|
Post by dan25 on Feb 23, 2018 19:40:18 GMT
Yan, thanks for the information. I have been trying to find the full strength of a 1876 cavalry company. It seems that time period wasn't much different than the latter part of the CW period, on paper was what it should be, in reality it was quite different.
QC, I think you misunderstood, my reply was to Yan regarding the mobile arm acting independently.
I honestly appreciate your explanations. I checked several maps and like military tactics I am just as vague regarding the use of terrain. If I was looking at the correct area it was west of and near the confluence of the Big Horn Rivers. The only question would be how to entice the NA's to that area.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 23, 2018 20:17:54 GMT
Don't think I misunderstood at all. I was agreeing with you, probably not for the same reasons, but agreement none the less.
The area in question was above the confluence of the Big Horn and Little Big Horn Rivers and south of the Yellowstone.
What would entice them?
A column coming up upon the combined villages from the south cuts off the break down into tribal circles and flee into the Big Horn Mountains option. Don't have to engage, being there is enough.
Can't break up and go west, into Crow country. The Crows would eat their lunch.
Can't really go east either. The terrain would slow them down to a crawl.
Water, as long as they stayed together for mutual security, they would need huge amounts of water to survive. There is only one direction that has a sufficient supply of water.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 23, 2018 20:31:31 GMT
Dan, here is a breakdown of a regular full strength US cavalry company.
1 x Captain 1 x 1st Lieutenant 1 x 2nd Lieutenant 1 x First Sergeant 2 x Trumpeters [not Buglers] 1 x Saddler 1 x Farrier 1 x Wagoner 1 x Blacksmith 5 x Sergeants 4 x Corporals 51 x Troopers
I have seen variations on this, but this is not far wrong.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 23, 2018 20:45:43 GMT
Trumpeters Ian. Trumpeters for the mounted arms Cavalry and Field Artillery, Buglers for the Infantry.
D25: The wartime (full) strength of a cavalry company was 100 all ranks. That is what the tables of organization say. This is known as required strength.
Congress is charged under the Constitution with the raising and maintaining the Army. Congress in its yearly budget tells the Army how much of that wartime strength they can fill, and is willing to pay for. This is called authorized strength. The strength by position Ian gave you above approximates the 1876, before LBH authorized strength. After LBH Congress increased the authorized numbers.
The only thing that really concerns us here though is assigned strength, which may be equal to, but usually below authorized strength, and present for duty strength, which tells you how many soldiers a company can put on the firing line on any particular day
|
|
|
Post by dan25 on Feb 23, 2018 23:21:38 GMT
Really great information. I might graduate to 1st grade sooner than I thought.
I have always assumed that both Infantry and Cavalry used a bugle. When someone referred to a Trumpeter I figured that was just the name chosen to distinguish the difference between the two. I had no idea there was actually two different instruments. Again my curiosity got the best of me and low and behold.
"The first thing is to find a definition of “bugle.” And as we explore the history of the bugle, it is necessary also to incorporate a history of its sister instrument the trumpet.
In both cases we are dealing with a brass instrument without valves, and both are played in the same manner. The basic difference between bugles and trumpets is found in the shape of the bell. The musical definition of a trumpet (natural trumpet) is that of a horn which has two thirds of its length in the form of a cylindrical tube – usually it is five sixths of the total length. A bugle has a conical shape through-out. We can therefore make the general assumption that a trumpet is cylindrically shaped with a cup-shaped mouthpiece, while a bugle is conical in nature with a funnel-shaped mouthpiece. The shape of the bell plus the shape of the mouthpiece produces a different quality of sound in each. The trumpet is known for its bright, strident, brash sound, while the bugle is known for its darker and mellower tone."
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 24, 2018 1:05:44 GMT
Two completely different instruments Dan
Google 3rd Cavalry Wiki blurb and what will come up on the right side of your screen is the Coat of Arms for the 3rd Cavalry. The crest of that coat of arms is a cavalry trumpet used throughout the 19th century by dragoons, mounted rifles,cavalry, and field artillery.
