Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2021 19:08:21 GMT
I will write out a piece tonight Mike, I am not home till 8:30 GMT. I will also send you those maps then too. TF Baum, I have been compiling a list of US task forces from around that period. QC and I share an interest in the Ardennes battles. I commanded A/4-37AR and C/2-37AR. C/2-37 is notable to me, because C/37 was essentially destroyed in the Arracourt battles, and again in Hammelburg, and was the lead company to break into Bastogne. On the 35th anniversary of the battle the battalion attended the Bastogne 'Nuts' festival which consisted of what was, to a tank battalion, a forced march around the perimeter on a particular day (I forget which) and concluded with a parade through the town during which the grateful populace threw nuts at the marchers. The command of B/37 (our honorary Regimental Colonel, Jimmie Leach, and of C/37, Charlie Boggess were there. I have a picture of me and Charlie shaking hands at the break in point just after the government of Luxembourg decorated him with a gold medal. COL Leach took us on a terrain walk of their approach and later I led a terrain walk for the Hammelburg Raid. Of course C is related to 3-37, A to 1-37, but I claim I commanded the same company that broke into Bastogne because (1) it starts with C and (2) I met Charlie Boggess and have that picture.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 21, 2021 21:09:28 GMT
First thank you for explaining military abbreviations. I understand the princeables discussed but tend to get lost in alphabet soup if I don't have what it stands for. I really appreciate that you clarified it..
I believe though that it would be best to create a new location for this discussion, which promises to be very interesting.
Please give me a title for your plan and I will create an area for it. I am very flexible about where things go and am able to quickly add an area
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 21, 2021 21:29:03 GMT
I am sorry Mike, I had to work late, some one used one of the surgery rooms and sat in the waiting room when they should have been isolating, they came back a day early so everything had to be deep cleaned.
But I will get back to you.
I have sent you through the maps. Your way of questions does remind me of the book "Armor Attacks"!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2021 0:00:47 GMT
It's no problem. I have time. Unlike Napoleon, who said "Thyme, Thyme, ask me for anything but Thyme!" I got the e-mail, but haven't down loaded them yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2021 0:01:24 GMT
First thank you for explaining military abbreviations. I understand the princeables discussed but tend to get lost in alphabet soup if I don't have what it stands for. I really appreciate that you clarified it.. I believe though that it would be best to create a new location for this discussion, which promises to be very interesting. Please give me a title for your plan and I will create an area for it. I am very flexible about where things go and am able to quickly add an area Hi Beth. You can merely call it "Order Analysis"
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 22, 2021 0:25:24 GMT
It's no problem. I have time. Unlike Napoleon, who said "Thyme, Thyme, ask me for anything but Thyme!" He could have used oregano. I will set it up tomorrow. The rest of me day is tied up away from my computer.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 22, 2021 0:44:05 GMT
Mike do you happen to know what company of the 37th Tank Battalion contained a tank named "Tonto"? I have the decals for it, as it will be a future build, and know it was from the 37th having seen a color plate of the tank. Unfortunately the plate was a side view, and I need to know what company it belonged to to get the bumper markings correct.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2021 1:11:10 GMT
