|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 9, 2018 6:55:04 GMT -6
I believe that Gordon Harper researched this aspect of 7th Cavalry's poor show at LBH and arrived at definitive numbers for inexperienced and untrained recruits. I'll see if I can dig the numbers out. Time in service means nothing in my opinion. It is the amount of training, practical application, and experience an individual soldiers has and the sum total of individuals would be the battle readiness of a particular company. The use of Mules was an ad hoc undertaking which one would and should really expect to have been troublesome. The hope was for improved mobility by retaining indepenance without the immense bridging efforts requured to travel with wagons. Terry's Montana column were scattered all over upper reaches of the Tulloch and Bighorn by late afternoon of the 25th. Admittedly this was in part due to poor guidance by scouts. I have no clue where you get that from? Where did the pack saddles come from? Military and Law Enforcement does not function on hope. Mules and their use were a decision made by someone. They fit within a list of tasks that the army could use. Apparently the use of pack mules did not make Custer's essential list along with a lot of other tasks. How about cancel a baseball game and tell the troops that today your going to learn how to pack the loads and saddle up a mule. They could all have the same laugh that Godfrey describes but it would not be during a mission. The mules they used came from the wagons and the proper use of wagons for transportation would be an essential task. There should have been worthwhile experience gained with the packs and animals during the Reno scout. The difficultues experienced in hauling a Gatling and damaging the running gear of its wagon obviously influenced thinking about taking them on with 7th Cavalry. You should train before a mission and have it in your skill set. What occurred was it was an emergency situation because they needed the mules for Reno. As an instructor I am constantly looking for better ways to do something and then incorporate them first in training and then in practicals and tactical where the officer choose to do something and demonstrates the use of their developed skills. The 1874 hauled cannons and wagons in the same country. They had no trouble with finding Indians to fight. Godfrey's record of the march indicates that Custer devolved broad responsibilities to his Company commanders and with that introduced an element of competition by performance being reported daily. Benteen failed this test and was stung by criticism to improve deployment of the escort. That of course was the point and coming last in competion is its own point. It worked. So you really think training should wait until a mission? I don't think getting up on time, the cooking done and horses saddled is an indicator of battle readiness.Marksmanship was hamstrung by regulation monthly allotment of ten rounds per man. It appears to have been rigid mikitaryness although I guess that the reserve supply could have been used. Judgement call. I purchase hundreds of rounds with my own money. Sgt Ryan purchased his own rifle and was proficient in its use. What he states is those troopers that went to the LBH did not have the desire to be proficient at any of the skills needed to be battle ready. Certainly one might hope that a cavalry charge pistols drawn could hit something with their shots but this was only tested during the charge into LBH river where influencing the hostiles had been abandoned. Benteen advanced to Reno's succour in mounted skirmish line but to only light opposition. Hope is best stated as where there is lead there is hope. Marines learn that only hits count. Police have to keep hits within certain zones on a target. Hope does not replace a skill set. Firing of weapons during the march from FAL was quite seriously punished as happend with one of the scouts who spent a day stood on one leg atop a barrel. He was fortunate that the order which he disobeyed - prevented him being shot in punishment. Had the regiment been aware that they would confront overwhelming force employing innovative (different) tactics - I'm not sure that anything more than was, could have been. I would not expect you to know what they should know as essential tasks. You should support Montrose in this effort to establish the list of essential tasks and how well the 7th prepared for this mission.The march from 17th May was an operation in the field requiring the full resources of the column to advance the wagons by bridging and was beset by poor climate. There was little time for anything besides the march, I suspect and readiness was as much a matter for Terry's and Custer's staff as them themselves. I don't feel that Custer's absence from FAL as the companies assembled had any bearing on the considerations here, since it was only on his return n the April that the mission preparation got under way. The thing was rushed, in spite of Gibbon having been under way for a considerable time and suffering considerable.... difficulties on the Yellowstone. Poor marksmanship if it exited at LBH, must surely have extended to the regiments of Crook's expedition. Embrace the suckThere were too many Indians. Making hits reduces their numbers and more importantly increases their thinking that it is a bad medicine day to fight.