| Author |
 Topic  |
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
 Posted - March 12 2006 : 1:41:13 PM
|
Wild has asserted, and gave a reference, that the Union Line of Battle indeed had lancers, this whole thread utilizes the term "light" cavalry in reference to the US forces, and I don't see the relevance.
A rose by any other name DC!
The problem we have with this issue is we are getting too hung up with terminology.
Cavalry was made redundant after Waterloo.During the following 100 years what remained of its combat potential took on numerious mutant forms.One of those forms was the 7th "Cavalry".It's weapons,tactics and formations were designed to perform a support role for the now queen of the battlefield the infantry.This supporting role comprised of scouting,screening and attacks on rear echlon facilities.The carbine in the hands of these troops allowed them to fight a defensive action a capitability which Napoleonic cavalry did not possess.
These horse soldiers whose training and weaponery suited them for civil war side shows were now utilized against a totally unorthodox foe.What might have appeared as strenghts and superiority were in fact weaknesses.
The idea on which the plan of campaign was based ie that the Indians could be forced to fight a civil war type action and could be spectaculary defeated in one battle was erroneous.To this end our horse soldiers with in reality nothing more than revolvers were committed.
We must give Custer credit for getting his troops to within striking range of the Indians.If at that point he had taken a defensive position he would have inflicted a defeat on the Indians.He was so close that they would have been compelled to attack him and it is here that his carbines in defence DC would have exacted a heavy toll.Not the victory that he was hoping for but a telling one none the less.
In the civil war Lee had a string of victories by placing his forces in such a way that the Federals had to attack him .This offensive defence gave him a huge advantage.Miles [on a much smaller scale]employed a similar tactic---chase the Indians until they turn and attack you.
Regular US forces of the day were not suited to Indian warfare[Sioux style].It required men of the same calibre as the Sioux but that's for another post. |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2006 : 1:53:57 PM
|
Wild, none of that is relevant either to the thread topic or to the refutations of what you've previously posted. Most here have read The Big Book of Military History with pictures and uniforms and explanations of tactics, etc.
What CW battle featured 'lancers?' If a unit is trained to charge on horseback, it's cavalry regardless of whatever other procedures and tactics it's trained to do. There is no point to cavalry as a defensive unit in the age of firearms. It makes no sense to burden an offensive unit with a defensive weapon. Your claims are incorrect. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2006 : 3:36:53 PM
|
Wild, none of that is relevant either to the thread topic or to the refutations of what you've previously posted. Most here have read The Big Book of Military History with pictures and uniforms and explanations of tactics, etc.
Well who am I to joust with the "best educated"scolar on the board?But sigh it seems that even scolars have their limitations.
Surely you remember the opening action at Gettysburg? A defensive cavalry action---secured ground and time for the main federal forces.
What CW battle featured 'lancers?'
I do believe you requested clarification on the types of cavalry in the employ of Uncle Sam not a list of the actions they were engaged in.
If a unit is trained to charge on horseback, it's cavalry regardless of whatever other procedures and tactics it's trained to do. Right on the nail DC.Here we have a unit trained to charge in an age when the charge was a redundant skill and against a foe who just was not amenable to being charged.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2006 : 3:53:10 PM
|
Never claimed such for myself, don't imply I have. It's spelled scholar, anyway.
I listed Buford's action as a example of cavalry holding a line, something that another claimed couldn't/didn't happen.
Yes, but the issue is you said the Springfield was only a defensive weapon in the hands of cavalry. That's untrue and not erased by trying to find other points of concordance. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2006 : 5:04:48 PM
|
Yes, but the issue is you said the Springfield was only a defensive weapon in the hands of cavalry.
As you have pointed out the defining action of the cavalry is the charge.---If a unit is trained to charge on horseback, it's cavalry regardless of whatever other procedures and tactics it's trained to do.The Springfield could not be used in the charge.Therefore it is not a cavalry weapon per se.So for cavalry to use it to any effect they have to be on foot.The offensive capibility of cavalry on foot is ZERO.
