Typical patrol?

[scruffy]

What was a typical cavalry patrol? How many men? What rank would lead them? How long would patrols last? How far would they typically cover?

I am sure there are a lot of variables. I'm just asking for typical.

Thanks in advance.

[jodak]

Hi Scruffy, and welcome to the board - hope that you take an active part. Your question is difficult to answer, especially since I think that you might not have asked exactly what you meant. As you stated it, with "patrol" as the operative word, I would say that patrols were (as now) generally limited in scope, of fairly short distance and duration, and relatively few men.  A typical size was probably about  10 to 20 men and led by a lieutenant.  In the records of various skirmishes and small scale engagements I think that you will find that the majority of the time the commander was a lieutenant.  There were sometimes larger patrols involving a full company, but those were the exception.  However, I suspect that you don't really mean "patrol" but a more substantial operation meant to engage the enemy (i.e. the Indians).  These occurred only occasionally, obviously only in wartime, and could be any size depending on what the needs of the mission were and/or what troops were available.  For example, the "Reno Scout" a few days prior to the Battle of the Little Bighorn encompassed 6 companies, and the Benteen movement to the left on the day of the battle was composed of 3 companies.  Various other movements/missions during the war involved varying numbers of companies and men, but I would say that they were typically about 3 to 5 companies. 

[scruffy]

Jun 28, 2016 16:40:57 GMT -5 jodak said:

Hi Scruffy, and welcome to the board - hope that you take an active part. Your question is difficult to answer, especially since I think that you might not have asked exactly what you meant. As you stated it, with "patrol" as the operative word, I would say that patrols were (as now) generally limited in scope, of fairly short distance and duration, and relatively few men.  A typical size was probably about  10 to 20 men and led by a lieutenant.  In the records of various skirmishes and small scale engagements I think that you will find that the majority of the time the commander was a lieutenant.  There were sometimes larger patrols involving a full company, but those were the exception.  However, I suspect that you don't really mean "patrol" but a more substantial operation meant to engage the enemy (i.e. the Indians).  These occurred only occasionally, obviously only in wartime, and could be any size depending on what the needs of the mission were and/or what troops were available.  For example, the "Reno Scout" a few days prior to the Battle of the Little Bighorn encompassed 6 companies, and the Benteen movement to the left on the day of the battle was composed of 3 companies.  Various other movements/missions during the war involved varying numbers of companies and men, but I would say that they were typically about 3 to 5 companies. 

Nope, I meant the later. I know it's probably against the norm, but I am a small scale kinda guy. I enjoy learning about what everyday life was like for people in history.

So we have about 20 guys led by a Lt. How long would they go out for? How much ground was usually covered? Why did everyone hate garrison life so badly? Would entire regiments garrison a fort or more likely a company or two?

Thanks for the answer and the welcome.

[jodak]

1. Patrols would generally have been of less than a day's duration and corresponding distance that could be traveled from the fort or base, although some were of a few days, being limited largely by the provisions that could be carried along.  They were just a routine part of frontier duty, serving to both see and be seen by the native population, and the vast majority resulted in nothing noteworthy.

2. Forts were generally garrisoned by only a few companies, often a mixture from different regiments.  A mixture of cavalry and infantry units, with an artillery detachment sometimes included, was the norm. 

3. Garrison life was extremely tedious and monotonous for the soldiers when both on and off duty.  When on duty their time mostly did not consist of what we would think of as "soldiering" but was taken up with cleaning stables, constructing improvements to the fort, and other manual, largely un-gratifying tasks.  When off duty, there was not much to constructively occupy their time.  There were few women around; it was obviously before the time of TV, movies, and things of that sort; and there were only limited resources in the way of newspapers, magazines, and books (even if they were literate).  There was usually a small settlement nearby that would have offered little more than a place to drink.  The record is full of accounts of various men and officers drinking excessively and sometimes getting into trouble because of it, but there was realistically just not much more for them to do, so I tend to cut them a lot of slack in that regard and think that is was not necessarily a reflection on their true characters.

[Yan Taylor]

Hi everyone, now I think that the lowest tactical formation in the US Cavalry circa 1876 was the company, as platoons were not yet formed in the company TO&E, but we do hear things like details and sets of four, so if we take the set of four to contain the same four troopers then we can try and assemble what a small patrol could look like, for example if we look at the numbers of NCOs in each full strength company we have four line sergeants and four corporals and one 1st sergeant.

