|
Post by Allen Wiener on Oct 12, 2010 13:10:35 GMT -5
I had read stuff like this before but didn't actually realize that things were as bad as Godfrey describes. There are many references to the raw nature of Custer's troops, their lack of training and inexperience. Among other things, this may explain reports of what looked like panic, although Indians later testified that the soldiers fought bravely and well for the most part. I also wonder about the lack of horsemanship for what was a cavalry outfit. The warriors seemed to have an easy time scattering the horses, although I understand it's one horseholder and several horses.
I agree that the late hour, a tired regiment, tired, thirsty horses all contributed.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Oct 12, 2010 14:38:43 GMT -5
Thanks, Allen. That was quite a treat. I remember my father teaching me about LBH when I was a really little, little boy. I've never taken the time to really delve into the particulars of the battle, but your photos have really piqued my interest. I enjoyed them very much. Mike Thanks Mike; glad you enjoyed them. My dad's the one who got me interested in Custer and the LBH too; I still have the first Custer books he gave me.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Oct 12, 2010 14:44:05 GMT -5
Herb: I think we are on the same page. Yates' squadron was neither on the offense nor strictly speaking the defense up near the present cemetery until the mounting pressure forced them into the later mode.
Is it not ironic that the 2nd Cavalry (Which stated life as the 2nd Dragoons) and the 3rd Cavalry (Which started life as The Regiment of Mounted Rifles) are now, or shortly will be in the case of the 3rd, Stryker Regiments which I guess is 21st Century name for Dragoons or Mounted Rifles. I suppose if you wait long enough everything comes full circle. Not sure this is a bad thing but I believe I would rather have a mix.
I believe everyone fixates on the size of the village, when the thing that should be considered is the ultra close proximity of the tribal circles.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Oct 13, 2010 5:21:46 GMT -5
Allen: The horseholder requirement is one of the reasons that cavalry was though to be weak on the defense. Typically it works like this. Soldiers would count off in fours. The fourth man would be the designated horse holder. Therefore a troop of say forty effectives could only field thirty on the dismounted firing line.
We have a similar situation today in our mechanized infantry companies where platoons are authorized 4 M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles, with each assigned nine men. One vehicle carries the platoon's headquarters and a small machine gun element. The three rifle squads are carried in the others. When a rifle squad dismounts, it only dismounts six. The other three are required to crew the vehicle. It is a little different from the horse cavalry though in the the three men who remain with the vehicle provide fire support with the 25mm auto-cannon and a coax machine gun. Therefore they add to the defensive capability, or add fire support to offensive dismounted maneuver.
The horseholders of days gone by added nothing to either the defense or dismounted offensive operations. In my view this is one of the primary reasons that the cavalry division that went to Santiago in 1898 was dismounted. They needed the firepower in the restricted terrain of the jungle road from Siboney to San Juan Heights more than they needed the restricted mobility the horse would give them in this particular terrain set.
Another reason of course was the lack of shipping space, in a campaign marked by who was trying to out do who in the screw up department.
Teddy Roosevelt is most known as Assistant Secretary of the Navy and as President for being a champion of the Navy. He was certainly that, but it is less remembered that he instituted a heck of a lot of reforms in the Army based upon his experience as first Lieutenant Colonel and later Colonel of the 1st U. S, Volunteer Cavalry (Rough Riders). So much of what we have today was started by that one man and the experiences he had good and bad, getting to and marching up the trail to San Juan. Give his portrait a tip of the hat when next you are in the Menger Bar. One of the really great men in our history.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Oct 13, 2010 9:37:08 GMT -5
I definitely gave TR a huge tip of my cap when I visited Yellowstone, and to his image on Mt. Rushmore. I've often thought he would be rated higher as president if he had faced one of our worst crises while in office. We generally regard Washington, Lincoln, and FDR as our greatest presidents because they did face the worst of those crises.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Oct 13, 2010 10:24:16 GMT -5
Allen: As Roosevelt is my favorite horse cavalryman, and as he had some influence in the preservation of the battlefield, and in fact not acting in the face of evidence that surfaced during his tenure in office that would bring discredit upon Custer while Libby still lived I think I will try to squeeze this little tidbit into where it may otherwise be off topic.
