Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2021 13:32:14 GMT
I know this may be a "dirty" subject, but I am having a hard time discovering the organization of the Infantry Company ca. 1876.
A Regiment was supposed to have 10 companies and as of OCT 1876, the RGT was organized like so: COL: 1 LTC: 1 MAJ: 1 CPT: 10 1LT: 10 2LT: 10 ADJ: 1 QM: 1 CHAP: 0/1 SGM: 1 QM SGT: 1 CH MUS: 1 PR MUS: 2 1SG: 10 MUS: 20 SGT: 40 CPL: 40 ARTF: 20 WGNR: 10 PVT: 400 Thus, I infer (Of course, they were all understrength all the time and were they larger/smaller/same before/after the LBH? Interstingly enough, in total, the Infantry Regiments were overstrength although the chart in my Osprey book is not accounting for detachments.
RGT HQ COL: 1 LTC: 1 MAJ: 1 QM: 1 (LT) ADJ: 1 (LT) SGM: 1 MUS: 3
INF CO CPT:1 1LT: 1 2LT: 1 1SG: 1 MUS: 2 SGT: 4 CPL: 4 ARTF: 2 WGNR: 1 PVT: 40
Also interesting is cavalry company/troops seemed to be much larger: 1 CPT 1 1LT 2 2LT 1 1SG 5 SGT 4 CPL 2 TRP 2 FR/BSM 1 SDLR 1 WGNR 54-83.5 PVT ------------------ 74 - 103 total yielding a maximum of
But the firing line would be a maximum of about 51 - 74 on the firing line after you subtract the horse holders, wagoneer, Ferrier, saddler, but counting the officers and NCOs as being on the firing line.
In other happy news, I got my Upton's Infantry Tactics (https://smile.amazon.com/dp/1373594314?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2_dt_b_product_details) which is a little disappointing. The bulk of it looks like the old FM 22-5 Drill and Ceremonies covering School of the Soldier through Evolutions of the Corps(!), omitting the Regiment, but talking about the Brigade, with a chapter devoted to skirmishers, camping, manual of the sword, Ceremonies, and Signals (Trumpet and Fife and Drum). Nothing about marching. Nothing about defense.
This should have been the manual in force at the time of the LBJ, being premogulated in 1867.
All in all, I am a little disappointed in it because by reading various biographies about Upton, this was regarded as a great improvement in doctrine and just before he killed himself, he was having a great deal of trouble of revising it. Also interesting, it appears it was printed privately before being adopted by the Army.
However, the book Mountain Scouting (https://smile.amazon.com/dp/1378679059?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2_dt_b_product_details) has some good tactical information with chapters covering The Horse, The Rifle, Medical and Surgical Hints, Useful Information in Post and Field, Field Equipage and Supplies, Mountain Travel, Pack Mules and Packers, Marches, Forced Marches, Crossing Rivers, The Camp, The Mess, Living off the Country, Indian Character, The Trail, Signs, and Signals, Skirmishing. The charge is mentioned in skirmishing.
I still not have found a source for the Cavalry Version, which I think I will have to get via inter-library loan. there is a book with excerpts (I don't have it handy, but it looks like a general manual for students) and contains few illustrations of the various evolutions for each arm.
I was struck by the section on field fortifications. The fighting position is dug for two men apparently, one who will be kneeling, and one for one lying prone, apparently meant for officers, sergeants, and corporals to occupy as required. Nothing was said, that I discovered, about digging them deeper for standing and such, but I might have missed it. I was struck by its siimilarity to our current fighting position, but of cousre, they don't worry so much about overhead cover nor did they think about firing the way we theoretically do today by normally firing to the flanks for interlocking fire.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 2, 2021 17:40:17 GMT
Mike: I find all of those 19th Century manuals just about worthless for tactical study, however, it must be realized that tactics in those days were, by and large, much the same content as a modern 22-5. I think where we in the modern era look at tactics as a choice of maneuver, those writers in that day thought of maneuver as how you shepherd a company, regiment, or brigade around the battlefield.
