|
Post by quincannon on Aug 14, 2015 19:30:38 GMT
People in the force structure business go to great lengths to create units that are self sufficient, at least for a limited time on the battlefield. That self sufficiency is not measured in minutes or hours, but rather days until they require rest and replenishment.
So far the lowest level we can do this is the battalion level, a team of teams. Montrose has spoken often on this concept and the idea of throwing two or more companies together and calling it a battalion. It is not and cannot be a battalion unless it possesses self sufficiency. Nothing called a battalion at LBH met that criteria. In short a battalion is a unit, as the name suggests (from the Italian batteglia)designed for battle.
Cavalry is weak, and it is designed to be weak, and not designed to engage in prolonged battle. Cavalry dismounted is not Infantry, it is cavalry dismounted. It cannot do the same things that Infantry can while dismounted. Cavalry can dismount and fight on foot, but should only do so, during the execution of a cavalry mission, and that primary mission is to find and develop, then hand off.
"Why were they committed to fight in this role" -- The answer lies somewhere between - They were not - and - Don't have a clue, - but just where between only one dead man knows for sure. You don't drive nails with a screwdriver, you don't sink a screw with a hammer, for each type unit under heaven there is a reason and a season.
|
|
|
Post by royalwelsh on Aug 14, 2015 22:41:28 GMT
Yan,
Not only was the dispersal excessive, but it takes greater training to fight dispersed (training that wasn't there).
Witness the instances of tactical disintegration during the battle.
RW
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Aug 15, 2015 0:39:40 GMT
QC/RW Was Benteen a problem that Custer could not handle? He seems to be invisible except for his conduct at the LBH and the prickly relationship he had with GAC. I see him as the glue that held the 7th together from June 25 to the 27th when Terry and his force arrived. Would another commander have used Benteen differently or had a better relationship with him? I realize this is drifting into the fantasy world but am endeavoring to see if the quality of the 7th could have been better using assets as Benteen instead of sending him away. After all he was the best combat commander available, right? Regards Dave Dave, The GAC/Benteen relationship is a very complex one. You notice that Benteen wasn't sent on detached service, despite the divisional commander being GAC's mentor - what does that tell you? RW I need to have ask if I need a mental impression I have corrected. I tend to think that almost every CW veteran who stayed in the military post CW did so because there was something about the lifestyle that appealed to them. They knew that the chances of advancing much further as far as rank would be slim and the pay not great. Benteen has other options besides the military so I am assuming he stayed in the army because he wanted to. Perhaps army stayed with him because Benteen was competent and reliable. The type of person you could tell to do a job and know the job would get done and done right--with enough intelligence and confidence to know that when to use his own best judgment. He was a good man to have in place were steadiness is needed. That said, I think that Benteen was the type of person who always thought he had the fuzzy end of the lollipop in any situation. However at some level received satisfaction from being in contentious relationships with those either above or around him--in other words, he liked being the thorn in someone's side, in particular it would seem Custer's.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Aug 15, 2015 1:09:39 GMT
Dave: 1) Proven fact, no discussion required. 2) Proven fact, no discussion required. 3) Forced marches and excessive fatigue are to be expected. Training can help somewhat, especially physical conditioning of the soldier himself. For the horseflesh I will leave that to AZ to answer, but suffice to say you can not pull into the Exxon, feed them with premium grade oats and then continue down the highway. Horse cavalry depends on the condition of the mount, and monitoring that condition is a command responsibility at all levels. 4) You can have the best trained individual soldiers in all Christendom, but if they are not trained as a team, then a team of teams, they are worthless in battle. 5) Lack of adequate hydration for both soldier and mount is a self inflicted wound. If you called out Custer for any one of these five above, you are on firm ground. Don't think I would worry about it were I you. 3) was it even possible, under the conditions that the 7th was operating for the horses to carry enough fodder to keep in good condition? I know that we sort of have a different view of livestock now, but there almost seemed to be a 'get them raw, use them up and get rid of them' attitude about horses in at least the 7th--except perhaps when it came to the officer's horses. I would think that if your life depended on your horse getting you in and out, you would put carrying the horse's food at high importance?
