the enemy. A three inch scrape provides surprising advantages, and certainly some cover is better than no cover.
H Company is critizing for failure to properly entrench. The problem is that they had favorable terrain facing out from their position. They had no protection from the high ground on the other side of the perimeter. The next day they had major problems being shot from the opposite direction. The only way they could be properly protected is to build proper fire pits, four feet deep. Then expand them together to build a proper trench. This was standard practice in the ACW. But it is impossible using a blet knife and bare hands.
|
|
|
Shovels
May 30, 2016 16:00:53 GMT -6
Post by jodak on May 30, 2016 16:00:53 GMT -6
Also, isn't the soil quality on Reno Hill such as to make for difficult digging?
|
|
|
Shovels
May 30, 2016 16:11:10 GMT -6
Post by Jas. Watson on May 30, 2016 16:11:10 GMT -6
The Hagner tool is not really good for hard ground, kind of flimsy...and the trowel bayonet is about useless for much more than a garden trowel--and not a good one at that. I speak from actually trying out both of them (not really nice 'collector quality' ones but kind of beat up 'users'). They work OK for softer ground though but a tin plate would work as well.
Jasw~
|
|
|
Shovels
May 31, 2016 10:54:42 GMT -6
Post by crzhrs on May 31, 2016 10:54:42 GMT -6
When I was at the LBH in 1989 (yikes, too long ago!) you could see fox holes on Reno Hill. Granted more than a century had passed and erosion and numerous other effects had caused some disruption on the hill, it was quite clear to see the "holes" dug by remnants of Reno/Benteen troopers. When you are in a stressful and dangerous situation you probably can do a lot more with less to try to protect yourself regardless of the shovels, "tools" or whatever you had to get out of line of fire.
|
|
|
Shovels
May 31, 2016 11:29:46 GMT -6
Post by Jas. Watson on May 31, 2016 11:29:46 GMT -6
I blame the lack of digging by H company on the Sergeants--that's Sergeant's business. I have walked their ground and as an old infantry Sergt. I could immediately see that digging in was the answer--and should have begun immediately. As above stated, it's amazing to see what soldiers under duress can do. I have seen reasonable holes dug with mess gear. H company just needed some on the spot direction. I believe Capt. Benteen was distracted by his concerns with the entire group and did not pay as much attention to his own company as perhaps he should have...but then, most officers depend on the NCOs for Sergent's business.
|
|
|
Shovels
May 31, 2016 12:37:22 GMT -6
Post by crzhrs on May 31, 2016 12:37:22 GMT -6
The last thing the US Cavalry/Military was considering was a dig-in-long-siege battle with Indians. The long-held view was that Indians would run rather than stand up to the the "awe-and-shock" tactics of an overwhelming attack by superior forces. I guess nothing has been learned since the LBH up to now.
The warriors didn't run (although non-coms may have). They held their ground, racing their horses back-and-forth to confuse the soldiers (Reno, possibly Custer) and when the military stopped their advance, either intentionally or by force from warriors who weren't running in fear, the US Military was incapable of altering their battle plans, stopped in confusion (Reno, possibly Custer) and ended holed up and/or feeble in the advance of Stone-Aged People who weren't going to run and cower in the advance of a "superior force" that fell apart when things didn't turn out as expected.
I hope this isn't the current state of military affairs in 2016!
|
|
|
Shovels
May 31, 2016 12:56:28 GMT -6
Post by jodak on May 31, 2016 12:56:28 GMT -6
The last thing the US Cavalry/Military was considering was a dig-in-long-siege battle with Indians. I imagine that is the reason behind the lack of shovels (and axes). Those would have been "company equipment", with each company being responsible for either bringing them along or not. The fact that there were only two shovels in the entire command would indicate that only one or two companies viewed them as sufficient priority to include in their limited allocated pack mule capacity.
|
|
|
Shovels
May 31, 2016 15:04:22 GMT -6
Post by benteen on May 31, 2016 15:04:22 GMT -6
I think an E-Tool can come in very handy in hand to hand combat.
Be Well Dan
|
|