You have singularly failed to supply this forum with an example of any significance of cavalry attacking on foot.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2006 : 5:51:08 PM
|
1. Yes, it is a group ability that defines cavalry. But cavalry units can be on the offensive on foot with the carbine, their principle weapon, and often were. That the Springfield can't be used in the charge without training beyond the norm isn't relevant. The U.S. Army realized that most battles in which the cavalry would be on the offensive, would be dismounted.
2. The Indian Wars weren't significant in toto, so I'm at a loss to find any fight of significance, but that's all we're concerned with here. And I'm under no particular obligation to provide an example of cavalry attacking on foot, although that's what Reno was doing during his advance. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on March 12 2006 5:51:53 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2006 : 09:22:27 AM
|
And I'm under no particular obligation to provide an example of cavalry attacking on foot
Taking refuge in the 5th is a strange tactic in a debate???
As you can't provide us with any examples your contention is purely accademic.
The U.S. Army realized that most battles in which the cavalry would be on the offensive, would be dismounted.
When did this become policy?The only dismounted formation I'm aware of for cavalry is the skirmish line.Is this the method of dismounted attack?Would they be expected to attack infantry in this formation?Maybe you mean opposing cavalry or maybe as is more likely you just haven't a clue.
But cavalry units can be on the offensive on foot with the carbine, their principle weapon, and often were.Are you telling us that the principal method of attack for cavalry was the charge but their principal weapon could only be used on foot?
Stick with the 5th DC it will keep you out of trouble
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2006 : 11:57:44 AM
|
1. I provided an exact example: Reno advancing on foot with the Springfield, their primary weapon. You don't know what the 5th is, since I never claimed it. All I've said is the Army viewed the Springfield as their cavalry's principle weapon for Indian warfare.
2. I don't say it became policy, nor would I. Most of the Apache fights and the Northwest fights were small battles on foot in land the horses could not manuever in. Cavalry functioned as dragoons, rode to the combat zone, engaged, pursued.
3. I never said that. You said that. I've said the cavalry of the west could charge on horseback, advance on foot, or any combination of the two. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2006 : 12:51:10 PM
|
I provided an exact example: Reno advancing on foot with the Springfield, their primary weapon.
Are you offering this alleged advance on foot of 100 yards as an offensive action?
If I recall Reno halted his charge with 130 troopers [approx]because he saw the size of the village and the growing strenght of the opposing forces.You now suggest that with 30 less troopers and on foot he remained on the offensive???
If there is a reason for posting here it is because we have an interesting historical subject worth debating at an intelligent level.You DC when confronted with the weakness of your arguement will take refuge in ludicrous unrealistic nth degree waffle which contributes nothing to the discussion. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2006 : 10:16:47 PM
|
You solely asked for one example of cavalry attacking on foot at a significant battle. LBH is as close as we have to a significant battle in the Indian Wars. So there it is. There are any number of smaller engagements where the cavalry performed as dragoons on foot. Michno's Encyclopedia is full of them.
His actions - moving toward the enemy, firing carbine - meets your requirements. That the movement was stopped doesn't mean it didn't happen. It took somewhere between ten to twenty minutes and many mounted charges didn't last that long. You didn't mandate success, so I don't need to claim, and did not, that he remained on the offensive. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 14 2006 : 2:23:08 PM
|
His actions - moving toward the enemy, firing carbine - meets your requirements.
Sure it does,in the land of split hairs and angelic gatherings on the heads of pins where your debating skills would be better appreciated.
Reno's alleged advance on foot ranks alongside his charge from the timber as an offensive action.
There are any number of smaller engagements where the cavalry performed as dragoons on foot.
I note that you are careful not to say attacked as dragoons
Combat potential is not judged on a low intensity police action against a stoneage people.
The LBH the one slightly serious action by CW standards saw failed and aborted cavalry offensive actions and dismounted defensive actions.No attempt was made to use the carbine [primary weapon]other than on foot and on the defensive.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 14 2006 : 2:59:40 PM
|
It's not a debate. I produced exactly what you requested. Reno was on the attack when he advanced towards the enemy on foot, firing at the enemy. It's not me, but you who're trying to get out of your own pointless argument by contrivance, just as you did when you were embarrassed you didn't know the meaning of "aborigine", which you said was a racist slur. That's still up if anyone wants to visit it. As amusing as not.
