|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 18, 2016 11:40:25 GMT
I know that this is a daft question but.. to be a cavalryman you need to be able to ride a horse, now would the officers who enlist these men to be troopers in the first place, stipulate that they need to able to ride before they can join the cavalry branch? I know they probably were not fussy, but I believe they did choose men of smaller stature so they must have vetted men before signing them up.
Now we have the problem of carbine and pistol training, as no professional army in the world should contain soldiers/troopers who cannot shoot. Apparently a few of the European countries relied on volume of fire rather that accuracy and some of these nations contained regiments of troops know as Landwehr who were poorly trained in every aspect.
But could the problem be that of cost? You could be for example, a Captain of a company based in Kansas on constabulary duty, your first sergeant is a stickler for training, especially musketry, now he would like to spend two full days per week teaching the men the art of shooting, you as commander agrees with this training, but then you find that your unit has only been issued a paltry number of cartridges for the use of training.
Seems to me that the US Army missed out on the chance to make this force a fully professional army with excellent levels of training, according to some sources the US army circa 1877 contained around 24.000 men (I hope that this is correct), the British army around that time, had a fully professional force containing 124.000, so if the US government had funded the army better than this small force could have been trained to a high standard, because the best way to discourage your enemy is to knock them down in large numbers and make the ground to your front a virtual killing zone, none of which happened at the BLBH, Hmmm…Reno deployed three companies in skirmish order and they blasted away in fine fashion, but just how many Indians did his men actually hit?
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jan 18, 2016 12:22:43 GMT
Ian, Steve may be able to explain this better than I, but I think most people of the time had some sort of riding skills. I learned/self taught to ride, even helped to break a horse when I was 17. I learned western style riding, neck reining etc. Using a working/cutting is a special skill, the first time I used one of these horses, I tried to stop him quickly, he stopped and over his shoulder I went. Lesson well learned, on my part, also these horses can cut on a dime. I look like a fool when riding what we call English style. I also look like a fool when trying to rope. I was brought up in the east and today these skills are not practiced. Also, I have done a fair amount of shooting, but never from a horse. I would also think that a horse needs to be trained to be shot from.
We know that the budget for shooting practice was nearly non-existent, yet during expeditions officers and NCO's hunted, where did this spare ammo come from. I don't think there was uniformity from unit to unit or even company to company. Sadly the 7th may have been the most lacking. I have also read that 2 or 3 of the 7ths companies excelled French and Yates are said to have stood out.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Jan 18, 2016 16:29:54 GMT
Yes that is the question for which we don't have a total picture of the answer. A long time ago and for a long time I discussed with Clair the teaching of horses to dodge arrows. I think at first Clair had a valid point on training that was not in the manuals but his example of arrow dodging was not the right selection.
I think Tom is to modest in his assessments based upon his experience. Sometimes we think we know more until we actually participate or experience something. It could be as simple as fishing. How hard can it be?
At some point we realize what we don't know and the need to learn. At that point you have made the big leap in understanding and then you can decide what you are going to learn to be good at it.
I thought I knew horses when I started my career. What I learned is that I had no clue of all the different disciplines of horse and riders. I associated with quite a few persons that are good in their discipline and the use of a horse.
The biggest eye opener for me occurred the Arizona Mounted Officer School. The instructors were from different disciplines and therefore had a broad range of training recommendations. We did things that I would never have done on my own, such as riding across a teeter totter. It wasn't the actual act that was important it was the fact of how much attention the horse paid to the rider. That was a huge break through for me.
Everything you expect a horse to do must be trained for and a lot things must be taught to the right and left side of the horse. I think my dogs want to please me but my horse just want to stay alive, do things the easiest way, and know who is the leader.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 18, 2016 17:12:05 GMT
Unlike Deadwood, I absolutely know squat about horses. I do have have some experience with training Labradors to duck hunt. A good duck dog has to be trained from a puppy to be exposed to shotgun firing. Otherwise your dog will be gone after the first shot.
I realize the forearms training may have been restricted by the ammunition allowance to each company but they could have been trained to ride with weapons in hand. I remember in my ROTC days we spent about 1/2 day dry snapping our M 1s prior to firing on the range. We experienced the dreaded M 1 thumb! trying to load it could be hazardous to you.
Yan, I would not be surprised that many of the cavalry recruits sent to Jefferson Barracks had little if any experience riding horses. Just a guess that government bureaucracy has not changed since the 1870s. How much training or how long would be required for a recruit to become a viable cavalryman? Just being able to ride and respond to orders while mounted including use of weapons would require training. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 18, 2016 17:19:02 GMT
I think most might suspect a bit of hyperbole when Montrose states that Custer was on the bottom rung of commanders. Don't think we could ever chart that statement out, for the data is just not there. Results or lack thereof speak volumes though, and the results are that no contemporary commander succeeded in destroying half a regiment in one afternoon.