My dad attended Grace Reformed Church on 15th Street in DC most of his life. It was the church that Roosevelt attended when he was in office. As a kid I would attend there only on special occasions as his religion was not my own. I must say though that even as a kid as well as later as an adult you could feel the presence of Roosevelt in that building. He was one of those larger than life characters, a force of nature. To my knowledge the only person who has sat in the Roosevelt Pew since Teddy was there was Eisenhower when he attended one service there in 1957. Just think what a lesser place our country would be without his efforts on Yellowstone and so many other parks and national forests.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Oct 13, 2010 20:59:33 GMT -5
Allen: I failed to address something you mentioned in Reply 30 above.
Horsemanship was either a matter of one of two things 1) Where did the person come from, city or rural. 2) The training of both horse and rider to function as a team, no, more of an extension of each other. Confederate cavalry was undoubtedly superior to Union cavalry in the first year or two of the Civil War, due largely to the fact that the great majority of Confederate troopers came from a rural background, thereby horseback riding was a part of their daily life. Additionally Confederate troopers provided their own horse and supposedly received an allowance to cover forage and maintenance. Of course if the horse and/or horse furniture was lost in battle, the trooper was dismounted until he could obtain one locally, and as the war progressed that became more problematic, or return home to obtain another mount. The dismounted troopers in "Company Q" increased as time went on thereby diminishing the effectiveness of the cavalry arm as a whole.
Union troopers were furnished government horses and equipment. The downside here was the time it took to train both horse and rider. Union cavalry did not come into its own until mid 1863 about the time of the Battle of Brandy Station.
The long and the short of this whole thing is that 7th Cavalry troopers with only a few months at best in uniform, as Godfrey relates, could not be expected to even approach acceptable standards of horsemanship demanded by service on the plains. This is particularly true for those who joined the cavalry as an alternative to unemployment lines in America's big cities or those fresh off the boat immigrants who were mainstays of service post Civil War. It probably took two years or so of constant training to achieve the required standard.
Some general, I forget who, once remarked that the common image American males had of themselves is that anyone could ride a horse and shoot a gun, he continued - it just ain't so.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Oct 13, 2010 23:01:55 GMT -5
I wonder how widespread this was. Were Crook's troops in the same shape? He barely escaped defeat a week before LBH, by the same warriors, and apparently was only saved by his Indian Scouts, who mounted a spirited defense while the soldiers got themselves together.
The Ranger talks at LBH make a big point of the fact that there was an economic depression in the East that drove large numbers of people west, especially after gold was discovered in the Black Hills. Meanwhile, the Indians were also undergoing a depression themselves as buffalo herds were already dwindling. I read some info somewhere out west last month stating that the buffalo's decline did result from over-hunting by whites, but also from some climate change at the time. I'd never heard that before.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Oct 13, 2010 23:28:47 GMT -5
Crook had a brigade task force with him consisting of the 3rd Cavalry, elements of the 2nd Cavalry, and elements of an infantry regiment (believe it was the 22nd - but not sure) mounted on mules. He had a wagon train that established a supply base at Goose Creek near present Sheridan Wyoming. He penetrated into Montana and eventually to the Rosebud supported by a reportedly well functioning pack mule train. He was caught in a creek bed eating lunch and was attacked by about nine hundred warriors from their camp on Ash Creek. For the Indians it was we attack them before they attack us. I presume, because this was the Sunday before Custer's troubles that the camp started packing while the warriors were attending to Crook
I will re-read Bourke and see what he says but don't recall any major problems they were having with the 2nd and 3rd Cavalry. Wolfpack will tell you that the 2nd Cavalry never made a mistake in its long and storied history. Don't know if that's completely true but they were among the very best on the plains.
