|
Post by quincannon on Oct 13, 2015 6:06:08 GMT
One of the things that is frustrating about boards such as these is that newcomers come to the forum with preconceived notions of how this or that was conducted, what this or that is called, why this or that happened. The frustrating part is that old ground must constantly be revisited, and that takes time and effort from the new ground most of us would like to cover. I hope this thread can be a place to refer newcomers to, that will be beneficial to them, and not impede the forward progress all of us would like to make. One such appeared on the black board today, and while the subject was thoroughly covered a year or so ago on that board, there was no one place that you could refer to for answers.
BREAKOUT FROM ENCIRCLEMENT
Reno DID NOT RETREAT he BROKE OUT FROM ENCIRCLEMENT
Why is the distinction important? They are conducted differently.
The breakout from encirclement is an attack pure and simple. The breakout is a focused attack on an identified portion of the encirclement that is thought to be weak and vulnerable. It is normally conducted in column, and seeks to punch a narrow corridor through that encirclement for the intended purpose of eventually breaking contact. At the point of broken contact the breakout commander can choose to defend in place, or commence further retrograde and if necessary then use the procedures normally associated with retreat - movement by bounds etc.
In a breakout the whole force is employed as one body. There are no stay behinds to cover, no fancy footwork. You just plunge thought the line like a fullback, and hope the shock of your attack will be sufficient to put the enemy off balance long enough for you to get clear.
For Reno the breakout was not yet complete when Benteen showed up. Had not Benteen arrived when he did it is doubtful, at least to me, that Reno could have ever broken contact.
A commander goes into a breakout fully aware that casualties will range from 20 to 100 percent. Breakouts from encirclement are acts of desperation, where the commander chooses between taking a chance on success, or DIPing
A retreat is conducted by a general movement rearward by either alternating or successive bounds. A retreat is characterized by an open rear (i.e. someplace to retreat to) .
So please, as long as this board is in existence, let us call what Reno did by its proper name. It was a breakout from encirclement, an attack, not a retreat.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Oct 13, 2015 8:39:30 GMT
So for those who are new..Reno was justified in calling it a charge.
How about our old favourite To FIX As in how Reno was supposed to have fixed the warriors while Custer attacked from elsewhere. .
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Oct 13, 2015 13:55:05 GMT
Mac I think that Custer’s definition of “FIX” was rendered useless because the Indians had no intention of being fixed, in fact a large enough band of them was determined to fix Reno, just look at how they turned the tables, Reno was halted by a superior force to his front, so he halted his battalion and began to conduct long range firing at this blocking force, this rendered the cavalry of their mobility and that allowed an Indian mounted element to encircle the soldiers from an entirely open flank.
Personally I think that Custer may have seen Reno whilst he and his men were in the ascendancy, he could have saw that Reno was conducting the right type of tactics to bring the warriors to bear thus leaving the back gate open to him, because if Custer did see Reno’s men being wrapped up and parcelled then he must be out of his corn fed mind to continue north.
Chuck, when you mean a breakout are you referring to cavalry only? Could an infantry battalion of the period do exactly the same or would they have to employ different tactics.
I agree that Reno had to get out quickly before the Indian numbers grew even larger, but once they started to initiate the breakout then they were vulnerable as soon as they hit open ground as the Indians initially parted allowing them to pass through, I have to give the Indians their due here as their tactics were spot on, they knew that the head of the column had the momentum similar to a herd of buffalo, so they attack the more exposed flank and rear because the Indians would be facing their enemy and the soldiers would have their backs or sides to them.
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 13, 2015 17:00:57 GMT
YES. Reno was correct in calling it a charge. He could also have used the word assault. Both words refer to the next to final act of an attack, the last being consolidation, reorganization, and redistribution.
Under the right conditions (mainly a condition of reduced visibility), a period Infantry battalion could have conducted a breakout from encirclement. Reno had his strength against him for a daylight operation. He just did not have enough people. There have been three famous Infantry breakouts from encirclement that I can recall in the twentieth century, one a brigade size operation in North Africa, and two division sized operations in Korea. These three had the numbers to be superior to the enemy at the point of contact. Each of them sustained very high casualties. Had Reno tried a breakout under the same circumstances that history gives us, he probably would not have made two hundred yards before being fixed.
Mac, more cyberink has been spilled on the goof ball board concerning fix, I am reluctant to spill more, but what the hell.
THE FIX The fix is the second F in the Four F's - Find - Fix - Fight - Finish.
To fix is to by fire, maneuver, or preferably both you reduce the enemy to a complete state of immobility. He CANNOT MOVE, because of you. When an enemy force is well and truly fixed, they have but two choices remaining, surrender or die. Reno was not even fixed because as we saw above he still had an option to maneuver. A force that is fixed has no such option.
SO the rule of thumb in deciding if an enemy force is fixed or not is fairly simple - If the enemy can move, HE AIN'T FIXED.
NEVER confuse fix, with fix the attention of the enemy on. When you wish to fix the enemies attention away from what you really intend to do, you conduct a feint, or demonstration.