The Infantry bugle was also the Infantry Branch insignia during the 19th century until it was replaced by crossed muskets (never rifles). It reminds you of a pretzel. You see it displayed as an insignia on ACW head gear. Google 19th Infantry Wiki blurb and you will see an Infantry bugle on the shield of the coat of arms that comes up on the right side of the page
Over the years starting with the turn of the last century the instruments used by all branches became the same, the familiar bugle we see today. Cavalry units even today refer to their what is in reality a bugler playing a bugle, as a trumpeter. I have attended many 3rd Cavalry parades and functions, and the commands are always ----- Trumpeter sound whatever.
Keep in mind one very important thing about the U S Army. It does not have to make sense, the 3rd Infantry is really the first Infantry, bugles are trumpets, and Doughboys are not made from dough, and neither do they have any. If it does not make sense we call it tradition.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 24, 2018 10:55:28 GMT
I remember being told off for using the term buglers when I was a fledgling on the black board and I soon adopted the new term and from then on I called them trumpeters, but I have just found the file were I got that info for Dan from and it is from 2012, so that file was never correct by me and must have slipped the net. I basically just cut and pasted it without checking it. That's on of the problems of being on boards, you tend to save stuff that you come across so that you can use it again at a later date and this was a prime example of old data which should have been updated.
|
|
|
Post by dan25 on Feb 24, 2018 12:34:54 GMT
Yan, I know exactly what you mean. My notes are so disorganized I make the same mistake. Another mistake I make is not checking notes and posting something relying on my memory. Then someone corrects my mistake and I feel foolishly embarrassed. A day or so ago I posted on the Ford D thread regarding black powder and loading pistol's. I remembered smokeless powder was invented somewhere around 1884. I had no idea when The US Army adapted it, when I posted I made it look as if the Army adapted it in 1883. Luckily DeadWood corrected me.
|
|
|
Post by dan25 on Feb 24, 2018 14:55:26 GMT
There were probably numerous reasons Custer was defeated. I have been thinking about a few that might have contributed to that defeat. I have read, and been told the troopers were given very little ammunition for practice. They were under trained, and many were raw recruits that may have never even held a weapon before enlisting.
Something as simple as being taught how to aim down the sights, or hold a weapon properly is important. Not holding the weapon correctly can result in a some what painful and surprising experience, which could cause that person to be intimidated and with subsequent firing be more likely to flinch.
Another problem I think about is the 1873 Springfield, so I read didn't have adjustable sights for windage. If you don't practice and learn how to compensate for the windage, at a certain distance you could miss completely. Unlike the Infantry that lined up shoulder to shoulder and fired volleys, the trooper on a skirmish line was responsible for the target he was aiming at.
Add all this to the men who were experiencing a battle for the first time in their life, then throw in some fear and confusion.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 24, 2018 17:25:49 GMT
Everything you mention Dan goes back to training or lack thereof. Even control of fear. The only difference between a hero and a coward is controlling and managing fear. The more confidence one has in his own skill set, the more the unit acts as a team, the more your leaders, officers and NCO's, set the example, the more fear is mitigated.
Don't know this for a fact, but I would think that several of those companies were trained to a higher standard than the rest. Training in those days was pretty much left to the company commander. There was little to no real doctrine on how to train.
There was absolutely nothing in the way of environmental training. Fighting Indians in Arizona and West Texas was far different then fighting them in the Dakotas and Montana. The Indians were different, so the methods to deal with them had to be different as well. You can march through Apache or Comanche country with the entire United States Army until the Second Coming of Christ, and never see an Apache or Comanche, if they did not want to be seen. The only way you could get at them is in small groups of a company or less. Try that same thing up north, and ask Fetterman how that all worked out for him. The center of gravity up north was different than down south as well. Up north the Sioux and Cheyenne traveled with or had the home folks nearby. Down south you had to get them band by band, and rarely did these bands get over fifteen or twenty. There were exceptions but not many.
So unless you trained in basic soldier skills, and as a leader you were a complete hard ass about it, no one was going to beat the Indians. Ask Custer how he enjoyed clubbing with the swells on Broadway, when he was supposed to be hack in Dakota training his troops, even in that godawful weather. Yes, you do have to train to be miserable, and the product derived from misery is steel.