And since most actions fought by the U.S. cavalry in the Indian Wars featured them on the offensive, and generally on foot, but in inconsequential battle in minor wars, I can't use them by the standards you alone set. But, there's always Wounded Knee, isn't there? Where indeed the Springfield was used by the 7th even, when mostly on foot, against the Sioux. Of course, being on the attack can mean simply opening fire, can't it? Why, yes, it can. Let's see, major battle of consequence, attacking on foot with the Springfield. All there.
But make it easy. Find a source that says something other than the carbine was the principle weapon of the cavalry during 1870's, or that the Army didn't think most battles would be fought at carbine and not pistol range, and that the Springfield - the most expensive and having the most ammo for it's primary role - wasn't. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2006 : 12:39:34 PM
|
just as you did when you were embarrassed you didn't know the meaning of "aborigine", which you said was a racist slur.
If memory serves me correctly the phrase you used was "just another bunch of aborigines"This was in the context of the destruction of the Sioux nation.And it was indeed without doubt a racist slur for when I asked if you would use the same language to describe the Jews [in the context of the holocaust]as "just another bunch of Jews" you conceded that you would not.So what is a slur to the Jews is surely a slur to your fellow country men.
And since most actions fought by the U.S. cavalry in the Indian Wars featured them on the offensive, and generally on foot, but in inconsequential battle in minor wars, I can't use them by the standards you alone set.
You will recall that at the begining of this particulsr discussion I was careful to make a distinction between the military meaning of "offensive" and the legalistic meaning of it.
The 7th cavalry was a regular unit whose purpose would have been to fight battles of consequence.Its combat potential would have been judged against its ability to perform against similar forces.It's offensive capability on foot was ZERO against such opposition but the carbine did allow it to opperate on the defensive. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2006 : 5:23:31 PM
|
1. Again, that's not a truthful recounting. Page 44, Benteen's Orders. You first thought it a racist slur, than you said it was a "disparaging term." It is, of course, neither. It means original people. There is no equivilancy between the term aborigine and that of a specific ethnic group.
2. And when asked to produce a distinction between a "military" and a "legalistic" definition, you were unable to do so.
3. This is incorrect and bozo. Why the carbine would have "zero" offensive capability for cavalry on foot and yet would for infantry is most foolish remark. You make these sweeping statements of implausibility and then refuse to admit error.
The cavalry in the west often operated under fire on foot, generally as dragoons where the horse brought them to the firefight. Again, just one reference where the primary weapon is described as else but a carbine for the cavalry after the Civil War. The choices are a pistol or a sword if not the carbine. Which one of those has been described as the principal weapon of the cavalry by the Army in those years? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2006 : 10:41:53 PM
|
| Which one of those has been described as the principal weapon of the cavalry by the Army in those years? Just read an article on cavalry where it stated the principal weapon of the cavalry charge in Europe was the sabre and the principal weapon in the US was the revolver. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2006 : 11:02:22 PM
|
And yet, that isn't the issue. The Cavalry in the Indian Wars was often on the offensive without using the charge because of terrain or choice. Hence the carbine and the preponderance of ammo for it and not the pistol.
If the likes of Custer had given up on the sword, that speaks volumes right there.
The sword in Europe was wonderful against unarmed peasants in St. Petersburg, and pretty much useless, as was cavalry in general by then, against anything else except other cavalry. Cavalry's main use was to keep a class distinction in the armed services; cavalrymen were the descendents of knights and nobility, etc., and about as useful. They did, however, provide a huge drain on resources to keep the horses fit and fed. The amount of freight ships sunk carrying Canadian grain for British cavalry in WWI - cavalry that had a projected life span of three minutes in combat and never used - is infinitely depressing. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 17 2006 : 1:52:25 PM
|
Again, that's not a truthful recounting. Page 44, Benteen's Orders. You first thought it a racist slur, than you said it was a "disparaging term."
All racist slurs are disparaging.
