|
Post by Beth on Jan 16, 2016 22:05:33 GMT
Taking the subject even further off LBH but when did the concept of boot camp start? Or did it exist in 1870's. I've always assumed that recruits signed up 'somewhere' like in NYC and they were sent straight to their assignments like FAL to join the 7th. Is that right or wrong? When did the recruits start being sent to a training ground for the basics and then sent on with their assignments?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 16, 2016 22:06:26 GMT
What did Custer do right in regard to rearing for the 1876 campaign? Let me see. Nothing comes to mind. That's the answer - NOTHING.
He did take the grand tour of Broadway and go clubbing with the swells. The rice for admission and the various cover charges were three hundred dead men on a hillside in East Bumscrew, Montana.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 16, 2016 22:12:18 GMT
In theory Beth at that time the new recruit would go through some rudimentary training at I think a few places around the country. Not sure how many there were, but one was Jefferson Barracks, Missouri.
That is something that I have never heard asked before, and it is worth looking into. I know the Marines had a boot camp at the Philadelphia Navy Yard before WWI.
In those days that concern us though the regiment was the largest and only tactical and administrative headquarters that mattered. It is my impression that if there was any training done, most of it was while in the regiment, and conducted t company level.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 16, 2016 22:15:57 GMT
I think what is different about the my in law Chuck is that he was in REME and they are not really known as combat troops similar to combat engineers or pioneers, REME are usually found in rear ares, but do a great job never the less; linkI am sure even RAF units did there bit on the streets of Belfast too, but I will have to check on that. Yan.
|
|
carl
Recruit
Posts: 48
|
Post by carl on Jan 16, 2016 22:17:48 GMT
Artillerymen Ian are a different breed. They normally require an attitude adjustment before they can raise themselves to the lofty position of "The Monarch's Children" - Les Infants. Right Carl? Seriously though, while the basic training is the same, it takes a lot of hard work and practice to turn those basically trained soldiers into tactically proficient Infantry soldiers. Same thing in reverse. Try turning an Infantryman into a cannon cocker. Hard work. It is easier if they are Infantrymen that served in weapons platoons or heavy mortar platoons, but still it has its challenges. Don't know about the British Army, but here a combat engineer is fully conversant with Infantry skills. That is one reason they were so valuable in the Bulge, as a hidden reserve. Same thing in Korea. The 2nd and 8th Engineer Battalions, from the 2nd ID and 1st CD respectively, spent just as much time being Infantrymen from Aug 50 to the late spring of 51, as the Infantry Regiments did. They were in effect an extra maneuver battalion. I was involved in assisting in the turning of a heavy weapons Company into a 155mm Battery in the National Guard. It was helped by the fact that due to shortages, there were only 3 (instead of 6) Howitzers. Easier to train 3 sections than 6. Having excellent men in place to start with was a big plus.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 16, 2016 22:38:42 GMT
What did Custer do right in regard to rearing for the 1876 campaign? Let me see. Nothing comes to mind. That's the answer - NOTHING. He did take the grand tour of Broadway and go clubbing with the swells. The rice for admission and the various cover charges were three hundred dead men on a hillside in East Bumscrew, Montana. Perhaps the question isn't what he did right but did he do anything? Other than perhaps making sure they all left FAL with style and flair?
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 16, 2016 22:47:28 GMT
Since this is the Custer, Benteen Reno thread...
What would have been Reno's job in the daily existence of the 7th? Especially when Custer was in residence at FAL?
I know that Benteen had his own company--H. How did he rank as far as a company commander compared to the rest of the 7th.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 17, 2016 1:11:05 GMT
Matt, perhaps it is a bit of both. We have a personal emphasis on Custer because of an interest LBH, but perhaps he was really just another cog in the wheel in a large military operation. After all the whole campaign involved, 3 columns lead by Generals Terry, Gibbon and Crooke. Custer was just the commander of one of the many regiments involved.
