mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by mac on Mar 5, 2016 11:46:51 GMT
I have been doing a bit of research on the battle tactics of the American Indians. I know many feel there are none, other than to swarm the enemy, but I do not believe this to be true. Take for example the battle of Wolf Mountain where there were obvious examples of C and C and tactical intent by the Indians. I have some interesting things that I have come across. The first is that there was a difference in approach when acting as a tribal group, where the small numbers and lack of desire to take casualties meant that discretion was often shown and the main tactic was the ambush where fewer casualties were likely to be taken. When acting as a Nation (like at LBH) the approach was much more sophisticated. Indians all over the continent seemed to have the same suite of tactical approaches and methods of C and C. Their communications were by hand signals, whistles (remember Crazy Horses famous eagle bone whistle), animal noises and even mirrors. After the introduction of fire arms they began operating in small groups rather than as a mass, again to reduce the casualty rate. Those small groups worked together in a loose half moon formation to infiltrate the enemy and to, in effect, create the effect of an ambush; trapping the enemy in their half moon formation. Run this idea over the markers at LBH and muse on how things progressed. Not a swarm at all. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 5, 2016 12:22:39 GMT
Yes Mac I agree, any defense of Calhoun hill was susceptible to the half moon attack you allude to, as deep coulee and Calhoun coulee would allow for this envelopment tactic and probably shield it from the defenders view.
Yan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2016 13:01:58 GMT
Thanks Mac,
Interesting. Quick question: Did this tactical approach hold true in both offensive and defensive situations? To take Yan's example, would Custer have been justified to leave Calhoun on the hill if he expected a defensive response compared to an offensive one?
Cheers,
conrad
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 5, 2016 13:28:43 GMT
Good point Conrad, if we believe the story told to JSIT and Custer placed Calhoun and his company as a rear guard, then the situation could be one of a Mexican Stand Off, with Calhoun sitting pretty holding the high ground, while the Indians held the ford below, but as soon as bands returned from the valley fight, number began to grow and confidence grew to allow excursions and probes and terrain features like deep coulee and Calhoun coulee would provide cover and access to rear areas.
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 5, 2016 15:15:12 GMT
I find no difference in the tactics employed by the American Indian, and every other military or quasi-military force since nearly the beginning of time.
The half moon attack for instance is called a double envelopment in the tactical manuals. Very same thing regardless if it is done on a small or large scale.
What the Indians did is adapt the tactic to their own particular technique, and that in turn was an outgrowth of the particular situation they found themselves in.
Refusing battle is not a tactic, it is an outgrowth of for want of better words a universal Indian national policy, that policy being fight only when the situation favors you.
I agree with Mac that the Indians had a form of rudimentary command and control, good enough at least to win.
What defeated the Indians, writ large, was their inability to mount a campaign. History forgets who wins and loses battles, it remembers only those that win campaigns.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 5, 2016 18:59:31 GMT
yes its just simple infiltration and I suppose the Indians knew when to call it a day, its a petty some officers didn't follow that principle and cut it short when they saw how another futile attack would achieve nothing but crosses in the ground.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by mac on Mar 6, 2016 8:18:04 GMT
Thanks Mac, Interesting. Quick question: Did this tactical approach hold true in both offensive and defensive situations? To take Yan's example, would Custer have been justified to leave Calhoun on the hill if he expected a defensive response compared to an offensive one? Cheers, conrad They had tactical responses (simple granted) to offense and defence. Defensively the main thing was retreat but they had a technique of retreating, in bounds if you will, so that firing was maintained. In offence they rarely completed the envelopment as they always wanted to keep the life preserving option of retreat open. I have no doubt that they would complete the envelopment under the circumstance at LBH. I have no doubt Custer expected a defensive response. This was poor thinking on his part as he had already been told that in the valley they were coming out to Reno. As QC says this is not new stuff but it is generally dismissed in discussions of the battle. The difference in this approach is that the simplicity of the shaping and the use of small discrete groups means that everyone can find their place in the attack formation by simple working off the positions of the adjacent groups. C and C by simplicity of plan. Needless to say this was also used as a hunting formation and so was much practiced. The mention of Indians infiltrating the timber in the valley fight now has much more significance. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 6, 2016 12:33:09 GMT
Matt, While in general I agree with you. Command structure was there, the Cheyenne tribe had a structure that they called the council of 44 chiefs. This structure still exists today. They had warrior societies, run by the nine little chiefs, one was on security duty for the village on the 25th. Often and generally theses warrior societies acted independently of one another. The individual society however often attacked as a group.