There is no equivilancy between the term aborigine and that of a specific ethnic group.
The term aborigine just like the term Jew are in no way racist.But describe them as just another bunch of Jews/aborigines in the context of their crucifixion and you display appalling insensitivity and racism.
And when asked to produce a distinction between a "military" and a "legalistic" definition, you were unable to do so.
A legalistic definition would cover non military"domestic" situations.[Police action against sick and starving women and children]The military use of the term would be in relation to the fighting potential of organised bodies of men.
Why the carbine would have "zero" offensive capability for cavalry on foot and yet would for infantry is most foolish remark. You make these sweeping statements of implausibility and then refuse to admit error.Is there a better answer than your own---and pretty much useless, as was cavalry in general by then, against anything else except other cavalry. Cavalry's main use was to keep a class distinction in the armed services; cavalrymen were the descendents of knights and nobility, etc., and about as useful. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 17 2006 : 6:35:44 PM
|
None of that's true, readers can decide. Aborigine is silent on race or quality. It just means original people. It is not a disparaging term. Your own words convict you.
You seem to think that cavalry ceases to be cavalry when they dismount to fight. They retain the training and ability to charge on horseback, and remain cavalry. They can attack on foot, and did, and with carbines, their principle weapon. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 17 2006 : 7:01:59 PM
|
None of that's true, readers can decide. Aborigine is silent on race or quality. It just means original people. It is not a disparaging term. Your own words convict you.
Well it is just possible that in your arrogance you cannot recognise the insensitivity of your description of the Native Americans as just another bunch of aborigines.By all means let the readers decide provided that come from just another bunch of Jews/Iraqis/Armenians/Bosnians/Hutus/and families of the latest just another bunch of dead GI's from Iraq.
You seem to think that cavalry ceases to be cavalry when they dismount to fight. They retain the training and ability to charge on horseback, and remain cavalry. They can attack on foot, and did, and with carbines, their principle weapon.
You went further than I did in describing them as useless.My observation was only on their lack of offensive capability on foot . |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 17 2006 : 8:03:58 PM
|
You said that "aborigine" was a racist slur. Neither a slur nor racist. THEN you tried saying it was a disparaging term. It's not that, either. THEN, you try to drag in your equally self-serving genicide and holocaust arguments, because you want everyone to view Ireland as a perpetual victim and as victim of the same, which it ain't. THEN you focus on the "just a" as evidence for evil intent. It's your fourth try to cover up that you obviously didn't know the meaning.
It was you contention that the the carbine was of zero value to cavalry except on the defensive on foot. You're incorrect. You said the carbine wasn't the principle weapon. Again, incorrect. My remarks on cavalry were devoted to European cavalry in those years, which is why it's a separate paragraph, so you can claim that failure to include "European" an error in that sentence. Still, the sense is clear in my response to AZ.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 18 2006 : 4:08:39 PM
|
You said that "aborigine" was a racist slur.
I did not.You now seek refuge in untruths.
THEN, you try to drag in your equally self-serving genicide and holocaust arguments, because you want everyone to view Ireland as a perpetual victim and as victim of the same, which it ain't.I require no ulterior motive to highlight a boorish racist comment.
Your racist comment was made in relation to a victim and I have included American victims in my refutation of your slur.Is it possible that the use of English in the States is so corrupted that you see no insult in refering to the jumpers of 9/11 as just another bunch of Americans?
It was you contention that the the carbine was of zero value to cavalry except on the defensive on foot.
You agreed that it was useless in the charge.
Bona fide cavalry could not hold ground or defend themselves without a firearm such as the carbine.
Cavalry would never dismount and attack mounted cavalry.Cavalry would never dismount and attack infantry.Cavalry would not dismount and attack dismounted cavalry.Their achillies heel was the horse.A regiment had 600 bloody horses to protect. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 19 2006 : 08:03:19 AM
|
I invite anyone who cares to start on Page 41 of the Benteen's Order Thread. Here is my post that prompted Wild's accusation which embarrasses him so.