I can't really help you much, except to say that the average strength of the typical Infantry regiment during the Indian Wars was about 400 all ranks. There were a couple of blips upward in strength that I know about. The first was in 1869 when the Infantry reorganized from 45 down to 25 regiments, by consolidation of two regiments together to form one. That resulted in a very brief increase in company level strength above the 50 personnel authorized strength set by Congress. The fifty man cal was still in place, and in short order the companies that had exceeded that strength cap soon got down to fifty, and most times less than that. The second blip was in 1876 after Custer got whacked, and the increase only applied to Infantry serving on the frontier. Miles' 5th Infantry receive quite a few new men before it deployed to Montana as an example. These numbers while they meant more strength per company, still did not get them anywhere near full wartime strength. That too faded quickly as the crisis of 1876 passed.
Don't know if that helps.
Interlocking fires never came into vogue until rapid fire weapons came on the scene. I don;t even think we payed a lot of attention to the concept until after World War I.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2021 20:05:50 GMT
Chuck: True. Apparently Upton made a big change during the civil war by charging in column rather than in line. Mostly I wanted to understand the distances. Interestingly enough he has a command for the platoon or company to "rally" which meant the grouped in a circle (Platoon) or a two concentric circles (company). Perhaps if get a Cavalry manual it will have a little more illumination.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 2, 2021 20:34:59 GMT
No it won't. Same old same old.
Upton did not dream that up. Richard Sharpe dreamed that up. That's exactly how the Brits operated in Spain. The line is superior in all respects for providing firepower forward. With no cavalry present the line will beat the snot out of the column every time. With cavalry present you had better not be caught in a line. Sounds to me like Upton plagiarized Arthur Wellesley for the good stuff, and that French skunk for all the bad.
Keep in mind two things about this period
1) The U S Army was heavily influenced by French thinking and force design when Upton was in full bloom.
2) The French have not been any damned good at fighting since before Agincourt. The only reason that they ever won a battle is that everyone, except the British, were worse than they were.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2021 20:51:42 GMT
I'll have to double check.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 3, 2021 12:03:35 GMT
Hi Mike, here is a breakdown on a cavalry company 1876, I had it tucked away in my files. What has always puzzled me was the ratio of NCOs to privates. Just looking at the number of line sergeants to corporals 5 to 4, shouldn’t it be equal? I would have thought that each sergeant had a corporal has his second and these two commanded a certain number of privates, like we see today, a sergeant commanding a squad. But I can’t find any data stating that a line sergeant and corporal had any command at all, plus how do you split 51 into five, you have a spare trooper if you split into groups of 10.
1 x Captain 1 x 1st Lieutenant 1 x 2nd Lieutenant 1 x First Sergeant 2 x Buglers 1 x Saddler 1 x Farrier 1 x Wagoner 1 x Blacksmith 5 x Sergeants 4 x Corporals 51 x Troopers
Another thing, is the saddler, wagoner, farrier and blacksmith, are these included in the 51 privates or do they come under the command of the company headquarters staff along with 1st sergeant and buglers [or trumpeters]. When in the field, I would guess that the three officers each take a private from the quota to act as an orderly and another private may also be detached as a standard bearer. Data is hard to find and what I have read, many reports give a view that things are pretty loose and they do what they want in the field, look at the pack train, no one knew who was actually in it, we have various troopers acting as cooks for god sakes and others as orderlies and strikers.
I have also found a US Army drill regulation manuel from 1891, it is a word doc so I can't post it here, I can send it through by gmail if you want it.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 3, 2021 12:17:36 GMT
Chuck as a wargamer in 25mm scale, I used to play wargames at a local club, we are going back 45 years now, and the most popular games were all Napoleonic. I had a Bavarian army and also bought a lot of French from other gamers. Well, I must agree with you, the British in line would shoot you to pieces if you took them head on, one tactic I tried to employ was combining horse artillery with Infantry columns, the artillery would keep mobile until the Infantry got around 500 yards away from the British line, then my artillery would deploy and hit the line at close range, if I was really brave, I would try and get within canister shot of the line, then fire a few rounds and let the Infantry rush the line.