Control in the battle itself was less structured, groups or even individuals acted on opportunity or reacted to enemy action.
Regards, Tom
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Mar 6, 2016 14:05:54 GMT
When I joined the Marine Corps I didn't know anyone and certainly no one in my platoon. There was no peer pressure from home, friends, and family to succeed at anything except come home alive.
The control in the Indians rest in the home environment it was self regulating. You don't perform and everyone knows it. They took a long time in Marine Corps to build that in our platoon and in the Marine Corps in general.
We are Marines that is our family and we will always belong. We fight hard because that's we have always done we learned that in our history classes and we always will. Goodnight Chesty Puller wherever you are
The same would hold with the Indian structure. Everyone in your village knows what you did or did not do. I am sure that an individual Indian did not have to fight but around the village after a battle what stories do you tell or what stories do others tell about you.
There was a control to some extent peer pressure.
As the U.S. progressed with superior weapon system the fighting groups got smaller. A squad rather than a company. Rifled firearms as compared to smoothbores.
The ultimate on the ground soldier is the sniper or the precision rifle shooter for law enforcement.
The Indians were at the squad level and their squad were most likely their neighbors in camp. It took us forever to figure out how many soldiers can on individual supervise.
So I agree that the Indians did not have an organized chain of command that could order an individual to do something they didn't want to do. I wouldn't want that guy with me in a hot situation. Been there and it was not good.
So on the Indian battlefields they were there by choice and willing to fight. How they did in battle would reviewed in camp later or not.
First cup of coffee got to sleep in today.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 6, 2016 18:23:28 GMT
They may not have had command and control in the way our military defines it, but it did exist in tribal societies or else they just wouldn't exist very long. It's mutually beneficial to a group to all work together However to work together, you can't be a 1000 lone wolves. Heck even wolves know they are stronger working as a pack, following the alpha male. The lone wolf in the woods is a creature that most likely not survive the winter.
I think that control based on family and your village peers has the potential to be a much stronger force than the type of control in the 7th. In many societies the fear of being shunned or shamed for your behavior is an extremely powerful force.
When you have your whole village watching you and your family's very lives hanging in the balance, you are going to fight with everything you have. The NA because of each individual's unique war paint and attire would stand out and be visible so they would not have the luxury of that anonymity of a uniform.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 6, 2016 19:36:18 GMT
Matt it may not be C2 as defined by standard military but it was the better method at BLBH and had been being used for a long, long time by Native American.
Something I have always wondered and this isn't pointing fingers at anyone, just something I've noticed in the world of people who tend to view Custer more as a legend than a historic person--why do people want to minimize the NA warriors. It's seems like a counter logic to anyone who admired Custer and felt he was a great soldier.
Why have your hero beaten by a disorganized savage horde when a death in a battle with an equal opponent seems so much more honorable? It's one of those things about the Custer mythos I just don't understand. Perhaps it's sort of like Achilles and his heel?
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by mac on Mar 6, 2016 22:34:25 GMT
Matt it may not be C2 as defined by standard military but it was the better method at BLBH and had been being used for a long, long time by Native American. Something I have always wondered and this isn't pointing fingers at anyone, just something I've noticed in the world of people who tend to view Custer more as a legend than a historic person--why do people want to minimize the NA warriors. It's seems like a counter logic to anyone who admired Custer and felt he was a great soldier. Why have your hero beaten by a disorganized savage horde when a death in a battle with an equal opponent seems so much more honorable? It's one of those things about the Custer mythos I just don't understand. Perhaps it's sort of like Achilles and his heel? It was far superior numbers, better weapons, terrain, and a separated 7th that won the day for the Indians. It had nothing to do with Indian tactics or a perceived rudimentary form of C2. Matt I agree with the first sentence above. The second is the same mistake Custer made that lead to his command being quickly destroyed. War Chiefs were in fact Chiefs...they dictated training in warrior societies and tactics in battle. Sure the individuals were not bound to participate but in these situations (as AZ has pointed out) human beings do participate. "Kin-based war emphasized different priorities than state armies. Moreover, in Aupaumut's account, only one group (the Shawnees) allowed warriors to operate independently of the civil political structure, and the Shawnees were roundly condemned by all for this aberration." A Kind of Running Fight': Indian Battlefield Tactics in the Late Eighteenth Century Leroy V.Eid (Eid, Leroy V., Professor of History, University of Dayton. The Western Pennsylvania) Even with the advantages Custer gifted them a rabble/ swarm of people would not overwhelm his command as effectively as the Indians did. Their customs and structures were different but that does not make them inefficient or non existent. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 6, 2016 23:18:20 GMT
Where two or more people are involved it is impossible to choose and use a tactic without some form of command and control.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 7, 2016 2:03:06 GMT
All, Somebody commanded nearly 1100 NA's to leave Davis/Reno Creek on the night of 6/16-17/76 and march to the Rosebud to engage with Crook's forces. Someone controlled those that were held back as an ambush party, until they were freed to fight because the cavalry did not bite and were called back by Crook.