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 9, 2018 7:02:59 GMT -6
William
Where I am at a disadvantage is what other units were doing with their METL in regards to training and proficiency. Studying this battle was supposed to be something I do when not working so I take more of single focus approach and have less study in what other cavalry units did to be battle ready. Are there good sources that I could read. Thanks
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Mar 19, 2018 8:41:32 GMT -6
I am still digesting some G matter on this topic (revelation) but pass on some of the relevant stuff. There's a general outlook HERE which disses training for its lack in terms of modern perspective and perspectives. I touched on this 'in discussion' without developing it in regards the evolution from rank and file deployments in the face of rapid rifled fire. This innovation with weaponry, transformed military tactics. Major Andrew J. Forney, US ARMY goes at it in THIS article with stuff which I have been stating for a very long time. and specific to LBH, Terry, Reno and a broad embarrassment of both. Forney limits his insight, unfortunately, and avoids the revolution that innovative firearms wrought upon 'military' tactics. In effect and relity, the cowboys became the indians as the effective ranges of accurate rapid gunfire forced targets to 'eat dirt! and grovel! This was a revolution and feeds directly into bipolar small unit tactics and elitist special forces doctrines of modern day militaryness. The soldiers had to stop deploying in ranks as peacocks to be 'blown away'. On Reno Hill, Varnum heard two episodes of ragged gunfire which has been gresped upon by students and scholars of this battle as volley fire. It was not. It was barrages of hostile gunfire as that described in the John Stands in Timber fairy tale. The Sioux and Cheyennes dismounted in the face of the skirmishing cavalry, and on command, blew the soldier's away before closing to close quarters. It was over when Weir reached his lookout point and surveyed the battle ground. What time Weir took it upon himself to ride to the sound of the dying and dead is the question. John Watts de Peyster jnrJohn Watts de Peyster* This was Lincoln's response to Stonewall Jackson's brilliant campaign to threaten the Federal Capital City and save Richmond. (See 'Defeat in Detail') Hmmm.... controversy is never far away. Is it?.............
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 20, 2018 5:43:49 GMT -6
Major Andrew J. Forney, US ARMY
HR
If you are going to use someone for a firearm resource then you should fact check them. The Springfield used at the LBH is the 1873 Springfield not 1872. The author used 1872 more than once. The second time I quite reading the article. Firearms designations are important and the first model of a firearm is something no informed author should get wrong. The first conversions were the 1865s .50 Cal. The last .50 Cal were the 1870 model. The 1873 Springfield was selected to fire the .45-70 cartridge.
Regards
AZ Ranger
Went back to look and it got worse.
"Granted, the carbine used a smaller .45/55 round, but its internal parts and design mirrored the larger model."
The carbine and rifle could fire both the .45-70 and the .45-55 cartridges. The external dimensions of the case are the same. The only difference is that carbine friendly cartridge had only 55 gr of powder.
"Strikingly, most troopers chose to fight dismounted, foregoing mobility over a sense of grounded security. More than likely, this also stemmed from a lack of training, as troopers untaught in how to fight from horseback went to ground in the hopes of placing a semblance of well-aimed fire against their foes. More often than not, this practice eventually led to the routing of dismounted forces by their more mobile and horse-bound Sioux enemy."
You have to be kidding. Troopers get to choose zero unless by themselves. Battalion commanders and company commanders get to make the decisions on fighting mounted or dismounted.