I don’t think it work too well though as the British always had these blasted 6in howitzers usually hidden behind the crest of a ridge [they always seem to control the high ground], and these howitzers would drop shrapnel shells over my artillery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 14:02:42 GMT
Ian,
Thanks for the information on the Cavalry.
From reading Upton's work, I gathered this is how it works. The company forms in two ranks, all privates. Corporals go on the right and left side of each rank as guides. They are not apparently included in the fours. The 1st Sergeant after the company is formed, is posted on the right of the line, next to the right hand corporal. The 2nd senior SGT is on the left. They move as necessary to do stuff to keep the company in order. The two LTs are behind the skirmish line and centered on their "platoons". 1LT on the right, 2LT on the left. 1 SGT is in the middle between the 2 LTs, and on SGT is on each side of the LTS. One trumpeter/bugler is near the Captain and he is further to the rear and centered. The other trumpeter is somewhere near the 1LT and/or It is unclear to me if the blacksmith, saddler, ferrier ride horses or the wagon. Obviously the wagoneer is in the wagon. If they are with the company, they are somewhere in the rear.
If the company is "small" then only one platoon is formed. For vacancies senior troopers fill those positions, or perhaps they need fewer file closers.
In Skirmishing, things change a little bit. A reserve is formed from at least 2 "incomplete" fours, but others may be added. an LT goes there, as well as one of the left hand Corporals, and sometimes a SGT. Their job is to fill in the ranks as people are killed and wounded and to bring ammunition forward to the firing line.
Of course, in a cavalry troop, then also 1/4th of the people are holding horses. They are behind the reserve. The officers may remain mounted. It is unclear to me.
From other reading, it looks like the Guidon bearer is also on the right front rank both in formation and deployed on the skirmish line, unlike today where he stands near the commander.
There is a bunch of gobblyduke about what to do with short fours and evening them out. There are no cooks in any compay or staff. Perhaps the Wagoneer, and others do double duty? The dog robbers are not discussed either.
So right away I see that Upton's great system of "fours" has trouble for the Cavalry. It should probably be fives and # 5 is the horseholder, because what you really have is "threes". Or, they count off again.
He never specifies the interval between the men on the line in yards. Obviously it can vary, but only by examinig one of the diagrams do you deduce that the spacing is 5 yards. It looks to me like he does not uncover the ranks nor did I see the "alternate bounds: by ranks as they advance. He does specify that evens and odds at first shoot by volley, then it automatically goes to fire at will. The captain can order fire platoon or rank or all at once.
Interestingly there is a rally command. A four can rally and they form a circle/diamond with everyone pointing out. The rear guy may face forward if needed. The platoon rallys in a circle, while the company rallies in a double circle, I imagine with alternating ranks. Officers and NCOs go in the center. So, now I have a picture of the ground around Custer in a circle, but the companies appear not to have rallied, perhaps because they panicked. In nothing else I have read have they mentioned rallying? If you don't know about it, it would look like bunching.
Skirmishing fills a rather large section of about 50 pages. I discovered "Marches" just before Camping and it is only about 3 pages. Camping lays out how the camp should look and there is a row of sinks, a place for stoves, etc.
Nothing about digging in and of course we have seen the men did not have entrenching tools.
I had to read how the company forms and how it skirmishes six times. It may have been clear to the soldier how it was supposed to work, but the style of writing was such I had to go through very slowly and cast aside my knowledge of how a modern company drills. It is all wrong for the period.
This is why I have tried to find this book for the last 3 years. One would think that a SGT or CPL is in charge of a "four" and thus you should see them all on the right side of the company. I urge you all to buy the book.
The Roman's of course understood all this crap and of course were set up in 10's. At Cannae, some of the Romans broke out of encirclement. It was of cousre a complete charlie-foxtrot inside the pack. I picture a Centurion or a senior Legionnaire snarling, "All right you bastards, get into line. That way (pointing) is front. (Hit's a soldier.) You are number one. Form up and count off! Right! Dress and cover. Shields up! Forward March! And they proceeded to cut their way out of Encirclment. Other's joining up as they observe the small groups rally and form up.
*****
Anecdote about formations. (No shit, there I was, flat on my back and out of airspeed.)
