1. Regiment quality

[deadwoodgultch]

Agree with all above, however, I do love the shotgun with#4 buckshot. It would not have changed this battle, unless Custer's 5 all had them and hunkered down and could have waited until the NA's charged him in mass, then allowed all to get within 25 yards. The number of casualties for the home team would have been greatly enhanced. That charge would have not happened twice. There are more pellets in the pattern than 00 buck. They are .24 caliber, imagine 32 of these little buggers coming at you at 25 or 30 yards.

Regards,
Tom

[dave]

Nothing like the sound of a shot gun being shucked. It will grab your attention except on a loud battlefield.
Regards
Dave

[Beth]

Aug 15, 2015 16:36:25 GMT quincannon said:

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.

Thank you.  I swear I don't remember ever coming across that before.  I find it very enlightening.   I know this question doesn't go to the quality of the regiment but did Reno have his men dismount too soon?  He was told he would be supported but shouldn't he have at least been able to look back and see signs of that support?

[Beth]

Aug 15, 2015 20:31:25 GMT deadwoodgultch said:

Agree with all above, however, I do love the shotgun with#4 buckshot. It would not have changed this battle, unless Custer's 5 all had them and hunkered down and could have waited until the NA's charged him in mass, then allowed all to get within 25 yards. The number of casualties for the home team would have been greatly enhanced. That charge would have not happened twice. There are more pellets in the pattern than 00 buck. They are .24 caliber, imagine 32 of these little buggers coming at you at 25 or 30 yards.

Regards,
Tom

I guess one could look at a shotgun as a hand held canister shot cannon.

[Beth]

Aug 15, 2015 18:38:47 GMT quincannon said:

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.

So basically a cavalry doesn't work if the enemy has the ability to shoot your horse out from underneath, you before you can get close enough to shoot back? 

Beth

[quincannon]

I think it would be more accurate to say that cavalry, or better yet mounted forces, were totally obsolete by the turn of the 20th century. They would stay that way until reliable reconnaissance, and main battle vehicles became available in about 1935. Today the helicopter, and perhaps someday soon the tilt rotor, are serving notice that some portion of the armored force may be reaching the stage the horse did about 1890 or so. This is particularly so in the cavalry, the reconnaissance function of the force, where one troop (8) can cover a division sized front. Boot is to track, as track is to rotor.

This of course is in the future as far as LBH went. To them if you wanted mobility the horse was the only game in town. They were struggling with how to cope with emerging technology. Their weapons development was surging far ahead, and they were stuck with the horse.

The question related to this thread is quality. Given that you have the same human quality, the same drawbacks, the same weaponry, and the same doctrine, why were nine cavalry regiments ahead in the race to adapt, and the 7th Cavalry running dead last? There can only be one answer and that must be the quality of the leadership. If nine guys could adapt and make things work, and function despite in many instances a stacked deck against them, why did one fail so miserably, not ust in one area, but across the board? .

With regard to your Reno question Beth: It very well could go to quality, but I think were that the case it would be quite apparent, and it is not, at least I don't think it is.

The dragoon moves forward as far as possible mounted. That how far forward is usually determined by the enemy, but suffice to say it is when the mounted force starts receiving accurate direct fire. That call is the commander's alone, and his objective is to reduce a horse and man sized target to that of a man only. Just because he dismounts does not mean that he stops advancing, rather the dismounted dragoon continues to advance until he is stopped again primarily by effective fire. He then attempts to regain fire superiority, and regain forward momentum. The enemy has the ultimate vote on whether he can achieve that or not. 

There is no person on the face of this earth that is qualified to second guess Reno's decision when to dismount and fight on foot. Everyone can have his own opinion, but the only one qualified to make that call was Reno himself.

[yanmacca]

Apparently Dragoons could be paid less then cavalry, even though you could use them in a similar role. As one author states that in the 17th century they were just mounted infantry who rode into battle and dismounted and fought like musketeers so their main use was fighting on foot.

So in Custer’s eyes if his troopers were fighting on foot then this would be counterproductive to his plan of speed and manoeuvre, once his men were relegated to light infantry which is what they were when in skirmish, then the Indians could simply block the skirmish lines and the majority of the inhabitants could then escape the net.

This also makes me wonder why the three columns had infantry elements.

Yan.

[quincannon]

The most probable answer to your question Ian is that Infantry was available in theater, and sufficient amounts of cavalry were not.

The most lethal weapon in the hands of cavalry was the carbine, and you have to dismount to employ that weapon effectively.

[Beth]

I guess I didn't make what I was trying to ask clear about Reno being too early. I don't understand why if Custer was planning to support Reno, Custer didn't hold Reno at Ford A until he had Reno's support in place. Maybe I shouldn't think of staging a battle sort of like staging a parade where you put all the units in place and then give the order to move.

I don't know if it's ironic that through the entire age of mankind's history of warfare the only thing that has never gotten obsolete is man. War has always been about making the what the other guy is using obsolete. We may now use high tech weapons but it will always boil down to that we are still sneaking up as quietly as possible and throwing rocks at least other.

[Deleted]

QC,

I do not agree that mounted units and/or cavalry are obsolete. Both are still used in many conflicts today.

Animals remain useful for militaries with poor budgets, or operating in remote areas with limited road nets.

Here is a listing of my personal experience with animal units. Namibia used horse units for patrolling. Numerous combat ops were conducted. I still remember a 2LT explaining to me hot carry machine guns and rocket launchers on horseback. UNITA also had horse units, but mainly for patrolling rear areas and in resupply. Botswana and Zimbabwe had horse units, I worked with units doing counter poaching operations. (Poachers carry AKs, machine guns, and RPGs. Standard procedure is kill on sight, without warning. Steve, ever consider using that for a police SOP?). Morocco uses both horse and camel units. Angola had some horse units 20 years ago, though they planned to disband them. Then an insurgency blew up on them, not sure of current status.

And of course, my old unit, 5th SFG, conducted horse mounted attacks in conjunction with Afghan indig in 2001. Animals are extensively used by both sides in the conflict. Hell, they even use donkey bombs, IEDs.

And last but not least, you forget about Steve. He works for a US LEO, that uses horses.

Now you can make a point about tactics. Saber charges, the use of columns, and any mass attack were obsolete with the invention of the rifle musket, obsolete even in the ACW. On the amateur board you see people with no knowledge or understanding of weapons, cavalry and the post ACW US Army, claim that Reno should have attacked in a column of fours. Sheer lunacy. I assume the incompetent tacticians on that board think they should use the caracole when they made contact.

[quincannon]

Your last paragraph was my point. Obsolete for what they were originally intended. The 3rd Cavalry Reconnaissance Troop made an extensive use of horses in the mountains of Italy in 1943-44, but they did not go charging up the Po Valley mounted on them.

Animals will always have a place on the low end of the spectrum of conflict.

I think the question is has any modern western army considered the large scale use of the horse as an adequate mount since 1943. If the answer is no, then why not? 

[deadwoodgultch]

Horses, may have crossed the Rio Grande, more recently than an old John Ford movie. This crossing could have been for recon, drug interdiction, or to stop human trafficking, it may have happened as recently as 2012, it may have been ordered in Austin. Somebody may have had their peepee slapped, but then again we will never know.
It probably never happened. I have no source either way, just a rumor.

Regards,
Tom

[yanmacca]

Just ask yourself this, what would you prefer a horse or a jeep and if you are being shot at would you prefer a jeep or a M8 armoured car, the list goes on as does progress, the horse had its day and did a grand job but as with any weapon things change for the better.

Yan.

[quincannon]

I think part of that answer lies in where I want to go, and who is doing the shooting.