|
Post by herosrest on Apr 19, 2021 18:11:18 GMT
Your opening gambit is central to anything I know about what happened. Deep Ravine funnels any movement across it, up the ridge and you are blind to anything and everything going on. You go through there like a bat out of hell. Short video
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2021 22:24:16 GMT
Mac, I think your scenario pretty much matches my approach. L walking into the envelopment like the Romans at Cannae. But they are not supported by fire. The bounds are too long, dear Liza, dear Liza. The bounds are too long, dear Liza, TOO LONG!
He should have formed square vicinity LSH. Not the best ground, but better than being strung out
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Apr 20, 2021 2:26:37 GMT
I agree Mike, even with the musical reference. The thing is, we need to provide a probable solution to the final positions.
I actually seek education here.
If the intent is to return to Reno/Benteen, does this scheme make military sense?
When I am trying to break contact by bounds, when do the bounds lengthen?
If I have made a bound, and there are no apparent enemy forces around me; do I move on to a logical, or perhaps agreed, position?
Cheers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2021 3:31:27 GMT
It makes sense to me, except for the long bounds. As a tank and cavalry platoon leader and a tank company commander, my bounds never exceeded the ability of my tanks to respond to enemy fire to protect my bounding element. The 105mm gun of the M60 series had a maximum range of 4400 meters, but with only about a 10% chance of a hit. I tried to keep my bounds to 2000 meters or less, so that I could have the ability to fire on positions beyond the bound's objective. The tanks were boresighted at 1600 meters which pretty much, with service ammunition would assure a hit. (Training ammo was another matter). Out to about 2500 meters I would say we had a 50% chance of a hit, so I was taking a little risk. As a cavalry platoon leader, I also had a mortar in the 4.2inch/107mm mortar with a range of around 6000 meters as I recal. I'd have to look it up. At any rate, I would want bounds to be inside the range.
Since the Carbine supposedly had an effectiver range of 300 meters, I wouldn't want to bound beyond that, so they would only be 150=200 meter bounds. The maximum range was said to be about 1000 meters and I've read somewhere that skilled shooters could shoot that far. Somehow I doubt that. The max effective range for the M16 is 450 meters or so. It might be better with telescopic sights.
I would defer to Chuck since as a light infantryman, his weapons were the M16 and the M60 machine gun, with a max effective range of about 1000 meters, so I would be interested in what technique he used during bounding overwatch or fire and manuever. It would probably be more representative than my speculation.
I would expect my platoons or sections to stop where I told them to stop, regardless of what they thought the situation was. I might move by alternate bounds. In that case the forward element is looking for enemy while the bounding element moves up near his posiion and then forward. If I am not sure of the situation, I would move one element forward and when it is set, move the rest of the company forward to the new position and repeat.
At times, the bounding element could be as small as a section (two vehicles) or maybe only one. Sometimes, I might send only an infantry fire team or even an individual solider forward, overwatched by the rest of the company. A prinicple of reconnaissance and in the movement to contact is to make contact with the smallest element you can.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Apr 20, 2021 6:05:16 GMT
Mike I have the ranges for the 4.2in mortar on my website, so if you click the link at the foot of my post you can finds stats for all the heavy mortars used in WW2 from 100-120mm.
I also tend to give two ranges with my infantry support weapons, maximum and effective, usually squad LMGs were bi-pod mounted, which brings their acruacy range down a bit, tri-pod mounted machine guns are more acruate over a longer range.
Bi-pod LMGs are effective between 400-600m obviously the rounds can travel a lot further but you have to be able to see your target and control your fire especially with a squad LMG, these ranges were given to me from ex-soldiers and from reference books.
The problem is that they are based on old stats, so maybe with more modern ammo, these ranges maybe out.
Hope I don't take the thread off topic.