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Aug 15, 2015 1:26:03 GMT
People in the force structure business go to great lengths to create units that are self sufficient, at least for a limited time on the battlefield. That self sufficiency is not measured in minutes or hours, but rather days until they require rest and replenishment. So far the lowest level we can do this is the battalion level, a team of teams. Montrose has spoken often on this concept and the idea of throwing two or more companies together and calling it a battalion. It is not and cannot be a battalion unless it possesses self sufficiency. Nothing called a battalion at LBH met that criteria. In short a battalion is a unit, as the name suggests (from the Italian batteglia)designed for battle. Cavalry is weak, and it is designed to be weak, and not designed to engage in prolonged battle. Cavalry dismounted is not Infantry, it is cavalry dismounted. It cannot do the same things that Infantry can while dismounted. Cavalry can dismount and fight on foot, but should only do so, during the execution of a cavalry mission, and that primary mission is to find and develop, then hand off. "Why were they committed to fight in this role" -- The answer lies somewhere between - They were not - and - Don't have a clue, - but just where between only one dead man knows for sure. You don't drive nails with a screwdriver, you don't sink a screw with a hammer, for each type unit under heaven there is a reason and a season. Custer really needed that offered Infantry didn't he. Am I right that in the end, the 7th fought more as mounted infantry than cavalry?
|
|
|
Post by royalwelsh on Aug 15, 2015 1:46:14 GMT
People in the force structure business go to great lengths to create units that are self sufficient, at least for a limited time on the battlefield. That self sufficiency is not measured in minutes or hours, but rather days until they require rest and replenishment. So far the lowest level we can do this is the battalion level, a team of teams. Montrose has spoken often on this concept and the idea of throwing two or more companies together and calling it a battalion. It is not and cannot be a battalion unless it possesses self sufficiency. Nothing called a battalion at LBH met that criteria. In short a battalion is a unit, as the name suggests (from the Italian batteglia)designed for battle. Cavalry is weak, and it is designed to be weak, and not designed to engage in prolonged battle. Cavalry dismounted is not Infantry, it is cavalry dismounted. It cannot do the same things that Infantry can while dismounted. Cavalry can dismount and fight on foot, but should only do so, during the execution of a cavalry mission, and that primary mission is to find and develop, then hand off. "Why were they committed to fight in this role" -- The answer lies somewhere between - They were not - and - Don't have a clue, - but just where between only one dead man knows for sure. You don't drive nails with a screwdriver, you don't sink a screw with a hammer, for each type unit under heaven there is a reason and a season. Custer really needed that offered Infantry didn't he. Am I right that in the end, the 7th fought more as mounted infantry than cavalry? Beth, It would be better if this Brit let QC explain the history of the US Cavalry to you. There were formally no US Cavalry regiments before 1855, just dragoons, and the officers of those two 1855 regiments heavily sided with the Confederacy and were lost. Jefferson Davis (then US Secretary of War) basically handpicked the officers of the 2nd cavalry and you can imagine which states predominated.... 2nd Cavalry3 of the 4 senior officers across the 2 regiments were Albert Sydney Johnston, Joseph Johnston and Robert E Lee. The more northern regiment produced JEB Stuart! It wasn't by coincidence than the Confederate cavalry ran riot for the first 2 years of the ACW.... RW
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Aug 15, 2015 2:03:25 GMT
I believe that the 7th was functionally a Dragoon unit but it seems people think of them more as a Light Cavalry--part of the reason they mentally view the Charge of the Light Brigade when they think of Reno's fight in the valley. I know that QC has explained it before and I hate to admit I am drawing a blank on it. Hopefully he doesn't get too impatient with me because my brain has leaked the information. When you think of it, it's not surprising that the Confederate Cavalry was stronger. There was a much bigger horse culture in the South--more akin to 'riding to the hounds' culture in England.
