benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on Dec 19, 2019 20:08:10 GMT
My fellow board members/friends,
Just a thought. We know that the 7th Cavalry left their sabres at PRD..why.There is a school of thought that it was to prevent noise. To me this is ridiculous. Even Custer knew he could not take about 700 men and over a 1000 animals through the heart of Indian territory unnoticed. I read that the Marines in the Pacific looked to shoot the Japanese Officer with the samurai sword first. being shot is one thing, getting your head lopped off is another. So my questions are these.
1..Do you think if they had their sabres they would be able to charge the warriors with sabres drawn that the warriors would give way and the regiment could link up together.
2..If the soldier had his side arm in one hand and his sabre in the other. that the warriors would be hesitant to engage in CQC with their knives, hatchets, and war clubs.
Be Well Everyone
Dan
|
|
|
Sabres
Dec 20, 2019 13:17:37 GMT
Post by deadwoodgultch on Dec 20, 2019 13:17:37 GMT
Dan, don't hear from you often enough, hope you have a Merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous new year.
1. How competent do you think soldiers that could not practice or shoot accurately with their carbines, could not shoot their pistols competently while controlling their horses would be with sabres. I know this is somewhat of an unfair blanket statement, but there is a bit of an art to being proficient with a sabre. Practice, practice, practice. Hackers just won't cut it.
2. I could say see #1 but will append, can you say repeaters and bows and arrows, Mr. Rodgers?
Regards, Tom
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Sabres
Dec 20, 2019 14:28:28 GMT
Post by azranger on Dec 20, 2019 14:28:28 GMT
Hi Dan
Merry Christmas
Semper Fi
Steve
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Sabres
Dec 20, 2019 15:01:08 GMT
Post by azranger on Dec 20, 2019 15:01:08 GMT
My fellow board members/friends, Just a thought. We know that the 7th Cavalry left their sabres at PRD..why.There is a school of thought that it was to prevent noise. To me this is ridiculous. Even Custer knew he could not take about 700 men and over a 1000 animals through the heart of Indian territory unnoticed. I read that the Marines in the Pacific looked to shoot the Japanese Officer with the samurai sword first. being shot is one thing, getting your head lopped off is another. So my questions are these. Perzactly as Gordie would say. I am thinking the trail of manure and shod horses could be discovered from a lot further distance than sound would travel. The key in my way approaching this is did they have the battle ready skillsets. I rely on Sgt Ryan since he discusses this. He goes into detail on how these particular soldiers did not want to train or become proficient with the saber. He also states that even Custer would not fight these soldiers mounted. The evidence seems to be true all over the battlefield. If the soldiers could not ride with an independent seat there was little value in having a weapon that required you to use your hands for something besides holding on at speed. What scares me is that they though they could charge with drawn revolves and engage in CQB with horses and men mixed up. 1..Do you think if they had their sabres they would be able to charge the warriors with sabres drawn that the warriors would give way and the regiment could link up together. So could well trained soldiers and horses been effective at a charge. I believe so. Could soldiers that have never ridden that fast before and never fired their handgun mounted succeeded. I doubt it. The 7th lacked the skillsets to be effective while mounted against overwhelming numbers of Indians who could ride with indepent seats and use CQB weapons effectively.2..If the soldier had his side arm in one hand and his sabre in the other. that the warriors would be hesitant to engage in CQC with their knives, hatchets, and war clubs. They could not ride that way because they didn't have the ability to do so. They needed to hold on when the horses went fast. Pvt Taylor talks about his lack of revolver skills. He missed an Indian that he knew was focusing on him at point blank range. He also commented on his horsemanship skills. As his horse went fast he reach to grab on and lost his revolver. Captain French had the skillset they all should have had. He rode in the rear and shot many (I think four) from their horses. If the rest of soldiers were making hits the Indians would have been less likely to close in.
Hope this helps and it is important to understand what an officer has available when making a decision. I think Custer realized it and thought the saber useless to the majority of the troopers. It would also explain why Reno was not going to ride into thousands of Indians with soldiers that can't ride under fire and lack mounted revolver skills. I suspect friendly fire would be a real concern. I know it would concern me. Be Well Everyone Dan I am interested in what others have to say.