Fixing an enemy that is larger than the average platoon is a very hard undertaking.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Oct 13, 2015 18:44:20 GMT
I like the idea of a thread of popular misconceptions. A couple other things that could use explaining are why Reno didn't ride through the village when he 'charged' and perhaps if Reno was right or wrong to leave the timber, was Custer shot at Ford B, LSH is where the fighting ended...
However please NO infantry vrs cavalry mindset--leave that to the originator of the theory.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 13, 2015 22:51:35 GMT
I am told that I have a Field Artillery Mindset, by my good friend General Jack the Engineer, for I refuse to go anywhere outside the range of the guns, and that includes my trips to the hobby shop and Safeway.
DRAGOON TTP 101
When the Dragoon attacks he advances as far forward as possible, then dismounts to bring his most lethal weapon to bear, the carbine, and continues the attack on foot. Normally only a portion of the force dismounts, while others remain mounted to secure the flanks of the dismounts, and to rapidly react to any fleeting opportunity that the enemy might give them. "As far forward as possible" is in the eyes, and left to the judgment of the commander.
The dragoon is the TTP father of the tank-mechanized Infantry TTP of today. Just as there are places a tank should not go (villages, cities, and other very complex terrain) alone, the same is true for the mounted dragoon. Built up areas and complex terrain swallows up (dissipates) shock action and effect fast, so you let the dismounts go in and neutralize any threat to the mounted portion of your force.
The KEY here to understanding is AS FAR FORWARD IN THE ATTACK AS POSSIBLE MOUNTED. If the enemy is surprised, disoriented, and completely unprepared, that far forward as possible may allow you to overrun the objective completly mounted. On other occasions when the enemy has an opportunity to organize himself you may be forced to dismount even before you want or expected to.
Dragoons, and all cavalry is weak on the offense in a general engagement. They are not meant to be a main battle force unto themselves. They support the main battle by performing the functions they were designed to do, reconnaissance, guard, cover, and economy of force missions. When cavalry alone comprises the main battle force they do so with one hand tied behind them. Infantry during the 19th Century was the main battle force. Today Infantry and the tank-Infantry team comprise the main battle force.
One additional thing about cavalry, specifically cavalry organized and operating as dragoons. When they dismount, the Good Fairy does not suddenly anoint them as Infantry. Thy are not Infantry. They do not operate as Infantry. They do not have the firepower, or endurance of Infantry, and they are 25 percent down in shooters from Jump Street. Using cavalry beyond their capabilities is a TTP for fools.
SO - DID RENO DO THE RIGHT THING BY DISMOUNTING -- Damned if I know. I was not there. He was the commander on scene. It was his call to make. I bow to his judgment, for in all honesty I can do nothing else and neither can any of you
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Oct 13, 2015 23:34:34 GMT
So whether Reno made the right call to dismount on the particular spot he did is a subject for Monday morning quarterbacks, but the dismounting to fight was the correct tactic, right?
So how would it have worked if it was a combined infantry/cavalry force on the field that day? The infantry advances but what would the cavalry's role be? Something like making sure the infantry wasn't flanked --sort of if you can imagine a group of sheep dogs keeping a flock together and moving towards a goal?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 14, 2015 3:24:15 GMT
The technique and procedures were correct. The tactic was a frontal attack, probably while operating as an advanced guard for the main body (or so he thought).
Monday morning quarterbacks and Monday morning tacticians share one thing in common. They were not in the huddle, they had no responsibility to call the play, and did not have to execute the play called. All they can do is offer an opinion. My manta on these things is if something is questionable concerning the decision made I always come down on the side of the decision maker, for I was not there. I am talking close calls here mind you, not gross clodhopper mistakes. That is a different story altogether.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Oct 14, 2015 10:26:28 GMT
Was Reno right in dismounting? Hmmm..well as I recall not many if any questioned the decision not to continue with the mounted assault, Reno dismounted and I don’t think that any of the surviving officers thought it was a bad idea, and this tips the scales for me in favour of dismounting.
As well as carrying on with the attack, Reno would be faced with a dilemma, and that was the ground ahead was partially covered with dust which would have obscured his vision, if he did see that there was a drainage ditch full of Indians then this coupled with the dust would probable make the decision for him, imagine the confusion and disruption to his formation as he hit this obstacle at full whack, then he have another issue and that was Custer, Reno would have been looking around for some sign of support, and this would have been why he sent out two couriers, so a major threat to his front and no support forthcoming, so he had no option and as far as I know his officers agreed with him.
Chuck, one thing about cavalry that I think should be mentioned and that is turning an enemy retreat into a rout, I know that the Europeans used their cavalry in a different way to the US, but the ability of cavalry to deliver the “Coup De Gras” was one of the main elements for cavalry, and that’s why they had sabres and lances, now being run down by cavalry would be traumatic experience especially for disorganised and broken infantry, but would US cavalry still attempt this manoeuvre against professional troops if they had no sabre’s?
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 14, 2015 17:15:37 GMT
Ian: Every time in the 19th century that U S cavalry tried to take on Infantry mounted they got their clock cleaned, save one, Resaca de la Palma, during the Mexican War.