So the proportion of NCOs per number of men is not known to me but as a rough guide you say that three sets of fours were commanded by a sergeant with a corporal as his assistant. So if you say that the company had 12 sets of fours then this total along with the NCOs, trumpeters, orderlies, guidon bearer, wagoner, sadler and blacksmith, plus officers then we have a total of 70 all ranks, which was paper strength for a company in 1876.

Now back to a patrol, if the company commander orders a patrol to be sent out then we could be looking at maybe three sets of fours, one line sergeant, one corporal with a small HQ containing the 1st sergeant, a trumpeter and a lieutenant as its commander, you could also throw in an extra trooper as an orderly, which would bring us to a grand total of eighteen.

This is only fictional on my behalf as patrols would differ for each mission, but if you stick to the set of fours principle that it will give you some idea.

I hope this helps.

Ian.

[AZ Ranger]

I think that having to count off indicates to me that the sets of four were not permanent structure.

Regards

AZ Ranger

[Yan Taylor]

Thank you Steve, I was in need of some help there. So if the sets of four were only for use when in order of march, then wouldn’t this be the order in which these patrols were organised, say for example before a patrol leaves the fort, the officer in charge would try and square off his total by using sets of troopers, rather than say sergeant get together nine men.

Ian.

[AZ Ranger]

Ian

It is not as clear to me. When I was in boot camp I was second squad leader and everyone in my squad was arranged by height. I made squad leader by being the tallest. I kept it by default and doing my job.

I believe that I read that they counted off and formed sets of fours just before moving to contact. So my question was did they send a particular set of fours plus a few more to the pack train?

I would think if selected for the pack train then in a formation they would close ranks and have to count off in fours again.

Peter Thompson seemed to be part of set fours that had poor horses and little experience. So was this random or a permanent structure.

Those companies with Reno would have to reform after the losses to maintain a military order.

Regards

Steve

[Yan Taylor]

Steve, yes I agree that they wouldn’t keep to a basic set of fours when not on active duty, but when moving in column it would seem easier if the place them in sets and four would be the ideal number.
But the problem of sorting the right number of NCOs per number of privates still remains, to me it looks rather slap dash to have around fifty privates from one company simply billeted together with no particular NCO to lead them, as you know any military formation would have a certain amount of privates under the command of a corporal or line sergeant and the same NCOs would be responsible for them alone.

Seeing that a company was supposed to have four corporals and four line sergeants would suggest that these would be split into four groups with a sergeant as leader and a corporal as his second and these would oversee a quarter of the privates in that company.

The notion of Custer ordering five privates and a sergeant from each company to accompany the pack train does throw could water on my theory, but the companies fielded that day were all under strength so even numbers were thrown out of the window.

In C Company, was it true that the men who fell out due to lame and tired horses, all came from the same set of four?
I know that five dropped out and Kanipe claimed he was on a mission, but out of Fitzgerald, Brennan, Thompson, Watson and Farrar I don’t know who made up the four.

Upton mentioned in his cavalry manual that the set of fours refers to the basic tactical formation, which was adopted in 1867 calling for movement to based on sets of four soldiers. And on being formed, the members of the company were numbered off accordingly.

[tubman13]

How about I make this a wee bit more murky, it appears they picked patrols the way the commander wanted to, much the way GAC divided his troops through the day on June 25,1876. It probably depended on numbers available and past history, for like patrols/mission. The following are from after action reports.

"Infantry, with a detachment consisting of twelve men, 2d Cavalry, and ten Crow scouts, was attacked by a war party of Sioux near the mouth of the Musselshell, Montana, and had one horse killed and three wounded; one of the hostiles was reported killed. The Indians who had broken away, after the Sioux war of 1876-77, and had taken refuge in the British possessions, kept sending out raiding parties which committed depredations as far south as the Yellowstone and, when pursued by the troops, escaped again into the Northwest Territory. In September, 1880, a scout named Allison went from Fort Buford to communicate with Sitting Bull and other chiefs and, if possible, to induce the hostiles to come in and surrender. Allison made several visits to the hostiles and numbers came in to Poplar River Agency, Montana, in the latter part of 1880. At first these Indians seemed peaceable but, after they had collected in force, became turbulent and arrogant, assuming a threatening attitude toward the garrison at Poplar River which it became necessary, therefore, to increase. On December 15th, 1880, Major G. Ilges, 5th Infantry, with five mounted companies of his regiment, numbering about one hundred and forty"