www.strijdbewijs.nl/walt/wrolson4.htmhe next day, December 27, the corridor was widened and Lt. Col. Creighton Abrams asked Boggess for a list who the first men were that drove their tanks into Bastogne. The first three are known for certain, Boggess, Wrolson and Milandro, but after that it becomes unsure. Some publications, such as 'WWII Journal #3, Battle of the Bulge', editor Ray Merriam, 2007, has as fourth Sherman the tank 'Tonto' from Captain Dwight, while the list of Boggess shows the Sherman from K.J. Smith as the fourth tank into Bastogne. But when Boggess has all the names of 1st and 2nd Platoon, he has only the commander his name, Ford, of the fifth tank. He even has no type or serial number of the tank commanded by Ford (could this be the tank of Captain Dwight, 'Tonto'?). The list Boggess produced in Bastogne was, in my opinion, the personal and equipment check in Bastogne which tanks of the two platoons from CCR made it into Bastogne. Even the tanks with mechanical problems are mentioned. Boggess 1st tank "Cobra King" Wrolson 2nd tank Milandro 3rd tank 4th tank "Tonto" Ford 5th Tank If Dwight is the TC and a Captain, I'd think it was the S-3 in his tank, thus HQ-3 (because Abrams tanks was HQ-6) Aha. Further reading of the article and searching for "Tonto" reveals Dwight was indeed the S-3 and fourth. After the first three Shermans reached Bastogne, the fourth Sherman was 'Tonto' with S-3 Captain Dwight, who reported to General McAuliffe. Not long after the first tanks of the CCR had rolled into town, 'Thunderbolt VI' with Lt.Col. Abrams aboard, drove into Bastogne. Even if the 101st Airborne troopers had declared that they were not to be liberated, they were relieved to see the 4th Armored. And what's more, they had great respect for the tankers, as each crew in front was led by an officer. The regular army had often no officer at the front line. The paratroopers felt a bond with these tankers, because their officers were also always at the front to be found. Even when the road from the south was cleared, it was far from safe. Armor from A and B Company were ordered to take up positions and defend the flanks. Supply trucks and ambulances rolled into Bastogne that same nght, escorted by the light tanks of D Company, 37th Tank Battalion.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 22, 2021 1:56:29 GMT
Thanks Mike HQ-3 it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2021 10:45:15 GMT
Glad I could help out.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 23, 2021 15:29:12 GMT
I think it is time to differentiate between Custer's force, and the normal tole of cavalry in operations such as these.
Wilson and Sheridan were the first Americans I can find that used cavalry (mounted soldiers) as a main battle force, in that their force more resembled an armored division. Heretofore cavalry was thought to be a force designed to operate in cooperation with larger forces, by conducting route and zone reconnaissance, scouting, patrolling, screening, covering, pursuing, and conducting the occasional swift in and out raid.
Within the armored division you have dedicated mounted forces to conduct the previously stated missions, that only cavalry can do, but you also have your main battle force, with supporting arms to fight the battle itself, rather than what mobile forces had done previously, handing off the battle to the force that the mobile force was in support of.
I mention this here for a reason. Custer's mission was both reconnaissance, and bringing the Indian Confederation to battle once found. There was to be no hand off, just find and fight. Custer's internal task organization did not provide for these duel and competing missions. He designated no dedicated reconnaissance portion of his force. Yes, he had scouts who knew the area by and large, but scouting is not reconnaissance. It's part of reconnaissance, not the total package.
In my view Custer should have formed a provisional company sized unit, made up of trustworthy, experienced officers, at least three, along with some experienced NCO's, and a few of his better long service troopers. The remainder being his hired Indian scouts and folks like Bouyer. Had he done that, and used the provisional reconnaissance company as his forward eyes, there would have been no need to go down to he Tongue with the entire column, and he would have the ability to follow the trail to the divide to see where it leads, and has any value, before committing the entire regiment to follow it. Most of all it would have given Custer the ability to thoroughly reconnoiter the battle space along the Little Big Horn, before he stuck his nose in a hornets nest. In each of these things I mention he would be using a small force of eyes, rather than needlessly, and unproductively blundering around the battle space with the entire force, with no clear/identified objective in mind, and absolutely no idea of the strength and disposition of the enemy.
Custer was a hare, when he should have adopted the operating values of the tortoise. Never read Aesop I suspect.