It does not matter if cavalry used sabers or not. It was what the enemy was armed with that mattered, and if they were armed with the rifle, cavalry was making a Mars La Tour death ride.
There was a cavalry regiment from Pennsylvania that thought they were delivering the death blow to some of Jackson's disorganized and broken Infantry at Cedar Mountain. You might want to ask those few who survived how that all worked out for them.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Oct 14, 2015 17:45:13 GMT
This may be an unanswerable question but WHY did the US use their cavalry as dragoons and not like hussars?
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Oct 14, 2015 18:35:46 GMT
I asked that same question myself Beth, quite some time ago. I suppose it comes down to the nature of the country you live in as most of Europe was made up of nations that were smaller than say Texas, and these countries would be full of roads and tracks, canals and railways which would allow for troops to be moved into action rather quickly than the huge and still wild USA, so when you have a nation the size of the states then you need to adapt your forces to suit the terrain, so I would guess that a compromise was done by adapting the mobility of cavalry with the fire power of infantry as even the early US cavalry were called dragoons.
I have cut and paste this from another web site as it contains stuff relevant to what we are discussing, it is mainly about British cavalry so I do apologise in advance;
“Cavalry had the advantage of mobility, an instrument which multiplied the fighting value of even the smallest forces, allowing them to outflank and avoid, to surprise and overpower, to retreat and escape according to the requirements of the moment. Cavalry remained the primary choice for confronting enemy cavalry. Attacking an unbroken infantry force head-on usually resulted in failure, but the extended linear formations were vulnerable to flank or rear attacks. Cavalry was an indispensable tool for scouting, screening the army's movements, and harassing the enemy's supply lines” “British cavalry consisted of light and heavy dragoons. Between 1806 and 1862 several light dragoon regiments converted to "hussars", a Hungarian style popularized by the French"
"Between 1816 and 1822 the remaining light dragoons converted to "lancers", a Polish innovation that had been previously copied by the French. After Poland lost independence and there was no Polish uhlans, the British lancers became the top dogs of this type of light cavalry. Despite Wellington's scathing comments on French cuirassiers, the British were quite impressed with them and after Waterloo issued armour to the Household Cavalry. They still wear the cuirass today on the world-famous ceremonies in London”
“The basic tactical unit in cavalry was squadron. It was made of two troops. The troop consisted of: 1 Captain, 1-2 Lieutenants, 1 Cornet, 1 Sergeant-Major, 1 Furrier, 4 Sergeants, 4 Corporals, 1 Trumpeter, and 85 Troopers. At Waterloo the British squadrons were between 112 and 180 men and were larger than the French squadrons”
“The official establishment for cavalry regiment was 5 squadrons. One squadron served as depot and was left at home. The British cavalry regiment at Waterloo mustered 2-4 squadrons in the field and was commanded by lieutenant-colonel. The average strength of regiment was 460 men. The smallest was the 2nd Life Guards (235 men in 2 squadrons) and the largest was the 3rd Hussars KGL (712 men in 4 squadrons). The regiments carried 1 standard per squadron (sometimes "King´s standard" for the 1st squadron and "regimental Guidons" for the 2nd and 3rd) the standard was carried by a NCO”
“Two or three regiments formed brigade. There were no higher units (divisions, corps) in the British cavalry. At Waterloo several British regiments were larger than entire French brigades. For example the French 2nd Cuirassier Brigade (GdB Guiton) had 541 men, and the 2nd Cavalry Brigade (GdB Merlin) had 485 men, while the 2nd Light Dragoon KGL Regiment had 540 men, 13th Light Dragoon Regiment 455 men”
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 14, 2015 18:38:17 GMT
Not a unanswerable question at all Beth. When you consider all of the types of cavalry, lancers, hussars etc., dragoons were the most organizationally flexible.
The dragoon rides to battle, and generally dismounts and fights on foot. Our first two mounted regiments were designated dragoons not cavalry. The next was the Regiment of Mounted Rifles, essentially mounted Infantry, armed with a rifle. By 1855 it became apparent that cavalry in the US needed to be a general purpose force The next three regiments shunned the dragoon or mounted rifle designations, and were just called cavalry. Regardless of name though, they all followed the book of the new testament, the gospel according to Phillip St.George Cooke, the dragoon doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Oct 14, 2015 19:21:03 GMT
I remember months ago when I first joined message boards and someone mentioned the word dragoon in relation to US Cavalry it was sort of a aha! moment. I don't know if you are aware of it but in Iowa there is a scenic drive called the Dragoon Trail which follows the route of the 1st US Dragoon's March through the area in 1935. It is in the area of the state I lived in for most of my life so I am well familiar with it's markers, the route and history but I had always wondered what happened to Dragoons--now of course I do know--they became the 1st Cavalry Trail Marker
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 14, 2015 20:53:19 GMT
Yes Beth, all six regular mounted regiments were redesignated in 1861, by order of constitution (the date when the regiment was placed on the rolls of the Army). Keep in mind that when originally constituted the 1st Cavalry was designated The Regiment of Dragoons, and did not become the 1st Dragoons until the 2nd was authorized a few years later.
|
|