I would think that some companies of that regiment were far better trained than others, and reflect the influence of the company commander in taking their job seriously. Others were probably content to follow the example set by their leader, which was to do little or nothing to increase the combat power and potential of their units. Some units probably performed a lot better than others, but any such performance is clouded by the fact that together the regiments overall performance was totally substandard, because of the failure of the regimental commander to build a team of teams.
Could other regiments be just as bad at that time? I suspect they could. The 2nd and 3rd Cavalry Regiments certainly did not set the training and performance house on fire. The 4th, 6th, 9th, and 10th though seemed to be fairly proficient, especially the 4th. I can't imagine any Infantry Regiment commanded by a Miles or Gibbon as being poor performers.
Performance is a function of training, and training is the sole responsibility of the commander.
There are no bad regiments, only bad Colonels. Just as true today is when it was first said. A units performance is a direct reflection on the man who commands.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jan 18, 2016 18:18:20 GMT
Chuck,
Cute story, back in the dark ages, Fall of 1969. A company commander at Ft. Lee VA wanted to put a marching competition on for the students, or maybe he did not wish to give the students a Saturday off. In any event he set it up so that that the USAF students would compete against 3 classes of Army students. Much to his chagrin we kicked the Army's ass. He made the mistake of inviting the Post Commander and two Birds. The Army students all used stylized movements, almost rap steps and got too cute, we on the other hand had nothing to do all week so we practiced hard on the traditional movements. We were in luck the General and the Birds liked the traditional and we won the competition. We were real happy until the company commander decided to see if we could shoot as well as we marched and took our next Saturday, I along with two other members of the USAF came in the top 15 shooters, this also displeased him. Maybe it was a message he was trying to send to the Army students, as he told them their was no reason any flyboy cooks should have come in the top 50. We got the next Saturday off. Three or four of those top Army shooters were granted slots in Ranger School, so maybe we were just tools. The Army rubbed our noses in cleaning those weapons after we shot, they were a hell of a lot better at that!
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 18, 2016 19:27:05 GMT
Well what more can I say except that taking to the field with partly trained troops is a recipe for disaster. It’s like when we played rugby as teenagers, we were ok messing about playing against our friends and playing the game in a friendly manner, we never had referees or kept to the rules, but as soon as we played a team from another school who took the game serious and were used to playing with recognised officials, then we would get trounced good style.
The big difference here though is we shook hands and left the field with a few bruises, in military combat you end up dead and what makes it more odd is the fact that some of these officers and senior NCOs actually thought that their commands were ready for battle even when they clearly weren’t, now was that down to laziness on their part? Or government spending measures which restricted live weapons training.
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 18, 2016 19:37:33 GMT
Tom: My old man loved the ponies. Back in the day (1938) my father took his girlfriend to Pimlico to see the famous match race between War Admiral (winner of the Triple Crown) against the upstart Seabiscuit. So the old man puts down what was probably a weeks salary on War Admirals nose, while his girlfriend puts two on Seabicuit to win. Well history tells us just how wise the old man was - not at all. I once asked my mother how she came to choose Seabiscuit, and she said she liked the colors of the silks. She never let him forget that until the day he died.
There is a connective moral there, that being, no matter how good you think you are, there is always someone better. A commander that forgets that, is heading straight down Custer Boulevard.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 18, 2016 21:18:28 GMT
I discovered in the last year that my great, great grandfather was in a Cavalry unit in the CW. It came as a surprise because it would be about the last unit that I would have looked at to find a relative.
I don't know his personal story about how he got into that Cavalry unit and unfortunately all the people who might have been able to answer questions are gone. I do know about life in our particular corner of the midwest around the Civil War and later and have a good idea what experience a young midwestern farm kid would have with horses. Frankly if you look at the Amish today it would be very similar.
Farm animals, even dogs and cats, were considered work animals and had to pull their own weight to justify their expense. They would own mules or plow horses, draft horses and perhaps a carriage horse but not saddle horses. I know that a saddle horse were a luxury that few farmers even the wealthy ones, would have considered a necessity. Young men might ride a farm horse or carriage bareback for a quick trip to the neighbors--a vastly different experience from riding a cavalry horse in a charge.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 19, 2016 17:37:24 GMT
Trying not to drift far off topic here, but I think there is something to be said about the overall quality of people from the small town and rural areas of the country, as it relates to how good a soldier they become, regardless of branch.