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Mar 20, 2018 6:30:22 GMT -6
"Strikingly, most troopers chose to fight dismounted, foregoing mobility over a sense of grounded security. More than likely, this also stemmed from a lack of training, as troopers untaught in how to fight from horseback went to ground in the hopes of placing a semblance of well-aimed fire against their foes. More often than not, this practice eventually led to the routing of dismounted forces by their more mobile and horse-bound Sioux enemy." You have to be kidding. Troopers get to choose zero unless by themselves. Battalion commanders and company commanders get to make the decisions on fighting mounted or dismounted. This must be a very poor attempt to refer to US Army personnel and/or units in general. Kind of. It simply can`t be meant the way it is written. My guess is that it`s terrible wording rather ... not knowing. The factual mistakes of course are something else.
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Mar 20, 2018 6:35:43 GMT -6
"Strikingly, most troopers chose to fight dismounted, foregoing mobility over a sense of grounded security. More than likely, this also stemmed from a lack of training, as troopers untaught in how to fight from horseback went to ground in the hopes of placing a semblance of well-aimed fire against their foes. More often than not, this practice eventually led to the routing of dismounted forces by their more mobile and horse-bound Sioux enemy." You have to be kidding. Troopers get to choose zero unless by themselves. Battalion commanders and company commanders get to make the decisions on fighting mounted or dismounted. This must be a very poor attempt to refer to US Army personnel and/or units in general. Kind of. It simply can`t be meant the way it is written. My guess is that it`s terrible wording rather ... not knowing. The factual mistakes of course are something else. This guy teaches History at West Point? I am a little surprised.
All the best, Noggy
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Mar 20, 2018 13:33:43 GMT -6
Major Andrew J. Forney, US ARMY HR If you are going to use someone for a firearm resource then you should fact check them. The Springfield used at the LBH is the 1873 Springfield not 1872. The author used 1872 more than once. The second time I quite reading the article. Firearms designations are important and the first model of a firearm is something no informed author should get wrong. The first conversions were the 1865s .50 Cal. The last .50 Cal were the 1870 model. The 1873 Springfield was selected to fire the .45-70 cartridge. Regards AZ Ranger Went back to look and it got worse. "Granted, the carbine used a smaller .45/55 round, but its internal parts and design mirrored the larger model." The carbine and rifle could fire both the .45-70 and the .45-55 cartridges. The external dimensions of the case are the same. The only difference is that carbine friendly cartridge had only 55 gr of powder. "Strikingly, most troopers chose to fight dismounted, foregoing mobility over a sense of grounded security. More than likely, this also stemmed from a lack of training, as troopers untaught in how to fight from horseback went to ground in the hopes of placing a semblance of well-aimed fire against their foes. More often than not, this practice eventually led to the routing of dismounted forces by their more mobile and horse-bound Sioux enemy." You have to be kidding. Troopers get to choose zero unless by themselves. Battalion commanders and company commanders get to make the decisions on fighting mounted or dismounted. Well, I was sharing a broad opinion and which I criticised aspects of myself. I thoughht you might just enjoy it. Silly me! You expert, you! 7th Cavalry did fight dismounted. So did many Sioux and Cheyennes which was unusual. Look what happened at Rosebud. I'll see if I can dig out the good major's email and perhaps you will grade him. This was a period of flux..... he said 'flux', with tactical theory and its practice. It went booboo at LBH. Weapons and tactics. I do believe that the regiments morale was good going into battle and that that changed. The issue of discipline is what Forney is on about. I don't think he is a fan of horses or cavalry, or Custer. Could be wrong on this but..... it was good to get you going.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 21, 2018 6:31:28 GMT -6