Semper Fi
Steve
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Dec 20, 2019 15:56:21 GMT
The only value I would put on sabres is their fear factor against an irregular enemy on foot. They could of course be used as a last resort when fighting a desperate battle on foot when their pisol was empty and they were faced by warriors with hand held weapons. But as Steve said, most of these troopers couldn't fight with this weapon on horse back, so you would be better giving each man a second pistol in a saddle holster to give him double the fire power at close quarters with out re-loading.
BTW; all the best Dan
|
|
|
Sabres
Dec 20, 2019 18:40:25 GMT
Post by quincannon on Dec 20, 2019 18:40:25 GMT
To borrow and slightly alter an old saying - Out of the mouths of Marines off times emits wisdom.
The saber by 1876 was an obsolete weapons system, overcome by the same thing that would make the horse cavalry obsolete withing 30 years 0 FIREPOWER.
Prior to the advent of repeating arms, both long guns and sidearms, the saber was the weapon, like the Infantry's bayonet used to close with and kill the enemy in close combat. The breech loading single shot, and later the repeating carbine changed all that along with the revolver. There were many a man at Kelly's Ford, Brandy Station, Aldie, and the fields north of Gettysburg that learned taking a knife to a gun fight lesson the hard way.
In addition the saber was much harder to train men on than the carbine or revolver. Of course they did not even do the basics of firearms instruction, so why would anyone think Custer or his incompetent minions would tackle something as difficult as the saber, and expect their soldiers to master it.
Leaving the sabers (by itself) was a good decision, and were not it for the inbred conservative nature of the Army at the time, better weapons and training how to effectively use those weapons, would have multiplied Custer's combat power immeasurably. That of course did not happen. Even the simple solution Ian suggested would have been better than status quo.
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Sabres
Dec 20, 2019 23:14:44 GMT
Post by benteen on Dec 20, 2019 23:14:44 GMT
Gentlemen,
Thank you for your responses. You of course are correct in that I did not take into consideration what poor horsemen many or most of these soldiers were. Some could barely ride let alone hold a sabre.
My fault for not mentioning it, but question #2 dealt with them being dismounted with a sidearm in one hand and the sabre in the other. Not mounted.
Sorry for not posting for a while, had some things I had to take care of. You know "Old Geezer Things"
May all of you and your families have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy and Healthy New Year
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 21, 2019 0:47:22 GMT
I did take question #2 into consideration Dan, and two things popped immediately to mind. The first was what I said about training. Having held my father's civil war era saber in my hand, as an adult, I conclude that that model piece of weaponry is not suited for dismounted combat.
The second is when you are confronted with overwhelming numbers and must resort to revolver and saber dismounted, then you have already lost, and about the only thing having a saber would do is possibly cause a slight uptick in the Indian casualty count.
There was about a thirty year window where horse cavalry armed with a revolver, and a repeating long arm, even one with moderate range, but good stopping power, could continue to be a viable force on the battlefield. I put the closing of that window at about 1890. That was the reason that all the cavalry we sent to Cuba in 98 went without horses, and were rearmed with rifles. The machine gun was beginning to be a major battlefield factor. They did not take sabers either, save for some officers (Teddy carried his with him), and they were more used as a badge of office than anything else. Sabers were also taken to France, by the few U S Cavalry units that deployed there. Like in Cuba, and in the Philippines, they were stored away and never used.
One thing I think we all must remember when discussing these type issues that 1865 to 1914 was a transitional period in military affairs. Lessons learned most often are not immediately adopted. Armies by their very nature are conservative. They give up the old ways usually kicking and screaming. So while one may ask why were they so damned stupid, the answer is always the same. Those in senior positions rely on what they learned as lieutenants and captains, and are very reluctant to give those lessons of youth up, for something that may be very good but yet untested. Keep in mind one example. The combined arms battalion is now standard in our heavy brigades. They have been since 2006 or so. Having said this I recall reading articles in Armor Magazine expounding on combined arms battalions in the mid 1970's. If they are a good idea now, why in hell did not someone see that they were a good idea then and adopt them as standard structure? I don't know that answer and if you someday find out why, tell me. .
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Dec 21, 2019 13:46:11 GMT
As an old geezer, myself, Dan I still prefer the M-14 selective fire to the M-16. Maybe it was the feel, the wood, the caliber, I really at this point don't know. The service period for the M-16 and variants has certainly surpassed that of the M-14. Over my time in the military I put way more rounds in the black with the 5.56/.223 than I ever did with the .308/7.62. The fire power of the M-16 would probably put me away in a firefight but never having been one, I still like the M-14.