Shall we call him the rural recruit. My experience tells me that this person is far more self reliant than the city dweller is, at least initially. In addition he is more likely to be a hunter, so marksmanship and field craft come more naturally to him. Don't think this has changed much since 1876 or before. Therefore the bottom line is that he may be easier to train as opposed to his city dweller counterpart, in the maneuver branches.
The more technical the branch, the more the city dweller is adaptable. I once long ago looked at the locations of where ACW volunteer Field Artillery batteries were raised, and I was amazed to find that nearly all were raised in cities. Today you will find the great majority of FA units in the Guard are still city folks, and many of those units descend from units raised in the organized militia prior to the ACW. Some examples are the Richmond Howitzers, and the Washington Artillery of New Orleans.
Regardless though, good material, no matter where it comes from, must be built into a team, and then a team of teams, or all the skills they may have are for naught. This is the failure of the 7th Cavalry, and there is no way of getting past it, the necessity for it, and who was responsible for its absence.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 19, 2016 19:17:59 GMT
I wonder if you find a larger proportion of smarter people in the big cities than the in the small rural communities, as being a good artillery man needs more than just field craft. First you need to read degrees in elevation and traverse and in modern guns and howitzers from 1914 to the present, you have to set fuses as each HE shell has a fuse of some sort.
I have been studying a lot of manuals lately and the amount of work needed to keep a 105mm howitzer in top shape is amazing, and I don’t mean just cleaning the gun barrel, you have your recoil fluid, gun sights and even tyre pressure to look after and that’s just the start.
So I am not saying that country folk are thick, but if you look at the big picture and it’s not rocket science, you realise that on average a lot more people live in cities than in the country, so for every rural clever dick you will probably find ten living in the cities.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 19, 2016 19:56:17 GMT
Other than country boys being more likely to have experience with horses, is there any other aspect of cavalry life in the 19th century that would favor the rubes over the city slickers? The technology of artillery as Yan mentioned may have been more inclined to the urbanites but during the War many good cannoneers on both sides were country boys trained in the use of artillery.
The Gatling gun would not require any special ability or traits, would it? I still hold that Custer/Sturgis and the individual company commanders were responsible for their poorly trained soldiers at the LBH. I know they did not have a large or possibly not any allowance for firearm training but they could have taught them how to ride and use weapons from horseback. Many of the folks who hold Custer blameless forget he is like the captain of a ship, responsible for all activity experienced by his command. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 19, 2016 19:59:26 GMT
I wonder how many of Rogers Rangers were city born?
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 19, 2016 22:16:59 GMT
I'm not sure if some of the skills a farm boy in the 19th century wouldn't translate well into artillery. Farming requires you to use a lot of machinery, plus you have to maintain it--even in the age of the horse drawn plows. It could be they raised more field artillery units in the cities because the unit's sponsors had the money to buy the cannons.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 27, 2016 10:29:26 GMT
I didn’t know whether or not to start a new thread with this, but here we go Joe;
Now we all know how Custer had operated in his battles before the LBH, and his main way or dealing with his objective or mission, was to go for the jugular with either a brave frontal attack of simultaneous attacks made at the same objective. Either way they were aggressive and in some cases this carried day. So really would I be wrong in saying that the main reason he rose up the ranks so quickly was down to his bravery, courage and a touch of recklessness?
Now fast forward to 3411, we have Custer with the largest battalion of the three main combat battalions in action that day, the other two contained the rest of his proud regiment and even though he was detached with his own group, those other troopers with Reno and Benteen were still his men.
So I can see why he rode to 3411 at such a fast speed, he knew from Cook and the two messengers that Reno was engaging in the valley, he then sees for himself a portion of what was going on from 3411, which I don’t think would be too much other than Reno was in skirmish. He would however see how big his objective was, even though he couldn’t see all of it, he would know that this was a large village (aka, note to Benteen).
Then when he meets up with Bouyer again, the scout would have given Custer further details of the village and what he thought lay ahead.
So if we take Custer’s nature as a commander into account and add to that the info he knew from what he actually saw himself from 3411 plus the two messengers and Bouyer’s report, then why didn’t he simply hit ford B with everything at his disposal and hem in all the warriors from two sides?
I know we have discussed the pitfalls of attacking a village especially involving a river crossing but if Custer wanted to hit the village from the north then he still had to cross a river and enter the village.
I know this sounds like a complete about turn on what we discussed with the JSIT thread but can you really see a go getter like Custer zooming over the bluffs, only to reach the area overlooking the village and cancelling his attack when 140 of HIS men are in a fight just over the hill. He had a ford below and the probability of another just along the ridge line and he refused to attack either?
Yan.
|
|