Regards Ian
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Apr 20, 2021 10:23:45 GMT
mikerobel. Your thinking on bounding. I suggest that Custer's practice was slightly different and would be undertaken mobile, so to speak, at the walk either mounted or dismounted. There is a report HERE of two fights Custer 'conducted' against Hunkpapa and Sitting Bull in 1873, with some insight with tactics evolved to counter buffalo hunters. He didn't offer flanks.The irregular skirmish formation was effective in 1873 in maximising firepower on the move - all be it slowly in walking skirmish. Hence, on that terrain, movement was at rapid gait, mounted. The difficulty with Custer, was an utter contempt for the hostiles' proven aggressive though predicatable nature.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2021 10:48:45 GMT
Mike I have the ranges for the 4.2in mortar on my website, so if you click the link at the foot of my post you can finds stats for all the heavy mortars used in WW2 from 100-120mm. I also tend to give two ranges with my infantry support weapons, maximum and effective, usually squad LMGs were bi-pod mounted, which brings their acruacy range down a bit, tri-pod mounted machine guns are more acruate over a longer range. Bi-pod LMGs are effective between 400-600m obviously the rounds can travel a lot further but you have to be able to see your target and control your fire especially with a squad LMG, these ranges were given to me from ex-soldiers and from reference books. The problem is that they are based on old stats, so maybe with more modern ammo, these ranges maybe out. Hope I don't take the thread off topic. Regards Ian Thanks Ian. I have ample resources. It's just at the time of the post I didn't feel like looking it up. Most of that stuff I remember. MGs are good till tracer burn out. Further if you can sense the fall of shot, which for a tank with high power sights is pretty long. I've made hits with an M85 at 2,500 meters. M2s, not quite so far at the time, since we didn't have sights for them, although in my M113 if I was firing, one of my crew would use binoculars to sense fall of shot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2021 11:05:46 GMT
mikerobel. Your thinking on bounding. I suggest that Custer's practice was slightly different and would be undertaken mobile, so to speak, at the walk either mounted or dismounted. There is a report HERE of two fights Custer 'conducted' against Hunkpapa and Sitting Bull in 1873, with some insight with tactics evolved to counter buffalo hunters. He didn't offer flanks. The irregular skirmish formation was effective in 1873 in maximising firepower on the move - all be it slowly in walking skirmish. Hence, on that terrain, movement was at rapid gait, mounted. The difficulty with Custer, was an utter contempt for the hostiles' proven aggressive though predicatable nature. Thanks for that. From a fast read of the chapter, I don't see those actions as bounding. What is described to me is to me sounds like what, when I was first a cadet, was called marching fire where you advanced walking toward the enemy, rather than moving in a series of rushes or bounds toward the enemy. The doctrine of the time had you move forward firing from the hip every other step at where the enemy was. Hopefully you had gained fire superiority before you decided to do that. In my minds eye, what I see is ranks of British soldiers going over the top in WWI, heavily burdened, with their heads down as if trying to keep rain out of their eyes, as they attempt to advance through heavy fire including long range machine guns. It might work better when the enemy doesn't have machine guns or very many modern repeating firearms. When you bound, one person or unit moves, while one or more people or units is stationary and observing or firing as necessary to suppress the enemy while the moving force moves to its objective. However, your point is well taken and is why I said Chucks technique as a light infantryman is probably to some extent different than mine and may be closer to how officers of the period would execute such a move.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Apr 22, 2021 11:48:04 GMT
Mike "I would expect my platoons or sections to stop where I told them to stop, regardless of what they thought the situation was." This suggests to me that, while the bounding movements we have discussed are probably the right idea, there may be one other thing in play. I connect Company L leaving with Butler trying to get back South because he is, of course, Company L. It just seems logical to me that Custer needs to think about what happens when contact is broken.
Tactically what are your thoughts, others please respond too, on the hypothesis that company L left immediately, as I have said, with the purpose of moving away to the South to hold open the way back. Let's perhaps leave for now where "back" is.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Apr 22, 2021 12:07:41 GMT
Hi Mac, I guess that L company was chosen because of a number of reasons, L is the largest company and commanded by an officer and relative of GAC. It could also be their location, being the best one to head south because they where near LSH.