If I had to ride with one of the regiments and had the choice it would be the 10th
I have always measured the standard of excellence in Horsemanship by Ben Johnson - The Sergeant Tyree in the Ford films. He was a horseman of excellence long before he was in the movies. But what you see on the screen is the type of horsemanship required to even be competitive with the Indians
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Oct 14, 2010 11:05:42 GMT -5
Is it not ironic that the 2nd Cavalry (Which stated life as the 2nd Dragoons) and the 3rd Cavalry (Which started life as The Regiment of Mounted Rifles) are now, or shortly will be in the case of the 3rd, Stryker Regiments which I guess is 21st Century name for Dragoons or Mounted Rifles. I suppose if you wait long enough everything comes full circle. Not sure this is a bad thing but I believe I would rather have a mix. An absolutely horrendous decision, imo. Totally based on a fixation with Afghanistan, and not an analysis of what will be needed in the future - the identical mistake we made in Vietnam that took almost 15 years to correct. There is nothing as deployable and flexible as a cavalry regiment a minimum of one armored cavlalry regiment is required, and I believe there should be a second Stryker cavalry regiment. As you well know, there is a vast difference between motorized infantry and cavalry. On another note, I personally disagree with the historical comparison of dragoons as mounted infantry. While Dragoons did indeed begin in Europe as mounted infantry, by the time of the time the first cavalry regiments were raised in the US, dragoons had evolved into true cavalry units. The difference being that dragoons were equipped (carbines, pistols and swords) to fight both mounted and dismounted, whileother forms of cavalry were not yet equipped with carbines. A key difference between European Dragoons and US Dragoons, were most European Armies viewed dragoons as heavy cavalry, while the US viewed them more as light (the light cavalry saber vs the heavy sword, etc). Well, I wouldn't go that far! (while the 2d may be my regiment, I did serve in a number of others - to include the 7th). I don't think what happened at the Rosebud, reflects so much on the troops as the officers. Crook didn't post security, and was surprised, then he sent his troops off (ala Custer) in opposite directions and incapable of providing mutual support and iirc, (need to look it up) Royall (?) actions that day were virtually incompetent.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Oct 14, 2010 11:54:46 GMT -5
Royall also commanded the squadron that was destroyed by Stuart on the Ride Around McClellan.
I agree about the Rosebud. While it was tactically a draw, it did not reflect well on the leadership of Crook or his officers.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Oct 14, 2010 19:02:52 GMT -5
How much did the outcome at Rosebud hinge on the response of the Indian scouts to the attack?
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Oct 14, 2010 19:29:33 GMT -5
Allen, it's just personal opinion, but I think if it weren't for the Indians, Crook would have suffered a total defeat with greater losses than the LBH.
It was soley due to the actions of the friendly Indians that Crazy Horse and the Souix were prevented from overrunning the soldiers while they ate/slept.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Oct 14, 2010 21:31:06 GMT -5
Allen: Agree with Wolfpack. I don't know how much we paid them but they earned their pay that day.
Wolfpack: I am in the middle of an e-mail exchange with former Chief of Staff, General John Wickham. More on that in a PM to you tomorrow. I promise it will be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Oct 16, 2010 5:08:15 GMT -5
Allen, it's just personal opinion, but I think if it weren't for the Indians, Crook would have suffered a total defeat with greater losses than the LBH. It was soley due to the actions of the friendly Indians that Crazy Horse and the Sioux were prevented from overrunning the soldiers while they ate/slept. I've read and seen that said as well, in accounts from BOTH sides. As I understand it, Crazy Horse and his warriors traveled the distance from the LBH (I believe they Sioux, Cheyenne, etc. had already moved their camp to the Greasy Grass, as they called LBH, at that point) essentially overnight, which was a big reason Crook was caught with his knickers down. But, yes, the scouts with the army helped swing the tide of the battle from a catastrophic defeat to a "draw".
|
|