Now of course, my tank company was made up of fours, because the crew is four. It always offended me that when we were in formation that people just fell into two ranks with no order to it. I was in front of the Platoon, the PSG was in back. Crews kind of went wherever they wanted to form ranks so they were even. Finally I decreed without much success that the 1st rank would be the PLs section and the 2nd rank would be the PSGs section. Nothing at all worked for the HQ PLT, which was very small: Supply SGT, Armorer, my driver, and the 1SG Driver, and NBC NCO. My driver was the Guidon Bearer.
When I was a Tank Platoon Leader, I had five tanks and I never even tried to organize that. As a Cavalry Platoon leader I had a HQ Section (My APC with a driver and vehicle commander. I rode in the cargo hatch.) A scout section with 2 APCs and 2 Tow Vehicles. The APCs had a five man crew, the TOWs a four man crew. Tank Section of four tanks, each with a crew of 4. A mortar section with a crew of 5. I wanted the HQ and Mortars to be in the 1st rank, Scouts in the 2nd, and Tanks in the third. Never worked out. My 1st Company I had a maintenance section. As the XO i also served as the HQ PLT leader and the Motor SGT was the PSG. I put the Company HQ section and Radar squad in the 1st rank, then the two ranks for the maintenance section.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 14:20:20 GMT
No it won't. Same old same old. Upton did not dream that up. Richard Sharpe dreamed that up. That's exactly how the Brits operated in Spain. The line is superior in all respects for providing firepower forward. With no cavalry present the line will beat the snot out of the column every time. With cavalry present you had better not be caught in a line. Sounds to me like Upton plagiarized Arthur Wellesley for the good stuff, and that French skunk for all the bad. Keep in mind two things about this period 1) The U S Army was heavily influenced by French thinking and force design when Upton was in full bloom. 2) The French have not been any damned good at fighting since before Agincourt. The only reason that they ever won a battle is that everyone, except the British, were worse than they were. Chuck, I went back and skimmed one my two or books about Upton. I find his book easier to read then St Claire's. The big thing about his book was apparently the codification of how skirmishers were supposed to operate. Apparently in the Civil War, skirmishers were just guys that move out and got in front of the company (or perhaps a whole company might skirmish in front of a battalion/regiment). You are right, by and large, the infantry attacked in iine, but rifled muskets and artillery cut them to pieces. As a Brigade Commander, Upton apparently talked to his Division Commander about a change when they were having a hard time penetrating a rebel position. He wanted 12 Regiments and he would array them in three columns of four regiments. The first regiment's job was to break in and turn left. The second's was to turn right, the third regiments job was to move through the gap, clear the trench, and move to the 2nd line. The fourth move forward a short distance, then lay down in reserve, prepared to assume the task of one of the lead regiments, assist the third regiment, or move through it deeper into the enemy. I guess, somewhat in desperation, the CG gave him 12 regiments, told him if he succeeded, he'd get his stars and if he better not come back. Upton said, I will succeed or be killed (or words to that effect). He lauched the attack with a short 10 minute prep, attacked, and carried the position, but the rest of the US force did not advance and he had to pull back. He lost about 1000 people, killed somewhat more of the enemy, and 1700 prisoners. The CG dug up some shoulder straps, wired the SECWAR and PRES and said you have to make him a general. They agreed, the President signed the order, and the next day the CG gave Upton his new shoulder straps. I think that you have to discard everything you think you know about how to fight dismounted when you read his book. It is somewhat foreign to our way of thinking and no matter how hard you try, your preconceptions get in your way of understanding. I think it may be easier for you as a light infantryman (and you are a little closer to the old Cavalry as a result) then it is for me as an armored cavalryman and tanker. I was afoot much of the time in both my tank and cavarly platoons and I would form my loaders into a "five" and sometimes lead them to clear a position we took. You would frequently seem me with my infantry platoon during training watching them. Some of my BN CDRs had the foresight to give CO CDRs time to train their companies independently before doing some battalion exercises. In the 11th ACR, I got to go out for three days a month as a platoon leader and the troops went to the field a week every quarter. It was great fun in addition to border duty, patrolling, gunnery (four or five times a year), alerts, and maintenance. The squadron went out twice a year for a week. Any alert could turn into a 2 - 5 day FTX.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 3, 2021 17:49:24 GMT
Wellington used the line against the French in Spain, while the French used a tightly packed column. A French column would be, say a company front in line, followed by fifteen or twenty, and sometimes up to sixty company front in line following that lead company in a tightly packed bunch with probably a one meter distance between companies on line. When attacking this column of companies did not have much to worry about from cavalry, but from Wellington's defensive line they got shot to pieces, and could do very little damage in return or the would be shooting their own people in the back.