Major Andrew J. Forney, US ARMY HR If you are going to use someone for a firearm resource then you should fact check them. The Springfield used at the LBH is the 1873 Springfield not 1872. The author used 1872 more than once. The second time I quite reading the article. Firearms designations are important and the first model of a firearm is something no informed author should get wrong. The first conversions were the 1865s .50 Cal. The last .50 Cal were the 1870 model. The 1873 Springfield was selected to fire the .45-70 cartridge. Regards AZ Ranger Went back to look and it got worse. "Granted, the carbine used a smaller .45/55 round, but its internal parts and design mirrored the larger model." The carbine and rifle could fire both the .45-70 and the .45-55 cartridges. The external dimensions of the case are the same. The only difference is that carbine friendly cartridge had only 55 gr of powder. "Strikingly, most troopers chose to fight dismounted, foregoing mobility over a sense of grounded security. More than likely, this also stemmed from a lack of training, as troopers untaught in how to fight from horseback went to ground in the hopes of placing a semblance of well-aimed fire against their foes. More often than not, this practice eventually led to the routing of dismounted forces by their more mobile and horse-bound Sioux enemy." You have to be kidding. Troopers get to choose zero unless by themselves. Battalion commanders and company commanders get to make the decisions on fighting mounted or dismounted. Well, I was sharing a broad opinion and which I criticised aspects of myself. I thoughht you might just enjoy it. Silly me! You expert, you! 7th Cavalry did fight dismounted. So did many Sioux and Cheyennes which was unusual. Look what happened at Rosebud. I'll see if I can dig out the good major's email and perhaps you will grade him. This was a period of flux..... he said 'flux', with tactical theory and its practice. It went booboo at LBH. Weapons and tactics. I do believe that the regiments morale was good going into battle and that that changed. The issue of discipline is what Forney is on about. I don't think he is a fan of horses or cavalry, or Custer. Could be wrong on this but..... it was good to get you going. HR The you got to be kidding is aimed at the author not you HR. Sorry for the confusion I think when someone is an instructor at West Point and has the rank of Major we can and should hold him to a higher standard. The argument is not whether they would fight on foot. Clearly Sgt. Ryan states even Custer would not fight these soldiers mounted. The point is that individual Indians choose whether to fight mounted or on foot. We have a higher expectation for discipline with troopers. We expect them to follow orders and only fight dismounted after being ordered to dismount. The individual trooper does not get to choose unless by himself. If this article was not written by an instructor at West Point holding the rank of Major I would be less critical. The Springfield Rifle and Carbine was the Army's weapon system for quite a few years after it first model came out. The very first modification was an emergency fix on having a cleaning rod that could be used to remove stuck cases. There are two prototypes at the Springfield Armory museum in Massachusetts. They have the cleaning rod in the front of the stock with a bracket attached to the barrel. Since I only got a C in English and grammar then you should not have high expectations for my posts. If my credentials were that of an English professor at Yale than you can and should form a different opinion in regards to expectations. As far as the weapon system I see no excuse for a Major in the U.S. Army to not have an understanding of the difference between a 45/55 and a 45/70 cartridge if he is going to write about them. Placing a filler wad or tube in a 45/70 case and loading 55gr of black powder does not make the .45/55 a smaller round. The first number is the caliber and the second the grains of powder. The case dimension is always a .45/70 in regards to the chamber dimensions. The 70 is the maximum grains of black powder. There are other cases that hold more powder such as .45/110 but the chamber size for the military Springfield both rifle and carbine is .45/70. I think Noggy is correct either the author is lazy and did no research or he is lazy in his writing. Tactics haven't changed much throughout history. Battle readiness is what the 7th lacked in my opinion. The use of the horse and weapon systems should be a skill possessed by all soldiers in the cavalry. If you outnumber the enemy like Custer did against the single village at the Washita you can rely on the few with the skills. At the LBH they were outnumbered and they needed to have all the soldiers battle ready. How can you expect someone to charge if they have never ridden that fast nor fired from their horse. To miss an Indian at point blank range is only understandable if the trooper lacks an independent seat and a basic skill to muzzle index his revolver at the center mass of the Indian. Troopers should have possessed both of these skills which does not require thinking to perform. Instead the trooper is holding on to maintain balance and that fear of falling off dominates his actions. Firing the revolver without the skillset which to see a target at close range, see the muzzle on it while squeezing the trigger is the only way I can see missing at that range. If an Indian can place their bow over the head of the trooper an pull him off his horse that would indicate a lack of battle readiness don't you think. I think a good reason to not bring the sabers was the fear of self inflicted and/or friendly wounding. Sgt. Ryan goes into detail on how these soldiers would not train with the saber. The noise factor or weight factor doesn't seem to me to be the only reason for leaving the sabers behind. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 21, 2018 7:55:00 GMT -6