Chuck and I disagree on much, but he is correct regarding the military being slow to adapt to new ideas. We have often heard that militaries plan for the last war not the one they are about to fight.
I also took into account the scenario you proposed in #2 and the Indians would have most probably stood back and used bow and arrow, lance, their rifle, or your buddies.
I will continue to use the word sabre vs saber as you opened the discussion with it. Plus sabre is the term in the UK/Canada adapted from the French and I know how much Ian respects the French. English sabre is recorded from the 1670s, as a direct loan from French, where the sabre is an alteration of sable, which was in turn loaned from German Säbel, Sabel in the 1630, Today's trivia.
Lastly with regard to GAC's argument regarding sabres and noise. Would it have been better for him to tell Terry, Gibbon, and his troops were not capable in the use of the sabre. Not great for moral and confidence.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Dec 21, 2019 20:52:18 GMT
Do you all agree that the best way to defeat your enemy is to out maneuver him and when in contact ‘beat him with overwhelming firepower’.
Well I think that the US army and Marines, shot the Japanese to pieces at close range, why? Because they brought overwhelming firepower to table and not only that they kept it up, the 7th cavalry couldn’t do either, because for one they had single shot carbines and two they only had a limited amount of ammo, plus they couldn’t shoot but we will overlook that for now. So, either battalion be it Custer or Reno, even Benteen, could not suppress what came at them and the Indians knew this, that’s why they choose when to move, when to fire and when to rush in for the kill.
They had the soldiers weighed up as soon as the dismounted and used every trick they knew to beat them. I know they had overwhelming odds but look at the casualty count, why was it so low, well, because they got close enough by means of moving when the soldiers were reloading, when they then got in close and I guess that this caused a right old panic to the skirmish lines, once a few broke, the Indians surged forward.
I think that some would like to see a battle where a skirmish line of troops, dismounted and stabbed their sabres into the ground in a show of bravado to say that we are not moving, then engaged the enemy with carbine fire and they drew pistols to fend off those who got in close, then as brave soldiers do, they reached for their sabre which was stuck in the earth at their feet and fought to the death. Pure Hollywood.
|
|
|
Sabres
Dec 21, 2019 20:57:29 GMT
Post by yanmacca on Dec 21, 2019 20:57:29 GMT
Let’s spare a thought for Mac and the devastating bush fires which are rampaging through Australia. The authorities have conceded that they can’t fight these fires, so it is damage limitation for now. I don’t recall asking which state he lives in, but the south east is badly hit, so I wish him well and good luck.
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Sabres
Dec 21, 2019 21:45:20 GMT
Post by benteen on Dec 21, 2019 21:45:20 GMT
To borrow and slightly alter an old saying - Out of the mouths of Marines off times emits wisdom. Chuck, You didn't slightly alter it you very much altered it...Out of the mouths of Marines off times emits a lot of BS. Be Well Dan
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Sabres
Dec 21, 2019 21:49:25 GMT
Post by benteen on Dec 21, 2019 21:49:25 GMT
As an old geezer, myself, Dan I still prefer the M-14 selective fire to the M-16. Maybe it was the feel, the wood, the caliber, I really at this point don't know. Tom, I couldn't agree more. The M-16 was a piece of garbage, a Tonka toy which I know caused casualties to American forces. Be Well Dan
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Sabres
Dec 21, 2019 21:52:27 GMT
Post by benteen on Dec 21, 2019 21:52:27 GMT
Let’s spare a thought for Mac and the devastating bush fires which are rampaging through Australia. The authorities have conceded that they can’t fight these fires, so it is damage limitation for now. I don’t recall asking which state he lives in, but the south east is badly hit, so I wish him well and good luck. Ian, Good post, may the Lord protect him and his family. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Sabres
Dec 22, 2019 0:16:37 GMT
Post by quincannon on Dec 22, 2019 0:16:37 GMT
Ian: The centerpiece of U S Army doctrine is the application of overwhelming firepower. Second is maneuver designed around bringing overwhelming firepower to bear. If it takes ten tons of ammunition to subdue one enemy soldier, and in the process save the life of one US soldier, then the price to the tax[payer is worth it.
It's summer in Oz, the dry season. I completely understand the plight of those folks. We here face it every summer. If you don't live in the west, you cannot imagine how fast those fires come at you. We still see the scars from fires very close to town that occurred six and five years ago respectively.The wind is to be feared. Wind and dry conditions together are deadly
|
|