It appears from what you have said above that Upton took the French idea of attacking in line, regiments in column,and improved upon it by spreading the column out considerably.
If I remember correctly that attack was a Spotsylvania Court House, and if that the one I have walked that very ground, and Upton had the distinct advantage of moving up hill, and being masked from Confederate fire until the last hundred yards of so. Same thing Houston did at San Jacinto.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 3, 2021 19:28:41 GMT
I must say one thing about the French, to actually be among the front ranks in that column must take some guts, even if you were wounded, you had only a slim chance of surviving. The French were also the first nation to have mobile ambulances on the battlefield, which was really new then. Chuck, you know I don’t usually discuss the Colonial war of independence, but can you explain to me how the British Line Infantry suddenly turned from being crack shots to being as bad at shooting as the 7th cavalry. Did the Colonials attack like the French? The French where your allies. It always pains me to see how these young British men were ordered to attack Colonials behind fortifications, when I mean attack, I suppose I mean simply walk into musket balls. These troops and officers must have been trained to European standards, but I can’t recall the British acting like fools against a European army!
Lets keep this brief shall we
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 3, 2021 20:08:50 GMT
British line Infantry was greatly feared by the Continental Army, until Baron Von Steuben came along and showed them how to fight British Infantry. Mainly there was a Prussian influence. We did not pay much attention to our French allies. The only real thing they ever did was stop up Hampton Roads during the Yorktown Campaign, with their Navy.
The one advantage that the Colonials (not the Continental Army who were armed with muskets) had was the rifle, which increased the range of a kill shot from fifty meters to 250-300 meters. Rifles won Saratoga for instance. That's why Sir John Moore came back to Britain, and organized the light Infantry, such as the 95th Rifles, based on his experience in America.
It has been my observation that your marksmanship greatly improves, if your proficiency with a rifle depends on whether you eat tonight or not. Maybe the 7th Cavalry should have had to hunt for their food. American Rifle companies and battalions were largely frontier folks, who needed their rifle skills to survive. One of the companies I commanded, back in the day, was the direct descendant of one of those colonial rifle companies.
Never make the mistake of thinking that Americans out fought the British. Occasionally we did, but more often than not the British Army handed us our ass. The only reason that America secured its independence was logistics. Everything the British needed to fight was brought to the British Army by sea, over a very long supply line. Even Halifax, the nearest large British base, was a fairly long sea voyage in that day. What that meant was the British Army could not venture far from the sea coast, and that fact alone, is an operational ball and chain to what an Army can accomplish.
The Yorktown Campaign was a great example of this. Cornwallis chased Green all over the Carolina's. He had to burn his trains to keep up with Green who was moving away from him as fast as he could. Lacking supplies near the end Cornwallis was forced to go to Yorktown to resupply, and once Green, then Washington and the French, had them cornered, the game was nearly up. The Royal Navy tried to both resupply and evacuate Cornwallis, but the French Navy came up from the West Indies and trapped the whole lot.
The American Army did a lot more running than fighting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 21:13:08 GMT
...And the above is why we haven't done very well in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq II. All our stuff comes from far away and in Afghanistan, we don't have any good allies. (See my list of principles.).
The insurgent doesn't need to win. He just has to avoid losing. And he is home.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 3, 2021 21:53:57 GMT
Exactly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 23:53:59 GMT
You might think Bobby Lee would know that. And Westy, and Abrams. And Franks (Afghanistan/Iraq, not Iraq) and Rumsfeld, and any of a number of others.
|
|