|
|
|
Post by royalwelsh on Aug 15, 2015 2:32:58 GMT
Beth, This was the more "northern" regiment of the two - plenty of future Johnny Rebs there: 1st CavalryRW
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Aug 15, 2015 2:57:43 GMT
RW The quality of the Confederate cavalry during the first two years of the War had a lot to do with the life style in the south. Men were more acclimated to riding horses than many in the north who more urban than rural. Unlike the Union Army, in the Confederate cavalry the men supplied their own horses. The north had many good cavalry officers but at first they were very junior and their superiors would not use the cavalry properly. John Buford dealt the confederates a bloody nose at Gettysburg and Benjamin Grierson's Raid in April 1863 showed the union had started figuring how to effectively use the cavalry, and Griersion was a musician who like Forrest learned his trade on the fly. Bedford Forrest, another self taught cavalry commander, had it all his way till late April 1864 and Fort Pillow. More Union forces were concentrated in getting rid of Forrest and new federal commanders were being used. Jefferson Davis always felt that Forrest was underused and wasted. Sherman tried his best to get rid of Forrest. Just rambling I guess. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 15, 2015 12:05:51 GMT
I have read that during the ACW that some cavalry units (mainly Confederate) would prefer to carry up to three pistols plus either a carbine or in some instances a shotgun and ditch their sabres. Sabres were used of course by both sides and this happened at Gettysburg. The amount of pistols carried was down to the individual, as they were in short supply.
Has anyone here heard of Mosby and McNeal? Apparently Mosby expected his men to have four pistols, two in a belt and two in the saddle, McNeal carried a shotgun. Now some people say that these two were not your regular cavalry men. The Confederate 8th Texas cavalry (Terry’s Rangers) were supposed to carry two revolvers and a shotgun.
Yan.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Aug 15, 2015 14:24:15 GMT
Ian I will jump in here quickly. QC and Deadwood will be able to add more pertinent information once they wake up. It's a little to early for the older geezers to get up, oil their joints with WD-40 and find their teeth.
The Confederate government faithfully copied most if not all of the military manuals, rules and regulations and table of organization. Unfortunately the Rebs could not supply and equip their forces. I am more familiar with Forrest than the Eastern cavalry. Forrest equip his men with shotguns, pistols, sabers and what ever else he could "requisition" from the US. Shotguns were more effective for Forrest since he seldom had as many troops as the Federals had.
Mosby, Hunt and Morgan are often forgotten and overlooked. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 15, 2015 14:28:37 GMT
U S Cavalry was an organizational compromise. The first two regiments were organized and equipped as dragoons, the best fit organizationally for the anticipated use. The third regiment raised was designed to be used for protection of the Oregon trail, and were slightly different from the dragoons, being equipped with rifles vice carbines. These were the Regiment of Mounted Rifles. In 1855 Davis, the Secretary of war raised two regiments that were to be multi-purpose cavalry, and they were designated cavalry, a third followed in 1861. Near the end of that year all of the mounted units were renumbered in order of their date of constitution, the 1st Dragoons (the oldest) became the 1st Cavalry, and the 3rd Cavalry (the youngest) the 6th Cavalry. Regardless of designation though all of the six and those to come thereafter followed dragoon doctrine.
Dragoon doctrine does not prohibit mounted attack if the opportunity presents itself. Captain May's squadron of the 2nd Dragoons at Resaca de la Palma is an example of this. More and more though as the rifle became more accurate those opportunities diminished, and the more conventional dragoon technique of advancing as far forward as possible, then dismounting and fighting on foot became the preferred method of employment. This is the only way they could bring their most lethal weapon, the carbine, into play.
U S Cavalry did become mounted Infantry late in the 19th century when the carbine was set aside in favor of the rifle. In fact the only difference between dragoon and mounted Infantry is the weapon they carry. There is virtually no difference in method of employment.
We all saw a few months ago Wilson's ideas on the use of cavalry as a main battle force. I won't repeat his ideas here, just a trace of his ideas. Stuart used cavalry for large scale raiding, for the first time in American history. Sheridan and others picked up on this idea and attempted to form a corps sized mounted main battle force. They achieved a great deal of success with the concept, but you also must realize that a lot of that success was enjoyed as the Confederate cavalry, the antidote to that type operation was in a state of wane and decline. It was during this cavalry as a main battle force period that Custer came to prominence, and we see the effect of this in his schemes of maneuver.