If Custer wanted to get the show kicked off quickly, then this company must be well positioned and well led.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Apr 22, 2021 12:42:56 GMT
Yes Ian. I am off to bed but I will be interested in the tactical aspect of the idea. Cheers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2021 13:52:27 GMT
Before I respond to your question, I feel I need to offer some basic doctrine. This is modern, but applies. When moving before you make contact, there are three techniques: traveling, traveling overwatch, and bounding overwatch. Traveling is used when contact is not expected, for instance behind friendly lines, but moving toward the forward edge of the battle area (FEBA) or Forward Line of Friendly Troops. When the company is moving, my platoons would typically be in wedge with 100 meters between tanks, and 1000 meters between platoons. Everyone moves on the same route at the same speed, maintaining the distances. Traveling Overwatch is used when contact is possible, so you have cross the FLOT but for whatever reason, you don't expect enemy contact. In this case the lead platoon or unit moves continously, but slower than when in traveling, why the next platoon speeds up or slows down so as to remain in supporting distance. It may even stop from time to time. the units behind it start and stop based on its movement. At no time should the lead unit be outside supporting range of the trailing unit. Bounding Overwatch is used when contact is expected. In this case there is at least one stationary unit overwatching the moving unit. The trail unit is in defilade, knows the route and the objective of the lead unit. If enemy is sighted then the trail unit engages it. This may cause the lead unit to stop and seek a position from which it can engage the enemy or move back to a protected location while engaging the enemy. If this happens, then you are no longer in Bounding Overwatch, you are in fire and manuever. The unit may bound in successive bounds. This is slowest and most secure. So the lead unit gets to its location and the rest of the company joins it or moves to other positions from which it can cover the move to the next bounding objective. The unit may bound in alternate bounds. This is faster but less secure. The lead unit reaches its objective and halts, orienting on the next unit's objective. When he reports set, then the next unit moves forward and moves to its position. While it is moving forward, the third unit may move up as well or staty in position unitl it reports set, then move along a route protected by the two platoons. If this is a battalion move, the lead company may be in any of the three modes while the battalion might be in traveling or traveling overwatch. Similary, my lead platoon might use bounding overwatch to protect itself as it moves along its route to its objective. Fire and Movement is the same, except now there is shooting going on. These technqiues are used for both forward and retrograde movement. Now, if you look at this picture from the Tactical Vignette: Movement from Ford D to destruction, greatsiouxwar1876.proboards.com/attachment/download/1514You see L is on the saddle between LSH and Calhoun Hill, while C is moving to its West. Note that Calhoun Hill is more than the 300 meter maximum effective range of the Carbine, so C should halt somewhere when it has Calhoun Hill in Range, freeing another Company L or maybe I, makes no difference who completes the move. The ONLY reason I would expect the moving company to proceed without stopping as described above would be if he had pushed the enemy off of the center peak and they were fleeing and broken. Then I would expect him to pursue the enemy which also might be cause for the rest of the battalion to charge. I'd even support him moving through the next objective and beyond and even beyond a Limit of Advance if the enemy was truely broken and attempting to withdraw. Once you make contact, you don't voluntarily give it up. While L is overwatching C move forward, I would expect C to move by bounds as well, but he may well just use traveling overwatch. Now did the 7th have any idea about traveling, traveling, or bounding overwatrch. Almost certainly not. But they did know about keeping in supporting distance. I think they would know about covering the move of the company in front of them, but perhaps I am all wet. They might just move forward as either a mounted or dismounted skirmish line. Be that as it may, if they moved beyond rifle range of their buddies, they would be on their own if they get in trouble before the others could move up. So my answer is No. I don't think your plan is tactically sound. The bound is too long to go from LSH to Calhoun Hill in one fell swoop. Its asking for trouble.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Apr 22, 2021 14:24:08 GMT
That has always been my problem with that scenario Mike.
Just disengaging one company on a solo trek for what? This battalion would be safer in numbers, I would rather three or four move as a unit to break through.
I would be happier with the concept of L being left in place as they had a better position and by the sounds of it, more organised look about them.
C company and I, both have a look of desperation.
Back at the north end, E held a position in a similar way to Calhoun and F could have been pushed all over the shop.
