|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jan 7, 2017 13:35:17 GMT
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 7, 2017 17:00:02 GMT
I do believe the "goody" has been chewed out of the "Ford D" thread and a new thread is needed. The subject of Cavalry operations during the Gettysburg campaign would address the actions of several LBH participants in 1863. Custer's experience there added to his legend and created the soldier that fought in 1876. Many other participants served at Gettysburg: Keogh, Reno, Tom Custer and John Gibbon to mention a few.
It would be interesting to see the influence of the Civil War on these officers when fighting the Native Americans. The Indians were nothing like the organized efforts of the Confederates but more like Mosby and other guerilla forces the Union forces faced. Did Custer learn anything from fighting Mosby? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 7, 2017 19:35:48 GMT
Once again we disagree.
You must go back to the motivation that is the central interest of the force you fight. The motivation, thus the selected objectives, methodology, and the occasion driven tactics of a force like Mosby's and some few others fighting in the Northern Virginia counties, is far different than Sioux or Cheyenne, and they far different from Comanche and Apache.
You must understand this motivation and the accompanying objectives, methodology, and selected tactics, before you can wrap your head around countering tactics and methods to fight them. In other words all hit and run is not the same, therefore if you address them as the same you will either lose at worst or not attain victory at best.
Anything Custer may have learned fighting Mosby, would be worthless out west. Each adversary is different, and must be addressed differently. Fighting the Apache as Crook did before going north, was night and day from what he found up north, and he found out the hard way.
What you are suggesting Dave is another way of preparing to fight the last war, an all too frequent malady.
Never consider a Sioux or Cheyenne a guerilla. Always consider an Apache and Comanche a guerilla.
Mosby was a true guerilla. He was a fish that swam within the sea of the populous. The Apache, and Comanche were also true guerillas, in that they swam within the sea of a hostile terrain, but always had a sanctuary available to them in time of need, the Apache the mountains of Arizona and New Mexico, and if need be Mexico, the Comanche, the Staked Plains, where no wise man went. The Sioux and Cheyenne were much more conventional in that they were territorial roamers. Big difference then in finding what would tickle their hind parts, and how they thought about things. I would rather fight the Sioux and Cheyenne a thousand times before I would relish taking on the Apache or Comanche once.
Fighting the Sioux and Cheyenne was comparatively easy. All you had to do was destroy their logistics, and they would starve, thus be brought to heel. Mosby attacked logistics as well, because the logistics of any army are their most vulnerable asset. You will never get anywhere doing that to an Apache or Comanche. Their survival was centered around the small warrior band who could live off the land, and quite well. The larger the group, the harder they are to feed and supply. The harder they are to feed and supply the more vulnerable their logistics become. Kill or drive off their food supply, and you kill them. The Sioux and Cheyenne were stupid in thinking they could win a war against a society that thrived on the ability to build a competing infrastructure.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 7, 2017 21:11:31 GMT
I brought up Mosby since he was the antithesis of conventional war planning and actions that dominated the War and Custer's first experience with "those who did not play fair."
The Indians were themselves, equally non-conventional in behavior and thinking, something that Custer and the other military commanders had to adapt to. Some, like Crook and Mile adjusted, but GAC did not. He anticipated sweeping the Indians into a trap with Reno and Benteen did he not? Yet they did not play according to his plans. He mistakenly planned to fight the fight he envisioned not the one that occurred. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 7, 2017 21:23:07 GMT
Mosby did nothing more than Rogers, or Marion. He was a country lawyer, and such men, given that they do not submit to conventionality always do well against the blockheads that cannot think outside the confines of a West Point textbook. There is a name for those who study war and play fair - loser. If you studied it, I mean really studied it, you would know never to play fair
The Indians thinking was quite conventional - for them.
The key word used in your post above is ADAPT.
If you adapt like, Miles and Crook, to the conditions present in the battle space, and adjust your thinking to the here and now, not the then and gone, you will eventually achieve success.
If you anticipate anything, and base your plans on that anticipation alone, you will get the shit kicked out of you and deservedly so.
You fight the fight you are given, where it is given, and with everything you have been given.
The difference between envision and occurred is reality. You either grasp reality or you die.
It is a fundamental tenant of our faith that the wise soldier knows about thinking, shooting, and marching, before the band plays too loud. You stay alive longer that way.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 7, 2017 21:56:07 GMT
I realize the "if" factor is like candy and nuts but would Nathan Bedford Forsset have fought differently at the LBH? Just curious as he was a non-traditional thinker to say the least. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 7, 2017 21:57:19 GMT
Dave: I watched Last of the Mohicans the other night on BBC.
In the early part of the movie the Monroe sisters are being escorted to Fort Whatitsname by this arrogant twit of a British Major, and a company of Brit regulars. The woods were thick and dark. The terrain was broken, as is New York above Albany. The pathway was narrow. The Brits marched in column, like they were on parade in Kensington. There was a point out, but only a very few meters in front of the column. There were no flankers which would have easily detected the ambush they walked into. You act like a fool in the face of people who know what they are doing, and you will find the grave of a fool. At the point of the story the Brits had been fighting the French and Indians for three years, and still they did not learn how to move through a goddamned patch of woods.
There was another scene a little later, after Hawkeye, had rescued those sisters, where Hawkeye, his father and brother, the two sisters and the aforementioned Brit twit, came upon a cabin, whose inhabitants were killed by a Huron war party. The two sisters, refined lasses to the core, and the Brit twit wanted to give these people a Christian burial. No says Hawkeye, leave them lay, were moving on. Objections arose, and the Hawk says in so many words how goddamned stupid can you be. We bury them and those trailing us know we have passed this way. Do as I say and get your ass moving.