The idea of a mounted main battle force was in limbo for the next seventy years. Rifles became more rapid fire and accurate, the machine gun came along, and the horse and horseman much too vulnerable. It was only when the armored vehicle came along, both tank and accompanying Infantry carrier, plus (a very important plus) self propelled artillery, that the ideas of Stuart, Sheridan, and Wilson could be implemented. A true mounted force comprises horse, foot, and guns. or in modern terms tanks, mech infantry, and SP artillery. They compliment each other, and the basis of their doctrine is that of the dragoon.
A couple of notes to Ian:
My daughter was married at an Episcopal Church in Fairfax, Virginia. The parsonage of that church is immediately next to it, and was once known as the Gunnell House, the very place where Mosby snatched that Union general out of his bed and took him prisoner. The highway that ran within a hundred yards of my home in Chantilly, VA is the John S. Mosby Memorial Highway. Mosby's men did not carry sabers in favor of as many pistols as they could carry, most of which were the former property of the U S Government. You must ask Beth what Terry's Texas Rangers carried. There is an equestrian statue dedicated to the 8th Texas on the State House grounds in Austin.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 15, 2015 16:36:25 GMT
One of the fundamentals of dragoon doctrine is that while one portion of the force dismounted to fight on foot, another portion remained mounted, in what we might now call over watch. It was not exactly the same as an over watch but similar in that the mounted element was to cover the dismounts. It is very much like how a tank-Infantry team operates today.
I mention this because in it we may find a clue as to what Reno expected, when he dismounted his entire force, perhaps expecting his mounted support coming from the main body.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 15, 2015 17:43:21 GMT
Thanks Chuck, I do enjoy stories like the one you just written as people tend to stick to the larger pitched battle scenario’s rather than the local action like you just described. You have got me thinking there Chuck, did Reno have to dismount all of his troops? Company G was initially in reserve and it ended up on Reno’s left, his largest Company A coy could have been used in skirmish along with the remaining troops from M Company (between 10-15 were in the timber). Now would G Company unnerve any Indian incursion from getting around his left? One last think, now you all know how I like to make up scenarios and me and Chuck do enjoy our combined arms, so imagine if Custer formed three battalions each containing;
1st battalion A Coy (shotguns + 2 pistols each) B Coy (Henry repeating rifles + 1 pistol each) C Coy (carbines + 1 pistol each) D Coy (carbines + 1 pistol each)
2nd battalion E Coy (shotguns + 2 pistols each) F Coy (Henry repeating rifles + 1 pistol each) G Coy (carbines + 1 pistol each) H Coy (carbines + 1 pistol each)
3rd battalion I Coy (shotguns + 2 pistols each) K Coy (Henry repeating rifles + 1 pistol each) L Coy (carbines + 1 pistol each) M Coy (carbines + 1 pistol each)
Now the carbine equipped companies could act as supressing fire. The company armed with shotguns are your assault companies. The companies armed with Henrys follow the assault companies (shotgun) and add weight to the assault.
Just a bit of fun.
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 15, 2015 18:38:47 GMT
Ian: While I think you three battalion organization is right on the mark and follows the organization pattern of regiments in the first half of the 20th century, I think the fault lies in how you have equipped them. They are far too specialized. Each company should be able to perform across the spectrum of missions, and not just be optimized for one.
What such an organization required is a rapid fire reliable carbine, supplemented by two pistols, one on the person, and one attached to the horse furniture. That does not completely solve the problem though. It only helps. Cavalry post 1860 would still be vulnerable to well aimed fire.
Cavalry is made weak because of the horse. As long as your enemy possesses rapid fire, accurate at range weapons, cavalry becomes more and more limited, until it eventually becomes useless. That is why it was no good as a main battle force, and the dreams of Stuart and Sheridan were dashed until the AFV came along.
I favor a shotgun only for close quarter battle.
|
|