Speaking of Custer's task organization, Custer's Achilles Heel was his trains, and the inordinate number of personnel he assigned to secure it and keep the mules moving. That is for another time, nearer the logical end of this thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2021 18:47:21 GMT
I pretty much agree with what you say. Certainly prior to and during the Civil War, the emphasis was on cavalry an an auxiliary arm that among some of its functions was reconnaissance and security. But much of what the cavalry did was escorts for generals and messenger service. It was only probably sometime around Gettysburg that they became a main battle force and I think it was killed in WWI, if not a little before, but the fight between scouting/reconnaissance and fighting hung on until WWII within the US Army and intensified after cavalry began to mechanize. So for a time there was both armor and cavalry (and even tank destroyers), but after the war they all converged as armor, with cavalry mostly being acknowledged by letting people assigned to cavalry regiments and squadrons wear cavalry brass. My Armor Officer Basic Course was the last class that was trained as both (12A). After which it changed to 12B-Armor and 12C-Cavalry. Today there are additional classes for those assigned to cavalry positions. The high point for cavalry (as opposed to the Armor Branch) was probably in the period 1975 - 1991 when Armored Cavalry Regiments were employed essentially as Anti-Tank Regiments in Europe. In Desert Storm, they initially conducted security missions, but later did Offensive Cover Missions.
Now however, the 2nd and 3rd Cavalry Regiments have become Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCT) (fancying themselves as Stryker Cavalry Regiments), the 11th ACR retains its title, but has been neutered (gelded?) as the OPFOR training force for the NTC and is actual an Armored Brigade Combat Team (-) (ABCT), and the 278th ACR (TNARNG) is just an ABCT. Divisions no longer have a seperate cavalry cavalry squadron, part of the price to be paid for putting a cavalry (read reconnaissance) squadron in every brigade. These are relatively weak units. In ABCTs they now have 3 troops of 2 platoons of 6 Bradleys each), and recently got a tank company. The SBCT is organized about the same, but has an combination Mobile Gun Systems and Anti Tank Company instead of a tank company. The Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) has a pathetic squadron, two based on HMMWVs and the other is dismounted! So now, they are mostly scouting forces and no longer capable of acting light a main battle force. Battalions have Scout Platoons. The Combined Arms Battalion platoon consists of a mixture of M3 and HMMWV, the Stryker platoon is all Strykers, and the IBCT platoon is in HMMWVs. pathetic.
I think your ad hoc recon company is spot on! As I was writing my mission statement, I thought, "Oh, if Custer only had a Scout Platoon!" He frequently did his own reconnaissance and he directed his subordinate battalions (Benteen and Reno) to form scouting detachments in front of them, sometimes Indian Scouts, sometimes detached troopers, and I think, sometimes both. Communicating would have been an issue between them, however.
When they got near the Tongue River, they could see the trail did not lead that way, so I don't think there was a need to devote a troop to go look. Herendeen and a small party of scouts could have gone down it to report to Terry.
I also think Custer would not have attacked on the 25th had the Regiment stayed at the halt while the Varnum and the Indian Scouts went to the Crows Nest. After they were up and had been detected, he thought he was committed to having to attack and that precipitated his action. I think he intended to try and scout the village and attack at dawn. But I also so think the village was getting ready to move. So there you are. If he hadn't attacked, he might have lost them since the Indians were not worried about Crook and they knew what Terry/Gibbon were doing.
I specified Route Reconnaissance as the restated mission instead of Movement to Contact because I think Terry wanted Custer to find the enemy and not attack until both forces were located so as to block the possible escape of the Village to the South or North. In the 11th ACR, we didn't think of reconnaissance consisting of just finding the enemy, we thought of it as finding him, fixing him, then piling on to break through the enemy recon/security force, find the main body, and find gaps and maybe go through those gaps. In my mind is what Custer was doing.
The last tank battalion I was in habitually did everything, except a deliberate attack, as Movement to Contact, usually, but not always, as a single column, with the three tank-mech teams in front (we were habitually task organized 2 Tank and 2 Mech, so the CO formed three companies as 2T1M, and the remaining one was infantry pure. It is funny to me to consider that the infantry based company team had more combat power than we did thanks to their mortar platoon and TOW section. The scout platoon was out front. I frequently led the battalion, because of my cavalry background (The CO, XO, and S-3 were all from cavalry regiments and I was the senior captain.)