600 miles south Geronimo, commanded and controlled a small tightly knit group that gave the US fits for nearly 20 years. Also it would not hurt for all to read "Nez Perce Summer" by Jerome Green before you judge command and control as well as C2 by NA's. The majority of tribes had similar structure, some of that was on display at the LBH.
Regards, Tom
PS what happened to the orders from on high by the US, Germans, and Russians not to rape pillage and plunder, Matt.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 7, 2016 2:18:29 GMT
Matt I agree with the first sentence above. The second is the same mistake Custer made that lead to his command being quickly destroyed. War Chiefs were in fact Chiefs...they dictated training in warrior societies and tactics in battle. Sure the individuals were not bound to participate but in these situations (as AZ has pointed out) human beings do participate. "Kin-based war emphasized different priorities than state armies. Moreover, in Aupaumut's account, only one group (the Shawnees) allowed warriors to operate independently of the civil political structure, and the Shawnees were roundly condemned by all for this aberration." A Kind of Running Fight': Indian Battlefield Tactics in the Late Eighteenth Century Leroy V.Eid (Eid, Leroy V., Professor of History, University of Dayton. The Western Pennsylvania) Even with the advantages Custer gifted them a rabble/ swarm of people would not overwhelm his command as effectively as the Indians did. Their customs and structures were different but that does not make them inefficient or non existent. Cheers What happened to the "order" that the big chief gave concerning looting and desecrating of the soldiers? If his words carried no weight that would pour very cold water on the notion of C2 - command and control. Take the arrows, hand weapons, and repeating rifles out of the Indian's hand and replace them with the single shot. Reduce the numbers to 1 to 1 or even 2 to 1. There would have been no massacre. They won because of numbers, weapons and a scattered 7th. There was no C2. That is a rather specious argument considering even in modern times with modern armies that have C2, soldiers ignore their 'big chief' and 'spiritual leaders' to do looting and/or desecrating. People do things in the heat of a moment that they wouldn't otherwise do--heck you don't even have to go to the military for examples. Universities have problems keeping students from tearing down the goal posts and basketball nets after a big win or look at the havoc caused in various cities when the home pro team wins a major championship. Every person in those crowds most likely knows that what they are doing is wrong but they are lost in the moment and feeding off the energy of the crowd. You also see the same type of behavior but not as extreme by tuning into a few episodes of "Cops" and watch the chest pumping and high fives after a successful chase. Many times they are experiencing an endorphins and adrenaline high and once the situation is over, you are going to feel very strong emotions, rage, joy, fear arousal...you name it. Even the most disciplined person or troops would have difficulty totally controlling their behavior after a battle as intense as BLBH would have been. I personally feel that the theory that the NA won because of repeating rifles and superior numbers is part of the Custer myth. They did have repeating rifles, but they weren't in the hands of every warrior that day. They had a wide variety of weapons that spanned the spectrum of weaponry from the simple club to the latest repeating rifle. Perhaps if Custer's men were better trained with their own weapons and that weapon's capability the playing field would have been more even. Custer had the potential to win at LBH despite the odds that day but he blew it with poor tactics: constantly increasing the ratio of hostile combatant to soldier by dividing his regiments into smaller and smaller segments, moving beyond his ability to communicate with the rest of his regiment, not controlling or perhaps letting an inside line on the battlefield develope, not limiting the NA's ability to move by gaining control or neutralizing the pony herd and perhaps most damaging making assumptions about how NA actually fight.
|
|