If you are training the way it should be done the hardest day experienced in combat will be the equal of the easiest day in training.
All this said, the best trained troops could not have prevailed under Custer. He was an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 24, 2018 20:00:04 GMT
Three aspects which could be the reason of such a poor show with the carbine are;
1/ around seven cartridges per man per month for target practice 2/ faulty cartridge cases which jammed and no ram rod to clear out the jammed round 3/ The Indians never gave the soldiers a clear shot and kept low
I recall a line by Steve in which he said, that Indians thought that if the soldiers started to hit the Indians, then it was considered bad medicine and this was a bad day to fight, but if they continually missed then the Indians thought that this was good medicine and got more confident in the fact that this was a good day to fight.
Sorry if I didn't quote you word for word AZ, I couldn't find your old post.
So bad musketry due to a lack of training combined with old ammo stocks and the Indians willingness to not get shot are the reasons.
Plus Custer's lack of direction in seeing that his company commanders did their job, even though it looks like the damage was done over a number of years when Reno and Sturgis were on watch.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Feb 25, 2018 13:26:33 GMT
That came from these same Indians that fought against the 1874 Expedition. Those involved with the expedition were shooters and the Indians had many bad medicine days. They came back over and over looking for a good medicine day. Some shots made were unbelievable and others rather funny. A young member of the expedition rode off and into an ambush the Indians were closing in on him with one about to pull him off his horse. A expedition shooter shot that Indian off his horse at 1/4 mile while the horses were at a full out gallop. Another shot and Indians at .7 to 1 mile distance. The funny one occurred at the site I visited last year in SFRC. An Indian behind the nearby hill held up a feather and a shooter shot it in half. That was pretty much a bad medicine day indicator.
The goal of this expedition was to get military protection in the area even though looking for gold was the attractant. They used .50-70s that were stolen from the military. The wagon full of weapons had "accidently" been left were it was easy to still them. Funny that these guys could take cannons with them and they used them against the Indians. These are the same Indians that were suppose to run away. They ran away on bad medicine days but kept on coming back. 600 Indians were involved in the SFRC battle.
Regards
Steve
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Jun 8, 2018 0:29:46 GMT
From the Valley Sighting thread
From the Reno/Benteen defense position SSR just looms ahead. If I am in that area and want to move north then the lure of that high ground route would be large in my mind.
I would want to take a discrete peak into the valley myself and would do this with a small party.
AZ tells us that this sort of move between SSR and the valley viewpoints is very simple and short.
Also SSR gives me a more secure start north rather than dropping into low land for the whole trip. Equally Weir makes this kind of sense. After using SSR I can then drop into Cedar Coulee having had a look ahead before doing so.
Steve, does the view from SSR give a good view of what’s ahead in this regard?
I think we should take this discussion to The Basics: Maybe Custer's route, or there again maybe not?
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Jul 19, 2018 14:24:04 GMT
This visit to the battlefield I spent a fair amount of time between Weir and the Calhoun Area. On my home page for Google Earth Pro it opens with saved GPS recording of the Benteen Scout to the Left as best as we could reconstuct. I also drew on the map a blue line which I thought might be the route taken taken by Custer out of MTC. This year we went down Cedar Coulée and down MTC and across exiting on the main road near the Butler Marker. Also a couple of trips from 212 into the Luce and NC area.
As far as artifacts from other events this area is reasonably remote from any main road. It has Deep Coulée on one side and MTC on the other.
Taking my Google Earth Map again and adding what I observed along with the artifacts found on Luce the egress from MTC starts at about the same place that I figured with the blue line. It deviates by going to the right. It then continues on reaching the Luce locations. The "Running W" of artifacts is caused by the terrain features. Continuing on it rejoins my original blue and continues toward the Calhoun Area (CA).
Regards
Steve
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Apr 6, 2019 13:35:57 GMT
Just reflecting on Cedar Coulee, I walked along the road from the Reno defense position and passed along the edge of Cedar. I had been told it was choked with trees which is true but the side nearest the road is broad and quite open, so to me looked passable. My question is though what formation would Custer likely use through there? Cheers
|
|