However there is no denying that Custer had friends in higher places who were willing to go to his defense. Sheridan and Terry smoothed a lot of feathers with Grant after the Belknap incident after all, plus the US public believed that Custer was key when it came to the campaign. I imagine that if Terry, Sheridan or Grant had not given Custer a roll in campaign the public and the other side of the aisle would have howled--especially if it was unsuccessful.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 17, 2016 2:09:26 GMT
Matt Montrose, a retired Colonel of SF, has posted his comments regarding Custer's flaws and would be the go to source for additional information. Like Beth just posted, Sheridan and before him McClellan had nurtured, guided and covered his mistakes. Custer was the first person I know of that had his own publicity machine working overtime during the War. He was very successful and brave soldier who did well under direct supervision but not on his own. His career record with the 7th Cavalry was checkered to say the least. He was court-martialed and suspended from duty in 1867, and then his big faux pas with President Grant in early 1876 over his congressional testimony. Custer could not keep his mouth shut and train and equip his unit. As Nathan Brittles famously said "Only the man who commands can be blamed." Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 17, 2016 3:01:47 GMT
Matt, perhaps it is a bit of both. We have a personal emphasis on Custer because of an interest LBH, but perhaps he was really just another cog in the wheel in a large military operation. After all the whole campaign involved, 3 columns lead by Generals Terry, Gibbon and Crooke. Custer was just the commander of one of the many regiments involved. However there is no denying that Custer had friends in higher places who were willing to go to his defense. Sheridan and Terry smoothed a lot of feathers with Grant after the Belknap incident after all, plus the US public believed that Custer was key when it came to the campaign. I imagine that if Terry, Sheridan or Grant had not given Custer a roll in campaign the public and the other side of the aisle would have howled--especially if it was unsuccessful. Beth, He was more than just a cog, he led one of the columns. Terry was in charge of the overall operation and rode with the Gibbon column. Why would Terry and Sheridan jepordize the operation and potentially their careers putting someone who today is characterized as the worst of his class? From a 50kft view it would appear the senior leadership was lacking. I thought Terry commanded the Dakota Column, not Custer. The Dakota Column did include others beyond the 7th after all. I believe but may be wrong that Sheridan would have been in charge of everything. I don't think that Terry could be over Crook. Gibbon was in command of the Montana Column but I have to admit I don't know if Terry would be in charge of the combined force of the Dakota/Montana Column. He was the senior officer thought As for Custer being the bottom of his class: Just like life outside of WP, class rank isn't an indication of success or failure in a career. Beside, there are indication that Custer wanted to be low in his class to get either into the infantry or cavalry. High ranking students went into engineering positions. Custer is alleged to have said that there were one two places that mattered in a West Point class first and last and he would never make first.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 17, 2016 13:34:24 GMT
I recall copying this from the internet over three years ago and there is a map with it, have you noticed how both columns have Gatling gun detachments commanded by Lt. Low? Dakota column (Gen. A Terry) [7th Cav. (12 Companies ) - Lt. Col. Custer ~ 650] 17th Inf. (Companies C & G) - Capt. L.H. Sanger 6th Inf. (Companies B, D & I) - probably Capt. S. Baker Gatling Detachment / 20th Inf. - 2nd Lt. W.H. Low - 3 x Guns ~ 45 Indian Scouts & Interpreters 50 officers, 968 enlisted, 190 civilians, 1694 animals (including the 7th) Montana column (Col. J Gibbon) 7th Inf. (6 Companies) - Col. Gibbon 2nd Cav. (Companies F, G, H & L) [Gatling Detachment / 20th Inf. - 2nd Lt. W.H. Low - 3 x Guns] ~ 377 (including the gun detachment) Here is the map, now you notice how close the two columns get as they move along the Yellowstone, they then turn south but it looks like Gibbons column heads back west before turning south. I wonder if Gibbon and Terry took the opportunity to meet up when the two columns got close.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 17, 2016 20:33:33 GMT
Terry and Gibbon met several times on the Far West which would ferry between the two camps. They had to be close to each other because Terry offered Custer the 2nd Cavalry which was under Gibbon. Also Gibbon was part of the review Custer staged on the 22nd. Terry was with Gibbon after that I believe. map link
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Jan 18, 2016 0:07:38 GMT
As far as the skills both trooper and horse have to be trained. Each skillset is something to without have to think about it. With the more experienced rider he can put up with some bad habits. Benteen had to tie his horse up when he dismounted but that horses was a fast walker.
That means to me a lot faster than the 5 mph walking gait. My Tennessee Walker walks at 9 mph. He still gets passed by the neighbors Pasos.
The riders have to develop different skillsets for each of the disciplines they participate in. Most had no trouble with moving at a walk or trot and in a formation. So they were not amateurs when it came to going on the march.
The indicators are that a lot of time was not spent with the fighting from horseback skills. The saber was useless to untrained troops. Some claimed to have never fired from horseback. To me that is an indicator of frequency of training and practice.
Riding at speeds required an independent seat or a disconnect from the upper body. Maintaining the seat while have free use of the hands is the objective. Again stories of having to hang on are not indicators of a lot of practice.
Firing from the horse with the revolver was probably another lacking skill. Pvt Taylor writes that he missed an Indian who had focused on him at point blank range. He then had to grab on and dropped his revolver.
The horses could run at speed controlled or out of control. A lot depended upon the rider. A horse can sense a lot of things and fear is one of them. The horse is a prey species and flight faster than the rest is natural. If they had never been run at a full out speed then the rider may have been afraid of the speed and grabbed on for his life. The horse could read those cues and agree to get out there even in the wrong direction.
French was firing horseback at the Indians from the rear of the retrograde. He certainly could have used a little help making hits.
So they had marching skillsets but there was no demonstration of fighting mounted skills.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 18, 2016 0:48:47 GMT
AZ 'Ppreciate the response and information. Though the 7th did not operate as one unit but rather had the companies spread out at other locations would that have precluded the individual company commanders from training their units? Could not Custer or Sturgis have sent orders to the company commanders to train their companies? Seems like both Custer and Sturgis put little thought into bringing the fighting capability of the 7th to a higher level. I wonder if this is part of why montrose rated Custer and the 7th as the poorest regiment in the army? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 18, 2016 1:21:08 GMT
And was the training at the 7th any different from other regiments? We know that Crook spent more time training his mules but what about his men?
|
|