This is the stuff you must know. You adapt to the conditions that exist or you die.
I commend the movie to your watching.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 7, 2017 22:03:44 GMT
Depends. What I will say is that a man like Forrest showed that he was more prone to adaptation than not.
Please keep in mind that Forrest was good, but he never crossed swords with the First Team, only the second stringers, scrubs, and water boys, and the same is also true of a man I admire more Joe Wheeler.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 7, 2017 22:20:41 GMT
I certainly see your point regarding the British tactics against the Hurons in Last of the Mohicans. They continued to use the same tactics against the Americans 2 decades later.
Joseph Wheeler was a true warrior and an excellent commander. I wonder what Colt thinks about this topic as he was Armored Cav? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 7, 2017 22:56:25 GMT
I think Colt was only Armor, an M60A2 battalion of 2 AD.
Never confuse Armor and Cavalry in the American lexicon Dave. They are different, although much of the same equipment is used. The difference is in the organization and function.
Post the gasoline engine, the mounted maneuver arms were shaken up and repurposed.
Tanks and Mechanized Infantry in practice if not in name formed what in effect was a new branch. They operated together with the tanks performing the mounted function of the old dragoons, while the mechanized infantry acted in the dismounted function. Any dragoon of 1860 would be right at home in a heavy brigade of the latter part of the 20th century and into today. Same TTP.
Cavalry, who resisted change, like a dirty little scamp resists washing behind his ears, was so reluctant to give up the horse, that they nearly went out of business. Finally about 1943, they said we want to play too, so they picked up the left overs, the recon mission. Since that time, with little exception they have been relegated to that task.
The exception was the airmobile cavalry of the 1st Cavalry Division in the Viet Nam era. They were in fact Infantry battalions, with cavalry names, that operated like that of Murat and Kellerman in the good old days. Tell that to Captain Pretend and the Playboys and he would have a hemoragic episode, but it is none the less true, They were the closest we ever came to the cavalry of the 19th century since 1865. I wish to hell we had two such divisions today.
Colt is a man whose views are and should be well respected on matters concerning the mobile arm. Just keep in mind his view of armor is closer to the 1860 view of dragoon, than a modern cavalryman's is. The thing that made the dragoon so valuable is that they were equally capable mounted or dismounted. Today's cavalry are more like the lancers of 1815,to light too fight, and too heavy to run. Their current organization sucks serious canal water in my estimation.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 8, 2017 0:19:40 GMT
I would certainly encourage other members join in on this thread as I a very weak regarding cavalry operations and tactics. I do not know how many cav units were in existence in 1876 but I do remember what montrose once said about GAC being the worst commander of any regiment.
Many men who became good cavalry commanders left the army at the end of the war never to take up arms again which is typical for Americans. We have always had a small coterie of professionals who stay in the military and form the nucleus of the army when war threatens again in Korea. So how badly was the army of the Indian Wars affected by the attrition from the 1861-1865 conflict? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 8, 2017 0:51:29 GMT
Ten.
1 thru 5 existed before the ACW, as the 1st and 2nd Dragoons, The Regiment of Mounted Rifles, and the 1st and 2nd Cavalry.
The 3rd Cavalry was constituted and raised in 1861, and was known as such for only a few months when it was redesignated the 6th.
At the same time the first five were redesignated 1st thru 5th Cavalry in the order of their constitution, which was the order I listed them in above
The 7th thru 10th were constituted and raised in 1866.
The word constituted in this context means authorized and placed on the rolls of the Army.
During the post ACW Indian War period there were thirty five maneuver regiments in the Army and five regiments of artillery. Of those maneuver regiments twenty five were Infantry and the ten cavalry regiments. For a short period 66-68 there were about 20 more Infantry regiments, but those were soon consolidated with the oldest 25. Nothing new was added until after the Span-Am War. It should be noted that the artillery regiments were basically coast artillery, that would provide field batteries when needed. That is also why you see regular army batteries in the ACW and no battalions or regiments. Artillery battalions during the ACW were temporary organizations fielded by grouping two, three, or four batteries together, and being commanded by the senior captain or some Arty major who happened to be available. The Confederates did it in a similar manner but tended to keep those batteries operating together for longer periods of time. Some stayed together the entire course of the war. Hard to get above Captain in the Artillery of that day.
Traditionally the Regular Army looked upon volunteers, National Guard, and Reservists, as Christmas help. After any war some are integrated into the regular establishment, but the nod goes to Hudson High. There were a lot of openings after the ACW, and remember those who went south didn't get their jobs back. There was also a relatively fairly large expansion. The decrease of 20 regiments though caused a big time RIF in 68, and again the Hudson High boys were given the nod to stay, and we lost some really good talent from what were originally volunteers and militia. Needless to say they kept some real turd balls, who should have been shown the door. Keep in mind these retention boards were in 68, and Custer had already faced a court. He under any fair standard then should have been seeling groceries in Monroe, Michigan, instead of commanding a regiment of U S Cavalry.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jan 8, 2017 1:10:02 GMT
Dave,
Joe Wheeler, in many ways should be a hero to all. Hudson High, Mounted Rifles in New Mexico(vs Indians), Civil War(Cavalry Army of Tenn.), multi term congressman, Major General USA 1898-1900.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jan 8, 2017 1:18:25 GMT
By the way Wheeler may be the only former Confederate General buried on Robert E. Lee's former northern VA property.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jan 8, 2017 1:26:03 GMT
|
|