"On September 12th, Lieutenant H. S. Bishop, 5th Cavalry, with a detachment of thirty men and some Shoshone scouts, struck a party of Bannocks on a tributary of Snake River, Wyoming, killed one Indian and captured seven, together with eleven horses and three mules : the prisoners had escaped from the fight with Colonel Miles on Clark’s Fork, September 4th, and reported that they had lost twenty-eight killed in that affair.'

"August 2d, Sergeant Claggett, with eleven men of Troop “ H,” 10th Cavalry, pursued to the Guadaloupe Mountains, a band of Indians who had killed a stage driver and run off stock at El Muerto, Texas."

[tubman13]

If you look at these after action reports the numbers and command structures vary greatly.

[jodak]

This is a link to a number of military manuals, some of which might bear on this question or others that someone might be interested in. There are a number dated from the Civil War timeframe that were probably still applicable during the later frontier duty and Indian Wars .  I haven't dug through them in detail but I did find one entry that I found interesting. It said that when conducting reconnaissance when near the enemy,  a "patrol" was really just a security detail for the officer tasked with conducting the reconnaissance. I had never thought of it in those terms, but I guess it makes sense and suppose the size of the patrol was a function of how much security was felt necessary.  The size of patrols for other reasons may have been based upon the same logic to varying degrees.

www.storymindmedia.com/angryalien/military_manuals.htm

[montrose]

I missed this thread last year. Fascinating discussion.

Patrols were the common activity of the army of this era. Campaigns were rare. There was a campaign or more every year, but only for a few companies, occasionally a regiment. SO the average company did far more patrolling than campaigns.

Garrison support activity consumed at least 75% of all actions of a normal soldier. Remote garrisons with no local support base (AKA civilians) meant the soldiers spent most of their time on the many hey you details to keep the base functional. Wood detail, water detail, forage detail, stable call, snow shoveling, guard detail, garden detail (They had to grow their own food, especially the food that prevented scurvy), etc, etc, etc. The diaries and work records of every post shows this consumed most of the units available time. SO support was what a normal soldier did day to day, then patrol, then campaign.

What is missing on this list?

Training. Very little training was conducted. The limited training conducted was overly focused on drill and ceremony, and admin tasks. Combat training was rare, soldiers could go months with zer0 combat training, especially in the winter.

This army had no basic combat training (BCT). So soldiers could, and did, join the army, reach a unit and conduct their first combat with no training at all.

Sidebar: I want to discuss LTC Custer when he was advance guard commander, in the 1873 and other actions. Is there an old thread explaining the 1873 campaign, to get folks up to speed on that?

William

[AZ Ranger]

William

Here are two threads

lbha.proboards.com/thread/214/oh-darn-stove-yellowstone-campaign

lbha.proboards.com/thread/4867/flank-nonsense?page=28

The first is about the Yellowstone Campaign

The second is a about guards and has some advance guard discussion

I am interested in Custer as advance guard commander on the Yellowstone campaign.


Regards

Steve

[Yan Taylor]

Apr 4, 2017 7:46:20 GMT -5 montrose said:

Training. Very little training was conducted. The limited training conducted was overly focused on drill and ceremony, and admin tasks. Combat training was rare, soldiers could go months with zer0 combat training, especially in the winter.

This army had no basic combat training (BCT). So soldiers could, and did, join the army, reach a unit and conduct their first combat with no training at all.

I would expect that the lack of training was down to a lack of enemies, because the USA was bordered by only two countries and one of them could be classed as friendly. So apart from the odd argument with the Mexicans the only real threat came from any Indian up rising.

This is a totally different set of circumstances to what was going on in Europe as most European nations had some beef going on with a neighbour, which was usually settled by a good war, so the standing armies in larger European states were generally trained up for such a threat.

The British too had a unique set of circumstances with an empire to police and many infantry battalions took their turn on say the north west frontier of India or on the many other hot spots doted all around the world.

So the bottom line is that European armies had to keep on the ball, otherwise some one would turn them over, which wouldn't be the case in American.

Yan.