Steve, using weaker 55 load give the round some less jump and less down range shocking power. The ballistic coefficient really drops off. This link is not battle appropriate, but tells about the amount of target practice ammo allowed. Ten rounds a month, may not get the new recruit on paper that 1st month, at 100yds. www.oldammo.com/october05.htm
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Mar 21, 2018 9:30:23 GMT -6
Well, I was sharing a broad opinion and which I criticised aspects of myself. I thoughht you might just enjoy it. Silly me! You expert, you! 7th Cavalry did fight dismounted. So did many Sioux and Cheyennes which was unusual. Look what happened at Rosebud. I'll see if I can dig out the good major's email and perhaps you will grade him. This was a period of flux..... he said 'flux', with tactical theory and its practice. It went booboo at LBH. Weapons and tactics. I do believe that the regiments morale was good going into battle and that that changed. The issue of discipline is what Forney is on about. I don't think he is a fan of horses or cavalry, or Custer. Could be wrong on this but..... it was good to get you going. HR The you got to be kidding is aimed at the author not you HR. Sorry for the confusion I think when someone is an instructor at West Point and has the rank of Major we can and should hold him to a higher standard. The argument is not whether they would fight on foot. Clearly Sgt. Ryan states even Custer would not fight these soldiers mounted. The point is that individual Indians choose whether to fight mounted or on foot. We have a higher expectation for discipline with troopers. We expect them to follow orders and only fight dismounted after being ordered to dismount. The individual trooper does not get to choose unless by himself. If this article was not written by an instructor at West Point holding the rank of Major I would be less critical. The Springfield Rifle and Carbine was the Army's weapon system for quite a few years after it first model came out. The very first modification was an emergency fix on having a cleaning rod that could be used to remove stuck cases. There are two prototypes at the Springfield Armory museum in Massachusetts. They have the cleaning rod in the front of the stock with a bracket attached to the barrel. Since I only got a C in English and grammar then you should not have high expectations for my posts. If my credentials were that of an English professor at Yale than you can and should form a different opinion in regards to expectations. As far as the weapon system I see no excuse for a Major in the U.S. Army to not have an understanding of the difference between a 45/55 and a 45/70 cartridge if he is going to write about them. Placing a filler wad or tube in a 45/70 case and loading 55gr of black powder does not make the .45/55 a smaller round. The first number is the caliber and the second the grains of powder. The case dimension is always a .45/70 in regards to the chamber dimensions. The 70 is the maximum grains of black powder. There are other cases that hold more powder such as .45/110 but the chamber size for the military Springfield both rifle and carbine is .45/70. I think Noggy is correct either the author is lazy and did no research or he is lazy in his writing. Tactics haven't changed much throughout history. Battle readiness is what the 7th lacked in my opinion. The use of the horse and weapon systems should be a skill possessed by all soldiers in the cavalry. If you outnumber the enemy like Custer did against the single village at the Washita you can rely on the few with the skills. At the LBH they were outnumbered and they needed to have all the soldiers battle ready. How can you expect someone to charge if they have never ridden that fast nor fired from their horse. To miss an Indian at point blank range is only understandable if the trooper lacks an independent seat and a basic skill to muzzle index his revolver at the center mass of the Indian. Troopers should have possessed both of these skills which does not require thinking to perform. Instead the trooper is holding on to maintain balance and that fear of falling off dominates his actions. Firing the revolver without the skillset which to see a target at close range, see the muzzle on it while squeezing the trigger is the only way I can see missing at that range. If an Indian can place their bow over the head of the trooper an pull him off his horse that would indicate a lack of battle readiness don't you think. I think a good reason to not bring the sabers was the fear of self inflicted and/or friendly wounding. Sgt. Ryan goes into detail on how these soldiers would not train with the saber. The noise factor or weight factor doesn't seem to me to be the only reason for leaving the sabers behind. Regards AZ Ranger Oorah!