The reason why the Indians could got behind E companys skirmish line, was because L, C & I had left and created a void behind their skirmish line, F just didn't have the clout to do anything about it. So we could have a case of two companies leaving in ernist to almost bump into the L company position.
If C had a choice of supporting the right flank of Calhoun, they could have halted and stashed their horses with the L company mounts and moved off on foot to a position on the western slope. Their carbines could have reached enemy elements in Calhoun coulee.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2021 15:32:24 GMT
The Question is, what is L doing? If they are moving to contact, you move one company (or less at a time). You want to make contact with the smallest possible element so as not to become fixed and destroyed. If you are attacking to seize Calhoun Hill, that's a little different. But I would do it much the same way. Again, you don't want to attack an objective that is our of range of supporting fire. With five companies, I would put three or four on line such that they can all fire onto Calhoun Hill. Then one company would move along the avenue of approach, in this case either on the left or right side, while the rest of the battalion shoots at the hill. IF they get targets, then they concentrate on them, then shift back to just shooting all over the hill to keep the enemy's head down. I would favor the left (East) because I know the enemy is on the right (West). As an alternative, I would suppress with three companies and have two companies move in column. The trail company would be in what we today call Follow and Assume. If the lead company gets bogged down, it stops and continues to engage the enemy and adds it suppressive fires to the rest of the battalion. Meanwhile the trail companies moves around or, as a last resort, through the lead company and continues the assault. When the maneuvering units or units block the line of fire, the rest of the battalion ceases fires, mounts, and rapidly moves forward to move up to the objective and forward to the next defensible position to disrupt any enemy counterattack. One or more companies may be tasked to help clear the objective. If the lead company takes the objective, then the trail company can move abreast of it, and they clear the objective together. Sending one unsupported company forward like you guys want to is like sticking your dick in a sausage grinder. If you want to take Calhoun Hill, take Calhoun Hill. If you don't want to provide supporting fire, then you put 3 or 4 companies on line and they move forward in short bounds and one company is in reserve. His role would likely be, once the rest of the battalion gets close, to swing around and take the hill from the flank, using a draw to he can be protected from some enemy fire. Sometimes, though, you might want to get on top of a ridge to limit the enemy's ability to fire from supporting units on the other side of the objective. IF the whole Regiment was in one place, and I was attacking Calhoun Hill, I would do it with 3 or 4 companies attacking together, possibly in a wedge, while the rest of the Regiment supports. If the objective is very close and there is little resistance, I would charge with up to 66-75% of my units, retaining the rest in support or reserve, if the fields of fire support it. Its about 467 meters from LSH to Battle Ridge. A little too far for my comfort with Carbines. Even today, thats about the max effective range of the M16, so I hope I have LMGs and mortars, if not artillery and tanks. It's 613 meters from Battle Ridge to Calhoun Hill. Too far for an unsupported bound in my book. IF I am pretty sure the way is clear, I might risk a charge with a battalion (3-4 companies), but that would be dicey. Here are screen shots from Google Earth Pro showing the LOS from LSH - Battle Ridge and Battle Ridge to Calhoun Hill. As you can see, Troops on LSH cannot support anyone beyond battleridge, even with machine guns with 1000m range with direct fire. You have to see what you want to shoot at. Even if you just want to shoot at the hilltop. Now, you could move around and maybe get LOS to Calhoun Hill, but the RANGE once again, dear Liza, is TOO FAR!
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Apr 23, 2021 2:37:49 GMT
I'll repeat my point and example Reno's breakout. Put aside the RCoI niceties for the ragteg scramble which fell into the river and rather imagine an organised and unphased 5 companies.
Reno punched through his opposition and got underway at rapid gait in chaos. Now charge 5 companies onto and along BR. Job done to Calhoun Hill. The hostiles did not stand in the face of mounted cavalry charges.
The problem this tactic presents is defending the right flank but one mile at 16-17mph wins a biscuit. Over before it started.
Sorry. Indian cavalry would not stand in the face of cavalry charging them. Last time it happened, Two Moons father was killed and Jeb Stuart wounded at Solomon River with Sumner.
|
|