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: online
Posted - February 13 2005 : 11:33:44 AM Show Profile Visit Dark Cloud's Homepage Send Dark Cloud a Private Message
Not arguing your main points, Lorenzo, but best not to trust quotes from the Indians of that period and hesitate to use them as proof.
The vast majority of them did not speak English and it is often third hand at best. That is not to say it is untrue, in fact or intent, but only we cannot be remotely sure of it. Many of the intermediaries between Indians and whites back then had all the seeming attributes of the con man or someone created out of thin air for the 'record' as a supposed objective third party who's just referred to as a translator.
Americans have always insisted The West was different and for over a century Europe and the world agreed, but history and fact are winning out. The Indians were just another bunch of aborigines and as different from each other as they were from the whites.
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com
Go to Bottom of PageGo to Top of Page
Now, here is Wild's response
[/i]Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline
Posted - February 13 2005 : 12:52:07 PM Show Profile Email Poster Send wILD I a Private Message
The Indians were just another bunch of aborigines
Would you like to elaborate on what appears to me to be a racist slur.
Go to Bottom of PageGo to Top of Page[/i]
Then follow down. Quite amusing. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 19 2006 : 12:59:38 PM
|
Here is my post that prompted Wild's accusation which embarrasses him so.
Could I point out that no accusation was made just a request for clarification.Instead what I got was DC's cretinious claim that I did not comprehend the word aborigine.
We see here the classical DC hair split.Rather than deal with his comment he choses instead to deal with the word aborigine
But he does admit
'No,' I would not describe the victims of "the" Holocaust as "just another bunch of Jews."
He ends his post by suggesting that readers should follow the exchange on the Benteen's orders thread and that they would find it amusing.I doubt very much if fellow posters would find the description of victims [wounded knee/9/11]as just another bunch of anything amusing. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 19 2006 : 2:31:56 PM
|
Then it should be easy, Wild. Explain why what I said, especially in context of the paragraph, is a racist slur.
Then explain why you later tried it as defamatory term.
And of course, anyone can see the difference between the word aborigine and the specific ethnic groups Wild seems to think equate. Which is why he won't quote my full reply, which was:
Brigadier General
USA
Status: online
Posted - February 13 2005 : 3:42:40 PM Show Profile Visit Dark Cloud's Homepage Send Dark Cloud a Private Message
Certainly. The Sioux are just another bunch of aborigines (although, there may have been earlier people). Like virtually all aborigines, they were clobbered by more advanced civilizations. Just like my family, the MacLeods, was just another feudal clan/tribe for much of its existence and got clobbered by more advanced civilizations.
Your desperate attempt to append your screw up to a larger argument so you can hide in definitional battles won't fly, Wild. Nevertheless, 'No,' I would not describe the victims of "the" Holocaust as "just another bunch of Jews." First, because a sizeable minority were not Jews, second because nothing like the Nazi inflicted genocide had ever occured before or has since to compare it to. Certainly, nothing remotely like it occured here in the Americas. Whereas the Indian holocaust was disease inadvertantly brought, the Jews were sought out and killed just because they were Jews by other people. There is no comparison.
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com
Edited by - Dark Cloud on February 13 2005 3:43:34 PM
Go to Bottom of PageGo to Top of Page
Again, Benteen's Order thread on page 2 of the list of threads. Most amusing.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on March 19 2006 2:33:53 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 19 2006 : 4:36:47 PM
|
Then it should be easy, Wild. Explain why what I said, especially in context of the paragraph, is a racist slur.
And
The Sioux are just another bunch of aborigines (although, there may have been earlier people). Like virtually all aborigines, they were clobbered by more advanced civilizations. Just like my family, the MacLeods, was just another feudal clan/tribe for much of its existence and got clobbered by more advanced civilizations.Because to refer to the victims of aggression and appalling suffering in cartoon terms of just bunches of people being clobbered is the height of boorishness and pig ignorance.But then how could you be expected to know better coming as you do from a country that describes the loss of innocent lives as collatoral damage?
And you suggest it amuses you?Those people you dismiss in such flippant terms were still being hunted and killed into the 1890s and are now housed on human reservations.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Springfield Carbine