I think Custer had to place so much manpower with the trains because they were not so well experience with mules. Unlike Crook, he also had no infantry to protect the trains. Perhaps if the company detachments had been placed into a provisional platoon to escort the trains, he could have had the escorting cavalry troop in Yates' battalion.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 23, 2021 20:28:01 GMT
Well, I was going to add, what would I do with Terry’s orders, but you two have covered most of it. Sorry about the late show, we have had appalling the last few days, rain then snow, now ice, and on top of that I had my job.
We talk about the 7th and its roll in the field, but their effectiveness is down to mobility, they are there to find the trail and locate the village or villages. Custer did work his Indian scouts hard, they did get him within striking distance to the village, but it was not their call to force march through the night and attack on the 25th. The also warned about the size of the camp circles and what Custer could face.
Now back to the 7th; when you have a mounted force, which had been marginally trained, armed with single shot carbines and a revolver which takes ages to reload, then the only real advantage they have is their mobility, so if they come across a force larger then their own which stand and fights, then their options are limited.
Imagine Reno or Custer entering that village, they were not trained enough to fire well from the saddle and once they had fired off their carbine and pistol, they would have to get clear or be trapped by warriors armed with even the basic weapons as spears and bows, which would suit fighting a very short-range battle.
The best tactic they had was to fight and delay, like Godfrey did, in an effort to break contact.
Here is a bit of fun; Now if you want my view on this, I would form a regiment into two light companies armed with carbines and ten armed with rifles (dragoons). The light companies are the recon and the dragoons are to fighters. The rifle men are trained to fight like Infantry and have a strength of 100 men per company. The lights are 70 strong.
As I see it, infantry battalions can’t match the speed of cavalry and cavalry can’t match the fire power of Infantry, so in a way it is like a tank battalion circa 44, with light companies with M5s and medium companies with M4s. Mixed regiments are nothing new and I suppose if you want to keep it all uniform, they issue them all with rifles.
BTW; The pack train tried to keep to five privates and one NCO to each six company mules, but for some reason, this number swelled and in the end the pack train had 84 when it should have had 66 and this is without Company B.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 23, 2021 23:26:47 GMT
Mike: My provisional reconnaissance company, something like I described above, would allow the regiment as a whole to remain consolidated. That was my main purpose in suggesting it. Additionally, the idea was not unknown at the time.
I am happy you introduced into the thread the pitiful state of cavalry today. You are correct of course, and look forward to discussing it further as we move onward. For now though, if cavalry at the brigade combat team cannot fight for information, and the air cavalry squadron, that some divisions have (some don't) can't put their nose in the dirt and detect a mine field or classify a bridge, then there are some real holes in our combat capability that three strong ground squadrons (one per BCT), and one capable air squadron (and I mean with attack platforms as well as dismounts) could fix tomorrow. You know it's spaces, and reconnaissance always get the short end of the stick.
The trains were an abortion. None of that needed to happen. Did you ever attack worrying about your trains in the immediate battle space. Of course you didn't. Silly me for asking.
By the way I always refer to the Combat Arms Regimental System, and its successor, the U S Army Regimental System as historical fiction. That is especially true for Cavalry, where Mary Lee Stubbs, whose old man was in the 1st Cavalry Regiment, wrote her own personal "Gone With The Wind"
I just created a thread under "Other Times, Other Places" for the discussion of organizational structure. Something we have needed here for a long time. Beth if you want to elevate that thread giving it its own category, please feel free.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2021 1:16:20 GMT
WRT to mobility, I think the cavalry was less mobile than the Indians because of the difference in the horses and their feed. This situation sort of duplicates itself in Afghanistan where the insurgents/Taliban/whatever are not so burdened as our infantry, so while we have greater 'operational' mobility thanks to helicopters, once they are away from them, our infantry have a hard time keeping up and closing with the enemy, unless I guess if they want to be caught. OTOH, if the enemy tries to close with us in more static situations, they are punished severely.
|
|