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Mar 21, 2018 9:40:45 GMT -6
moving on, there is an element of apples and peaches comparison of modern professionalism and its emphasise on 'not' fighting erect in line and close together and the 'evolving' practices of the 1870/80's. Warfare altered and the cowboys became Indians. Custer's scouts warned him of this during the march, if the Ree narratives are accepted. Fighting erect and in ranks was criticised by the Rees. They knew a thing or two it turned out.
Certainly Ryan did also and ALL the company commanders. The only one of them who indicated a valid cause for poor or failing morale was DeRudio in comment (testimony) about the frequency of weapons jamming on the gun line. 8 to 10 rounds rapid and guys were whistling 'Dixie' fumbling to extract stuck cases. That would kill morale quicker than a tomahawk between the legs. I feel. As would shooting off all their rounds.
Great discussion. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Mar 22, 2018 2:49:31 GMT -6
I think a good reason to not bring the sabers was the fear of self inflicted and/or friendly wounding. Sgt. Ryan goes into detail on how these soldiers would not train with the saber. The noise factor or weight factor doesn't seem to me to be the only reason for leaving the sabers behind. Regards AZ Ranger Never thought of this factor, but it is very interesting regarding the topic of training and imo very logical when I think about it. Imagine advancing towards the enemy on horseback, the hard to control animals are scared and exhausted, the men riding them not much better off but also wielding sabers. I`d not like to be in the middle of that mess. It struck me (no poor pun intended) that I can`t recall reading who the order about ditching the sabers came from. Was it Terry or Custer himself? Custer certainly wanted to travel light, so my guess is it was him? If it was Custer and he took your point in to consideration, that would be quite an admission of his cherished regiment not being as competent as it should be, even if sabers were not the number 1 weapon to go to for cavalry by that time.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 22, 2018 4:51:15 GMT -6
Custer though not only travel light, but sabers are noisy.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 22, 2018 6:05:32 GMT -6
At some point you have to make what you think is a best decision. All weapon systems have weight so your decision making is based upon the value added and what is lost if given up. The saber was 41 inches long with a 35 by 1 in blade and weighed 2 lb 4 oz alone or 3 lb 10 oz with iron scabbard. Skipping a few meals and living on hard tack probably reduced the weight factor. When did they start using the grain they carried?
I think the cussing at the mules would be greater indicator of soldiers coming then saber rattling. If you are following the main highway up the Rosebud leaving manure and shod horse tracks would also be obvious. Did the cavalry assume that all the Indians traveled in one group and that none would be on the Rosebud highway behind the cavalry. At night the soldiers used the sound of horse and trooper ahead of them to make their way up Davis Creek. Sounds at night are more obvious.
Engaging in CQB with only your carbine to deflect blows seems a losing situation. How much training did the cavalry do for CQB without a saber? My guess is less than saber training.
My gunbelt with all the available choices on it weighs 17 pounds. Each piece of equipment fits within a range of use of force and situation.
So does a commander state we are reducing weight so we can catch up faster and when we get close they can't hear us coming or does he state that I failed to train the troopers to be proficient with a saber and they are useless without that training. Seems to me if you don't have a lot of bullets to train with maybe you could spend more time with the saber developing horsemanship and an independent seat which would be necessary to be proficient with a saber.
Since this is a mission essential task list would not CQB be a skill that would needed? I think the real problem is that CQB was not on the list of what would be expected of these particular soldiers.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Mar 22, 2018 6:43:06 GMT -6
Custer though not only travel light, but sabers are noisy. Regards, Tom And may cast reflections and so on. Many plausible reasons to drop them. Guess a combination of factors rather than one. N
|
|